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

• Author: Alana R. Inlow
• Date: 01 November 2020
• DOI: 10.1177/1088767919884672
• Published date: 01 November 2020
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/1088767919884672

Homicide Studies

2020, Vol. 24(4) 311 –332

© 2019 SAGE Publications

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1088767919884672

journals.sagepub.com/home/hsx

Article

Does Land Use Matter?

Understanding Homicide

Counts Beyond the Effects

of Social Disorganization

Alana R. Inlow1

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

Recent research has reintroduced the idea that physical and/or socio-structural vari-

ables 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 use1 may

lead to differences in crime levels independent of the social and economic characteris-

tics of a place. However, there is still a lack of empirical, criminological research

considering the relationship between land use and crime in urban areas. Land use

designations are fueled by political economy and geopolitical decision-makers, which

1Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Alana R. Inlow, Department of Sociology, Washington State University, PO Box 644020, Pullman, WA

99164-4020, USA.

Email: alana.inlow@wsu.edu

884672HSXXXX10.1177/1088767919884672Homicide StudiesInlow

research-article2019

312 Homicide Studies 24(4)

have structural implications for neighborhood contexts and crime patterns, among

much else. Analysis of these factors can inform policy regarding city development,

equitable resource distribution, and residents’ well-being.

According to several sociological perspectives, socio-structural factors such as land

use, business type, neighborhood development, and physical geographic features

should all significantly affect where crime takes place and which crimes tend to occur

(Brantingham & Brantingham, 1981; Jacobs, 1961; Newman, 1972; Sherman, Gartin,

& Buerger, 1989; Stark, 1987). By drawing on past insights stemming from crime pat-

tern theory, and political economy approaches to ecological theories of crime, some

criminologists are once again making headway in looking for explanations beyond

what social disorganization and routine activities perspectives can provide.

This study seeks to further our current understanding of this topic by answering the

following questions within the urban context of Portland, Oregon: (a) To what extent

does land use designation play an integral and significant predictive role for homicide

counts in Portland, Oregon, after accounting for traditional neighborhood characteris-

tics and socioeconomic variables that commonly indicate social disorganization? and

(b) Which types of land use are associated with homicide, and in what ways?

Place-Based Theories of Crime

Social disorganization theory traditionally argues that social control is maintained

by residents, and when residents cannot support the social order within their neigh-

borhood, this inevitably affects crime levels. Neighborhoods in which residents

interact more often, or have more social cohesion, can limit crime, whereas neigh-

borhoods with characteristics that oppose frequent interactions (e.g., concentrated

disadvantage, residential instability, poverty, physical neighborhood deterioration,

etc.) tend to have increased crime levels (Bursik, 1988; Sampson & Groves, 1989;

Shaw & McKay, 1942).

The routine activities perspective is also commonly used to explain how parts of the

built environment may influence crime. At the foundation of routine activities is the

idea that certain places are better suited for criminal opportunities than others. Places

that are conducive to offenders contain attractive targets, and are without the presence

of guardians, thus they have a heightened chance for criminal activity (Cohen &

Felson, 1979). Expanding from routine activities, the environmental crime perspective

argues that land use and physical structures can influence crime levels depending on

how certain spaces and places are thought of, what they symbolize, and whether a

certain type of land use, or place, might allow for the presence (or lack) of a capable

guardian (Brantingham & Brantingham, 1981). Crime pattern theory, and literature

stemming from Newman’s (1972) Defensible Space, also focuses on the physical char-

acteristics of neighborhoods, rather than social characteristics (Brantingham &

Brantingham, 1984). Physical spaces influence both the type of crime occurring and

when a crime might occur, depending on whether an opportunity is presented to a

potential offender. Thus, certain physical spaces may present more opportunities than

others. As people make decisions about the use of space, there is a dual importance of