Rethinking the association between green space and crime using spatial quantile regression modelling: Do vegetation type, crime type, and crime rates matter?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UN Sustainable Development Goals (e.g., Goal 16) have highlighted the importance of using policy tools (e.g., through urban planning) to prevent crimes. Existing evidence of the association between green space and crime is mixed. Some studies indicate that the inconsistencies may be due to the variance in types of vegetation and the rates of crime reported across regions and countries. This study aims to assess the conditional association between green space and crime by considering the influence of vegetation type (e.g., grassland, woodland), crime type (e.g., violence, theft) and rates of crime reported in Northern Ireland (NI), United Kingdom. Crime data were obtained from the Police Service NI and green space was determined by Land Cover Map at the Super Output Area (SOA) level provided by the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology. Spatial quantile regressions were used to model the adjusted association between green space and crime across areas with different rates of crime. The results showed that more grassland may be associated with lower crime rates, but only in areas with relatively low crime rates. More woodland may also be associated with lower crime rates, but only for areas with relatively high crime rates. Also, we found that associations between green space and crime varied by type of crime. In summary, policymakers and planners should consider green space as a potential crime reduction intervention, factoring in the heterogeneous effects of vegetation type, crime type and crime rate. • There is not enough evidence on the association between green space and crime. • This study aims to assess the conditional association between green space and crime. • More grassland may be associated with lower crime rates, but only in areas with relatively low crime rates. • More woodland may be associated with lower crime rates, but only for areas with relatively high crime rates. • Associations between green space and crime varied by type of crime.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".