|
|
|
|
|
by abs314159
5245 days ago
|
|
Could you normalize at the census tract level? Better yet, assign average occupants, shoppers, cars parked, etc. to the locations at which the crime occurred. A bigger issue is variance in less dense areas. It looks like what you're doing today is simple counts whereas for areas with lower crime rates, more history might provide a more stable crime rate. It might also be useful to weight against a demographic prediction of crime or at least average the crime rate over the period that the demographic prediction is stable. |
|
The purpose of this tool seems to be to decide where to live. Since the demographics of cities change over the years, what is the advantage of looking at more-past demographics?
Second, demographic instability is a very real attribute of neighborhoods, and it may be correlated with higher crime. I imagine you're trying to reduce that visibility. Why? Again, the goal is to give a current view of the crime in the area, not what the crime will look like when things calm down.
In all, I think it's good how it is, as it represents exactly what I would be looking for when I examine crime/local facilities/housing prices.