Spatial Analysis of Terrorism M A R C H 2 0 1 0 www.et21symposium.org

P R O G R A M O N G L O B A L S E C U R I T Y

et21.rutgers.edu

Danielle Rusnak is pursuing a doctoral degree in Criminal Justice at Rutgers University (Newark Campus) and is currently involved in research on the spatial analysis of terrorism as well as time series analysis of recidivism. She has been engaged with the research process since her undergraduate work at Le Moyne College where she aided in the creation of a terrorism incident data base which resulted in an article entitled “Understanding Terrorist Strategies: Examining Chechen Bombings from 1997-2003”. She additionally has a MA in Forensic Psychology from John Jay College where she also was involved in other research projects such as the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Project in conjunction with the ONDCP and the FBI Behavioral Science Unit.

SYMPOSIUM BRIEF

Introduction

Terrorism, not a novel concept in the research field, has become an increasingly popu-lar topic of interest since the events of 9/11/01. With the attacks of September 11th has come a heightened awareness of the threat that terrorism poses to the world, not just remote areas of the Middle East. The scholarly understanding of such violence lacks comprehensive data and a solid method for measuring and evaluating possible targets of terrorism as well as a unified approach to analysis. The advancement of under-standing of the pathways and context will require a more comprehensive and reliable approach to terrorism research; one such approach incorporates the use of spatial analysis combined with reliable and valid risk assessment modeling.

Data Needs and Structures As Smith et al. (2008) noted, for reliable and consistent analysis more expansive data collection is needed. Fortunately, organizations such as the National Center for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) have complied detailed his-torical information on each terrorist event around the world since 1970 into the Global Terrorism Database (LaFree and Dugan, 2007; Wang et al., 2008). Terrorism data collection in general has encountered many challenges yet still runs into a few more when dealing with spatial analysis. One of the major problems with data collection prior to the Global Terrorism Database (GTD) is that it was limited to international terrorism whereas research has indicated that domestic terrorism outnumbers interna-tional terrorism (LaFree and Dugan, 2007). Previous databases can not address the global phenomenon of terrorism adequately with the exclusion of domestic terrorism.

Another major challenge to terrorism data is that current databases, GTD in-cluded, lack individual, address level data which is needed to spatially analyze. For example, Guo, Liao, and Morgan (2007) attempted the spatial analysis of terrorism but used only aggregate regional data of areas such as the Middle East or Europe. Braithwaite and Li (in press) however did attempt to spatially and temporally analyze country level data but still did not examine individual or neighborhood level incidents. Therefore, current research indicates a need for more in depth analysis. Proper analy-sis entails long tedious data collection via researching each terrorist incident’s latitude and longitude to accurately spatially analyze the event and accurately map the data point. Additionally, geographic mapping, especially on the global level, encounters

190 University Ave, Suite 219 Newark, New Jersey 07102

Tel (973) 353-5416 Fax (973) 353-5074

2 ET21 PROGRAM ON GLOBAL SECURITY March 2010

the challenge of finding reliable and up-to-date shape files. This is noted from personal experi-ence in attempting to spatially analyze terrorism within Turkey since most studies fail to ad-dress this issue. If shape files are not accurate and reliable then the geographical data point will inadequately represent an event spatially and misrepresent the proximity or distal nature of ter-rorist targets to geography. Moreover, there is an inability within current spatial analysis software to adequately in-corporate multiple variables which are necessary to see the whole picture of terrorism and even-tually forecast risk. Organizations such as the RAND Center for Terrorism Risk Management Policy (CTRMP) estimated the risk of terrorism by incorporating the vulnerability, threat and consequence of possible terrorist target areas using factors such as weighted population density and urbanization for example (2005). Various formulas or models have been created by other researchers or organizations to better address the issue of terrorism risk and spatial analysis. However, to reliably and validly spatially analyze terrorism so that it will have practical and tactical purposes, a uniform model and method of risk level analysis for terrorist target coun-tries is needed. If this is achieved then research could focus more on deciphering which factors actually contribute to creating a high risk terrain for potential terrorist attacks.

Threat/Risk Assessment Methodology In order for agencies to accurately assess the extent or threat of a terrorist situation and

allocate resources, the focus should be on proactive rather than reactive measures. For example Braithwaite and Li (in press) noted that policymakers could anticipate the efficiency of counter-terrorist measures and provide a social scientific rationale for such policies. Forecasting of ter-rorist incidents will address this concern as it is the spatial analysis of data which attempts to establish the geographic location of a possible subsequent event. It is important to note that forecasting and prediction are not one in the same. Prediction centers on the presence or ab-sence of a terrorist event (Cohen, 2006). Forecasting however, as with risk assessment, focuses on the complex conditions of the environment where a terrorist attack might occur. Therefore ‘forecast’ may be a more applicable term than ‘predict’ for spatial analysis of terrorism since responding to the event is not of importance, identification of a threat and prevention are of sig-nificance. “The unit of analysis” therefore for forecasting should be and “is the geography, not the event” (Caplan and Kennedy, 2009).

Using geography as a unit of analysis has become commonplace within the spatial analysis of terrorism. Braithwaite and Li conducted one of a handful of studies that attempted to analyze terrorism using geography via hot spot analysis and included in analysis a country’s susceptibility to future terrorist attacks based identification of such hot spots. However, most studies have not used a common model or formula to calculate hot spots or risk levels of certain geographic locations. There are actually some benefits to using spatial analysis in combination with mathematical models/formulas as opposed to only statistical techniques.

Spatial analysis, represented via the use of geographical maps allow for a visual depiction of an occurrence. Presenting data in a visual format can be a strong method for com-municating information. There is the ability to both analyze spatial and temporal patterns, if any exist, for a large set of data quickly, and tactically. Tactical analysis operates in a specific

Spatial Analysis of Terrorism

3 ET21 PROGRAM ON GLOBAL SECURITY March 2010

timeframe, one of recent occurrences (what is happening now or has recently occurred) which is of great use to police forces or counterterrorism agencies. For example, maps have been noted to be used by police forces to prioritize and allocate resources and funds for preventative meas-ures and are central to problem-oriented policing approaches (Caplan and Kennedy, 2009; Chainey and Ratcliffe, 2005).

The visualization of events helps to better and more easily communicate across disci-plines what is actually occurring with regard to terrorism. This in turn makes it easier for multi-ple disciplines (academia, governmental agencies and even laypeople) to comprehend the na-ture and extent of terrorism which will not only lessen the irrational fear of a terrorist attack but also aid in the forecast of potential attacks. However, variability and error in estimates of threats and consequences are often overlooked as well as the vulnerability of targets since re-sponse is generally reactive rather than proactive to terror incidents. If a proactive stance is taken, then possible forecasting of events may lead to the prevention of such an incident.

“There are many aspects of vulnerability, arising from various physical, social, eco-nomic, and environmental factors. Examples may include poor design and construction of buildings, inadequate protection of assets, lack of public information and awareness, limited official recognition of risks and preparedness measures, and disregard for wise environmental management” (UNISDR, 2009). Vulnerability is represented by the probability of a terror at-tack, given a threat of attack (Willis, 2005; Willis et al, 2005). Vulnerability, like crime, is con-textual and can vary significantly within a community and over time making consistency of be-havior and consequently behavioral patterns harder to ascertain without the level of vulnerabil-ity.

Current risk level analyses include vulnerability, threat and consequence as components risk (Masse et al., 2007; Srujan, 2008; Willis, 2005; Willis et al, 2005). The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) uses the same components (threat, vulnerability and consequence) to assess risk. However, because of difficulties with vulnerability values across geographic areas DHS assigned the same value across the board for vulnerability therefore inadequately address-ing the vulnerability component, leaving only the threat and consequence to forecast risk.

Once a reliable and common formula and/or model can be constructed to consistently and reliably assess risk level vulnerability, counter terrorist measures and resources could be tactically allocated to address the ‘high risk’ geographic areas.

Analytics Spatial analysis of terrorism is valid as risk has somewhat of a spatial component since

people operate in time and space. Geographical and/or temporal factors of terrorism, like crime, are key to understand in order to assess risk level. “Assessing criminogenic risk at the geographical level…allows for a more strategic allocation of resources” (Caplan and Kennedy, 2009). However, an empirically based model that incorporates geographic vulnerabilities as well as various terrorism factors is still needed to adequately assess risk.

Current research on spatial analysis of terrorism has been varied and incon-sistent. Spatial analysis studies done on terrorism have included different variables or measure-ments. Most studies used simple statistical techniques or graphs as visual representations, not both. Even with the notoriety of using spatial analysis with certain types of crime, researchers have yet to fully implement a project to analyze terrorism spatially (Wang, et al 2008). The few

Spatial Analysis of Terrorism

4 ET21 PROGRAM ON GLOBAL SECURITY March 2010

attempts have been promising and lead to innovative way to address the issue of terrorism but more still needs to be done; rather than postulating ideas and/or models, researchers have to ac-tually get out into ‘the field’ (hypothetically) and conduct some studies on terrorism using both spatial analysis and statistical techniques.

One of the more recent attempts to spatially analyze terrorism attempted to expand data collection among international, as well as environmental terrorism (Smith et al., 2008). The study’s purpose was to “expand data collection in the two areas…and (2) conduct more exten-sive geospatial and temporal analysis of the resulting data.” However, their focus was on non-terrorist criminal acts prior to the commission of any terrorist attack. These criminal acts in-cluded the creation of false identities for group members, and theft of money or weapons. Re-search focused on individual terrorist’s preparation rather than on the event and the logistics of the events (who, what, where, when and why). Where and when are important in spatial and temporal analysis and if structured properly, according to Wang (2008) the other three (who, what and why) may be able to be discerned from the variable choices. There has been very lim-ited research that has addressed all five of these issues; the five W’s (Wang et al, 2008). If you can comprehensively analyze on a local level the exact nature of a terrorist attack (i.e. the who, what, where, when, why and even how), then after replication of studies eventual patterns and the ability to generalize findings may be probable.

Conclusion

With more comprehensive research and a better understanding of the structural sources

of terrorism a common methodology might be able to be identified. If there is a common meth-odology combined with more user friendly data construction of a framework for identifying possible terrorist risk terrains might be plausible. Consequently, the reliability of information on counterterrorist measures may strengthen.

While greater preparedness and better response techniques can reduce the damage, only successful prevention-focused policy and pre-emptive interventions can completely free socie-ties from the damages of terrorism. A better understanding of the process that leads groups to engage in terrorism is essential for designing such policy and improving domestic as well as global security. This understanding will help to define pathways that lead groups to become violent, and will identify the group characteristics and environmental context that facilitates ter-rorism. Furthermore, such an understanding will allow development and evaluation of inter-ventions to be used to diffuse an event before it occurs.

Spatial Analysis of Terrorism

5

Division of Global Affairs

ruglobalaffairs

Website et21.rutgers.edu

About ET21 The Rutgers Center for the Study of Emergent Threats in the 21st Century (ET21) is an interdis-ciplinary center of excellence designed to research a variety of emergent threats to civilians and offer policy prescriptions that generate suitable responses to these threats through three compo-nent programs focused on: Global Security, Civil Resistance, and Immigration

ET21 was created in order generate better linkages between the research activity of faculty and those of students, creating a better prepared and educated cohort of graduates able to compete in the global marketplace for jobs. By developing a long-term partnership with the programs, funds and specialized agencies of the United Nations, several national governments, as well as partner institutions across the globe, ET21 enlarges DGA’s global network of linkages. Current initiatives involving partner institutions that have recently been initiated but would be housed under the new Center’s rubric, for example, include Kassel (Germany), Koeceli (Turkey), Sci-ences Po (France), Viadrina am Oder (Germany) and the University of Warwick (UK).

ET21 is housed under the Division of Global Affairs (DGA) at Rutgers University, Newark. The growing prominence and prestige of the DGA as a premier interdisciplinary research-oriented policy program have allowed it to establish itself as a center of excellence in the field of global affairs, worldwide.

Large scale threats such as the September 11 terrorist attacks, the emergence of new diseases, and the militariza-tion of cyberspace in the past few years have raised the awareness of both government decision makers and the private sector that the vital systems and infrastructures upon which our societies and economies depend on are at great risk from the complex threats emerging in the 21st Century. ET21 is an initiative begun by the Division of Global Affairs in an effort to contribute to a better understanding of the structural sources of these threats, and to identify the kind of policy actions that will need to be adopted to mitigate their consequences. The ET21 center brings together practitioners, policymakers and scholars to find solutions to the challenges many organizations face in developing early warning systems, crisis awareness, and response. The focus of the centers work is divided into four themes related to the study of emergent threats as fol-lows: Data needs and structures, Threat assessment methodology, Analytics, Visualization An important aspect of the center’s work is the involvement of students in research and policy develop-ment. In addition, the center is developing its outreach which includes an initial symposium on the development of common methodology employed in threat assessment.

About the Program on Global Security

ET21