Assessing Spatial Associations Between Crime Exposure and Neighborhood Walkability: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Socio-Environmental Moderators in Detroit

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article presents a methodologically sound investigation into the complex relationship between crime and walkability in Detroit, incorporating spatial econometrics and moderation analyses to advance understanding of urban inequities. Strengths include rigorous spatial modeling and contextual focus on a high-crime city.

Critical Concerns Requiring Revision

 

1. Sample Size Inconsistency: The text indicates Detroit contains “just over 600 block groups” (line 122) and implies a complete dataset of 624 units (title of Table 2, line 246), yet the manuscript reports N = 450 (lines 244–245). Although lines 174–175 state that “a small number of block groups with incomplete information were excluded or imputed where necessary,” the exact number excluded, the criteria for exclusion vs. imputation, and the final analytic sample (450) remain unspecified. This lack of precision hinders reproducibility and raises questions about potential bias in spatial weights matrices.

 

1. Visualization of Excluded Census Block Groups (CBGs): Figure 1 displays all CBG boundaries without distinguishing excluded units, which may potentially overstate study coverage. Given the acknowledged exclusion of incomplete cases (lines 174–175), all maps—including Figure 1 and subsequent choropleth maps (e.g., for Walk Score, crime density)—must explicitly mark excluded CBGs (almost 20%) via shading, hatching, or annotation to ensure accurate representation of the analyzed area and preserve integrity of contiguity-based spatial weights.
2. Causal Inference and Design Limitations: The cross-sectional design limits causal claims (e.g., bidirectional effects between walkability and crime exposure), a constraint only indirectly acknowledged. An explicit discussion of endogeneity risks and suggestions for future longitudinal or quasi-experimental validation are needed.

 

1. Figure and Table Presentation:
• All figures require high-resolution legends, scale bars, north arrows, and consistent color gradients for comparability.
• Confirm in-text citations precisely match figure/table numbering.
• Provide a supplementary table detailing excluded CBGs (IDs, reasons, and imputation methods if applied).

 

The review was proofread using Grammarly

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article investigated the relationship between neighborhood walkability and crime rates. The topic is worth of study and is critical for understanding the spatial dependence and complex interaction between urban form, safety and equality. However, there are several problems need to be addressed before publication. Please see the comments below:

1. The contribution of the research to existing theoretical progress and the novelty of this research were not adequately addressed.
2. The relationship between neighborhood walkability and crime rates and their mutual constraints require more detailed elaboration in the literature review, even though the study did not explore the causal relationship between them. While the mutual influence relationship between walkability and crime rate, which is the explanatory variable and which is the explained variable, needs to be based on theoretical elaboration. Perhaps the impact of walkability on crime rates is more significant.
3. The title of the article needs to be more carefully considered. The article could not very convincingly explain the impact of crime on walkability, but only indicated that there is a certain connection between the two.
4. Section 4.1 is the key argument, which should be explored more in-depth based on the research findings.
5. Planning interventions could be more specific and could be discussed in Section 4 Discussion.
6. Some of the figures are too vague, such as Figure 8.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall this article is an interesting exploration of the connection between neighbourhood safety and walkability - a somewhat understudied component of walkability which usually focuses on physical and environmental aspects. The authors take the walkability conversation in a number of interesting different directions demonstrating that the complexity of the issue is perhaps more nuanced than generally presented.

The manuscript is very clear and readable, the logic of the narrative is solid and easy to follow.

The cited references are generally quite old (10+ years), which reflect the long history of walkability as a concept, and the associations between saftey and livability. However, in order to demsontrate the contuniyes relevancy of research in this domain, and to confirm this research represents new concepts an expanded literature with newer articles would be beneficial. Only 20% of cited content is from the last 5 years.

The methods are strong, clearly explained and appropriate for the research questions presented. The methods would be replicateable and could be applied in other contexts assuming the availablity of the statistics and data utlised. Walk Score is a valid measure, but although the authors (line 131) state 'Walk Score has been validated' a citation has not been provided to support this assertion. The limitations of the data used are well explored (section 4.3), but citations are also not provide to support this discussion. But in general I see no major issues with the data sets used.

Figure and tables are appropriate and useful, although in this review copy some of the figures are difficult to read due to low resolution.

Conclusions are solidly derived from the results and supported by solid evidence without over doing what the data is able to show.

Sources of data are all piublicaly avaiable through city open data program, so there are no limitations of access to data or ethical concerns.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There are multiple studies that reach similar conclusions: "Results show that higher local crime densities are positively associated with walkability, likely reflecting denser, mixed-use areas with greater pedestrian activity and exposure."

 I recommend focusing on finding what differs.

 

Line 33- public security or public safety?

 

Lines 49-51: There is a growing body of work specifically related to the gap you address. 

 

Line 62- confusing due to double negation. Increase inactivity? 

 

Line 79-81: Environmental is not the right term. Urban form, or the built environment, is more closely aligned with the factors you address. 

 

Lines 95-99- are these your research questions? If they are, please be more site-specific and define them in relation to your case study area. 

 

I recommend concluding the introduction with the general structure of the paper. 

 

 

Line 104- here you use the term Afro-American and in abstract Black residents. Please be consistent. 

 

Methodology: 

I would like to express concern regarding the use of WalkScore in research studies. As I am aware, although it is best developed for the context of the USA (which reduces wider replicability of the study), it solely takes the factor of spatial proximity to different amenities- it does not include work hours (extremely relevant for crime rates) nor quality of pedestrian infrastructure. 

 

Besides this substantial note, the methodology is well elaborated. 

 

Research:

Figure 2- please rephrase title- crime exposure measured by the total number of crimes 2021-2023 (or similar). Exposure itself can be interpreted differently. 

 

Figure 3- If I am not mistaken, you did not measure the walkability. Please be precise, WalkScore

 

Lines 366-368 and 386-388: Your findings do not relate to many theoretical standpoints that place with higher density and mix-use produce safer environments for pedestrians. I suggest discussing this in detail and making actual contributions for practitioners.

 

Line 437- Crime does not cause walkability- this is not a logical statement, even with negation. Please elaborate.

 

Conclusion should be enriched with a clear elaboration of study limitations. 

 

Overall comment:

Although the manuscript is well elaborated and properly structured, I personally miss greater elaboration and consideration of 3-Dimensional elements of urban form (beyond planimetric analysis) and reflections related to the elements of physical protection measures that affect the results (surveillance, natural surveillance, police supervision). I do understand that authors follow the results from quantitative research, but I miss qualitative elements as phenomena, as such can not be perceived so narrowly (or to leave this for further research - go into the field and try to observe, identify, or interact with citizens). 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript “Assessing the Impact of Objective Crime Rates on Neighborhood Walkability: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Socio-Environmental Moderators in Detroit” presents an insightful spatial analysis exploring the complex relationship between objective crime rates and neighborhood walkability in Detroit. It contributes to ongoing debates on urban safety, equity, and the built environment by integrating spatial econometric methods with contextual moderation analysis. The study is methodologically rigorous and empirically rich; however, several areas would benefit from refinement and greater conceptual and methodological precision before publication.

 

General Evaluation

Overall, the paper is clearly written, logically organized, and aligned with Land’s interdisciplinary scope. The research question is relevant and timely, particularly given increasing policy attention to urban livability and environmental justice. The use of spatial lag models (SLM) and the explicit comparison with OLS and SEM models are appropriate, showing that the authors are attentive to spatial dependencies that many urban studies overlook. The moderation analyses add depth, revealing that racial composition significantly conditions the relationship between crime and walkability — a meaningful and policy-relevant insight.

Despite these merits, the manuscript would benefit from revisions in three main domains: (1) tightening conceptual framing and language to avoid overstating causal interpretations; (2) expanding methodological transparency and robustness; and (3) improving the clarity and focus of the narrative, especially in the results and discussion sections.

 

1. Conceptual and Theoretical Framing
   The introduction effectively reviews key literature on walkability, safety, and urban form. However, it could be more selective and cohesive. The discussion occasionally repeats ideas or references without adding analytical depth. The paper would be strengthened by clarifying how this study advances beyond existing work on the spatial relationship between crime and walkability — for example, by emphasizing the contribution of spatial spillovers or the intersection between structural inequality and spatial form.

In several parts, the text implies or directly states that “crime affects walkability.” Given the cross-sectional design, the wording should consistently emphasize association or co-location rather than causation. The authors already acknowledge this limitation in the discussion, but causal language appears throughout the abstract, results, and conclusion. A more cautious phrasing would improve the paper’s conceptual integrity.

 

2. Data and Methods
   The methodological section is thorough, yet a few technical clarifications are needed to ensure transparency and replicability.

• The decision to measure crime as incidents per area, rather than per population, deserves explicit justification, as population-normalized rates are standard in criminology and may produce different spatial patterns. If area-based rates are retained, the authors should discuss potential biases (e.g., artificially inflating crime density in small but dense tracts).
• The handling of the outlier variable “distance to nearest transit stop” should be more clearly described. Mentioning that it contained placeholder or erroneous values is not sufficient — specify whether the variable was excluded, winsorized, or imputed.
• The paper would benefit from at least one robustness check, such as testing an alternative spatial-weighting matrix (k-nearest neighbors instead of queen contiguity) or log-transforming the crime variable. These additions would strengthen the credibility of the findings.
• While the moderation models are well-motivated, their statistical presentation could be simplified by reporting marginal effects or visualizing conditional slopes with confidence intervals. This would help readers interpret the moderation strength and direction more intuitively.

 

3. Results and Interpretation
   The empirical results are detailed and well-organized. The comparison between OLS, SEM, and SLM is convincing, and the diagnostic tests are appropriate. However, the presentation could be streamlined. Some tables (e.g., for violent and property crimes) are highly redundant and could be combined or summarized. The manuscript would be clearer if the authors focused on the general consistency of the findings rather than repeating full coefficient tables for each crime category.

The interpretation of the positive relationship between crime and walkability is handled carefully, yet it would benefit from a more nuanced discussion. The authors rightly argue that dense, mixed-use environments may attract both pedestrian activity and crime. Expanding on how these spatial co-locations relate to land-use intensity, street activity, or surveillance (“eyes on the street”) would enrich the urban-theoretical discussion and link the findings to established design frameworks. In addition, the moderation results related to racial composition could be contextualized more fully within Detroit’s specific urban history — for instance, by referencing redlining, segregation, and patterns of public investment that may shape both crime exposure and walkability infrastructure.

 

4. Discussion and Implications
   The discussion successfully integrates theoretical reflection with empirical findings, but it could be more focused and less descriptive. Rather than reiterating results, it should emphasize the study’s implications for planning and policy. The finding that walkable areas often coincide with higher crime densities does not necessarily imply that crime is a barrier to urban vitality; instead, it highlights the need for context-sensitive safety interventions that preserve walkability while reducing victimization risk.

The paragraph on racial moderation is particularly strong but could benefit from a clearer linkage to the literature on spatial inequity and environmental justice. Similarly, the limitations section appropriately recognizes cross-sectional design and reporting bias but could suggest more specific methodological directions — for instance, spatial panel analysis, natural experiments (e.g., changes in policing or infrastructure), or the integration of perceived safety data.

 

5. Writing, Structure, and Presentation
   The manuscript reads well overall, but the narrative could be tightened to improve flow. Several paragraphs in the introduction and discussion could be shortened or merged to avoid redundancy. The figures are informative, though their captions could be more interpretive (indicating what spatial pattern is most relevant). Table formatting should follow Land’s style guidelines; currently, some elements appear misaligned or duplicated due to template conversion.

Minor technical edits are also needed in the reference list (duplicate entries, inconsistent formatting). The authors may wish to check reference numbering after revisions to avoid discrepancies introduced during layout.

 

The manuscript makes a valuable contribution to urban spatial analysis by demonstrating that the relationship between crime and walkability is context-dependent and shaped by social and spatial inequities. It is well-grounded theoretically and employs appropriate econometric methods. However, before acceptance, it requires revisions to (i) refine conceptual framing and avoid causal overstatements, (ii) increase methodological transparency and robustness, and (iii) streamline presentation for clarity.

Recommendation: Minor Revisions

If the authors implement the suggested clarifications and strengthen the methodological and conceptual discussion, the paper will be well-suited for publication in Land.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has been substantially improved and my concerns have been appropriately addressed. It is suggested to be published.