Does Land Use Matter? Understanding Homicide Counts Beyond the Effects of Social Disorganization

Abstract

This study assesses the relationship between land use, measured as percent zoning designation per square kilometer in a census tract, and homicide counts in Portland, Oregon, while controlling for other neighborhood characteristics. Negative binomial models are implemented to account for the overdispersed homicide count indicator. Results suggest that some land use variables—specifically, mixed-use residential (positive association) and single-family residential (negative association)—have significant predictive value for homicide counts beyond neighborhood characteristics and socioeconomic variables deemed important by criminological theory and research.

Keywords

land use zoning homicide space & place social disorganization political economy

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Akins

(2002). The effect of segregation on concentrated disadvantage, community instability, and crime: Comparison of neighborhoods in Portland, Oregon and Columbus, Ohio (Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology). Pullman: Washington State University.

Aliprantis

Hartley

(2015). Blowing it up and knocking it down: The local and city-wide effects of demolishing high concentration public housing on crime. Journal of Urban Economics, 88, 67-81. doi:10.1016/j.jue.2015.06.002

Anderson

J. M.

MacDonald

Bluthenthal

Ashwood

J. S.

(2012). Reducing crime by shaping the built environment with zoning: An empirical study of Los Angeles. SSRN Electronic Journal, 161, 699-756. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2109511

Arnio

A. N.

Baumer

E. P.

Wolff

K. T.

(2012). The contemporary foreclosure crisis and US crime rates. Social Science Research, 41(6), 1598-1614.

Baumer

E. P.

Wolff

K. T.

Arnio

A. N.

(2012). A multicity neighborhood analysis of foreclosure and crime: A multicity neighborhood analysis of foreclosure and crime. Social Science Quarterly, 93(3), 577-601.

Bernasco

Block

(2011). Robberies in Chicago: A block-level analysis of the influence of crime generators, crime attractors, and offender anchor points. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 48(1), 33-57. doi:10.1177/0022427810384135

Boessen

Hipp

J. R.

(2015). Close-ups and the scale of ecology: Land uses and the geography of social context and crime. Criminology, 53, 399-426. doi:10.1111/1745-9125.12074

Brantingham

P. J.

Brantingham

P. L.

(1984). Patterns in crime. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Brantingham

P. J.

Brantingham

P. L.

(Eds.) (1981). Environmental criminology. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.

10.

Browning

C. R.

Byron

R. A.

Calder

C. A.

Krivo

L. J.

Kwan

M.-P.

Lee

J.-Y.

Peterson

R. D.

(2010). Commercial density, residential concentration, and crime: Land use patterns and violence in neighborhood context. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 47, 329-357. doi:10.1177/0022427810365906

11.

Bursik

R. J.

Jr. (1988). Social disorganization and theories of crime and delinquency: Problems and prospects. Criminology, 26, 519-551.

12.

Carter

S. P.

Carter

S. L.

Dannenberg

A. L.

(2003). Zoning out crime and improving community health in Sarasota, Florida: “Crime prevention through environmental design.” American Journal of Public Health, 93, 1442-1445. doi:10.2105/AJPH.93.9.1442

13.

Cohen

L. E.

Felson

(1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588-608. doi:10.2307/2094589

14.

Cui

Walsh

(2015). Foreclosure, vacancy and crime. Journal of Urban Economics, 87, 72-84.

15.

De Morris

A. A.

Leistner

(2009). From neighborhood association system to participatory democracy: Broadening and deepening public involvement in Portland, Oregon. National Civic Review, 98(2), 47-55. doi:10.1002/ncr.252

16.

Ellen

I. G.

Lacoe

Sharygin

C. A.

(2013). Do foreclosures cause crime? Journal of Urban Economics, 74, 59-70.

17.

Gottdiener

Hutchison

Ryan

M. T.

(2015). The new urban sociology (5th ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

18.

Hagerman

(2007). Shaping neighborhoods and nature: Urban political ecologies of urban waterfront transformations in Portland, Oregon. Cities, 24, 285-297. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2006.12.003

19.

Hirschfield

Bowers

(Eds.). (2001). Mapping and analysing crime data: Lessons from research and practice. London, England: Taylor & Francis.

20.

Immergluck

Smith

(2006). The Impact of Single-family Mortgage Foreclosures on Neighborhood Crime. Housing Studies, 21(6), 851-866

21.

Iqbal

(2012). Property values, parks and crime (Master, spatial planning). Stockholm, Sweden: Kungliga Tekniska högskolan.

22.

Jacobs

(1961). The death and life of great American cities. New York, NY: Vintage Books.

23.

Jones

R. W.

Pridemore

W. A.

(2012). The Foreclosure Crisis and Crime: Is Housing-Mortgage Stress Associated with Violent and Property Crime in U.S. Metropolitan Areas?: Foreclosure Crisis and Crime. Social Science Quarterly, 93(3), 671-691.

24.

Kinney

J. B.

Brantingham

P. L.

Wuschke

Kirk

M. G.

Brantingham

P. J.

(2008). Crime attractors, generators and detractors: Land use and urban crime opportunities. Built Environment, 34(1), 62-74. doi:10.2148/benv.34.1.62

25.

Kubrin

C. E.

Weitzer

(2003). New directions in social disorganization theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 40, 374-402. doi:10.1177/0022427803256238

26.

Kubrin

C. E.

J. C.

(2016). Social disorganization theory’s greatest challenge: Linking structural characteristics to crime in socially disorganized communities. In Piquero

A. R.

(Ed.), The handbook of criminological theory (pp. 121-136). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.

27.

Lobao

L. M.

Hooks

Tickamyer

A. R.

(Eds.). (2007). The sociology of spatial inequality. Albany: State University of New York Press.

28.

Lurz

(2004). Puzzling Portland. Professional Builder, 69, 107-108.

29.

Manson

Schroeder

Van Riper

Ruggles

(2018). IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System: Version 13.0 [Database]. doi:10.18128/D050.V13.0

30.

McCord

E. S.

Ratcliffe

J. H.

Garcia

R. M.

Taylor

R. B.

(2007). Nonresidential crime attractors and generators elevate perceived neighborhood crime and incivilities. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 44, 295-320. doi:10.1177/0022427807301676

31.

McKenzie

B. S.

(2013). Neighborhood access to transit by race, ethnicity, and poverty in Portland, OR. City & Community, 12, 134-155. doi:10.1111/cico.12022

32.

Metro Data Resource Center. (2017). Zoning [Database]. Retrieved from http://rlisdiscovery.oregonmetro.gov/?action=viewDetail&layerID=416

33.

Morenoff

J. D.

Sampson

R. J.

Raudenbush

S. W.

(2001). Neighborhood inequality, collective efficacy, and the spatial dynamics of urban violence. Criminology, 39, 517-558.

34.

Muhamad Ludin

A. N.

Abd. Aziz

Hj Yusoff

Wan Abd Razak

W. J.

(2013). Impacts of urban land use on crime patterns through GIS application. Planning Malaysia Journal, 11(2), 1-22. doi:10.21837/pmjournal.v11.i2.113

35.

Newman

(1972). Defensible space: Crime prevention through urban design. New York, NY: Macmillan.

36.

Oates

(2017). Urban growth boundary. Retrieved from https://oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/urban_growth_boundary/#.WmTbUXanHIU

37.

Park

R. E.

(1915). The city: Suggestions for the investigation of human behavior in the city environment. American Journal of Sociology, 20, 577-612.

38.

Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability. (2018). Base zones [Government]. Retrieved from https://www.portlandmaps.com/bps/zoning/#/zones/base

39.

Quick

Law

(2017). Time-varying relationships between land use and crime: A spatio-temporal analysis of small-area seasonal property crime trends. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 46, 1018-1035. doi:10.1177/2399808317744779

40.

Rookey

B. D.

(2009). The effects of ecological characteristics on drunk driving in the United States (Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology). Pullman: Washington State University.

41.

Rookey

B. D.

(2012). Drunk driving in the United States: An examination of informal and formal factors to explain variation in DUI enforcement across U.S. counties. Western Criminology Review, 13, 37-52.

42.

Sampson

R. J.

(1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918-924. doi:10.1126/science.277.5328.918

43.

Sampson

R. J.

Groves

W. B.

(1989). Community structure and crime: Testing social-disorganization theory. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 774-802.

44.

Sampson

R. J.

Raudenbush

S. W.

Earls

(1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918-924.

45.

Schwartz

Gertseva

(2010). Stability and change in female and male violence across rural and urban counties, 1981-2006: Stability and change in female/male violence. Rural Sociology, 75, 388-425. doi:10.1111/j.1549-0831.2010.00016.x

46.

Sharkey

Faber

J. W.

(2014). Where, when, why, and for whom do residential contexts matter? Moving away from the dichotomous understanding of neighborhood effects. Annual Review of Sociology, 40, 559-579. doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043350

47.

Shaw

C. R.

McKay

H. D.

(1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

48.

Sherman

L. W.

Gartin

P. R.

Buerger

M. E.

(1989). Hot spots of predatory crime—Routine activities and the criminology of place. Criminology, 27(1), 27-55.

49.

Smith

W. R.

Frazee

S. G.

Davison

E. L.

(2000). Furthering the integration of routine activity and social disorganization theories: Small units of analysis and the study of street robbery as a diffusion process. Criminology, 38, 489-524.

50.

Stark

(1987). Deviant places: A theory of the ecology of crime. Criminology, 25, 893-910.

51.

Steenbeek

Völker

Flap

van Oort

(2012). Local businesses as attractors or preventers of neighborhood disorder. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 49, 213-248. doi:10.1177/0022427810397948

52.

Stucky

T. D.

Ottensmann

J. R.

(2009). Land use and violent crime. Criminology, 47, 1223-1264. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2009.00174.x

53.

Stucky

T. D.

Ottensmann

J. R.

Payton

S. B.

(2012). The Effect of Foreclosures on Crime in Indianapolis, 2003-2008*: The Effect of Foreclosures on Crime in Indianapolis. Social Science Quarterly, 93(3), 602-624.

54.

Taylor

R. B.

Koons

B. A.

Kurtz

E. M.

Greene

J. R.

Perkins

D. D.

(1995). Street blocks with more nonresidential land use have more physical deterioration. Urban Affairs Review, 31, 120-136.

55.

Tita

G. E.

Radil

S. M.

(2010). Making space for theory: The challenges of theorizing space and place for spatial analysis in criminology. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 26, 467-479. doi:10.1007/s10940-010-9115-5

56.

Troy

Grove

J. M.

(2008). Property values, parks, and crime: A hedonic analysis in Baltimore, MD. Landscape and Urban Planning, 87, 233-245. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.06.005

57.

Twinam

(2017). Danger zone: Land use and the geography of neighborhood crime. Journal of Urban Economics, 100, 104-119. doi:10.1016/j.jue.2017.05.006

58.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2018). QuickFacts: United States. Portland City, OR. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045218

59.

Velez

M. B.

(2001). The role of public social control in urban neighborhoods: A multilevel analysis of victimization risk. Criminology, 39, 837-864. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2001.tb00942.x

60.

Weisburd

Bushway

Lum

Yang

S.-M.

(2004). Trajectories of crime at places: A longitudinal study of street segments in the city of Seattle. Criminology, 42, 283-322. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2004.tb00521.x

61.

Weisburd

Groff

Yang

S.-M.

(2012). The criminology of place: Street segments and our understanding of the crime problem. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

62.

Wilcox

Quisenberry

Cabrera

D. T.

Jones

(2004). Busy places and broken windows? Toward defining the role of physical structure and process in community crime models. The Sociological Quarterly, 45, 185-207.

63.

Wilkerson

Carlson

N. E.

Yen

I. H.

Michael

Y. L.

(2012). Neighborhood physical features and relationships with neighbors: Does positive physical environment increase neighborliness? Environment and Behavior, 44, 595-615. doi:10.1177/0013916511402058

64.

Williams

S. A.

Hipp

J. R.

(2019). How great and how good?: Third places, neighbor interaction, and cohesion in the neighborhood context. Social Science Research, 77, 68-78. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2018.10.008

65.

J. C.

(2016). Community context of crime: A longitudinal examination of the effects of local institutions on neighborhood crime. Crime & Delinquency, 62, 1286-1312.

66.

J. C.

(2019). Mixed land use and neighborhood crime. Social Science Research, 78, 170-186. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2018.12.010

67.

Zahnow

(2018). Mixed land use: Implications for violence and property crime. City & Community, 17, 1119-1142. doi:10.1111/cico.12337