ABSTRACT
Gentrification and other types of neighborhood revitalization strategies have been promoted as viable crime reduction strategies, but empirical assessments of this relationship produced inconsistent results. The mixed results were partly due to a narrow theoretical focus on social disorganization and routine activities, but also because of a limited conceptualization of gentrification. The current study draws on gentrification literature more broadly and incorporates insights from additional criminological theories to provide a more complete understanding of how gentrification is related to neighborhood crime. Specifically, three pathways through which gentrification influences neighborhood crime are identified.
Acknowledgments
Authors listed alphabetically, but share authorship equally. The authors thank the anonymous reviewers at Deviant Behavior for their insightful feedback.
Notes
1 The only empirical assessment of the gentrification–crime relationship that did not draw on criminological theory was O’Sullivan (Citation2005), who drew on economic theory. This study assessed whether neighborhoods gentrified as a response to declines in crime and therefore did not seek to explain why crime declined.
2 Although the arsons were attributed to anti-gentrification activists, it is unclear the extent to which gentrification was actually a motivating factor.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Michael S. Barton
MICHAEL S. BARTON is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology at Louisiana State University. He received his Ph.D. from the University at Albany. His research interests join the criminological and urban sociological literatures to explore the geographic contexts in which crime occur. His recent research has appeared in Urban Studies and Crime and Delinquency.
Colin P. Gruner
COLIN P. GRUNER is an instructor in the Department of Sociology at the University at Albany. He received his Ph.D. from the University at Albany. His research interests focus on crime and neighborhood effects and their interactions with poverty and welfare policy.