The built environment and crime: a comparative study of Detroit and Philadelphia
Date
2018
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
University of Delaware
Abstract
Previous research of urban crime and urban disadvantage has suggested that urban crime is exacerbated by poverty (Kirvo & Peterson, 1996; Hsieh & Pugh 1993; Ludwig et al, 2001; Patterson, 1991; Steffensmeier & Haynie, 2000) that urban crime is a reflection of culture (Garland, 2000; Hall & Winlow 2005; Neuberger, 1993) and due to class differences (Hagedorn & Macon, 1988; Van Dusen et al, 1983; White & Cunneen, 2006). Studies have even suggested that community structure is conducive to crime (Hipp, 2007; Sampson & Groves, 1989; Veysey & Messner, 1999). Few studies have focused on how the environment in which these social phenomena take place may play a role in maintaining cycles of disadvantage and crime in urban low-income neighborhoods. The built environment, similar to crime generators and attractors, is a distinct yet related concept where land use influences various aspects of life on a sociological level. The built environment can be thought of in three ways theoretically – communities and neighborhoods, physical spaces such as street segments, and nonresidential establishments such as businesses or recreational spaces such as parks. The purpose of this study is to determine if physical or environmental characteristics of places has an effect on crime when social characteristics of the population are also considered. Results suggest that park coverage maintains an effect on crime when traditional social factors are considered. Three key findings are: 1) park coverage is used as a measure of the built environment and is statistically significant for both Philadelphia and Detroit at the census tract level, 2) parks are a characteristic of urban neighborhoods separate of structural indicators of disadvantage, 3) park coverage has a significant and negative affect on violent crime independent of traditional structural factors.