ArticlePDF Available

Where Does Firearm-Related Violence Occur in Cities?

January 2024
Journal of Planning Literature 39(3):1-18

DOI:10.1177/08854122231219918

License
CC BY 4.0

Authors:

KTH Royal Institute of Technology

This article reviews five decades of literature in English investigating the nature of locations where most firearm-related violence occurs in public places, with a focus on neighbourhood-level and land-use characteristics. A search for peer-reviewed articles in Scopus, Web of Science and PubMed from 1970 to 2022 resulted in 112 articles. A bibliometric followed by a thematic analysis of the articles shed light on two questions: Which types of neighbourhood characteristics attract firearm-related violence? and What are the typical land uses associated with firearm-related violence? The article concludes by reporting examples from research of safety interventions implemented to tackle firearm violence.

Content uploaded by Vania Ceccato

Content may be subject to copyright.

Where Does Firearm-Related Violence

Occur in Cities?

Vania Ceccato

and Jorun Westman

Abstract

This article reviews ﬁve decades of literature in English investigating the nature of locations where most ﬁrearm-related violence

occurs in public places, with a focus on neighbourhood-level and land-use characteristics. A search for peer-reviewed articles in

Scopus, Web of Science and PubMed from 1970 to 2022 resulted in 112 articles. A bibliometric followed by a thematic analysis of

the articles shed light on two questions: Which types of neighbourhood characteristics attract ﬁrearm-related violence? and

What are the typical land uses associated with ﬁrearm-related violence? The article concludes by reporting examples from

research of safety interventions implemented to tackle ﬁrearm violence.

Keywords

homicide, lethal violence, land use, neighbourhood, public place, outdoor, green area, crime prevention

Introduction

Crime, particularly violence in cities, constitutes a threat to

urban sustainability (UN-Habitat 2019). The Chicago School

of Sociology and research conducted on neighbourhood-level

characteristics have since then been key to the understanding

of the geographic distribution of violence (Hipp and Boessen

2013; Kornhauser 1978; Morenoff, Sampson and Raudenbush

2001; Shaw and McKay 1942). Despite the growing scholar-

ship linking crime to different types of land use and types of

urban environments (Armitage and Monchuk 2011; Poyner

2006; Taylor and Harrell 1996), evidence has been relatively

fragmented (Inlow 2019; Summers and Johnson 2017). This

study seeks to further our current understanding of this topic

by reviewing ﬁve decades of literature in English investigating

the nature of the public places where ﬁrearm-related violence

occurs in cities. A search for peer-reviewed articles was con-

ducted using Scopus, Web of Science and PubMed from

1970 to 2022, ﬁnding 4,246 publications from which 112 arti-

cles were selected. This review aims to serve as a reference for

researchers and practitioners who seek to better understand the

situational conditions of ﬁrearm-related violence in public

places and ways of preventing it by answering the following

questions: Which types of neighbourhood characteristics

attract most gun-related violence? What are the main typical

land-use types associated with ﬁrearm-related violence?

Other literature reviews on the topic have been published in

the past few decades, but they tend to be either cross-national

analyses (e.g., LaFree 1999; Trent and Pridemore 2011) or

focused on one type of violence, such as mass shootings

(e.g., Kim, Capellan and Adler 2021) or linked to aspects of

violence and housing (Lens 2013). While cross-sectional

studies can provide valuable insights, they may not be the

most appropriate approach for conducting a systematic

literature overview, especially if the goal is to understand

trends over time or unravel mechanisms. Reviews focusing

on mass shootings in particular can be problematic because

the mechanisms underlying this rare type of violence do not

apply to other types of ﬁrearm violence. Situational/opportu-

nity perspectives focusing on environments, which propose

that variation in crime rates is dependent upon the pool of

potential offenders and opportunities available to commit

offences, are still rare (Trent and Pridemore 2011; but see

e.g., Stucky, 2017).

Gun-related violence or ﬁrearm violence includes both lethal

and nonlethal violence. These are violent offences where the

victim(s) sustained lethal or near-lethal injuries including

murders, attempted murders, as well as serious robberies,

sexual attacks, and aggravated assaults that took place in an

open, public space. Some of the studies do not differentiate

between for example homicide with or without a gun and

they may be included in this review. The spectrum of deﬁni-

tions includes for example not only gun homicide (Semenza,

Stansﬁeld and Link 2022), gun assault (Huebner et al. 2016),

gun violence (Abdalla et al. 2012), gun crime (Muggy et al.

2022), and shootings (Xu and Grifﬁths 2017), but also

‘violent crime’as stated by Clery et al. (2020) that includes

aggravated assault, assault, homicide, justiﬁable homicide and

negligent homicide or when several types of violence are

studied such as in Stucky, Ottensmann and Payton (2012).

Department of Urban Planning and Environment, KTH Royal Institute of

Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

Corresponding Author:

Vania Ceccato, Department of Urban Planning and Environment, KTH Royal

Institute of Technology, 100 44 Stockholm, Sweden.

Email: vania.ceccato@abe.kth.se

Original Article (literature review or lit review with annotated bibliography)

Journal of Planning Literature

1-18

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/08854122231219918

journals.sagepub.com/home/jpl

Only intentional violence and violence against others are

included, leaving suicide and accidents outside of the scope

of the study.

Methodology

A systematic review aims at gathering all evidence that ﬁts the

selected qualiﬁcation criteria in order to answer speciﬁc

research questions (Chandler et al., 2019) and uses systematic

and documented methods to minimise bias. Xiao and Watson

(2019) highlight the need for systematic reviews within the

ﬁeld of urban planning as they see a lack of this within existing

research. A comprehensive search for academic articles in the

English language was conducted using three different data-

bases, Scopus, Web of Science and PubMed from December

2022 to January 2023 (Appendix 1). First, a search with a

set of keywords in the respective databases was carried out.

A total of 4,246 articles were identiﬁed. The systematic over-

view protocol of type PRISMA-P 2015 (Moher et al. 2015)

was adopted to support inclusion based on the following

criteria:

1. Articles in English from 1970 to 2022 published in

Scopus (title, abstract, keywords), PubMed (title,

abstract) and Web of Science Core Collection (abstract).

Neighbourhood-level studies were the main focus.

Country, county, and city-level studies were excluded.

Articles in which ﬁrearms have been used with different

outcomes: killed, injured and noninjured.

2. Studies that had any of the following categories of vio-

lence were included: homicide, gun assault, gun vio-

lence, gun crime, shooting, gun homicide and murder.

Studies looking at violence occurring in public places,

both indoors (bars, schools and restaurants) and out-

doors (parks, stations and streets).

3. Studies reporting the link between particular land-use

and ﬁrearm violence (e.g., the presence of or proximity

to bars, schools, parks/green areas). Studies reporting

the link between neighbourhood level characteristics

(demography, socioeconomic conditions) and ﬁrearm

violence.

The results of the PRISMA overview protocol describe the

process of deﬁning the eligibility of the articles included

(Figure 1). Out of 4,246 records, 3,390 were removed after an

initial screening because they were from the ﬁelds of physics

or biology (keywords captured topics outside of the scope

such as laser and sprout shootings). Subsequently, 856

records were screened based on the title: 86 were duplicates

and 203 were deemed to be outside the inclusion criteria.

This included articles that were focused on for example eco-

nomic consequences, the forensic aspects and intimate partner

violence. That left 567 records screened based on title and

abstract, which was done separately by the two independent

authors. The records were marked with one of the three

colours; green, yellow or red, and the two lists were then

compared. Records marked green or yellow by both reviewers

stayed in the selection while the others were removed. The

remaining 246 articles were retrieved and assessed according

to the inclusion criteria and 146 were excluded. An additional

eight articles were included to reﬂect newly published articles

or articles that were not identiﬁed in the search. The process

of selection resulted in 112 articles. This represented an

overall match of 76.7% of publications (a Cohen’s Kappa coef-

ﬁcient of 0.49, which is a moderate level of agreement after

accounting for the possibility of a chance agreement in deter-

mining inter-rater reliability). In practice, researchers identiﬁed

the mismatches and then discussed why these studies should be

included or excluded. A new wave of detailed reading targeting

these articles led to an agreement by revisiting the criteria of

selection. Although there is no universally accepted standard

that states that a 76.7% match of the publications is sufﬁcient,

researchers are aware that the process of selection depends on

a number of factors, such as the nature of the publications,

the goals of the study, the complexity of the coding used to

select the publications but also differences in research experi-

ence between the researchers. The articles excluded focused

on national, regional or municipal-level studies or comparisons

or studies that were only borderline when it came to matching

our criteria of selection.

The bibliometric analysis included all English-language arti-

cles obtained through the search in Scopus, Web of Science and

PubMed (Appendix 1). A visualisation of the research themes

was conducted with the help of the program VOSviewer

version 1.16.19 (https://www.vosviewer.com/). The title and

abstract were used for the 250 articles that were assessed for eli-

gibility and a threshold of ten mentions of a keyword was used.

With these criteria, 112 terms met the threshold, but after a rel-

evance score, only 80 terms were selected.

In the in-depth thematic analysis, we identiﬁed neighbour-

hood characteristics and types of land use that were most asso-

ciated with gun-related violence. The characteristics of the

neighbourhoods were split into ten different categories: the

importance of socioeconomics, race and ethnicity and diversity,

housing-related characteristics, characteristics of people living

in these neighbourhoods identiﬁed by age and sex/gender,

household, work status and education, presence of drugs and

gangs, and ﬁnally, indications of types of community and

crime prevention programmes. Out of the land-use factors, we

identiﬁed different categories that are well-known by urban

planners: alcohol outlets, housing-related attributes, stores and

services, education facilities, food service, transport, commer-

cial areas, green areas, community services and others. We

reported the ‘frequency of appearance in the results section’

of neighbourhood characteristics followed by those related to

the types of land use. The level of appearance was deﬁned as

a‘variable/factor that shows signiﬁcant impact on gun-related

violence’or a ‘factor mentioned as being associated with this

type of violence’or a ‘factor that has been tested but turned

out to be nonsigniﬁcant’. Finally, the ﬁnal section highlights

the recommendations provided by the literature to combat gun-

related violence in public places.

2Journal of Planning Literature

Findings

Bibliometric Analysis

Out of 4,246 articles, 112 articles were included in this review.

The oldest article included was published in 1975 in the Journal

of Criminal Law and Criminology investigating homicide in

Chicago between 1965 and 1973 (Block 1975). The author

found that 2% of the city blocks accounted for 22% of homi-

cides. The area was also among the most economically deprived

where young black males were over-represented both as offend-

ers and as victims. One of the latest articles was published in

Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency by O’Brien

and Ciomek (2023). They studied the persistence of violence

in neighbourhoods in Boston and found that social disorder,

private conﬂict, private neglect and public denigration had an

increasing effect on gun-related violence, but the effect varied

according to geographical scale.

Overall, despite expanding theoretical attention in the 1970s,

research on land use and crime was primarily on individual land

uses but in the 1990s, as ‘place’has received more attention the

focus dramatically changed to become mainstream. Research

has focused on the impact of businesses, schools, bars, public

transportation, and several other speciﬁc land use (Stucky,

2017).

Figure 2 shows the number of publications by year and by

type of journal: Criminology/Sociology, Medicine/Epidemiology

and Geography/Environmental studies.As could be expected,

half of the articles are published in journals in Criminology/

Sociology followed by journals in Medicine/Epidemiology and

then journals in Geography/Environmental studies, urban planning

accounting for less than 10% of the total amount. Note that more

than 60% of the articles were published in the past 10 years; the

year with most published articles was 2018 with 12 articles, and

2022 comes as close second with 11 published articles.

Figure 1. The methodological steps used to perform the search.

Ceccato and Westman 3

There was a great over-representation of studies from the

United States (82%), with the city of Chicago having the

highest number of articles followed by Los Angeles. From

South America, studies from Brazil, Colombia and Argentina

were represented, followed by European studies (Italy, the

Netherlands, France, the United Kingdom and Sweden) and

New Zealand.

Except for the literature overviews, descriptive quantitative

or conﬁrmatory statistical analyses are used in all articles.

Regression analysis was the most widely used method (56%,

n=62). The most common regression type was negative bino-

mial regression, which represented 26% of the regression

methods, while different types of Poisson regressions were

used in 18% of the studies. Other regressions include ordinary

least square and logistic regression, followed by Bayesian, ﬁxed

effect and geographically weighted regression. As many as 34%

(n =38) of the total used some sort of spatial analysis as their

main objective, 18% of these were Risk Terrain Models

(RTM) followed by cluster analysis of different types. While

almost all studies made use of some sort of statistical test,

this was the case as a main method in 12% (n =13) of the

studies. Most of these, 85%, used descriptive statistics with

two of them also utilising near-repeat calculator to study the

pattern of shootings and hand grenade attacks (Sturup et al.

2018; Sturup, Gerell, and Rostami 2020). Barata et al. (1998)

used Spearman’s rank correlation to study intra-urban differen-

tials of death rates and weighted displacement quotient was

used to assess the effect of police interventions by Piza and

O’Hara (2014). Other approaches were used in 5% (n =6) of

the total and represented a diverse sample of techniques. The

Lotka-Volterra competition model was used to analyse the

ecology of gang territories by Brantingham et al. (2012),

while Drake, Lemke and Yang (2022) utilised joinpoint trend

analysis for investigating clustering of homicides. Three of

them made use of Bayesian statistics.

The gender of the lead author was deﬁned on the binary scale

of woman or man. The classiﬁcationwasbasedontheﬁrst name

and in cases of uncertainty, a proﬁle on ResearchGate or a univer-

sity website. For all years, the number of articles with a woman as

ﬁrst author were 36% (n =40). The ratio seems to be stable over

time as the rate for the past 3 years, 2020–2023, was 35% (n =9)

women and 65% men (n =17), while there was a slightly higher

shareofwomenfortheﬁrst 30 years, 1975–2005, with 41%

(n =7) women and 58% (n =10) men.

Figure 3(a) shows the network of words used in the title and

abstract of the 250 articles assessed for eligibility. Figure 3(b)

shows the network connected to the word ‘shootings’where

we see connections to a wide variety of words, from public

space to police. While neighbourhood characteristics showed

up in many of these clusters regardless of how we split the

clusters, land-use factors rarely appear in titles and abstracts

and therefore become ‘invisible’in the visualisation in

VOSviewer.

In-depth Analysis by Research Themes

Figure 4 presents a model of the conceptual framework used for

the analysis in this study. We ﬁrst identify neighbourhood and

population characteristics that inﬂuence ﬁrearm violence in the

Neighbourhood level characteristics that attract ﬁrearm-related

violence sections. Then, we focus on the effect of land uses

on ﬁrearm-related violence in the Land uses associated with

ﬁrearm-related violence section. Finally, the outcome of

ﬁrearm violence sparks the need for interventions presented

Figure 2. Annual share of total publications on ﬁrearm violence in public places: land-use and neighbourhood-level characteristics, 1970–2020,

N=112.

4Journal of Planning Literature

in the Safety interventions to tackle ﬁrearm-related violence

section.

Neighbourhood Level Characteristics That Attract Firearm-Related

Violence. Figure 5 shows the proportion of the effect

of appearances/measurements of keywords by category in

articles (left axis, bar chart) and the proportion of the total

appearances/measurements by category (right axis, white dots).

For example, about a third of the appearances analysed the

effect of poverty, deprivation and socio-economic conditions

on ﬁrearm violence and more than half are associated with ﬁre

arm violence. Race, ethnicity and ethnic diversity at

Figure 3. (a) Network visualisation map of title and abstract words from the 250 assessed articles. (b) The network connected to the word

“shooting”.

Ceccato and Westman 5

Figure 4. Conceptual framework model for the study.

Figure 5. Neighbourhood-level factors affecting ﬁrearm violence (proportion of effect per category), and proportion of appearances in articles

shown by the white dots (N =69 articles). A descriptive table with the 69 articles is available on request.

6Journal of Planning Literature

neighbourhood level were the second most common factors

studied in these studies, followed by housing (type of tenancy),

population, age and gender, community and crime prevention

programmes, and ﬁnally household characteristics. On average,

articles assessed (or controlled for) three neighbourhood-level

characteristics per article at the same time (e.g., population demo-

graphics, poverty and housing ownership).

The impact of gang and drug-related activities on ﬁrearm

violence is one of the least investigated in the literature,

though it is consistently associated with it (see Figure 5).

Findings are also conclusive about the reducing effect of a pop-

ulation’s educational level and employment status (e.g., having

a job) on ﬁrearm violence. Note that very often the demograph-

ics and socio-economic characteristics of the population were

implemented as ‘controls’in the models, not as the ‘causes’

of ﬁrearm-related violence. The mechanisms linking these

neighbourhood characteristics and ﬁrearm violence are often

complex and differ highly from study to study as discussed in

more detail in the next section.

Socioeconomic characteristics. There were 26 measures of

socioeconomic disadvantage alone, 20 of which showed an

association with an increasing effect on ﬁrearm violence,

one a decreasing effect and ﬁve no effect. A high concentra-

tion of poverty increases the risk of ﬁrearm violence in an

area, meaning that both the risk of being a victim and an

offender of ﬁrearm violence is higher in these areas. Hipp

and Yates (2011) showed that such effects of poverty are

not homogenous, as their results indicate that a poverty level

of between 25% and 40% strongly increased the number of

murders, while with higher levels of poverty, the effect lev-

elled off. Other relative measures of poverty, such as disad-

vantage and social stress, were also studied. For instance,

Dalve et al. (2021) found a strong relationship between

ﬁrearm injuries and neighbourhood disadvantage, where one

decile of disadvantage increased ﬁrearm injuries by 28%.

Moise (2020) found no signiﬁcant effect for economic

inequality on violent crimes in Dade County. Morenoff,

Sampson and Raudenbush (2001) found that concentrated

inequality of socioeconomic resources was directly related

to the rate of homicides in an area.

Race, diversity and immigration. The effect of immigration

was assessed 18 times in the form of immigrant concentration,

Latino immigration and those who are foreign born. Latino

immigration in Chicago shows associations with ﬁrearm vio-

lence (Wang 2005; Wang and Arnold 2008), but in other

cases, immigration was shown to have a decreasing effect on

ﬁrearm violence (e.g., Martinez, Stowell and Iwama 2016), or

in ﬁve other case studies, no effect (e.g., Akins, Rumbaut and

Stansﬁeld 2009). Index of dissimilarity, a measurement of seg-

regation, showed no effect on fatal assault in the study by

Krieger et al. (2017), while ethnic segregation was shown to

increase the risk of homicides in Baton Rouge (Barton,

Valasik and Brault 2021). Martinez, Stowell and Iwama

(2016) found an effect for neighbourhood diversity, meaning

that homogeneity increases the risk of homicide. Composite

diversity, a measurement of ethnic integration, was shown to

have a decreasing effect on violent injuries in Oakland and

showed the greatest effect in block groups with an African

American or Hispanic majority (Berezin et al. 2017).

Housing conditions/ownership. Owner-occupied housing

was shown to have a decreasing effect on ﬁrearm violence in

three studies (Barton, Valasik and Brault 2021; Caetano et al.

2021; Gjelsvik, Zierler and Blume 2004). Gjelsvik, Zierler

and Blume (2004) found that a 10-fold increase of owner-

occupied housing resulted in a 12% decrease in homicide in

neighbourhoods in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. High

rates of tenant-occupied housing was found to correspond to

high-risk areas in two studies (Drake, Lemke and Yang 2022;

Sadler et al. 2022). In Harries County, high-risk areas had

65% tenant occupation while low-risk areas only had 12%

(Drake, Lemke and Yang 2022). For Milwaukee, most hot

spots for homicide had higher tenant occupation than the

average in the city. Areas with no pattern and emerging hot

spots instead had lower than average tenant occupation, high-

lighting the fact that the relationship between housing owner-

ship and ﬁrearm-related violence is complex (Sadler et al.

2022). Newly built housing was shown to have a decreasing

effect on homicide in a study about gentriﬁcation in Chicago

(Papachristos et al. 2011), but gentriﬁcation itself in an area

was found to increase the risk of homicide in Denver in a

study by Hughes, Schaible and Jimmerson (2020). In Porto

Alegre, Brazil, Santos, Barcellos and Carvalho (2006) found

that overcrowding and substandard housing had an increasing

effect on homicide in an area. Poor housing conditions,

without proper sanitation, showed the highest values. This is

conﬁrmed by a previous literature overview (Lens 2013)

which found that although the precise mechanisms through

which subsidised housing affected violent crime were unclear,

it is most likely that concentrated disadvantage played the great-

est role where effects were observed rather than the physical

attributes of housing.

Household conditions. The composition of households and

its effect on ﬁrearm violence was assessed with relation to

several aspects. Female-headed households were found to

have an increasing effect on ﬁrearm violence in ﬁve studies

(Berezin et al. 2017; Dobrin, Lee and Price 2005; Gjelsvik,

Zierler and Blume 2004; Jones-Webb and Wall 2008;

Livingston et al. 2014), while both Zhang et al. (2015) and

Robinson et al. (2009) found no signiﬁcant effect. The percent-

age of divorced males was shown to increase the risk of gun

homicide in a study by Semenza, Stansﬁeld and Link (2022),

and when differentiating by race, white divorced people were

a higher risk factor than black. Patino et al. (2014) found no sig-

niﬁcant relationship for divorced parents and homicide in their

study in Medellín, Colombia. In Minneapolis, the proportion of

single-headed families was associated with less criminal vio-

lence, even though the effect was small (Britt et al. 2005).

Avakame (1997) found that family stability had a decreasing

Ceccato and Westman 7

effect on homicide in Chicago, and the effect persisted when

checking for population heterogeneity. Messner and Tardiff

(1985) found that both single males and people living alone

were associated with an increased risk of homicide. Robinson

et al. (2009) did not ﬁnd any signiﬁcant effect of the rate of chil-

dren in foster care in a neighbourhood and homicide.

Work & employment status. Having or not having employ-

ment is in many studies shown to have a close relationship to

ﬁrearm violence in a neighbourhood. Most of the studies

point towards having high employment rates or job accessibility

as a decreasing factor for ﬁrearm violence, for example commu-

nities immune to homicide in Chicago were shown to have

lower rates of unemployment than neighbourhoods that experi-

enced homicide (Ferrandino 2018). In a study in Prince Georges

County, a 1% increase of unemployment in a neighbourhood

increased the odds of being a homicide victim by 1.4

(Dobrin, Lee and Price 2005). Kyriacou et al. (1999) found

that employment was one of the two variables, the other

being mean income, with the strongest correlation to

gang-related homicides in a neighbourhood where both had a

decreasing effect. Professional employment was used as a var-

iable by Martinez, Stowell and Iwama (2016), who found it to

have a decreasing effect on homicide in San Diego. Patino et al.

(2014), however, found no signiﬁcant effect of unemployment

in their models of Medellín, Colombia, and Caetano et al.

(2021) found that unemployment had a small decreasing

effect on violent crime in California.

Gang and drug-related activities. Gang, organised crime and

drug-related activities were found to have an increasing effect

on ﬁrearm violence. In a study in St. Louis, Huebner et al.

(2016) found that the level of gang membership increases the

risk of gun assault both in immediate and neighbouring commu-

nities. However, it is important to note that the level of gang

membership may have little to do with the actual rate of ﬁrearm-

violence and more with police action in these areas given the

reality of already existing higher rates of violence. Moreover,

Robinson et al. (2009) found a positive linear relationship

between gang densities in an area and the number of homicides

per square mile in Los Angeles. Additionally, zip codes with

high gang densities accounted for 40% of the homicides

while only representing 16% of the total county area. In Calí,

Yaccelga and Castillo-Valencia (2019) found that a high

density of different gangs in an area increased the risk of

gang-related homicides, as it increased the risk of them

having borders in close proximity to each other. Cohen and

Tita (1999) studied the sharp growth of homicides in the

1990s in Pittsburgh and found that the newly emerging crack

markets were not a direct factor, while gang-related homicides

were. In St. Louis, the occurrence of a gang or drug homicide

was found to decrease the risk of another homicide of the

same type in the following year (Cohen et al. 1998). The

same pattern was found in Chicago; however, for drug homi-

cides there was a temporary increase in the risk, following the

year of decline.

Age and gender. Within age and gender, the most widely

assessed factors were young and male. The measure of young

spanned from the age of 7 to 35 with different intervals and

the effect on violence varies. Caetano et al. (2021) studied the

ratio of different age groups in a population and found an

increasing effect for ages below 18, a decreasing effect for

youth between 18 and 29 and an increasing effect for the

ages of 30–39 and 40–49. Browning and Jackson (2013)

found that males were more likely to witness severe violence

in Chicago. Messner and Tardiff (1985) found that the percent-

age of males had an increasing effect on homicide, while the

percentage of males 21–35 years of age had a decreasing

effect, and black males showed no signiﬁcant effect. In a

study in Oakland, the proportion of males in a population was

the second highest indicator in regard to violent injuries; only

the rate for nonhigh school graduates was higher (Berezin

et al. 2017).

Educational levels. In most studies, lower degrees of educa-

tion in a neighbourhood (or a lower percentage of educated

individuals) were associated with ﬁrearm violence.

Educational attainment was found to be signiﬁcantly lower in

high-risk areas versus low-risk areas in Harris County that

was studied by Drake, Lemke and Yang (2022). In Chicago,

the level of education of male adults showed a signiﬁcant differ-

ence between communities immune to homicide and those

communities affected by it (Ferrandino 2018). Males over 25

with less than a high school education were 19% in immune

areas, whereas in afﬂicted areas it was 40%. When looking at

males over 25 with a college degree, the relationship was the

opposite, with 57% in immune areas and only 12% in afﬂicted

areas (Ferrandino 2018). In Rhode Island and Massachusetts, a

10% increase in higher education in a neighbourhood was asso-

ciated with a 12% reduction of the risk of homicide (Gjelsvik,

Zierler and Blume 2004). Conversely, Caetano et al. (2021)

found that the percentage of residents with a high school educa-

tion, compared to those without a high school education, was

associated with violence in California.

Community and crime prevention. Active streets were

shown to have a decreasing impact on homicide in a study in

Chicago (Browning and Jackson 2013). The effect was

lasting when adding socioeconomic and land-use control vari-

ables. Morrison et al. (2017) found that neighbourhood con-

nectedness, a factor containing several neighbourhood

characteristics, decreased the odds of being the victim of a

gun assault in Philadelphia, while Barton, Valasik and Brault

(2021) suggested that the inﬂuence of environmental character-

istics of the neighbourhood on homicide depended on socio-

demographic characteristics. Collective efﬁcacy on a street

segment level (measured as the number of calls residents

made to report trash, grafﬁti, potholes, etc. to the mayor’s

action centre) had a decreasing effect on shootings in

Indianapolis (Magee 2020), but both physical disorder and col-

lective efﬁcacy lost their signiﬁcance when information from

8Journal of Planning Literature

nearby areas was included in the analysis. O’Brien and Ciomek

(2023) study in Boston also explored smaller segments within a

neighbourhood in their analysis of gun-related violence, ﬁnding

that there was substantial consistency in which parcels experi-

enced public violence across years. In the Netherlands,

Nieuwbeerta et al. (2008) explored the effect different neigh-

bourhood characteristics had on each other in a study. They

found that low social cohesion increased the probability of

homicide in an area, while conﬁdence in the police did not

show any signiﬁcant effect. Police intervention in the form of

increased foot patrols in high-violence areas in Newark was

studied by Piza and O’Hara (2014). They found that shootings

decreased by over 60% relative to the precinct, while the effect

for murder was not statistically signiﬁcant. The concentration of

gun seizures of the police showed no signiﬁcant effect on gun

assaults in St. Louis (Huebner et al. 2016).

Land Uses Associated With Firearm-Related Violence. Figure 6

summarises the impact of researched land uses on ﬁrearm-

related violence. Stores and services (e.g., convenience stores,

grocery stores, ATMs, drugstores, laundries/dry cleaning ser-

vices, tobacco retailers, petrol stations and overall commercial

land use) with most appearances (29 in total) are linked to

increases in ﬁrearm-related violence.

Other land uses that are also associated with ﬁrearm-related

violence are public sector (e.g., emergency services, hospitals,

police stations, medical clinics, and public hospitals),

housing-related attributes (e.g., vacant housing, public

housing, foreclosures, blighted property, and vacant lots)

and alcohol outlets (e.g., bars and restaurants) in this order

(Figure 6). Protective land-use factors seem to be green

areas, such as parks, and educational facilities such as

schools and universities (excluding studies of school shoot-

ings because they were not at the intra-urban level). The mech-

anisms are not well understood. In total, land-use factors were

assessed 133 times in 43 articles (38% of 112), often checking

for population and other neighbourhood characteristics. Some

show an increasing effect (risk factors) on ﬁrearm-related vio-

lence, while others show a decreasing (protective factors) or

nonsigniﬁcant effect. Below, we discuss these associations

in more detail.

Stores and retail services. Stores and services include a

variety of different establishments. Both convenience and

grocery stores show an increasing effect on ﬁrearm violence.

Valasik, Brault and Martinez (2019) found that being within

533 m (1750 ft) of a convenience store in Baton Rouge,

Louisiana increased the risk of being a victim of a homicide

by more than ﬁve times than in the rest of the city. Muggy

et al. (2022) found that convenience stores in Pittsburgh had

an increasing effect on gun crime at a distance above 25 m

(85 ft). In Los Angeles, the analysis was split into low and

high socio-economic status areas for convenience stores and

supermarkets. There was an increasing effect on gun crime

for both areas. However, the effect was much greater in areas

with low socio-economic status.

The causal relationship between certain facilities and ﬁrearm

violence is clearly connected to area-speciﬁc factors that are not

always revealed in these studies but may be essential to explain

the mechanisms between these establishments and violence. For

instance, in Bogotá, Colombia, the proximity to drugstores was

associated with homicides (Giménez-Santana, Caplan and

Drawve 2018), while the density of ATMs was associated

with homicide in St. Louis (Fox et al. 2021). Car checking

Figure 6. Land-use factors affecting ﬁrearm violence (proportion of effect per category), and proportion of appearances in articles shown by

the white dots (N =43 articles). A descriptive table with the 43 articles is available on request.

Ceccato and Westman 9

outlets were a part of the risk area factor for homicides in a

study in Irvington by Caplan, Kennedy and Miller (2011).

Petrol stations did not show any signiﬁcant inﬂuence on gun

crime as regards proximity, while at a greater distance, they

had a slightly decreasing effect in New Orleans (Muggy et al.

2022). In Newark, petrol stations did not have any effect on

shootings in a study by Xu and Grifﬁths (2017), nor for

medical or recreational dispensaries of marijuana in Denver

(Hughes, Schaible and Jimmerson 2020). Moreover, Boessen

and Hipp (2015) analysed the impact of commercial areas on

homicide at both block and block group level and found that

commercial buildings had an increasing effect on violence at

block level, but with a nonsigniﬁcant effect at group level. In

a study about homicide at the workplace, Copeland (1985)

found that the most common place was at small businesses,

which constituted the place of 10% of the homicides while

7% occurred at machine shops.

Housing-related attributes. Vacant housing was the most

frequent factor analysed —in all studies, vacant housing

increased ﬁrearm violence. One example is the study by

Drake, Lemke and Yang (2022) in Harris County, Texas that

found that high-risk areas for ﬁrearm violence were higher in

vacant property than low-risk areas. For blighted vacant prop-

erty, shootings occurring within 61 m (200 ft) of the property

increased by 1.3 times in Detroit (Oliphant 2021). Inlow

(2020) showed that mixed land use compared with single fam-

ilies increased the count of homicide in Portland. In a study in

St. Louis, Missouri, Fox et al. (2021) found that vacant housing,

public housing and vacant lots all had a relative risk factor

higher than 4.5 for homicides. However, Grifﬁths and Tita

(2009) showed that there was no signiﬁcant effect of public

housing on homicide in Los Angeles. Similarly, foreclosure

was not shown to have any effect on homicide in

Indianapolis (Stucky, Ottensmann and Payton 2012). Jay

et al. (2019) found that the demolition of vacant buildings

decreased ﬁrearm assaults in neighbourhoods in Detroit (an

11% decrease with 5 demolitions), supporting the evidence of

vacant housing as an important factor in ﬁrearm violence pre-

vention. Livingston et al. (2014) analysed the distance

between ﬁrearm violence and the victim’s home and found

that 15% were injured at their home address, 25% within one

block and 55% within one mile. Similarly, Brolan, Wilson

and Yardley (2016) found that 15% of contract murders

occurred at the doorstep of the victim’s home, while 22%

were in an enclosed public space.

Alcohol outlets. Alcohol outlets consist of a variety of

establishments, from the bar at the corner of the street to

large liquor and beer stores. There were 12 articles that assessed

the effect of alcohol outlets on ﬁrearm violence. Out of 23 men-

tions of different types of alcohol outlets in studies, 15 showed

an increasing effect, two a decreasing and ﬁve a nonsigniﬁcant

effect. Britt et al. (2005) showed that adding one alcohol estab-

lishment to a neighbourhood results in an increase in the

number of criminal violence acts. Oliphant (2021), on the

other hand, analysed the distance to alcohol outlets, where the

effect was 7.8 times as many shootings within 30.5 m (100 ft)

and 4.0 times within 61 m (200 ft). Jay (2020) showed an

increase in shootings within one block from a beer store, but

this effect disappeared at a distance of two blocks. Similarly,

Xu and Grifﬁths (2017) found an increasing effect on shootings

in proximity to liquor stores, with a decreasing effect with a

greater distance. In a study in Detroit, liquor stores were the

second most common place attracting lethal violence in 9%

of cases, only after bars in 33% of cases (Swartz 1980). In

Chicago, Crandall et al. (2015) did not ﬁnd any signiﬁcant city-

wide pattern for proximity to liquor licences. Although liquor

stores show an increased effect on ﬁrearm violence in several

studies, Morrison et al. (2017) showed the opposite relation

in a study on gun assault in Philadelphia, and for Detroit,

Muggy et al. (2022) found no signiﬁcant relation for gun

crime. Caetano et al. (2021) found that the percentage of off-

premises outlets of the total amount of alcohol outlets had a

decreasing effect on violent crime, while on-premises outlets

such as bars had a higher risk factor. Two studies showed

that the effect of alcohol outlets on violence varies over the

time of day (Oliphant 2021; Morrison et al. 2017).

Educational facilities. Educational facilities were assessed in

six articles where schools, public schools, school zones and uni-

versities were investigated. The effect of universities on gun

crime varied by town in a study by Muggy et al. (2022), as it

showed a decreasing effect in Detroit, New Orleans and

Pittsburgh, but showed no signiﬁcant effect in Los Angeles.

Levine et al. (2021) did not ﬁnd any effect of public schools

on ﬁrearm homicides in Harris County while in Bogotá,

Giménez-Santana, Caplan and Drawve (2018) showed that

the density of public schools was associated with homicide in

the area. Schools were associated with gun violence in

Boston (Barboza 2018), but showed a decreasing effect on

gun crime in Los Angeles and New Orleans (Muggy et al.

2022), and no effect was found on shootings in Detroit

(Oliphant 2021).

Food services. Restaurants are in some studies analysed

together with bars, as examples of on-premises alcohol

outlets. However, not all restaurants serve alcohol and therefore

they are regarded primarily as food-service establishments. The

effect of restaurants on gun crime was shown by Muggy et al.

(2022) and it varies by distance. When Copeland (1985) inves-

tigated murders occurring at workplaces in Dade County,

Florida, 9.6% of these happened at a restaurant which was the

second most common place after small businesses. In a study

on mass shootings in the United States, Zakopoulos et al.

(2022) found that the density of both McDonalds and

Starbucks decreased as the distance from the mass shooting

site increased. Fast food was assessed in two additional

studies that both found no signiﬁcant effect (Muggy et al.

2022; Xu and Grifﬁths 2017). For coffee shops, Papachristos

et al. (2011) found a decreasing effect on homicide when study-

ing the effect of gentriﬁcation of neighbourhoods in Chicago.

10 Journal of Planning Literature

Transit environments. In a study by Muggy et al. (2022), the

effect of transit stations on gun crime differed between cities.

For instance, in Pittsburgh and Detroit, transit stops showed a

decreasing effect after 39 to 48 m (30 and 160 ft) respectively,

while in Los Angeles they showed an increasing effect and no

signiﬁcant effect could be found in New Orleans. The presence

of a transit stop in a neighbourhood showed no signiﬁcant effect

on murder in Denver (Hughes, Schaible and Jimmerson 2020).

In Detroit, Oliphant (2021) found clustering of shootings at dis-

tances above 33 m (75 ft) from bus stops. Yang (2019) analysed

clustering of gun-related crime in Chicago and found that hot

spot areas were randomly distributed in the area, regardless of

safe-passage routes.

Green areas. Shepley et al. (2019) performed a literature

review based on 45 articles and concluded that the presence

of parks and green spaces reduces urban crime. They found

that being under tree cover reduces the risk of being the

victim of gunshot assault in Philadelphia (Kondo et al. 2017).

The relation was especially evident on weekdays and in low-

income areas. Green areas were included in the analysis in six

articles (Branas et al. 2011; Jay 2020; Kondo et al. 2017;

Kuo and Sullivan 2001; Moise 2020; Shepley et al.

2019).While most found a decreasing effect on ﬁrearm vio-

lence, Moise (2020) showed that the neighbourhood greenness

index had an increasing effect on violent crimes in Dade

County.

Public sector. The public sector, apart from education, is

represented by police stations, hospitals, and medical clinics.

They were assessed in six articles (Clery et al. 2020;

Fondevila et al. 2021; Giménez-Santana, Caplan and Drawve

2018; Levine et al. 2021; Morrison et al. 2017; Muggy et al.

2022). Police stations in Buenos Aires showed a crime-

deterrent effect for short distances in a study by Fondevila

et al. (2021), where they found that the rate of homicides

increased as the distance to a police station increased, up to

600 m, whereafter the frequency instead decreases with dis-

tance. The average distance between stations was 1.035 km,

thus the highest homicide rate seems to occur at the midpoint

of neighbouring police stations. Clery et al. (2020) found that

more than 50% of violent crimes in Detroit occurred within

5 km of a hospital and 99% within 10 km. In Harris County,

Levine et al. (2021) did not ﬁnd any signiﬁcant effect of dis-

tance to the nearest hospital on ﬁrearm homicide. Both

medical clinics and public hospitals, however, showed an

increasing effect on homicide in Bogotá (Giménez-Santana,

Caplan and Drawve 2018).

Community services. Community services were assessed in

four articles (Giménez-Santana, Caplan and Drawve 2018;

Levine et al. 2021; Morenoff, Sampson and Raudenbush

2001; Thomas, Harris and Drawve 2021). Neither voluntary

associations nor local organisations showed any signiﬁcant

effect on homicide rates in Chicago (Morenoff, Sampson and

Raudenbush 2001), and the same was valid for churches in

Harris County (Levine et al. 2021). Thomas, Harris and

Drawve (2021) did not ﬁnd any signiﬁcant effect for religious

or civilian associations nor for family services on the level of

gun crime in Little Rock. Community kitchens, however, did

show an effect on homicide in Bogotá (Giménez-Santana,

Caplan and Drawve 2018). The density of community kitchens

was related to a relative risk value of 2.24 and as

Giménez-Santana, Caplan and Drawve (2018) point out, it is

usually a service delivered to socially disadvantaged neighbour-

hoods —thus it can be connected to the concentration of socio-

economic disadvantage as a factor of ﬁrearm violence.

Other factors. Aspects ranging from ﬁrearm dealers,

CCTVs, gang grafﬁti to street conﬁguration is assessed in ten

articles. The impact of ﬁrearm dealers on violence is inconclu-

sive. Zakopoulos et al. (2022), who analysed mass shootings,

and Semenza, Stansﬁeld and Link (2022), who analysed gun

homicides, found an increasing effect of ﬁrearm dealers; in

the latter article, it was only valid for gun stores in surrounding

counties. Levine et al. (2021) found that gun stores had a

decreasing effect on ﬁrearm homicide but the majority did not

ﬁnd any signiﬁcant effect (Moise 2020; Thomas, Harris and

Drawve 2021). Semenza et al. (2022) found a more nuanced

set of results; they showed that the effects of ﬁrearm dealers

on shootings were suppressed in a citywide analysis, while it

did have signiﬁcant and strong attractive effects in disadvan-

taged neighbourhoods. CCTVs were found to have a decreasing

effect in areas with already low crime rates, but in the whole city

of Newark no signiﬁcant effect could be found (Caplan,

Kennedy and Petrossian 2011). The presence of gang grafﬁti,

both in threatening and nonthreatening form, was shown to

have an increasing effect on gang homicides by Hughes,

Schaible and Kephart (2021).

Safety Interventions to Tackle Firearm-Related Violence. Table 1

summarises suggestions for interventions for tackling ﬁrearm-

related violence deriving from the research discussed in previ-

ous sections. Note that most articles are from the United

States and these suggestions are therefore better tailored to

North American contexts.

Community interventions. Strong social ties, high levels of

trust among neighbours, local attachment as well as civic

engagement are all considered protective factors against vio-

lence and crime in general but how are these effects brought

about? Most of the suggestions concern poverty alleviation

and deconcentrating disadvantage. Friedman et al. (2019)

argue that large-scale investments in job creation, and educa-

tional opportunities together with gun control are fundamental.

Increased incarceration of offenders is believed to put addi-

tional socio-economic stress on a community, and therefore

Abaza et al. (2020) propose that the focus should be on allevi-

ating socio-economic deprivation with targeted education,

health, and employment efforts. To invest in communities is a

long-term strategy and is unlikely to change violence patterns

Ceccato and Westman 11

overnight, but Semenza et al. (2022) argue that this can create

conditions that diminish the violence. Another way to tackle

high-risk communities is to focus on integration of individuals.

Drake, Lemke and Yang (2022) suggest that integration could

potentially suppress structural racism and its socioeconomic

consequences, which generate ﬁrearm violence.

Land-use restrictions. Even though ﬁrearm dealers were

found mostly to have no signiﬁcant effect on ﬁrearm violence,

three articles suggest regulations to restrict gun sales. Semenza

et al. (2022) argue that targeting gun dealers in hot spots of gun

crime could reduce the availability of ﬁrearms in the neighbour-

hood considerably. On the contrary, Semenza, Stansﬁeld and

Link (2022) suggest that controlling gun stores in afﬂuent com-

munities might be effective in curbing the ﬂow of guns to illegal

markets, from where most of the guns in disadvantaged com-

munities come. To impose local gun restriction policies, such

as restrictions for domestic violence offenders or shutting

down inactive gun dealerships, could be an effective measure

to reduce ﬁrearm access, especially to high-risk individuals,

and thus reduce the risk of ﬁrearm violence (Zakopoulos

et al. 2022). To reduce the risk of ﬁrearm violence in connection

to marijuana dispensaries, Hughes, Schaible and Jimmerson

(2020) suggest that effort is put into offering secure and legal

transaction alternatives, as this is not offered by most banks.

Policing. Police-monitored closed-circuit television (CCTV)

can be used to deter crimes, but the placement needs to be

carefully evaluated and the effect should not be measured as

an average for the city (Caplan, Kennedy and Petrossian

2011). Summers and Johnson (2017) highlight that interven-

tions such as CCTVs and police patrols should include streets

adjacent to main streets in their coverage in order to effectively

suppress ‘outdoor severe violence’. Fondevila et al. (2021)

suggest planning the placement of CCTVs in relation to

police stations to cover areas with high levels of violence. If

not possible, the police should cover the area by foot patrols.

Muggy et al. (2022) suggest that foot patrols should concentrate

on high-risk areas, such as convenience stores and transit sta-

tions in areas with low socioeconomic status. To focus police

patrols not only on current hot spots but also on vulnerable

areas is suggested by O’Brien and Ciomek (2023), while Piza

and O’Hara (2014) highlight that any police interventions

need to be designed to minimise displacement effects.

Parks and green areas. Branas et al. (2011) found that the

greening of vacant lots reduces crime via an increase in

social control on the streets. To plant trees in barren inner

city areas was suggested by Kuo and Sullivan (2001) as a

way to create safer neighbourhoods. Kondo et al. (2017)

propose that local planners and policy makers include urban

greening in crime prevention initiatives in high-crime areas.

To provide safe, accessible green spaces to a community will

according to Shepley et al. (2019) support desirable behaviour

and additionally improve the wellbeing of the residents. Patino

et al. (2014) suggest that a heterogenous and cluttered urban

Table 1. Recommended Interventions and Regulations to Decrease Firearm Violence.

Situational interventions Community interventions Land-use restrictions Policing

Urban greening (Branas et al.

2011; Kondo et al. 2017; Kuo

and Sullivan 2001; Shepley et al.

2019)

Alleviate socioeconomic disadvantage

(Abaza et al. 2020; Semenza,

Stansﬁeld and Link 2022; Gjelsvik,

Zierler and Blume 2004)

Regulate and restrict ﬁrearm

dealers (Semenza et al. 2022;

Semenza, Stansﬁeld and Link

2022; Zakopoulos et al. 2022)

Build relationship between

residents and police (Arnio

2021)

Gang grafﬁti remediation

(Hughes, Schaible and Kephart

2021)

Engage the community in potential

solutions (Crandall et al. 2015)

Offer secure and legal

transactions for marijuana

dispensaries (Hughes, Schaible

and Jimmerson 2020)

Police patrols (O’Brien and

Ciomek 2023; Piza and

O’Hara 2014; Muggy et al.

2022)

Street segment selection for

CCTV interventions (Summers

and Johnson 2017)

Integration of disadvantaged

population (Drake, Lemke and Yang

2022, Valasik, Brault and Martinez

2019)

De-escalation training for the

police force (Arnio 2021)

Build public housing to promote

socially mixed neighbourhoods

(Patino et al. 2014)

Target high-risk areas and populations

(Abdalla et al. 2012; Moise 2020)

CCTV (Caplan, Kennedy and

Petrossian 2011; Fondevila

et al. 2021)

Construct open spaces and

regular street networks (Patino

et al. 2014)

Collaborative public sector

interventions (Drake, Lemke and

Yang 2022; Levine et al. 2021;

Friedman et al. 2019)

Place police stations near high

afﬂuent points (Fondevila et al.

2021)

Blight remediation (Jay et al.

2019; Valasik, Brault and

Martinez 2019)

Target larger areas, as one

neighbourhood cannot control the

surrounding ones (Huebner et al.

2016)

Interventions (police patrols,

CCTV) on adjacent streets to

main streets (Summers and

Johnson 2017)

Hospitals/public health as

stakeholders in prevention (Clery

et al. 2020; Ferrandino 2018)

12 Journal of Planning Literature

layout can provide concealment and escape routes for commit-

ting homicide, and therefore suggest that open spaces should

be considered in city planning.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The bibliometric analysis shows that research is dominated by

North American scholarship which took off primarily after

the mid-1990s and experienced an increase during the 2010s.

The generalisability of the ﬁndings for other city contexts is

therefore limited. Previous reviews were either cross-sectional

or focused on one type of violence often overlooking the

impact of land use and neighbourhood factors on ﬁrearm-

related violence. This review shows that land-use factors

related to ﬁrearm-related violence rarely appear in titles and

abstracts and therefore become ‘invisible’in the international

literature. The largest majority is composed of articles using

conﬁrmatory analysis and spatial methods (only a third of the

articles has had a female author as their ﬁrst author). This

ﬁeld is interdisciplinary, dominated by criminologists/sociolo-

gists, epidemiologists and other related disciplines that are not

primarily focused on the environmental dimension of ﬁrearm

violence.

In this review, we do not argue for a direct deterministic

causal link between a particular land use feature and ﬁrearm

violence but instead, we offer a comprehensive overview of

types of land use and neighbourhood factors that matter for

the geography of ﬁrearm violence regardless of city size, loca-

tion and national contexts. How these environmental factors

interact with each other and play out in each speciﬁc neighbour-

hood and city context is of course important to explain the

mechanisms that generate ﬁrearm violence but this is outside

the scope of the review and a matter of importance to be inves-

tigated in future research.

From this review we can discern several emerging patterns

that illuminate the current state of research and its implications

for planning practice:

–First, situational factors (in isolation or in conjunction)

such as commercial land use, vacant housing, bars and

other alcohol outlets are often associated with ﬁrearm

violence. These ﬁndings are important because urban

planners can use this evidence to make informed deci-

sions about land use zoning and future urban develop-

ment policies. Planners can determine where certain

types of businesses or housing should be located to

minimise potential risks in future developments. For

areas that already exist, local authorities can implement

policies to regulate the density and location of bars and

alcohol outlets in areas where ﬁrearm violence is a

concern. Moreover, collaboration between urban plan-

ners and law enforcement agencies can be enhanced

based on this evidence, hopefully leading to coordi-

nated efforts to address ﬁrearm violence through

urban design, community policing, and other crime pre-

vention strategies. Finally, this evidence can also lead

experts to engage with local communities to address

their concerns related to violence (such as place and

time avoidance), improving therefore people’s safety

perceptions.

–Second, we found that ﬁrearm-related violence is associ-

ated with neighbourhood-level factors such as gang and

drug-related activities, poverty/socio-economic condi-

tions, household characteristics and race/ethnicity.

Planners can prioritise community development initia-

tives aimed at improving socio-economic conditions in

disadvantaged neighbourhoods (resources and efforts

could be on areas where ﬁrearm violence is more pro-

nounced). This may also involve strategies to increase

access to education, job opportunities, affordable

housing, and social services. For instance, housing poli-

cies can be adjusted to address household characteristics

associated with ﬁrearm violence.

–Third, although the mechanisms are not well understood

and the methodology differs from study to study, ﬁnd-

ings show that a high/moderate educational and employ-

ment level in an area is protective against ﬁrearm

violence as well as the presence of green areas and the

presence of educational facilities. Thus, urban planners

can prioritise initiatives aimed at improving educational

attainment and employment opportunities in neighbour-

hoods with higher rates of ﬁrearm violence (for instance,

this may involve partnering with local educational insti-

tutions, workforce development agencies, and employers

to create training and job placement programmes). There

is a need to prioritise the creation and maintenance of

parks and green spaces in neighbourhoods to enhance

the overall quality of life. These strategies have an inten-

tion to promote community wellbeing, safety and social

equity, aligned with the goals of sustainable and inclu-

sive urban development.

Our review of the literature has identiﬁed several additional

areas where more research is needed. For instance, Livingston

et al. (2014) call for improved records of nonfatal ﬁrearm inju-

ries, as they are not as well documented as fatal injuries. In

order to accurately understand how physical and social charac-

teristics interact at neighbourhood level, Thomas, Harris and

Drawve (2021) suggest the use of multilevel hierarchal

models to aid the development of policies and community-level

risk mitigation efforts. Recommendations also include interven-

tions in high-risk areas, and two articles propose applying

RTMs to gain such information (Caplan, Kennedy and Miller

2011; Valasik, Brault and Martinez 2019). Yang (2019) sug-

gests that using a GIS platform to provide spatial information

to residents is a way to build trust and in turn a better under-

standing of the community, which can aid in the work to

reduce gun-related violence. Note that our ﬁndings show that

although gang/drug related factors have the highest impact on

ﬁre arm violence, these factors are not often studied. Future

studies should focus on the mechanisms between ﬁre arm vio-

lence and gang/drug related activities.

Ceccato and Westman 13

Although relatively few studies make concrete suggestions

for safety experts and planners to deal with ﬁrearm violence,

the literature shows a few examples. Abdalla et al. (2012) and

Moise (2020) argue that interventions should be targeted at

high-risk communities in order to gain most effect, while

Huebner et al. (2016), on the other hand, suggest that gun vio-

lence should be tackled broadly in society though long-term

interventions. Gjelsvik, Zierler and Blume (2004) highlight

that increased home ownership and access to college education

as things that could improve socioeconomic conditions and in

turn decrease the risk of homicide especially for men in the

community.

Research is unanimous about the need to engage local stake-

holders, such as community members, city leadership and

the business community (Crandall et al. 2015). Following

the same line of thought, both Levine et al. (2021) and Drake,

Lemke and Yang (2022) call for collaboration of public-sector

stakeholders and high-risk communities. Improved public

health resources were mentioned by Ferrandino (2018) as

important contributors to tackle homicide when it reached an

endemic level, and Clery et al. (2020) argue that hospitals

should be incentivised to participate in violence prevention as

a part of their service to the community. Arnio (2021) proposes

better police training to improve communication with commu-

nities, while Ferrandino (2018) calls for a new focus on commu-

nities that are ‘immune’to violence in order to properly

understand what deters violence, because so far, most studies

centre around high-risk populations and neighbourhoods.

It is important to keep in mind that the reported studies

utilised different methods and theoretical approaches, which

makes it difﬁcult to compare ﬁndings, over and above differ-

ences across contexts. For example, various studies showed

how socio-demographic and land-use factors alone or in

combination affect ﬁrearm-related violence, but it is unclear

to what extent differences might merely be an artefact of

the data and methods, even when similar methods were

applied.

What this paper does not accomplish, nor does it attempt to

accomplish, is proving an explanation for why homicides occur.

As the title of this article makes it clear, this review focuses on

where ﬁrearm violence takes place. Conclusions drawn here are

based on hundreds of publications on land use and neighbour-

hood factors which are more likely to show ‘expected’results

than studies that are uncertain or with ‘unexpected’ﬁndings.

Our conclusions are based on original assumptions by authors

referred here and the limitations of their research in terms of

data, methods and theoretical frameworks. Using meta-analysis

approaches, future research could consider whether it would be

possible to calculate average effect sizes or other summary sta-

tistics for the key neighbourhood characteristics and land uses

associated with ﬁre gun violence. This would also enable

researchers to account for the potential publication biases that

selectively report positive effects. Despite these limitations, a

systematic review of this kind can inform researchers and plan-

ners about the most common factors that pose a risk to and/or

are protective against ﬁrearm-related violence, which is

fundamental in the discussion of safety as an integral part of

the social sustainability of cities.

Appendix

Appendix 1 —Summary of the Keyword Searches Used

in the Review

Declaration of Conﬂicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conﬂicts of interest with respect to

the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following ﬁnancial support for the

research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was

supported by the Svenska Forskningsrådet Formas (grant number

2020-01999).

ORCID iD

Vania Ceccato https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5302-1698

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Database Keywords Delimitations

Total

articles

Scopus (shooting OR gun OR

homicide* OR murder* OR

“lethal violence*”OR

assassination*) AND

(“public place*”OR

outdoor* OR “public

space*”OR outdoor OR

park* OR street* OR

playground* OR bar* OR

school* OR restaurant* OR

“green area”OR “open

space”OR location*) AND

(spati* OR gis OR geo* OR

spac*)

Years

1970–2023

Articles

English

1,315

Web o f

science

Same as above Article

English

2,428

PubMed Same as above Years

1970–2023

English

140

Scopus (shooting OR gun OR

homicide* OR murder* OR

“lethal violence*”OR

assassination*) AND (spati*

OR gis OR geo* OR spac*)

Years

1970–2023

Articles

English

Selected

journals*

363

14 Journal of Planning Literature

References

Abaza, R., K. Lukens-Bull, L. Bayouth, C. Smotherman, J. Tepas, and

M. Crandall. 2020. “Gunshot Wound Incidence as a Persistent,

Tragic Symptom of Area Deprivation.”Surgery 168 (4): 671–5.

Abdalla, A., M. Gunst, V. Ghaemmaghami, A. C. Gruszecki, J. Urban,

R. C. Barber, L. M. Gentilello, and S. Shaﬁ. 2012. “Spatial

Analysis of Injury-Related Deaths in Dallas County using a

Geographic Information System.”Proceedings-Baylor University.

Medical Center 25 (3): 208–13.

Akins, S., R. G. Rumbaut, and R. Stansﬁeld. 2009. “Immigration,

Economic Disadvantage, and Homicide: A Community-level

Analysis of Austin, Texas.”Homicide Studies 13: 307–14.

Armitage, R., and L. Monchuk. 2011. “Sustaining The Crime

Reduction Impact of Designing Out Crime: Re-evaluating the

Secured by Design Scheme 10 Years on.”Security Journal 24

(4): 320–43.

Arnio, A. N. 2021. “Examining the Effects of Neighborhood

Contextual Factors on Ofﬁcer-Involved Shootings.”Justice

Quarterly 38: 626–52.

Avakame, E. F. 1997. “Urban Homicide: A Multilevel Analysis Across

Chicago’s Census Tracts.”Homicide Studies 1: 338–58.

Barata, R. B., M. C. Sampaio De Almeida Ribeiro, M. B. Lauretti Da

Silva Guedes, and J. Cássio De Moraes. 1998. “Intra-Urban

Differentials in Death Rates from Homicide in the City of Sao

Paulo, Brazil.”Social Science and Medicine.

Barboza, G. 2018. “A Secondary Spatial Analysis of Gun Violence

near Boston Schools: A Public Health Approach.”Journal of

Urban Health 95: 344–60.

Barton, M. S., M. A. Valasik, and E. Brault. 2021. “Disorder or

Disadvantage: Investigating the Tension between Neighborhood

Social Structure and the Physical Environment on Local

Violence.”Criminal Justice Review 46: 134–55.

Berezin, J., S. Gale, A. Nuru-Jeter, M. Lahiff, C. Auerswald, and

H. Alter. 2017. “Violent Injury and Neighborhood Racial/Ethnic

Diversity in Oakland, California.”Journal of Urban Health 94:

882–91.

Block, R. 1975. “Homicide in Chicago: A Nine Year Study (1965–

1973).”Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 66: 496.

Boessen, A., and J. R. Hipp. 2015. “Close-Ups and the Scale of

Ecology: Land Uses and the Geography of Social Context and

Crime.”Criminology (Beverly Hills) 53 (3): 399–426.

Branas, C. C., R. A. Cheney, J. M. MacDonald, V. W. Tam, T. D. Jackson,

and T. R. Ten Have. 2011. “A Difference-in-Differences Analysis of

Health, Safety, and Greening Vacant Urban Space.”American

Journal of Epidemiology 174 (11): 1296–306.

Brantingham, P. J., G. E. Tita, M. B. Short, and S. E. Reid. 2012. “The

Ecology of Gang Territorial Boundaries.”Criminology; 50: 851–

85.

Britt, H. R., B. P. Carlin, T. L. Toomey, and A. C. Wagenaar. 2005.

“Neighborhood Level Spatial Analysis of the Relationship

between Alcohol Outlet Density and Criminal Violence.”

Environmental and Ecological Statistics 12 (4): 411–26.

Brolan, L., D. Wilson, and E. Yardley. 2016. “Hitmen and the Spaces

of Contract Killing: The Doorstep Hitman.”Journal of

Investigative Psychology and Offender Proﬁling 13: 220–38.

Browning, C. R., and A. L. Jackson. 2013. “The Social Ecology of

Public Space: Active Streets and Violent Crime in Urban

Neighborhoods.”Criminology; An Interdisciplinary Journal 51:

1009–43.

Caetano, R., P. A. C. Vaeth, P. J. Gruenewald, W. R. Ponicki,

Z. Kaplan, and R. Annechino. 2021. “Proximity to the U.S./

Mexico Border, Alcohol Outlet Density and Population-Based

Sociodemographic Correlates of Spatially Aggregated Violent

Crimes in California.”Annals of Epidemiology 58: 42–7.

Caplan, J. M., L. W. Kennedy, and J. Miller. 2011. “Risk Terrain

Modeling: Brokering Criminological Theory and GIS Methods

for Crime Forecasting.”Justice Quarterly 28: 360–81.

Caplan, J. M., L. W. Kennedy, and G. Petrossian. 2011.

“Police-Monitored CCTV Cameras in Newark, NJ: A

Quasi-Experimental Test of Crime Deterrence.”Journal of

Experimental Criminology 7: 255–74.

Chandler, J., M. Cumpston, J. Thomas, J. P. T. Higgins, J. J. Deeks,

and M. J. Clarke. 2019. “Chapter I: Introduction.”Cochrane

Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5, no.

0: 3–8.

Clery, M. J., D. A. Dworkis, T. Sonuyi, J. S. Khaldun, and M. Abir.

2020. “Location of Violent Crime Relative to Trauma Resources

in Detroit: Implications for Community Interventions.”Western

Journal of Emergency Medicine 21: 291.

Cohen, J., D. Cork, J. Engberg, and G. Tita. 1998. “The Role of Drug

Markets and Gangs in Local Homicide Rates.”Homicide Studies 2

(3): 241–62.

Cohen, J., and G. Tita. 1999. “Diffusion in Homicide: Exploring a

General Method for Detecting Spatial Diffusion Processes.”

Journal of Quantitative Criminology 15: 451–93.

Copeland, A. R. 1985. “Homicide at Work. The Metropolitan Dade

County Experience from 1979 to 1983.”Journal de Medecine

Legale Droit Medical 28: 19–27.

Crandall, M., K. Kucybala, J. Behrens, S. Schwulst, and

T. Esposito. 2015. “Geographic Association of Liquor Licenses

and Gunshot Wounds in Chicago.”American Journal of Surgery

210 (1): 99–105.

Dalve,K.,E.Gause,B.Mills,A.S.Floyd,F.P.Rivara,and

A. Rowhani-Rahbar. 2021. “Neighborhood Disadvantage and

Firearm Injury: Does Shooting Location Matter?”Injury

Epidemiology 8: 1–9.

Dobrin, A., D. Lee, and J. Price. 2005. “Neighborhood Structure

Differences between Homicide Victims and Non-victims.”

Journal of Criminal Justice 33: 137–43.

Drake, S. A., M. K. Lemke, and Y. Yang. 2022. “Exploring the

Complexity of Firearm Homicides in Harris County, Texas, from

2009 to 2021: Implications for Theory and Prevention”.Social

Science and Medicine 305: 115048.

Ferrandino, J. 2018. “Endemic, Outbreak or Epidemic? Geographies of

Afﬂiction, Exposure and Homicide Immunity in Chicago.”Journal

of Crime and Justice 41: 347–63.

Fondevila, G., C. Vilalta-Perdomo, M. C. Galindo Pérez, and F.

G. Cafferata. 2021. “Crime Deterrent Effect of Police Stations.”

Applied Geography 134: 102518.

Fox, B., A. Trolard, M. Simmons, J. E. Meyers, and M. Vogel. 2021.

“Assessing the Differential Impact of Vacancy on Criminal

Ceccato and Westman 15

Violence in the City of St. Louis, MO.”Criminal Justice Review

46: 156–72.

Friedman, J., G. Karandinos, L. K. Hart, F. M. Castrillo, N. Graetz, and

P. Bourgois. 2019. “Structural Vulnerability to Narcotics-Driven

Firearm Violence: An Ethnographic and Epidemiological Study

of Philadelphia’s Puerto Rican Inner-City.”PLoS ONE 14:

e0225376.

Giménez-Santana, A., J. M. Caplan, and G. Drawve. 2018. “Risk

Terrain Modeling and Socio-Economic Stratiﬁcation: Identifying

Risky Places for Violent Crime Victimization in Bogotá,

Colombia.”European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research

24: 417–31.

Gjelsvik, A., S. Zierler, and J. Blume. 2004. “Homicide Risk across

Race and Class: A Small-Area Analysis in Massachusetts and

Rhode Island.”Journal of Urban Health 81: 702–18.

Grifﬁths, E., and G. Tita. 2009. “Homicide in and Around Public

Housing: Is Public Housing a Hotbed, a Magnet, or a Generator

of Violence for the Surrounding Community?”Social Problems

56: 474–93.

Hipp, J. R., and A. Boessen. 2013. “Egohoods as Waves Washing

Across the City: A New Measure of “Neighborhoods”.”

Criminology 51 (2): 287–327.

Hipp, J. R., and D. K. Yates. 2011. “Ghettos, Thresholds, and Crime:

Does Concentrated Poverty Really Have an Accelerating Increasing

Effect on Crime?.”Criminology 49: 955–90.

Huebner, B. M., K. Martin Jr, R. K. Moule, D. Pyrooz, and S. H. Decker.

2016. “Dangerous Places: Gang Members and Neighborhood Levels

of Gun Assault.”Justice Quarterly 33: 836–62.

Hughes, L. A., L. M. Schaible, and K. Jimmerson. 2020. “Marijuana

Dispensaries and Neighborhood Crime and Disorder in Denver,

Colorado.”Justice Quarterly 37: 461–85.

Hughes, L. A., L. M. Schaible, and T. Kephart. 2021. “Gang Grafﬁti,

Group Process, and Gang Violence.”Journal of Quantitative

Criminology:1–20.

Inlow, A. R. 2019. “Does Land Use Matter? Understanding Homicide

Counts beyond the Effects of Social Disorganization.”Homicide

Studies 24 (4): 311–32.

Inlow, A. R. 2020. “Does Land Use Matter? Understanding Homicide

Counts beyond the Effects of Social Disorganization.”Homicide

Studies 24: 311–32.

Jay, J. 2020. “Alcohol Outlets and Firearm Violence: A Place-Based

Case-Control Study Using Satellite Imagery and Machine

Learning.”Injury Prevention 26: 61–6.

Jay, J., L. W. Miratrix, C. C. Branas, M. A. Zimmerman, and

D. Hemenway. 2019. “Urban Building Demolitions, Firearm

Violence and Drug Crime.”Journal of Behavioral Medicine 42:

626–34.

Jones-Webb, R., and M. Wall. 2008. “Neighborhood Racial/Ethnic

Concentration, Social Disadvantage, and Homicide Risk: An

Ecological Analysis of 10 US Cities.”Journal of Urban

Health-Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 85 (5):

662–76.

Kim, C., J. A. Capellan, and A. Adler. 2021. “Exploring the Empirical

Literature on Mass Shooting: A Mixed-Method Systematic Review

of Peer-Reviewed Journal Articles.”Aggression and Violent

Behavior 58: 101584.

Kondo, M. C., E. C. South, C. C. Branas, T. S. Richmond, and

D. J. Wiebe. 2017. “The Association between Urban Tree Cover

and Gun Assault: A Case-Control and Case-Crossover Study.”

American Journal of Epidemiology 186: 289–96.

Kornhauser, R. 1978. Social Sources of Delinquency. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Krieger, N., J. M. Feldman, P. D. Waterman, J. T. Chen, B. A. Coull,

and D. Hemenway. 2017. “Local Residential Segregation Matters:

Stronger Association of Census Tract Compared to Conventional

City-Level Measures with Fatal and Non-Fatal Assaults (Total

and Firearm Related), Using the Index of Concentration at the

Extremes (ICE) for Racial, Economic, and Racialized Economic

Segregation, Massachusetts (US), 1995–2010.”Journal of Urban

Health 94: 244–58.

Kuo, F. E., and W. C. Sullivan. 2001. “Environment and Crime in the

Inner City: Does Vegetation Reduce Crime?”Environment and

Behavior 33 (3): 343–67.

Kyriacou, D. N., H. R. Hutson, D. Anglin, C. Peek-Asa, and

J. F. Kraus. 1999. “The Relationship between Socioeconomic

Factors and Gang Violence in the City of Los Angeles.”

[Proceedings Paper]. Journal of Trauma-Injury Infection and

Critical Care 46 (2): 334–9.

LaFree, G. 1999. “A Summary and Review of Cross-National

Comparative Studies of Homicide.”Homicide: A Sourcebook of

Social Research 1: 125.

Lens, M. C. 2013. “Subsidized Housing and Crime: Theory,

Mechanisms, and Evidence.”Journal of Planning Literature 28

(4): 352–63.

Levine, N., S.A. Drake, T. F. Reynolds, Y. Yang, D. A. Wolf, D. Persse,

C. E. Wade, and J. B. Holcomb. 2021. “Spatial Correlates of Gun

Deaths in Harris County, Texas.”Homicide Studies 25: 37–60.

Livingston, D. H., R. F. Lavery, M. C. Lopreiato, D. F. Lavery,

and M. R. Passannante. 2014. “Unrelenting Violence: An

Analysis of 6,322 Gunshot Wound Patients at a Level I

Trauma Center.”Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery

76 (1): 2–9.

Magee, L. A. 2020. “Community-Level Social Processes and Firearm

Shooting Events: A Multilevel Analysis.”Journal of Urban Health

97: 296–305.

Martinez, R., J. I. Stowell, and J. A. Iwama. 2016. “The Role of

Immigration: Race/Ethnicity and San Diego Homicides since

1970.”Journal of Quantitative Criminology 32: 471–88.

Messner, S. F., and K. Tardiff. 1985. “The Social Ecology of Urban

Homicide: An Application of the “Routine Activities”

Approach.”Criminology 23 (2): 241–67.

Moher, D., L. Shamseer, M. Clarke, D. Ghersi, A. Liberati,

M. Petticrew, P. Shekelle, L. A. Stewart, and P.-P. Group. 2015.

“Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and

Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 Statement.”

Systematic Reviews 4 (1): 1.

Moise, I. K. 2020. “Youth and Weapons: Patterns, Individual and

Neighborhood Correlates of Violent Crime Arrests in Miami-

Dade County, Florida.”Health & Place 65: 102407.

Morenoff, J. D., R. J. Sampson, and S. W. Raudenbush. 2001.

“Neighborhood Inequality, Collective Efﬁcacy, and the Spatial

Dynamics of Urban Violence.”Criminology 39 (3): 517–58.

16 Journal of Planning Literature

Morrison, C. N., B. Dong, C. C. Branas, T. S. Richmond, and D.

J. Wiebe. 2017. “A Momentary Exposures Analysis of Proximity

to Alcohol Outlets and Risk for Assault.”Addiction 112 (2):

269–78.

Muggy, L., M. Griswold, F. E. Nekoul, S. McKenna, R. Smart, and

P. Hunt. 2022. “Accounting for Socio-Economic Context in

Quantifying the Attractive and Repellent Inﬂuence of Built

Environment on Firearms Violence in Multiple Cities.”Journal

of Quantitative Criminology.

Nieuwbeerta, P., P. L. McCall, H. Elffers, and K. Wittebrood.

2008. “Neighborhood Characteristics and Individual Homicide

Risks: Effects of Social Cohesion, Conﬁdence in the Police,

and Socioeconomic Disadvantage.”Homicide Studies 12 (1):

90–116.

O’Brien, D., and A. Ciomek. 2023. “Whence the Action? The

Persistence and Aggravation of Violent Crime at Addresses,

Streets, and Neighborhoods.”Journal of Research in Crime and

Delinquency 60 (6): 819–55.

Oliphant, S. N. 2021. “Examining Time-Variant Spatial Dependence

of Urban Places and Shootings.”Journal of Urban Health 98 (6):

777–90.

Papachristos, A. V., C. M. Smith, M. L. Scherer, and M. A. Fugiero

(2011). “More Coffee, Less Crime? The Relationship between

Gentriﬁcation and Neighborhood Crime Rates in Chicago, 1991

to 2005.”City and Community 10 (3): 215–40.

Patino, J. E., J. C. Duque, J. E. Pardo-Pascual, and L. A. Ruiz. 2014.

“Using Remote Sensing to Assess the Relationship between Crime

and the Urban Layout.”Applied Geography 55: 48–60.

Piza, E. L., and B. A. O’Hara. 2014. “Saturation Foot-Patrol in a High-

Violence Area: A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation.”Justice

Quarterly 31 (4): 693–718.

Poyner, B. 2006. Crime-free Housing in the 21st Century. London,

UK: Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science.

Robinson, P. L., W. J. Boscardin, S. M. George, S. Teklehaimanot, K.

C. Heslin, and R. N. Bluthenthal. 2009. “The Effect of Urban

Street Gang Densities on Small Area Homicide Incidence in a

Large Metropolitan County, 1994–2002.”Journal of Urban Health

86: 511–23.

Sadler, R. C., C. Melde, A. Zeoli, S. Wolfe, and M. O’Brien. 2022.

“Characterizing Spatio-Temporal Differences in Homicides and

Non-Fatal Shootings in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 2006–2015.”

Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy 15 (1): 117–42.

Santos, S. M., C. Barcellos, and M. S. Carvalho. 2006. “Ecological

Analysis of the Distribution and Socio-Spatial Context of

Homicides in Porto Alegre, Brazil.”Health & Place 12 (1):

38–47.

Semenza, D. C., E. Grifﬁths, J. Xu, and R. Stansﬁeld. 2022.

“Firearm Dealers and Local Gun Violence: A Street Network

Analysis of Shootings and Concentrated Disadvantage in

Atlanta.”Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 59

(5): 627–58.

Semenza, D. C., R. Stansﬁeld, and N. W. Link. 2022. “The

Dynamics of Race, Place, and Homicide Context in the

Relationship between Firearm Dealers and Gun Violence.”

Justice Quarterly 39 (1): 134–51.

Shaw, C. R., and H. D. McKay. 1942. Juvenile Delinquency and

Urban Areas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Shepley, M., N. Sachs, H. Sadatsafavi, C. Fournier, and K. Peditto. 2019.

“The Impact of Green Space on Violent Crime in Urban

Environments: An Evidence Synthesis.”International Journal of

Environmental Research and Public Health 16 (24): 5119.

Stucky, T. D. 2017. “Land Use and Crime.”In Oxford Bibliographies

in Criminology. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/

obo/9780195396607-0210

Stucky, T. D., J. R. Ottensmann, and S. B. Payton. 2012. “The Effect of

Foreclosures on Crime in Indianapolis, 2003–2008.”Social Science

Quarterly 93 (3): 602–24.

Sturup, J., M. Gerell, and A. Rostami. 2020. “Explosive Violence: A

Near-Repeat Study of Hand Grenade Detonations and Shootings

in Urban Sweden.”European Journal of Criminology 17 (5):

661–77.

Sturup, J., A. Rostami, M. Gerell, and A. Sandholm. 2018.

“Near-Repeat Shootings in Contemporary Sweden 2011 to

2015.”Security Journal 31: 73–92.

Summers, L., and S. D. Johnson. 2017. “Does the Conﬁguration of the

Street Network Inﬂuence Where Outdoor Serious Violence Takes

Place? Using Space Syntax to Test Crime Pattern Theory.”

Journal of Quantitative Criminology 33: 397–420.

Swartz, R. D. (1980). A Spatial Analysis of Retail/ Commercial

Homicides in Detroit: 1968–1974. In Crime: A Spatial

Perspective. (pp. 181–190). Columbia University Press.

Taylor, R. B., and A. V. Harrell. 1996. Physical Environment and

Crime. US Department of Justice, Ofﬁce of Justice Programs,

National Institute of Justice.

Thomas, S. A., C. T. Harris, and G. Drawve. 2021. “Exploring the

Inﬂuence of Elements of the Social and Physical Environment on

Neighborhood Gun Crime.”American Journal of Criminal

Justice:1–29.

Trent, C. L., and W. A. Pridemore. 2011. “A Review of the Cross-

national Empirical Literature on Social Structure and Homicide.”

Handbook of European Homicide Research: Patterns,

Explanations, and Country Studies: 111–35.

UN-Habitat, T. S. C. P. (2019). Safer Cities Programme. UN-Habitat.

Retrieved 12-02-2020 from https://unhabitat.org/pro gramme/safer-

cities.

Valasik, M., E. E. Brault, and S. M. Martinez. 2019. “Forecasting

Homicide in the Red Stick: Risk Terrain Modeling and the

Spatial Inﬂuence of Urban Blight on Lethal Violence in Baton

Rouge, Louisiana.”Social Science Research 80: 186–201.

Wang, F. 2005. “Job Access and Homicide Patterns in Chicago: An

Analysis at Multiple Geographic Levels based on Scale-Space

Theory.”Journal of Quantitative Criminology 21: 195–217.

Wang, F., and M. T. Arnold. 2008. “Localized Income Inequality,

Concentrated Disadvantage and Homicide.”Applied Geography

28 (4): 259–70.

Xiao, Y., and M. Watson. 2019. “Guidance on Conducting a

Systematic Literature Review.”Journal of Planning Education

and Research 39 (1): 93–112.

Xu, J., and E. Grifﬁths. 2017. “Shooting on the Street: Measuring the

Spatial Inﬂuence of Physical Features on Gun Violence in a

Ceccato and Westman 17

Bounded Street Network.”Journal of Quantitative Criminology 33:

237–53.

Yaccelga, A. F., and M. Castillo-Valencia. 2019. “Violent

Interactions among Neighbouring Juvenile Gangs.”Journal of

Gang Research 26 (2): 1–28.

Yang, B. (2019). “GIS Crime Mapping to Support Evidence-Based

Solutions Provided by Community-Based Organizations.”

Sustainability 11 (18): 4889.

Zakopoulos, I., K. Varshney, J. T. Macy, and R. K. McIntire. 2022. “A

Descriptive Analysis of Mass Shootings in the United States from

2010 to 2020: The Relationship Between Firearm Dealership

Density and Proximity to Mass Shooting Sites and a Comparison

with McDonald’s and Starbucks Retailers.”Cureus Journal of

Medical Science 14 (9): 8. Article e29302.

Zhang, Y., J. Zhao, L. Ren, and L. Hoover. 2015. “Space–Time

Clustering of Crime Events and Neighborhood Characteristics in

Houston.”Criminal Justice Review 40 (3): 340–60.

Author Biographies

Vania Ceccato is a professor in the Department of Urban Planning and

Environment at KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm,

Sweden. Her research explores the connection between the environ-

ment and safety.

Jorun Westman was at the time of composing this manuscript serving

as a research assistant within the Department of Urban Planning and

Environment at KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.

18 Journal of Planning Literature

Suplementary material_Ceccato_Westman.pdf

Data

January 2024

Vania Ceccato · Jorun Westman

Download

Shootings across the rural–urban continuum

Article

Full-text available

Jul 2024

In this article, we investigate situations involving firearm violence in Sweden. The spatiotemporal distribution of records is assessed in different contexts across the country and linked to land use, demographic, and socio-economic characteristics by area and by street segment. The findings emphasize the prevalence of evening shootings, particularly in economically disadvantaged areas where young people congregate in public places often in residential areas, in parks, in playgrounds, and in transit areas. Although two-thirds of shootings took place in larger urban municipalities, our study sheds light on the non-uniform distribution of gun violence along the rural–urban continuum. We conclude by offering suggestions for future research and practical interventions to address this pressing issue that negatively affects people and communities.

Exemplifying the Governance of Risky Places

Chapter

Full-text available

Oct 2024

Systems Thinking for Sustainable Crime Prevention: Planning for Risky Places

Book

Full-text available

Oct 2024

Accounting for Socio-Economic Context in Quantifying the Attractive and Repellent Influence of Built Environment on Firearms Violence in Multiple Cities

Article

Full-text available

Oct 2022
J QUANT CRIMINOL

Objectives The objective of this paper is to improve understanding of the spatial relationship of the built environment (BE) with urban gun crime and how the influence of environmental features varies across geographic location and socioeconomic context. Specifically, we analyze associations between incidents of reported firearms violence and distance to built environment features, accounting for neighborhood socio-economic status. Methods This study compares reported crime data with the outputs from a Monte Carlo Simulation using the Network Cross-K Function for Stochastic Spatial Events on street networks. Where data is available, we examine ten features—transit stations, universities/colleges, convenience stores, gas stations, liquor licenses, alcohol outlets, tobacco retailers, lodging, restaurants, and schools—across diverse metropolitan areas to uncover features that exert “attractive” or “repellent” influence on firearms violence. We present results from four U.S. cities and examine how results vary by socio-economic status of census tracts. Results Attractive features include tobacco retailers in Pittsburgh, hotels/motels, alcohol outlets, and restaurants in New Orleans, and rail transit stations in Los Angeles. We uncover localized attractive and repellent relationships within the lowest and highest socio-economic areas. We also identify several firearms crime repellents, including universities/colleges and public/private schools. Conclusions We find that attractors vary by city and socio-economic status, indicating that the unique underlying environmental context of each city facilitates firearms crime differently.

A Descriptive Analysis of Mass Shootings in the United States From 2010 to 2020: The Relationship Between Firearm Dealership Density and Proximity to Mass Shooting Sites and a Comparison With McDonald's and Starbucks Retailers

Article

Full-text available

Sep 2022

The public health community needs to better understand the complex factors that contribute to mass shootings in the United States (US). We explored how firearm dealership density related to geographic distance from mass shooting sites in the US in 2010-2020, and compared it with the corresponding density of Starbucks (Starbucks Corporation, Seattle, Washington, United States) and McDonald's (McDonald's Corporation, Chicago, Illinois, United States) outlets. We obtained locations of firearm dealerships, Starbucks, and McDonald's retailers, as well as mass shootings across the contiguous US from 2010 to 2020. We mapped buffer rings, at 1, 5, 10, 30, and 50 miles around the locations of each mass shooting. We compared the per area and per population density of the dealerships and the two types of retailers around mass shooting sites within each buffer ring. We identified 67 mass shootings from 2010-2020. We mapped 54,722 firearm dealerships, with 28.1% located within 50 miles of mass shootings. Within a 50-mile radius of shooting events, there were an average of 0.30 dealerships, while there were only 0.14 Starbucks and 0.12 McDonald's outlets per 10 square miles. There was an incremental reduction in the density of firearm dealerships, Starbucks, and McDonald's as the distance from the mass shooting site increased. Density per population did not show a similar relationship. Our findings suggest that the availability of firearms deserves more study as a contributing factor to mass shootings in the US. The high number, area, and population density of firearm dealerships compared to the other two retailers illuminate how numerous firearm dealerships are compared to common retailers in the US.

Characterizing Spatio-Temporal Differences in Homicides and Non-Fatal Shootings in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 2006–2015

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2022

Geographic information systems enable the study of the spatial distribution of gun violence in American cities. While sociodemographic characteristics and disinvestment patterns have been correlated to their presence, little work has examined spatio-temporal patterns among them. Understanding where shootings are more likely to be fatal may be of great value to criminologists, urban planners, and emergency department researchers. In this paper, we leveraged a crime database for Milwaukee spanning 2006 to 2015, geocoding every crime to its reported location. We ran kernel density analysis on each dataset to derive the relative density of gun homicides and non-fatal shootings. We then created space–time cubes for each crime type. These cubes were used with ESRI’s emerging hot spot analysis tool, highlighting different types of hot and cold spots. We appended these results to individual parcels to study the relationship between shooting hot or cold spots and sociodemographic characteristics. Lastly, we identified ‘islands’ with relatively fewer lethal shootings inside gun homicide hot spots, exploring reasons for their differentiation. While hot spots occurred primarily in African American neighborhoods, the worst areas were in more transitional neighborhoods, perhaps where disinvestment had not yet fully taken hold. Neighborhoods with the highest rate of homicides to total shootings included the most heavily Hispanic neighborhoods in Milwaukee, while lower rates were found in predominately African American neighborhoods. This work introduces a nuance into the discussion on policing gun violence, giving researchers and practitioners a finer lens in which to examine where and why gun violence occurs.

Gang Graffiti, Group Process, and Gang Violence

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2021
J QUANT CRIMINOL

Objectives Examines the neighborhood-level relationship between gang graffiti and gang violence in a large city in the western region of the US during a peak period of local gang feuds in 2014–15.Methods Bayesian Poisson log-linear mixed regression models with a spatio-temporal autoregressive process are estimated using a combination of data for N = 42,276 space–time units.ResultsConsistent with the view of graffiti an important means of street-level communication between gangs and an integral part of group processes associated with violence escalation and contagion, results reveal a roughly 40 to 60% increase in the expected rate of gang homicides, gang assaults, and gang firearm offenses (but not gang robberies) for each unit increase in neighborhood density of gang graffiti. Somewhat unexpectedly, the relationship with both gang homicide and gang assault was stronger for non-threatening gang graffiti than gang graffiti involving explicit threats or disrespect.Conclusions Findings suggest gang graffiti provides clear clues about local “staging grounds,” where gang status is on the line and violence is expected and easily provoked. Thus, while gangs increasingly are dissing rivals and airing beefs through music (e.g., “diss tracks”) and in cyberspace, many still occupy and defend turf and write graffiti that communicates threats to other gangs and feeds into group processes associated with violence escalation and contagion.

Whence the Action? the Persistence and Aggravation of Violent Crime at Addresses, Streets, and Neighborhoods

Article

Jul 2022
J RES CRIME DELINQ

Objectives Researchers have long studied the persistence of violence and aggravation from disorder to violence in communities. Recently this work has begun to consider how these phenomena might operate simultaneously at multiple geographic scales. We examine the role of neighborhoods, streets, and addresses in these phenomena, presenting and assessing a five-part typology for cross-scale interactions. Methods We calculated six measures of physical disorder, social disorder, and violent crime from administrative records for all parcels (i.e., addresses) in Boston, MA, for 2011–2016. Multilevel models used these measures to predict public violence and gun-related events in the following year at all three geographical scales and with cross-scale interactions. Results Persistence was common at all scales. Aggravation from disorder to crime was greatest for addresses. Nearly all significant cross-level interactions involved addresses. The most common interactions were reinforced persistence, when persistence of violence at an address was reinforced by violence in the street or neighborhood; and mediated persistence, when persistence at a higher geographic scale operated through addresses with disorder. Conclusions The study suggests that action is greatest at addresses, but streets and neighborhoods offer critical context. It also provides a framework for future work assessing the complementarity of communities and places.

Exploring the complexity of firearm homicides in Harris County, Texas, from 2009 to 2021: Implications for theory and prevention

Article

May 2022

Firearm violence is a major health problem in the United States that clusters asymmetrically across geographic and demographic lines, and the persistence and unequal distribution of firearm violence suggests that novel causal explanations and theoretical frameworks may be warranted to guide preventive strategies. Thus, this study explores the following three hypotheses that are grounded in complex systems theory: 1) trends in firearm homicides risks have shifted heterogeneously in Harris County across endemic degree of risk; 2) firearm homicides clusters have remained resilient in Harris County across the study time period; and 3), the associations between known contextual correlates of firearm homicides and the distribution of firearm homicides risks in Harris County have manifested as nonlinear. Using a retrospective study design (n = 4,397) from January 1, 2009–June 31, 2021, medicolegal death investigation data from the Harris County Institute of Forensic Sciences and estimates of community characteristics from the American Community Survey were analyzed using Joinpoint trend analysis, kernel density geospatial analysis, and proportion tests. Trend analyses revealed that firearm homicides risks shifted heterogeneously across endemic degree of risk, with geographical areas with lower initial firearm homicides risks experienced more profound upward shifts across the time period of the study. Geospatial analyses identified the resiliency of firearm homicides clusters across the study period, particularly in central, southern, and south-western districts of the city. Finally, the relationships between known contextual correlates and the distribution of firearm homicides risks in Harris County appeared to be nonlinear, particularly regarding ethnicity. This study provides data-driven results that suggest the plausibility of complex systems theory in advancing the understanding of causality in firearm homicides. Further, these findings support the urgent need for complex systems-informed preventive efforts that account for spatiotemporal heterogeneity, key interactions that generate nonlinearity, and latent feedback loops that underlie resiliency in firearm homicides.

Firearm Dealers and Local Gun Violence: A Street Network Analysis of Shootings and Concentrated Disadvantage in Atlanta

Article

Feb 2022
J RES CRIME DELINQ

Objectives Examine the spatial relationship between firearm dealers and shootings in Atlanta. Methods We combine data from the Atlanta Police Department (APD), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), and the American Community Survey (ACS) to conduct a street network analysis from 2016 through 2018. We employ the Network Cross K Function to assess whether firearm dealers attract shootings in the city. We examine whether this spatial relationship differs by level of concentrated disadvantage in neighborhoods. Results Without consideration of concentrated neighborhood disadvantage, firearm dealers and shootings are spatially unrelated to one another. Tract-level disadvantage influences the relationship between firearm dealers and shootings wherein dealers significantly attract shootings in disadvantaged neighborhoods. Conversely, shootings are located further from gun stores in non-disadvantaged communities. Shootings related to manslaughter and assault, but not robbery, are spatially associated with firearm dealers in disadvantaged neighborhoods. Conclusions Building on prior research regarding firearm dealers and gun violence, we find support for an attraction effect in disadvantaged neighborhoods for certain types of shootings. We contextualize these findings within a broader discussion of how firearm dealers contribute to the complex ecology of local gun violence. This is important in light of federal policies and investments related to the prevention of and response to gun crime.

Examining Time-Variant Spatial Dependence of Urban Places and Shootings

Article

Nov 2021

Stephen Oliphant

Place-based interventions are increasingly implemented to address firearm violence. While research on the social determinants of health and criminological theories suggest that the built environment significantly influences health outcomes and the spatial distribution of crime, little is known about the attraction between urban places and shootings. The present study adds to the literature on firearm violence and micro-place research by exploring the spatial dependence in a Midwest metropolitan area between shootings and bus stops, vacant properties, alcohol outlets, and other locations that have been theoretically or empirically linked to firearm violence. The G-function and Cross-K function are used to characterize the univariate clustering of shootings and bivariate attraction with other locations, respectively. Bus stops, blighted vacant properties, alcohol outlets, and businesses/residential locations participating in a public–private-community initiative to reduce crime exhibited significant locational dependence with shootings at short distances. Attraction between on-premises alcohol outlets and shootings was observed only during the night. No attraction was found between schools and shootings. The findings reaffirm the importance of place-based research—especially at the micro-place level—and suggest that certain urban places may be appropriate targets for interventions that modify existing physical and/or social structures.

Crime deterrent effect of police stations

Article

Sep 2021
APPL GEOGR

This paper discusses the empirical strategy used to test which approximation to journey-to-crime theory is more appropriate for modelling the crime deterrent effect of police stations. Using crime spatial analysis, this paper tests whether monotonic criminal distance decay from police stations or a buffer zone in the vicinity of police stations is the most appropriate way to model criminal behavior. The aim of the paper is to detect fixed patterns of spatial distribution of crime in relation to the location of police stations, independent of other variables. A new high-frequency daily dataset of the years 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 with reported property crimes (robbery, theft, car robbery and theft) and personal crime (homicide) in the City of Buenos Aires, is used to model the paper's findings. The authors found empirical evidence of a non-random spatial concentration for all crimes. It was also found that the commission of crimes increases exponentially as the distance from the nearest police station increases, until reaching an interval of 500–600 m, at which point, it begins to descend once again. Evidence seems to show that police stations have a deterrent effect on crime.

Exploring the empirical literature on mass shooting: A mixed-method systematic review of peer-reviewed journal articles

Article

May 2021
AGGRESS VIOLENT BEH

Due to the devastating impact on victims and society, scholars have started to pay more attention to the phenomenon of mass shootings (MS) in the United States. While the extant literature has given us important insights, disparities in conceptualizations, operationalizations, and methods of identifying and collecting data on these incidents have made it difficult for researchers and audiences to come to a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of the characteristics of offenders, causes and consequences. Using a mixed-method systematic review, this study seeks to assess the state of scholarly research in journal articles regarding MS in the United States. Using SCOPUS as the search database, a total of 73 peer-reviewed journal articles on MS within the United States published between 1999 and 2018 were included in this study. This study finds the number of articles published on MS has increased dramatically between 1999 and 2018. Also, most of the MS studies tend to rely heavily on open-source data using the different definitions of MS. We further examined and discussed theoretical frameworks, methodology, and policy suggestions used in each study. Based on the findings of this study, we suggested implications for future research.

Where Does Firearm-Related Violence Occur in Cities?

Abstract

Supplementary resource (1)

Recommended publications

Shootings across the rural–urban continuum

Gun violence research from a micro-place perspective: A scoping review

Suplementary material_Ceccato_Westman.pdf

The public health approach for firearm violence and injury prevention