Authors : Samuel Dadson

Volume/Issue : Volume 11 - 2026, Issue 2 - February

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/mpavwmy9

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/4txfjf2b

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/26feb1303

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : Gun violence in Philadelphia is characterized by a strong geographic variation that aligns with underlying socioeconomic disparities. This project analyzes the spatial distribution of shooting victims using incident-level data sourced from the city’s data portal (OpenDataPhilly) and demographic indicators from the 2022 ACS at the census-tract level. Shooting incidents were aggregated to tracts and normalized as shooting rates per 1,000 residents. A series of univariate choropleth maps, hot spot analysis, Moran’s I (both global and local), and bivariate maps were used to examine spatial patterns and their socioeconomic correlates. The results after these analyses show that there are statistically significant clusters of shooting rates, with high-risk hot spots concentrated in central Philadelphia. The Bivariate mapping and scatterplot analysis reveal strong correlations between high shooting rates and high poverty, and high housing vacancy and low median income. Also, it was discovered that places with high average incomes exhibited low shooting rates. These findings demonstrate a clear spatial link between concentrated socioeconomic inequality and exposure to gun violence, highlighting the importance of neighborhood-level disparities in shaping risk.

References :

1. Andresen, M. A., & Malleson, N. (2014). Crime analysis and spatial analysis. In M. A. Andresen (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of crime analysis (pp. 436–456). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199844507.013.0021
2. Anselin, L. (1995). Local indicators of spatial association—LISA. Geographical Analysis, 27(2), 93–115.
   https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-4632.1995.tb00338.x
3. Braga, A. A., Weisburd, D., & Turchan, B. (2019). Focused deterrence strategies and crime control. Criminology & Public Policy, 18(1), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12430
4. Chainey, S., & Ratcliffe, J. (2013). GIS and crime mapping (2nd ed.). Wiley.
5. Cook, P. J., & Ludwig, J. (2020). Understanding gun violence: A public health approach. Oxford University Press.
6. Kondo, M. C., South, E. C., & Branas, C. C. (2018). Nature-based strategies for improving urban health and safety. Journal of Urban Health, 95(3), 343–357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-018-0259-5
7. Sampson, R. J. (2012). Great American city: Chicago and the enduring neighborhood effect. University of Chicago Press.
8. U.S. Census Bureau. (2023). American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs
9. U.S. Census Bureau. (2023). TIGER/Line shapefiles: Census tracts. https://www.census.gov/geographies/mapping-files/time-series/geo/tiger-line-file.html
10. Weisburd, D. (2015). The law of crime concentration at place: The case of crime hot spots. Criminology, 53(2), 133–157.
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12070