Ecological Theory and Beautification Essay

The ecological surmise in criminology maintains that the physical environment where mountain are determine influences received tender carriages. The system has its scientific utilitys and disadvantages when compared to the dish up of beautification, which is the process of visually improve a city or town specifically 1 that is situated in an urban discipline.For the most part, the assertions of the ecological hypothesis are non significantly dependent on the dominant ethnic group sprightliness in a particular area, thereby suggesting that the findings of the surmise do not depend on subjective human relations further quite an on the physical environment where they are located. It has a scientific advantage in the sense that it avoids the line of works brought about by the relative circumstances of simply who are living within the area. On the other hand, its disadvantage is that its findings laid-back law-breaking rank with respect to kindly disarrangementcan move surrounded by being a guinea pig or an depression.In a sense, high crime rates can result to social disorganization and, similarly, social disorganization can lead to high crime rates. Relying on the physical environment in interpreting human behaviors is also involved because doing so does not explain why some people in such areas commit certain crimes while others in the same areas do not. Beautification, however, is a relatively much(prenominal) stable theory than the ecological theory because, for ex adenylic acidle, urban beautification schemes through evictions are meant to address high crime rates and not the other way around.The ecological theory puts great strain on the fact of living within certain geographical zones in an area as a primary reason for certain rates of crime. An in the first place study conducted by Shaw and McKay (2006) in 1942 suggests that the Zone 2 of an area consume more crime rates than both of the other zones primarily because this zone does not have a settled community to begin with which, in effect, prevents the institutionalization of clear moral guidelines.In effect, the study in particular and the theory in general indicate that, regardless of those who settled in any of these zones, the behavior of the settlers as well as the rate of crime go out have to depend on the corresponding zones. This argument is particularly fire because it leaves the interpretation of human behavior on the physical environment sooner on the people under study. According to Lowman (1986), there is the dip to depict unjust selections in using criminological theory in development geographic billets on crime (p.81). If that is the case, ecological theory as utilise to criminology faces the greatest disadvantagethe disadvantage of arriving at biased results. Worse, the distinction among the causes and the effects of criminal activities may fit blurred due to the tendency to not become objective. High crime rate can beco me a flexible factor, becoming a cause on one hand with social disorganization as its effect and becoming an effect on one hand with social disorganization as its cause on another.In fact, a separate study finds that there is no necessary connection between social class and crime and that more is yet to be understood in these two distinct concepts (Tittle, 1983). From the perspective of ecological theory, areas are divided into zones and these zones are occupied by more or less the same people in terms of social class, hence social stratification in the physical environment.If there is no apparent connection between social class and the types of crimes committed by people in any of the prevailing social classes, there form the difficulty of further asserting that there is an apparent link between the physical environment and the rate of crimes in the different zones. Thus, the main disadvantage of using ecological theory in interpreting human behavior within the confines of certain zones is that it uses a shaky foundation. More specifically, the theory does not address the inconsistencies between those who commit certain crimes within a specific zone from those who do not commit any crime at all.The main question is why do some people in Zone 2 commit theft, for instance, while some others do not? It appears that the physical environment does not hold a unshakable resolvent to the task of explaining human behavior. Nevertheless, another study reaffirms the assertion of the ecological theory. In a study conducted by Tita, Cohen and Engberg (2005), it was found out that itsy-bitsy gangs operate within select areas especially in urban slum area locations, suggesting that in some cases the ecological theory may hold true.In order to address the problem, it may be argued that urban beautification be interpreted into consideration such as demolishing structures in slum areas and replacing them with visually pleasing structures. The advantage of adopting this measure is that it can literally contain the physical environment where these small gangs thrive. As a result, a lot of the area is altered and cleansed, in a manner of speaking, which is a prompt solution than the possible solutions that can be taken from the ecological theory.A disadvantage of applying the ecological theory in providing a solution to the problem of small gangs is that it requires sufficient time and firm policies. For instance, the ecological theory may suggest that the income in these slum areas should be raised through specialize government programs and the law enforcement be made more stringent. While the solutions taken from the ecological theory are certainly needed, they call for serious effectuation and consistent follow-up on their development. On the other hand, the disadvantage of adopting the beautification solution through eviction is that it raises ethical concerns.It is a quick fix that carries some(prenominal) moral consequences, chief of them humanitarian reasons. Both the ecological theory and the process of beautification have their corresponding advantages and disadvantages. The challenge is not to find which one is for the most part better than the other but to determine which one applies best to a particular instance. Certain objections may be raised against either approaches, but they nevertheless remain significant methods in understanding certain types of human behavior such as criminal activities.ReferencesLowman, J. (1986). Conceptual Issues in the geographics of Crime Toward a Geography of Social Control. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 76(1), 81-94. Shaw, C. R. , & McKay, H. D. (2006). Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas A Study of grade of Delinquents in Relation to Differential Characteristics of Local Communities in American Cities. Oxfordshire Taylor & Francis. Tita, G. E. , Cohen, J. , & Engberg, J. (2005). An Ecological Study of the Location of Gang Set lacuna. Social Pr oblems, 52(2), 272-299. Tittle, C. R. (1983). Social Class and Criminal Behavior A critical review of the Theoretical Foundation. Social Forces, 62(2), 334-358.