Mixed Land Use: Implications for Violence and Property Crime

Abstract

This study investigates the effect of mixed land use on violence and property crime in neighborhood block groups while simultaneously considering the presence of criminogenic facilities and sociodemographic conditions. We conduct negative binomial regression to examine the relationship between mixed land use and crime and investigate whether the relationship is moderated by sociodemographic characteristics or the presence of criminogenic facilities. The results suggest that mixed land use may reduce property crime while violent crime is influenced by mixed land use in nearby neighborhoods. There was an additional effect of the presence of particular facilities, notably bars, transportation stations, schools, stores, and gas stations in the neighborhood. There was some evidence that the impact of land use mix on crime varies dependent on residential mobility, ethnic diversity and the presence of bars, transport stations, and schools. Our findings indicate that those responsible for planning urban spaces and developing land use policies should consider differential effects of land use characteristics across neighborhood contexts.

The spatial relation between land use and crime

“…Several studies have shown that the use of these lands can prevent crime occurrence by reducing their distance. Studies by Jacobs (1961), Newman (1973), Browning et al (2010), and Zahnow (2018) have found that mixed development was able to reduce crime rates. Another study by Anderson et al (2013) found that commercial and residential mixed land use showed lower number of crimes as compared to commercial land use only.…”

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

“…These studies have measured land use in ways very similar to this study, by either calculating the percentage of various zoning designations within a unit of analysis, by creating dummy variables for whether a particular land use exists within a neighborhood or other unit, using variables that measure distances of units from certain land uses, or other similar calculations (Anderson, MacDonald, Bluthenthal, & Ashwood, 2012; Boessen & Hipp, 2015; Browning et al, 2010; Hirschfield & Bowers, 2001; Kinney, Brantingham, Wuschke, Kirk, & Brantingham, 2008; McCord, Ratcliffe, Garcia, & Taylor, 2007; Muhamad Ludin, Abd. Aziz, Hj Yusoff, & Wan Abd Razak, 2013; Quick, Law, & Li, 2017; Stucky & Ottensmann, 2009; Taylor, Koons, Kurtz, Greene, & Perkins, 1995; Twinam, 2017; Wilcox et al, 2004; Wo, 2019; Zahnow, 2018).…”

“…One of the most common crime types analyzed within this body of literature is robbery (Anderson et al, 2012; Bernasco & Block, 2011; Iqbal, 2012; Smith et al, 2000; Stucky & Ottensmann, 2009; Troy & Grove, 2008; Twinam, 2017; Wilcox et al, 2004; Zahnow, 2018). Authors argue that robbery is a good indicator of direct person to person violent interaction happening in a particular location, and thus how human behavior might shift depending on land use (Bernasco & Block, 2011; Smith et al, 2000).…”

“…Most studies look at other crime types along with robbery, including assault, rape, battery, arson, burglary, motor vehicle theft, and/or theft from a vehicle. Many times, these crime types are combined into an index (e.g., violent crime and/or property crime) or measured using calls for service; often, they are lumped together as a single crime measure (Aliprantis & Hartley, 2015; Anderson et al, 2012; Boessen & Hipp, 2015; Browning et al, 2010; Stucky & Ottensmann, 2009; Twinam, 2017; Weisburd et al, 2004; Wilcox et al, 2004; Wo, 2019; Zahnow, 2018). A few of the cited studies include a homicide indicator, the focus of this study, but many times this indicator is combined with other more common offenses into a violent crime index (Aliprantis & Hartley, 2015; Boessen & Hipp, 2015; Browning et al, 2010; Stucky & Ottensmann, 2009; Zahnow, 2018).…”

“…Recent research has reintroduced the idea that physical and/or socio-structural variables may have a significant effect on crime, beyond the traditional indicators for social disorganization and other popular criminological theories (Boessen & Hipp, 2015; Kubrin & Wo, 2015; Williams & Hipp, 2019; Wo, 2019; Zahnow, 2018). This presents an opportunity to examine how government decisions about land use 1 may lead to differences in crime levels independent of the social and economic characteristics of a place.…”