Bogar_2016 - Green Space, Violence, and Crime: A Systematic Review

Basic Article Info:

Article key Bogar_2016
Title Green Space, Violence, and Crime: A Systematic Review
Year 2016
Review type systematic review
Main topic Relationships among urban green space, violence, and crime in the United States
Subjects area(s) Environment and nature, Social and behavioural
Built environment scale Urban area / Urban system
Application(s) Practice, Human interactions and community engagement, Product design, Evaluation
Geographically focused yes
Prisma diagram used yes
Study focus start 2001
Study focus end 2013
Search string (urban population*ORurban residents*ORcities*ORneigh- borhood* OR public housing*) AND (green space* OR trees* OR parks* OR landscape architecture* OR greening* OR *city planning* OR environmental design* OR ecosystem* OR envi- ronment* OR urban design*)AND (crime* OR crime statistics* OR violence) AND (outcome* OR program evaluation*)
No. of original sources 10
Synthesis method qualitative
Quantitative map included no
Conflict of interest not declared specifically
Comments

 

Details about searches

Search sources
Search source name Source type Comments Weblink
Scopus Online Database Scopus is the world's largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed research literature. With over 22,000 titles from more than 5,000 international publishers. https://www.scopus.com/search/form.uri?display=basic
Medline Online Database MEDLINE® contains journal citations and abstracts for biomedical literature from around the world. PubMed® provides free access to MEDLINE and links to full text articles when possible. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/pmresources.html
PsycINFO Online Database PsycINFO is an expansive abstracting and indexing database with more than 3 million records devoted to peer-reviewed literature from the 1800s to the present in the behavioral sciences and mental health, making it an ideal discovery and linking tool for scholarly research. http://www.apa.org/pubs/databases/psycinfo/index.aspx
EBSCO-Greenfile Online Database GreenFILE is an environmental database provided free of charge from EBSCO. https://www.ebsco.com/products/research-databases/greenfile
Academic Search Premier Online Database A popular resource found in many scholarly settings worldwide, Academic Search Premier is a leading multidisciplinary research database. It provides acclaimed full-text journals, magazines and other valuable resources. https://www.ebsco.com/products/research-databases/academic-search-premier
Keywords used in search cities, city planning, crime, crime statics, ecosystem, environment, environmental design, green space, greening, neighbourhood, outcome, program evaluation, public housing, trees, urban design, urban population, urban residents, violence

 

Authorship

Authors
Name Email Organisation Address Country
Sandra Bogar* sbogar@mcw.edu Medical College of Wisconsin Milwaukee, WI United States of America
Kirsten M. Beyer Medical College of Wisconsin Milwaukee, WI United States of America

 

Funding

Funding sources No funding sources recorded


Article publication information:

Article type Journal article
Article category Text
Geographical scale National
Language English
Chapter or part
Conference date
Conference venue
Published date 2016-04-01
Edition
Issue 17
Journal Trauma Violence Abuse
Pagination 160-171
Peer reviewed yes
Publication place
Publisher Sage Publications Inc.
School / department or centre
Series volume no.
Series title
Series sort no.
Volume 2
Website owner
Copyrights of article Authors
Licences of article
Identifiers of article DOI: 10.1177/1524838015576412, ISSN: 1524-8380, PMID: 25824659


Quality assessment

Quality measure Details Score Comments
QA question 1 Are the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review clearly delineated? 1 = “Yes” = Who (Population), What (Intervention, Comparator group, Outcome), Where and When described. general but concrete description of aims
QA question 2 Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol? 0 = ”No” = research question and inclusion criteria not outlined in detail. not provided
QA question 3 Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review? 0.5 = “Can’t answer / not sure / partially” =Cannot decide between “yes” and “no”, basing on the information provided in the paper. quantitative or mixed-methods papers that empirically examined the relationships between green space; no justification provided and either crime or violence
QA question 4 Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy? 1 = “Yes” = searched at least 2 databases (relevant to research question), provided key word and/or search strategy, justified publication restrictions (e.g. language), AND searched the reference lists / bibliographies of included studies, searched trial/study registries, included/consulted content experts in the field, where relevant, searched for grey literature, conducted search within 24 months of completion of the review. 4 databases (Medline, PsychInfo, Scopus, Ebscohost); manual searches of references of the included studies and authors’ personal collections
QA question 5 Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate? 0 =”No” = only one reviewer involved in the study selection or no description how many reviewers participated in study selection. No description how many reviewers participated
QA question 6 Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate? 0 =”No” = only one reviewer involved in the study selection or no description how many reviewers participated in data extraction. No description how many reviewers participated
QA question 7 Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions? 0 =”No” = No list of studies excluded at a full-text stage. not provided
QA question 8 Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail? 1 = “Yes” = ALL the following: Who (Population), What (Intervention, Comparator group, Outcome), Where and When described in detail. Table 1, Table 2
QA question 9 Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review? 0 =”No” = no mention of RoB assessment of individual included studies. not provided
QA question 10 Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review? 0 =”No” = no report of the sources of funding for individual studies included in the review. not provided
QA question 11 If meta-analysis was performed did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results? N/A no meta-analysis
QA question 12 If meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors assess the potential impact of RoB in individual studies on the results of the meta-analysis or other evidence synthesis? N/A no meta-analysis
QA question 13 Did the review authors account for RoB in individual studies when interpreting/ discussing the results of the review? 0 =”No” = no discussion of the potential impact of RoB in individual studies. not provided
QA question 14 Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review? 1 = “Yes” = There was no significant heterogeneity in the results OR if heterogeneity was present the authors performed an investigation of sources of any heterogeneity in the results and discussed the impact of this on the results of the review. discussed methodological factors
QA question 15 If they performed quantitative synthesis did the review authors carry out an adequate investigation of publication bias (small study bias) and discuss its likely impact on the results of the review? N/A no meta-analysis
QA question 16 Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review? 1 = “Yes” = The authors reported no competing interests OR the authors described their funding sources and how they managed potential conflicts of interest. Funding sources and disclosure of interests declarations included (none)
Quality index Overall rating (Quality Index) assigned to each SR, highlighting whether major concerns arose during quality assessment that may affect overall conclusions of a SR: A = Minimal flaws; B = Some flaws; C = Major flaws in many aspects of the review. B no protocol, some details missing, some bias might be present
Suggested review type Actual review type:systematic map, systematic review, rapid review, scoping review, narrative review, etc. systematic review N/A
Risk of bias level How likely are the main conclusions of the review to be biased? Basing on review type and quality index and quality_index_comment assign: high moderate or low risk? medium no protocol; search details missing; no assessment or discussion of biases of the included studies