International Journal on Criminology Volume 3, Number 2, Fall 2015 | Page 102

International Journal on Criminology
classification methods not only allowed homogeneous groups to be identified, but also
allowed the optimal number of groups to be determined by minimizing intragroup
heterogeneity and maximizing heterogeneity between groups. 7
The groups of neighborhoods were established using indicators on the size of
the urban area, the degree of centrality, the type of residential environment, and the
proximity to Sensitive Urban Zones (SUZ) of the place of residence of the household
surveyed. An indicator of the households’ knowledge of the existence of burglaries in
the neighborhood was also integrated into these factors.
Based on all these characteristics, the classification offers a grouping of
households according to three types of neighborhood or environment, which
correspond to the groups identified visually on the basis of the results of the MCA.
The first neighborhood group is characterized by a mixed residential
environment (apartment blocks and houses) located in a suburban area with a large
population size. A total of 23% of the households that responded to the survey were
classified in this group.
The second group is characterized by a rural or periurban situation located at a
distance from a SUZ and made up of a sparsely populated residential environment and
a small population size. Within this group, households tend to be aware of burglary in
their circle. This category comprises about 44% of households and therefore contains
the largest number of people.
Downtown areas, which consist of a dense residential environment within or
close to a SUZ and which have a large population, constitute the third group. These
neighborhoods are also characterized by respondents’ low awareness of the existence
of burglaries. The households included in this group represent just over a third of all
households residing in mainland France (33%).
7
See note 1.
97