Greenspace and Crime

• Published date: 01 May 2017
• DOI: 10.1177/0022427816666309
• Author: Rebecca Wickes,Anthony Kimpton,Jonathan Corcoran
• Date: 01 May 2017
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Greenspace and

Crime: An Analysis

of Greenspace

Types, Neighboring

Composition, and

the Temporal

Dimensions of Crime

Anthony Kimpton

1

, Jonathan Corcoran

1

,

and Rebecca Wickes

1

Abstract

Objectives: There is a growing interest in the relationship between green-

space and crime, yet how particular greenspace types encourage or inhibit

the timing and types of greenspace crime remains largely unexplored.

Drawing upon recent advances in environmental criminology, we introduce

an integrated suite of methods to examine the spatial, temporal, and neigh-

borhood dynamics of greenspace crime. Methods: We collate administra-

tive, census, and crime incident data and employ cluster analysis, circular

statistics, and negative binomial regression to examine violent, public nui-

sance, property, and drug crimes within 4,265 greenspaces across Brisbane,

Australia. Results: We find that greenspace amenities, neighborhood social

composition, and the presence of proximate crime generators influence the

1

The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

Corresponding Author:

Anthony Kimpton, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland 4072, Australia.

Email: a.kimpton@uq.edu.au

Journal of Research in Crime and

Delinquency

2017, Vol. 54(3) 303-337

ªThe Author(s) 2016

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0022427816666309

journals.sagepub.com/home/jrc

frequency and timing of greenspace crime. Conclusions: Our analyses reveal

that particular types of greenspaces are more crime prone than others. We

argue that this is largely due to the presence of amenities within green-

spaces allied with the sociodemographic context of surrounding neighbor-

hoods. We conclude that understanding how these factors influence the

behaviors of potent ial offenders, vict ims, and guardians i s necessary to

better understand the spatial distribution of greenspace crime and provide

an evidence base for crime prevention initiatives.

Keywords

routine activity theory, criminological theory, urban crime, statistical

methods, quantitative research, research methods, parks, amenities

Introduction

Greenspaces refer to a range of different public spaces including parks,

gardens, greened thoroughfares, sporting fields, and ovals. They are an

important urban design feature, as they provide unique health benefits for

local residents that include filtering and sequestering airborne and water-

borne toxins (Yang et al. 2005), counter the urban heat island effect (Bowler

et al. 2010; Feyisa, Dons, and Meilby 2014; Kong et al. 2014; Li et al.

2012), and assist in the development of immunity responses against aller-

gens (Hanski et al. 2012). Further, greenspaces offer social benefits for local

residents by strengthening place attachment (Hur, Nasar, and Chun 2010;

Kim and Kaplan 2004; McCunn and Gifford 2014) and social cohesion

(Mason 2010).

While the health and social benefits of greenspace are well supported,

emerging research indicates that greenspace can also generate crime. Scho-

lars suggest that a greenspace can function as a ‘‘social hole,’’ which dis-

rupts community processes necessary for preventing crime (Hipp et al.

2014). However, as greenspaces are morphologically distinct, their ability

to generate crime is arguably also distinct. Greenspace types that include

hidden areas can create opportunities for consensual crimes such as drug

use (Felson and Boba 2010; Hope 1982; Knutsson 1997). Further, green-

space types that attract legitimate greenspace users with playgrounds or

sporting features can also create opportunities for predatory crimes such

as panhandling or pickpocketing, and more violent predatory offenses such

as robbery, assault, or rape (Ceccato 2014; Ellickson 1996; Groff and

McCord 2012). Last, greenspace can provide opportunities for young

304 Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 54(3)

people to engage in public nuisance away from adult handlers and guardians

(Dinkes et al. 2009; Felson and Boba 2010; Snyder and Sickmund 2006).

Since greenspaces can be both places of legitimate public recreation and

places of crime, legitimate users may avoid these areas if problems arise.

This avoidance has consequences for individuals, communities, and moti-

vated offenders. Individuals avoiding greenspaces for safety also forgo the

previously described associated health and social benefits (Hanski et al.

2012; McCunn and Gifford 2014). In areas where many residents avoid

greenspaces, social network s may diminish, which can have a ne gative

influence on positive social processes (Bairner and Shirlow 2003; Haber-

mas 1991; Jorgensen, Ellis, and Ruddell 2013; Palmer et al. 2005). Last,

motivated offenders may become more inclined to offend when there are

fewer residents to intervene. In time, these greenspaces develop into gang

‘‘set spaces’’ that further increase crime throughout the surrounding areas

(Stodolska, Acevedo, and Shinew 2009; Tita, Cohen, and Engberg 2005).

Despite an emerging interest in crime within greenspace (herein referred

to as ‘‘greenspace crime’’), significant gaps in our understanding of this

association remain. First, as Groff and McCord (2012) argue, the literature

on greenspace crime is mostly theoretical, and the few empirical studies

tend to examine case studies rather than citywide variation in greenspace

crime (for exceptions, see Anderson and West 2006; Crewe 2001; McCord

and Houser 2015). Second, no study compares crime across green space

types despite the functional and morphological variety of greenspaces.

According to crime pattern theory and routine activity theory, greenspaces

are ‘‘behavior settings’’ and particular greenspace amenities can be condu-

cive to particular types of crime (Brantingham and Brantingham 1995;

Felson and Boba 2010). Thus, the microplace features ultimately determine

when and where opportunities for crime exist (Clarke 2012). Further, the

temporal dynamics of greenspace crime between greenspace types are not

well understood. Routine activity theory argues that the lifestyle routines of

offenders, victims, and guardians determine whether, where, and when

offending occurs (see Felson and Boba 2010; Haberman and Ratcliffe

2015), but the extent to which greenspace crime corresponds to daily or

weekly lifestyle routines is unclear. Last, there is insufficient scholarship to

reject that greenspace crime may be simply a function of nearby soci al

context and crime generators. Certainly, we know that crime spatially con-

centrates within poorer neighborhoods (Hirschfield, Bowers, and Brown

1995; Lockwood 2007; Storr, Chen, and Anthony 2004), but we also know

that poorer neighborhoods generally feature fewer greenspaces with limited

amenity variety (Astell-Burt et al. 2014; Crawford et al. 2008; Macintyre,

Kimpton et al. 305