Gangs and Space

Gangs and Space Oxford Handbooks Online Gangs and Space Matthew Valasik and George Tita The Oxford Handbook of Environmental Criminology Edited by Gerben J.N. Bruinsma and Shane D. Johnson Print Publication Date: Sep 2018 Subject: Criminology and Criminal Justice, Juvenile Justice and Juvenile Delinquency Online Publication Date: Feb 2018 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190279707.013.25 Abstract and Keywords This chapter explores the ways in which space shapes the territoriality of urban street gang members as well as the ways in which a gang exploits the local landscape. It begins by providing a brief overview of the classic works on the emergence of gangs, paying particular attention both to the literature on human terrain/territoriality and to the ecological studies of place, especially the Chicago school. It then looks at the criminal enterprises of gangs as they relate to space. Next, it investigates how residency, technology, and territoriality may be influencing the relationship modern street gangs have with space. It concludes with a look at the use of geographically targeted policing to curtail gang activity, especially intergang violence. Keywords: urban gang, juvenile crime, gang member, space, territoriality, environmental criminology, policing, gang activity, street gang Page 1 of 38 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 07 February 2018 Gangs and Space 36.1 Introduction The relationship between urban street gangs and the built environment has been a topic of interest since Thrasher’s (1927) seminal work. Understanding how gangs emerge and interact with the local geography has provided important insight into both the general sociological understanding of place (Anderson, 1976; Liebow, 1967; Suttles, 1968; Whyte, 1943) as well as the broader community and crime literature (Blasko, Roman, & Taylor, 2015; Brantingham & Brantingham, 1995; Miller, 1966/2011; Simon & Burns, 1997; Sullivan, 1989; Tita & Ridgeway, 2007). The social relationships binding the members of a gang to the broader community are complex and sometimes competing. From the romanticized notion of the gang as the protector and provider of the community (Jankowski, 1991; Yablonsky, 1962) to the realization that gang members are someone’s son/daughter, father/mom, brother/sister within the community (Decker & Van Winkle, 1996; Durán, 2013; Moore, 1991; Pattillo-McCoy, 1999), a gang member is much more than an antagonist seeking to prey upon the local community. In this chapter we explore the ways in which space shapes the territoriality of urban street gang members as well as the ways in which a gang exploits the local landscape. We begin by providing a brief overview of the classic works on the emergence of gangs, paying particular attention both to the literature on human terrain/territoriality and to the ecological studies of place, especially the Chicago school. Then we look at the criminal enterprises of gangs as they relate to space. Next we investigate how residency, technology, and territoriality may be influencing the relationship modern street gangs have with space. Finally, we conclude with a look at the use of geographically targeted policing to curtail gang activity, especially intergang violence. (p. 840) 36.2 Territoriality and Gang Locations Generally defined, territoriality is a spatial strategy employed by a group or an individual in order to control a specific space(s) and the resources within its boundaries (Lyman & Scott, 1967; Sack, 1983). Oscar Newman’s (1972) theory of defensible space, a sociophysical phenomenon requiring both social and physical elements, asserts that crime is diminished in an area when residents take responsibility and ownership over common spaces in combination with environmental design. Territoriality, one component of defensible space theory, is usually considered the practice of a group or individuals protecting their inhabited space (Newman, 1972). Defending a claimed space is thought of as a process to assert dominance, control the local population and resources, and reify power relationships (Dyson-Hudson & Smith, 1978; Sack, 1983; Taylor, 1988; Van Valkenburg & Osborne, 2013). These goals are particularly salient with the territorial behaviors of urban street gangs, who attempt to affect the actions and interactions of Page 2 of 38 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 07 February 2018 Gangs and Space individuals (e.g., local residents, rival gang members) within the area they preside over (Padilla, 1992; Popkin et al., 2000; Venkatesh, 1997). An emerging gang demarcates a public location (e.g., street corner, park, alley, etc.) and establishes a “home territory” where members can have a sense of security and be unrestrained in their actions, thereby turning a space into a place (Lyman & Scott, 1967, p. 240). Using both the built environment (i.e., roads, highways, railways, buildings, etc.) and symbolic barriers (i.e., spaces demarcated with graffiti) a gang constructs an unmistakable and defendable area, forming a discrete zone of influence (Adamson, 2000; Ley & Cybriwsky, 1974; Newman, 1972; Phillips, 1999; Schneider, 1999; Taylor, 1988; Wolseth, 2011). In these claimed spaces “gang leaders hold sway like barons of old, watchful of invaders and ready to swoop down upon the lands of rivals and carry off booty or prisoners or to inflict punishment upon their enemies” (Thrasher, 1927, p. 6). In order to objectify these spaces, their territorial boundaries must be reified by the gang through the use of rituals, maps (i.e., physical and/or cognitive), and competition against rivals to create what Lefebvre (1974/1991, p. 33) refers to as “representations of space.” Thus, gang territoriality is a form of “learned behavior with intergenerational adherence to historical boundaries and rules of engagement” (Pickering, Kintrea, & Bannister, 2012). As an additional means of declaring ownership over a particular space, a gang will regularly name itself after streets, features, or neighborhoods from where members emerge (Moore, 1991; Monod, 1967; Salagaev & Safin, 2014; Thrasher, 1927). For instance, the Avenues gang in Los Angeles formed in a region of the city where all of the streets begin with the word “Avenue” followed by the number of that particular avenue. The Avenues gang and its cliques (e.g., Avenues 43) have expropriated these street markers in creating their group’s moniker (Leap, 2012; Rafael, 2007). Likewise, the Rollin’ 90s refers to just one particular clique of the Crip faction of gangs occupying a series of streets between 90th Street and 100th Street in South Los Angeles (Alonso, 2004; Brown, Vigil, & Taylor, 2012). (p. 841) 36.3 The Ecology of Gang Territories Page 3 of 38 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 07 February 2018 Gangs and Space 36.3.1 Gang Territoriality and the Chicago School Frederic Thrasher’s (1927) foundational study on the emergence of street gangs in Chicago helped define the Chicago school of sociology. The study focused specifically on the relationship between ecology and ethnicity on gang formation. The emergence of gangs and “Gangland” occurred in the interstitial areas where the central business district gave way to the neighborhoods of the working class. With an abundance of affordable (though crowded and poorly maintained) housing and its geographic proximity to an ample supply of jobs in the central business district, these zones in transition (Park & Burgess, 1925/1967) experienced a constant churning of impoverished immigrants from Europe seeking to better their lot in life. It was observed that these areas, regardless of the racial/ethnic composition of the inhabitants, maintained consistently high levels of delinquency and crime over time. Shaw and McKay (1942) argued the crime and delinquency were the result of three structural characteristics that differentiated these communities from those places with lower levels of crime: residential instability, ethnic heterogeneity, and low economic status (see Wilcox & Swartz in this volume). These three elements interacted to impede the development of social ties among residents, a necessity for building cohesion and trust, needed to combat crime and disorder (Sampson & Groves, 1989; Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997). Just as one might expect in any community, playgroups developed in these interstitial spaces, but because the structural/ecological conditions prevented the development of informal social control, the playgroups evolved into urban street gangs (Thrasher, 1927). Research over the years has reinforced Thrasher’s findings, noting that local socioeconomic conditions continue to play an important role in where gangs form (Cartwright & Howard, 1966; Tita et al., 2005) and that a gang’s presence often seeks to fulfill multiple voids such as offering protection to the neighborhood (Decker & Van Winkle, 1996; Jankowski, 1991; Patillo-McCoy, 1999; Yablonsky, 1962), providing economic support/opportunities (Hagedorn, 1988; Padilla, 1992; Sullivan, 1989; Valdez & Sifaneck, 2004; Venkatesh, 1997, 2000), or supplying a collective social identity (Decker & Van Winkle, 1996; Hennigan & Spanovic, 2012; Vigil, 1983, 1988. 36.3.2 Gang Hangouts and Set Space The idea of “turf” or the attachment to a particular space is one of the defining features of urban street gangs. Cartwright and Howard (1966) examined the kinds of places that street gangs formed and concluded that communities with low-quality housing units, fewer owner-occupied housing units, a higher percentage of low-income residents, and a lower ratio of adults to children were unique features to neighborhoods where gang (p. 842) members hang out. Classic ethnographic studies of youth gang members in lowincome neighborhoods regularly highlighted the importance of particular street corners serving as a preferred activity space (Liebow, 1967; Miller, 1966/2011; Suttles, 1968; Whyte, 1943). A particular street corner might be particularly appealing because of Page 4 of 38 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 07 February 2018 Gangs and Space certain physical benefits such as clear sight lines and visibility. The importance of street corners as an activity space is still observed in contemporary studies (Simon & Burns, 1997; Rodgers, 2006; Taniguchi, Ratcliffe, & Taylor, 2011). Routine activities theory suggests that street corners may lack the capable guardians necessary for informal social control to function (Cohen & Felson, 1979; Felson, 1987). Public spaces, such as a park, alley, street corners, or other subareas within the larger neighborhood become the “group’s life space” (Klein, 1995a, p. 79) providing the gang a refuge from the outside world (Thrasher, 1927). It is within this sanctuary that members feel protected and routinely “hang around, brag a lot, eat again, drink, hang around some more,” spending the majority of their daily activity in these hangouts (Klein, 1995a, p. 11). Over time, habitually congregating in the same area, the gang “becomes fairly attached to a definite locality and wanders only occasionally beyond its frontiers” (Thrasher, 1927, p. 166). These hangouts become so established within the community that residents, specifically youth, learn how to navigate through their neighborhood becoming adept at avoiding encounters with local gang members or their rivals in these dangerous areas (Garot, 2010; Tita et al., 2005). Investigating the gang formation process in the city of Pittsburgh, Tita and colleagues (2005) introduced the concept of gang set space, defined generally as a localized, geographically distinct area where gang members congregate within their territory. A consistent and compelling characteristic about the location of a gang’s set space is the lack of social control, either formal or informal. Without the presence of social control agents these spaces lack an overall ability to prevent the predatory or inappropriate behaviors of gang members, thereby exempting these individuals from their actions (Eck, 1995). Research has also demonstrated that the activity spaces of a gang are likely to be located in places with greater criminogenic properties (Block, 2000; Tita, et al., 2005). For instance, the percentage of vacant housing units in an area remains a powerful indicator for the presence of set space (Sullivan, 1989; Tita, 1999). Vacant properties are indicative of the physical and psychological abandonment of an area by local residents, and serve as a visible signal of the community’s limited ability to surveil, supervise, and sanction gang behavior in these spaces. Blasko and colleagues (2015) further find that residents that live closer to a greater number of street gang set spaces are more likely to perceive incivilities of youth groups in their neighborhood as problematic. Furthermore, Lane and Meeker (2003) indicate that residents’ fear of gangs is linked to a perception of incivility by youth groups, which could dissuade residents from censuring inappropriate behaviors, such as aggression or violence, and could contribute to a maturation process of youth playgroups into street gangs. Research has also suggested that police are less attentive to areas where vacant buildings are prevalent, which in turn increases local residents’ fear of crime and gangs (Lane, 2002; Mills, 1990). Anecdotal evidence further suggests that gang members are drawn to vacant buildings because they provide “cuts” to escape police detection or evade rival (p. 843) gang members (Tita, 1999). Yet, it is not only in areas plagued with Page 5 of 38 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 07 February 2018 Gangs and Space abandoned properties where social control is deficient. Areas characterized by high levels of population density are also susceptible to insufficient social control (Cohen & Felson, 1979; Felson, 1987). For instance, Tita (1999) finds that a gang’s set space is also likely to be in densely populated areas. It may seem contradictory at first that vacant properties attract gangs but high population density increases the probability of gang set space being present. However, more vacant properties in an area do not necessarily mean that a “ghost town” exists. Instead, it could be that the units remaining occupied have a large number of individuals residing in them, such as in a public housing high-rise, and are surrounded by derelict properties (Popkin, Gwiasda, Olson, Rosenbaum, & Buron, 2000; Simon & Burns, 1997; Venkatesh, 2000). Additionally, an area that has high population density with people milling around outside can actually be a desirable feature, allowing loitering gang members to camouflage their activities from the police. Venkatesh (2000) argues that high-volume pedestrian traffic is a valuable tool that can aid in concealing a gang’s drug-dealing activities. Vacant properties also afford gang members escape routes to either evade the police or avoid attacks from rival gangs (Popkin et al., 2000; Sullivan, 1989; Tita, 1999). 36.3.3 Other Approaches to Understanding of Gang Territories Borrowing from the ecology/biology literature, Brantingham and colleagues (2012) use Lotka-Volterra models to explore the formation of gang territory. Competition models, like Lotka-Volterra, have been used to model predator-prey distributions (Gilpin, 1973; Jost, Devulder, Vucetich, Peterson, & Arditi, 2005; Sabelis, Diekman, & Jansen, 1991) along with the territories of other various competing species, including ant colonies, birds, and lion prides (Heinsohn & Packer, 1995; MacArthur, 1958; Ryti & Case, 1992). In summary, this ecological approach considers the formation of gang turf as the end result of a process driven exclusively through violent social interactions occurring between a gang and its rivals. With activity patterns of gang members being tethered to their gang’s set space, Brantingham et al. (2012) use these known geographic locations as the point of origin from where a gang’s territory emanates. Their models reveal that gang violence is concentrated around a predicted boundary between the gang of the offender and the victim’s gang. Therefore, the creation of a stable boundary around one’s territory is a byproduct of a gang’s aggressive competition for resources (i.e., turf, reputation). The results from the theoretical Lotka-Volterra model are consistent with several observational studies. Tita (1999) noted that buffers existed between the set space of rival gangs and cautiously conjectured that these observed patterns represented a gang’s preference of wanting a safety zone between the set space of a rival. This perceived preference is revealed by Curtis and colleagues’ (2014) spatial analysis of gang members’ environmental perception of fear, finding that gang members feel less safe near the borders of their rival’s turf. Taniguchi and colleagues (2011) reveal that more violence occurs (p. 844) on street corners deemed favorable for the distribution of drugs when Page 6 of 38 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 07 February 2018 Gangs and Space multiple gangs are competing over control than similar street corners controlled by only one gang. 36.4 Gangs, Crime, and Space Page 7 of 38 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 07 February 2018 Gangs and Space 36.4.1 Gangs and the Spatial Distribution of Violence The role that space/territory play in shaping the spatial distribution of crime and violence has been a central topic of study in criminology, especially with the emergence of desktop geographic information system (GIS) software in the early 1990s (Anselin, Cohen, Cook, Gorr, & Tita, 2000; Block, 2000). GIS permits one to easily map the distribution of various crimes, overlay gang territories, and explore spatial relationships. The rise of GIS coincided with the homicide epidemic of the early 1990s. Coupled with the spread of gangs both within “chronic” gang cities and to “emergent” gang cities (Howell, Egley, Tita, & Griffiths, 2011; Howell & Griffiths, 2016; Spergel & Curry, 1993), researchers began to investigate the role that gangs played in the diffusion of violence, especially homicide (Cohen & Tita, 1999; Rosenfeld, Bray, & Egley, 1999; Morenoff & Sampson, 1997; Tita & Cohen, 2004). As noted by Tita and Radil (2011), there are two defining features of gangs that make them especially germane to the study of the diffusion of violence: the retaliatory nature of gang violence and the importance of turf. Though controlling for both the spatial dependence and temporal dependence is necessary to identify true diffusion, presenting enormous methodological challenges, the extant literature has time and again argued that controlling for the presence of gangs is important in understanding the concentration of gang violence as well as its spread. This has been demonstrated in a variety of cities throughout the United States including Boston (Braga, Hureau & Papachristos, 2014; Kennedy, Braga, & Piehl, 1997; Kennedy, Piehl, & Braga, 1996; Papachristos, Hureau, & Braga, 2013); Chicago (Block & Block, 1993; Griffiths & Chavez, 2004; Mares, 2010; Mears & Bhati, 2006; Morenoff & Sampson, 1997; Papachristos & Kirk, 2006; Papachristos, Hureau, & Braga, 2013); St. Louis (Curry & Decker, 1996; Huebner, Martin, Moule, Pyrooz, & Decker, 2016; Kubrin & Weitzer, 2003; Rosenfeld et al. 1999); Newark (Zeoli, Pizarro, Grady & Melde, 2014; Zeoli, Grady, Pizarro, & Melde, 2015) Pittsburgh (Cohen & Tita, 1999; Tita & Cohen, 2004; Tita & Greenbaum, 2009); and Los Angeles (Brantingham et al., 2012; Radil, Flint, & Tita, 2010; Tita & Radil, 2011; Valasik, Barton, Reid & Tita, 2017). To explain why crime/violence is concentrated in particular kinds of neighborhoods, researchers often invoke the presence of gangs without directly measuring them (e.g., Valasik et al., 2017). That is, they argue that rivalries among different gangs in the city could be responsible for the spillover or diffusion of violence from one community into a neighboring community over some temporal time frame. Tita and colleagues (Tita & Greenbaum, 2009; Tita & Radil, 2011) have attempted to make the presence of gangs and (p. 845) the process of diffusion across space more explicit. In Pittsburgh and the Hollenbeck Community Policing Area of Los Angeles, respectively, the authors mapped the set spaces of the street gangs and gathered social network data on the rivalries among gangs. They exploited this information to construct a spatial weights matrix (a central component in any type of spatial analysis) that links geographic units of analysis (neighborhoods, census tracts, etc.) if and only if the pair of places possess the turf of a rival gang. Though true that some gang rivals do occupy geographically neighboring Page 8 of 38 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 07 February 2018 Gangs and Space spaces, other rivalries can span large differences. Thus, the influence that gang rivalries and their retaliatory nature have on the diffusion of violence is more complex than can be captured by simply invoking the principle of geographic nearness. Isolating the causal relationship of the presence of gangs in an area is difficult on two fronts. First, the same factors that give rise to urban street gangs are also shown to be important covariates of crime and violence. This has been true since the time of Thrasher (1927) and persists to this day. The second challenge is that nearly all community-level studies of gangs and crime are conducted after gangs have long been established, therefore making it difficult to construct a counterfactual of what local crime patterns would look like in the same (similar) neighborhood had gangs not been present. In an ecological study of gangs and crime to include both pregang and postgang formation periods, Tita (1999) was able to demonstrate that, unsurprisingly, gangs formed in highcrime areas and that these high-crime areas where characterized by a litany of social ills (e.g., concentrated poverty, dense population, single-parent households, etc.) that we have come to associate with highly impacted urban communities. Tita and Ridgeway (2007) demonstrated that the impact of gang presence differed by crime type. Consistent with the notion of gangs as protectors of the community, their presence seemed to marginally reduce the amount of property crimes in an area. Drug market activity was also reduced. An alternative explanation to these findings, however, is that the presence of the gang dramatically decreased the reporting of crime. The most robust findings relate to violence: the number of assaults fell; the level of activity involving guns increased dramatically. This is consistent with a sort of substitution effect: with the proliferation of firearms during this period, individuals rarely got into fistfights, instead trading their knuckles or knives for guns (see Blumstein & Cork, 1996). Reinforcing the results of prior research on gang violence, Papachristos and colleagues (2013) find that when gangs have turf boundaries adjacent to each other, there is a greater likelihood that violence between these gangs will occur. However, in addition to the important role that geography plays in predicting intergang conflict, their research suggests that “social distance” also matters. Much as in the work of Tita and colleagues (see Tita & Greenbaum, 2009; Radil et al., 2010), prior conflicts among gangs that lack a common border strongly predicts violence (Papachristos et al., 2013). Gang members are not socially or criminally disentangled from their local communities. “The lives of gang members are woven into the larger social fabric of the neighborhoods, social networks, families, and friends” (Papachristos, Braga, Piza, & Grossman, 2015, p. 627). Thus, gang violence does not stay contained within static spatial boundaries of a gang’s turf but instead is connected across ties in an individual’s social network (p. 846) (Papachristos et al., 2012, 2013, 2015). That being said, there appears to be an interactive effect between the reciprocity of intergang conflicts and spatial adjacency, revealing that intergang violence is amplified by the combination of social interaction and spatial proximity (Papachristos et al., 2013). Page 9 of 38 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 07 February 2018 Gangs and Space Therefore, to fully understand the dynamic nature of gang violence it becomes necessary to investigate both the social and spatial characteristics associated with gangs and their members (Brantingham et al., 2012; Papachristos, 2009; Papachristos et al., 2015; Tita & Radil, 2011). Geographic space clearly matters, but with the adoption of social network analysis, researchers are also demonstrating that the social spaces linking places are another important predictor of violence. 36.4.2 Gangs and Drug Markets The role of gangs in the establishment and control of local drug markets differs across place and is influenced by whether the market is controlled by the gang as a collective or by individuals who happen to be gang members (Bellair & McNulty, 2010; Bergmann, 2008; Bjerregaard, 2010; Fader, 2016; Fagan, 1989; Hagedorn, 1994; Taylor, 1993; Valdez & Sifaneck, 2004). The literature is full of thick descriptions of gang members’ involvement in local drug markets. Sullivan (1989) demonstrates that the level and duration of involvement is dependent upon larger macro-scale forces in the community, chiefly the access to legitimate employment opportunities. Jankowski (1991) argues that drugs play an even greater role in the emergence of gangs, stating that they emerge “as one organizational response . . . seeking to improve the competitive advantage of its members in obtaining an increase in material resources” (p. 22). Even though gangs engage in a variety of economic activities, “the biggest money-maker and the one product nearly every gang tries to market is drugs” (p. 120). Over time it is possible for a group to “corporatize,” transforming into an entrepreneurial gang and focusing its energy entirely on the drug trade (Densley, 2013; Levitt & Venkatesh, 2000; Skolnick, 1990; Taylor, 1990; Valdez & Sifaneck, 2004; Venkatesh, 1997). It has been suggested that the attraction of untapped markets influences gang members to travel beyond the borders of their gang’s claimed turf in the hope of turning a quick profit (Fagan, 1989; Klein & Maxson, 1985). Teasing out the true impact that expanding drug markets have on the spread of gangs is difficult. Research has primarily found that the expansion or migration of gangs into new neighborhoods or distant cities is the result of residential mobility (often the relocation of a parent) and not a calculated organizational decision (Hagedorn, 1988; Huff, 1989; Maxson, 1998; Tapia, 2012). Despite not reaching a consensus on the primacy of gangs as an entity controlling the drug market, gang members clearly participate in the market and can benefit greatly from their gang’s territorial control of a marketplace (Densley, 2013; Padilla, 1992; Skolnick, 1990; Taniguchi et al., 2011; Tita & Ridgeway, 2007). Specifically, within their gang’s claimed turf, a gang member is provided protection against two issues. First, drug-dealing gang members are protected against competition, as their gang (p. 847) will not tolerate the sales of narcotics within their turf by anyone but their own gang members (Levitt & Venkatesh, 2000; Phillips, 2012; Skolnick, 1990; Stephenson, 2015). Second, the gang provides some level of security and protection against attempted drug robbery. Perhaps more reminiscent of popular culture’s romanticized version of the Page 10 of 38 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 07 February 2018 Gangs and Space Italian Mafia making the streets safe for local residents, some do argue that urban street gangs can provide informal social control with regards to regulating the activities in their turf (Calderoni, Berlusconi, & Garofalo, 2016; Densley, 2013; Gambetta, 1996; Jankowski, 1991; Stephenson, 2015; Varese, 2011). Whatever protections a gang might provide through the control of its turf, drug markets are dangerous places (Contreras, 2013; Simon and Burns, 1997; Vargas, 2016). Again, teasing apart the influence a drug market, versus the existing rivalries between gangs, has on the levels and patterns of violence is challenging at best (Bellair & McNulty, 2010; Bjerregaard, 2010). “Conflicts over drug territory are only one of many circumstances that may lead to collective gang violence” (Fagan, 1989, p. 661). However, a few studies suggest how the duality of drug markets and turf might influence violence. For example, Levitt and Venkatesh (2000) argue that, “as an explicit strategy for shifting demand,” a drug sale may initiate violent acts in a rival’s turf, producing a hostile environment, disrupting this competing drug market. Taniguchi and colleagues (2011) note a similar pattern of escalating violence around drug corners where multiple gangs compete for control. While Taniguchi et al. (2011) are unable to explicitly articulate the causes for the increased levels of violence over gang set space locations (e.g., competition, intimidation, desirable location), it is clear that street corners with multiple gangs vying to distribute drugs experience greater levels of violence than a set space location dominated by only one gang. 36.5 Gangs and Patterns of Territoriality The dominant ecological perspective guiding research on the relationship between neighborhoods and gangs remains the Chicago school (Huebner, Martin, Moule, Pyrooz, & Decker, 2016; Katz & Schnebly, 2011; Pyrooz & Mitchell, 2015). In this model of gang formation and territoriality, the gang comprises youth who reside in the neighborhood in which the gang forms and stakes its claim to a certain territory. The key here is the overlap between where gang members live and where their gang is rooted. Yet gangs are a dynamic phenomenon, adapting and responding to the conditions of their local environment (Densley, 2013; Klein, 1995b). Bursik and Grasmick (1993, p. 132) contend that “contemporary urban dynamics necessitate several important modifications of traditional systemic analyses of neighborhoods and gangs” and also attest that “the nature of neighborhood territoriality has changed significantly.” While a gang may emerge as a fixed group, tied to a particular place or neighborhood, greater accessibility (p. 848) to public transportation and widespread use of automobiles afford gang members greater territorial flexibility (Chambliss, 1973; Huff & McBride, 1993; Miller, 1966/2011). Empirical studies report that greater levels of residential mobility and increased flexibility in school choices have also diminished the strong relationship between one’s place of residence and the location of one’s turf (Brunson & Miller, 2009; Fagan, 1996; Hagedorn, 2008; Spergel, 1995; Watkins & Moule, 2014). Furthermore, when parents Page 11 of 38 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 07 February 2018 Gangs and Space decide to move the household it is not unprecedented for a youth gang member to live in a neighborhood claimed by a rival (Flores, 2014; Fremon, 2008; Ley & Cybriwsky, 1974; Lien, 2005). The youth often has to decide whether to continue commuting to his or her original turf, disavow gang membership altogether, or join the new local gang (Garot, 2010). Technology is also playing a role in diminishing the importance of space as it relates to the relationship between place of residence and location of gang turf. There is no denying that advances in cellular technology, the use of social media services (e.g., Facebook, Myspace, Periscope, Twitter), computer-mediated communication, and the Internet more broadly is impacting the ecology of these groups (Décary-Hétu & Morselli, 2011; Densely, 2013, King, Walpole, & Lamon, 2007; Morselli & Décary-Hétu, 2013; Moule, Pyrooz, & Decker, 2014; Patton, Eschman & Butler, 2013; Patton, Eschman, Elsaesser, & Bocanegra, 2016; Patton, Lane, Leonard, Macbeth, & Smith-Lee, 2016; Pyrooz, Decker, & Moule, 2015; Sela-Shayovitz, 2012; Sela-Shayovitz, Pyrooz, & Decker, 2016; Storrod & Densley, 2017; Womer & Bunker, 2010). In fact, Pyrooz and colleagues (2015) find that gang members spend more time online than both former members and nongang individuals. The ability to connect with others in the online world is not dependent upon spatial nearness, and connecting online further diminishes the frequency of face-to-face interactions. In the mid-1990s, the availability of relatively inexpensive mobile phones reshaped the illicit drug market as open-air drug markets that defined the gang-involved crack market of the early 1990s receded into public and private space (Johnson, Golub, & Dunlap, 2000; May & Hough, 2004; Reuter, 2009). The Internet, online gaming, and social networking sites today facilitate young people’s spending less time on the street and more time indoors and online (Aldridge et al., 2012; Moule, Pyrooz, & Decker, 2014). Gang members do not need to come together in a central location in order to engage friends and rivals on social media, text their friends, or scour the Internet for news or entertainment. Researchers have coined terms like “cyber-banging” to capture the online presence and various activities of gang members, including the promotion of gang activities through posting videos or pictures of violent acts, tagging social media sites, or questioning the street credibility/reputations of rivals (Densley, 2013; Morselli & DécaryHétu, 2013; Patton et al., 2013, 2016; Sela-Shayovitz, 2012; Storrod & Densley, 2017). But even in the virtual world of “cyber-banging,” geographic space still matters. For example, take collective criminal actions such as flash robs or swarming. Densley (2013) describes a flash rob occurring when a group of gang members target a retailer and simultaneously steal merchandise or victimize individuals in a targeted area. Swarming is when gang members are notified by a text or social media post to gather and participate in a fight with another street gang (White, 2006). Social media and the Internet (p. 849) may facilitate gang members’ engaging and planning crime actions in the virtual realm, but, eventually, the crimes are committed in the real world. Page 12 of 38 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 07 February 2018 Gangs and Space To better understand the activity spaces of gang members, Valasik and colleagues (2016) create a spatial typology using data from field interviews (FI), a particular type of police investigatory stop used to chronicle gang members and their associates (Katz & Webb, 2006; Papachristos et al., 2012, 2015; Rios, 2011; Valasik, Reid, & Philips, 2016). Valasik, Gravel and Tita (2016) use the distribution of the following geographical indicators to build their typology: the location of a gang member’s residence, the location of his gang’s turf, the location of where the FI took place. Five mutually exclusive spatial types are constructed from the unique combination of the indicators: attached, commuting to turf, detached, directed action, and mobile. Attached territoriality is defined as a gang member living and hanging out within his gang’s claimed turf. The category commuting to turf is when a gang member lives outside of his gang’s claimed territory but returns to hang out inside his gang’s claimed turf. A gang member who lives outside of his gang’s territory and hangs out near his residence is engaging in detached territoriality. Directed action territorial behavior is when a gang member resides within his gang’s claimed territory but is observed outside of his gang’s turf. Lastly, mobile territoriality occurs only when a gang member’s residence, his gang’s turf, and where he encounters a law enforcement officer are each in a unique space (for more detail see Valasik, Gravel, & Tita, 2016). According to the traditional gang literature, gang members would adhere to the attached spatial category with members residing and hanging out in their gang’s territory. In fact, it is not uncommon for modern gang studies to still rely upon gang members’ residences as a proxy for their activity space (Huebner et al., 2016; Katz & Schnebly, 2011). Yet Valasik and colleagues (2016) find that where a gang member lives and where a gang member hangs out are rarely the same, finding that 59% of gang members reside outside the boundaries of their gang’s claimed turf. That said, of all the encounters between gang members and local law enforcement, nearly 64% of encounters occur within the boundary of their gang’s turf. This latter observation is consistent with existing literature (Klein, 1995a; Thrasher, 1927; Tita et al., 2005) indicating that gang members spend an overwhelming amount of their time in and around their gang’s set space. 36.5.1 Nontraditional Relationships between Gang Members’ Residence and Gang Turf Not all gang research supports the inference that a gang’s turf does not necessarily correspond with the location of a gang member’s residence (Ong, 2003; Vigil, 2002). Scholars have documented several groups in the United States that refrain from the traditional perspective of attached territorial behavior. Mexican American or Chicano gang members have been identified as routinely practicing commuting-to-turf territoriality (Moore, 1978, 1991; Moore et al., 1983; Vigil, 1988, 2007). Surfer gangs are another unique group utilizing the territorial pattern of commuting to turf (Kaffine, 2009; Comley, 2011). Under the Eurogang definition,1 surfer gangs are considered to be street gangs (p. 850) (Weerman et al., 2009). Lastly, Vietnamese gangs are very fluid groups and Page 13 of 38 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 07 February 2018 Gangs and Space extremely mobile in their criminal behaviors (Du Phuoc Long, 1996; Lam, 2015; Ong, 2003; Vigil, 2002; Vigil & Yun, 2002). Moore and colleagues (1983) argue that the continuous arrival of Mexican immigrants into the barrios of East Los Angeles (e.g., regular waves of Mexican migrants outpacing the succession of ethnic migrations) contributed to ecological patterns of gang behavior differing from those observed in Chicago. Over time, the cultural continuity and durability of these neighborhoods reduced the necessity for members to reside within their gang’s claimed turf (Adamson, 1998; Aldridge et al., 2011, 2012; Durán, 2013; Philips, 1999). Accordingly, Mexican-American gangs are more likely to participate in commuting-to-turf territorial behavior. The ubiquity of automobiles has also allowed gang members to reside elsewhere in the city but regularly return to their claimed barrio, thereby maintaining the gang’s heritage, reputation, and norms (Gerber, 2014; Leap, 2012; Moore et al., 1983). Groups of surfers can also be extremely territorial over a particular surfing spot and have exhibited behaviors similar to urban street gangs, using intimidation and fighting to aggressively maintain territorial control over their “turf” (Comley, 2011; Kaffine, 2009; Usher & Kerstetter, 2015). Members of these surf gangs often do not reside in the adjacent shoreline communities of where their claimed surf break is located but instead regularly commute to their turf to hang out or “hang ten” (Kaffine, 2009). This behavior has been widely documented by the Bay Boys, a surf gang near Los Angeles that is currently composed of affluent, middle-age, white men (Carroll & Smith, 2015; Shaw, 2016). The Bay Boys have a decades-long history of intimidation, vandalism, and assault to keep outsiders from accessing their surf break (Carroll & Smith, 2015; Perry, 1995; Therolf, 2015; Waters, 1991). While this cafeteria style of criminal acts is analogous to the offending patterns of typical street gangs, members of the Bay Boys have generally escaped prosecution (Harper, 2015). However, a lawsuit for the enjoinment of the Bay Boys with a civil gang injunction, inhibiting them from congregating as a group around their claimed surf break, is pending (Kandel & Crouch, 2016; Shaw, 2016). Vietnamese gang members have never held the importance of place/space in high regard (Vigil & Yun, 2002). As noted by Vigil (2002, p. 113), “Vietnamese gangs are certainly street gangs but their street is often an interstate highway.” Vietnamese gang members are unconcerned about controlling a turf. “For us, [the] most [important thing is] we try to make money. We don’t fight for a little neighborhood ’cause that’s stupid” (Vigil & Yun, 2002, p. 133). Finances are procured almost entirely through home invasion robberies, typically targeting the Vietnamese individuals across the country who do not trust, and refrain from using, banks or other financial institutions, hoarding large amounts of currency (Ong, 2003; Vigil, 2002). 36.5.2 Global Perspectives on Gang Member Territoriality Page 14 of 38 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 07 February 2018 Gangs and Space As emphasized in Table 36.1, gang members in urban centers across the globe have been observed practicing a variety of the territorial behaviors described by Valasik, (p. 851) Gravel and Tita (2016). Commuting-to-turf territoriality is common throughout cities in Europe, Russia, Australia, and New Zealand. Robust public transportation systems are routinely used and allow gang members to not be restricted by municipal borders or “geographically fixed areas” and to scatter their movements openly, moving all around a city, tagging places with gang graffiti, and confronting rival groups (Lien, 2001, p. 169; Loyola, 2013; Perrone & White, 2000; Polk, 1995). Vehicles also permit gang members’ set space to be a good distance from their residence (Hazlehurst, 2007; (p. 852) Lien, 2005). Aldridge and colleagues (2011, p. 72) also indicate that these “residential outsiders” could be produced by the voluntary or involuntary rehousing of gang members, youths’ transitory progression between school grades, specifically from local primary schools to wider catchments of secondary schools, or the preservation of kinship ties with fellow gang members who continue to reside within their gang’s territory. Table 36.1 Gang Member Territorial Behaviors Documented throughout the World Type of territoriality Country Study Australia Perrone & White, 2000; Polk, 1994, 1995; White, 2006, 2008, 2013; White, et al., 1999 Finland Gatz & Klein, 1993; Klein, 1995a Germany Gatz & Klein, 1993; Klein, 1995a England Aldridge et al., 2011 Guatemala Levenson, 2013; Winton, 2004, 2005 Mexico Loyola, 2013 Netherlands Gatz & Klein, 1993; Klein, 1995a New Zealand Hazlehurst, 2007 Nicaragua Rocha, 2011; Rodgers & Jones, 2009 Russia/Soviet Union Salagaev & Safin, 2014; Stephenson, 2015 Commuting to turf Page 15 of 38 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 07 February 2018 Gangs and Space Sweden Lien, 2001, 2005, 2013 Switzerland Sarnecki, 2001 Russia/Soviet Union Salagaev & Safin, 2014; Stephenson, 2015 Norway Bjørgo, Carlson, & Haaland, 2004 Sweden Rostami et al., 2012 Bangladesh Atkinson-Sheppard, 2016 Brazil Hecht, 1998; Rizzini & Butler, 2003 Columbia Aptekar, 1988 Dem. Rep. of Congo Geenen, 2009 Dominican Republic Wolseth, 2009 El Salvador Rodgers & Baird, 2015; Rodgers & Jones, 2009; Wolf, 2012; Zilberg, 2004 Ethiopia Heinonen, 2011 Guatemala Levenson, 2013; Winton, 2004, 2005 Honduras Mateo, 2011 India Smith, 2016 Directed action Mobile Economic restructuring has influenced the territoriality of gang members in many regions throughout the world. Developing nations are particularly impacted, where a strong public infrastructure is lacking and high levels of unemployment, poverty, and disorder govern daily life (Katz, Maguire, & Choate, 2011). Greater levels of residential instability contribute to a lack of turf stability among gangs, producing conditions where Page 16 of 38 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 07 February 2018 Gangs and Space territorial claims are constantly under dispute (Geenen, 2009; Heinonen, 2011; Winton, 2014). The flexibility of mobile territorial behavior benefits these gangs and facilitates their survival. Many gang members know where their natural families reside but put greater value in being autonomous from parents, living on the street in makeshift accommodations that frequently change on nightly basis (Atkinson-Sheppard, 2016; Geenen, 2009; Smith, 2016). Where gang members loiter also varies, with no particular boundary or claim to a specific set space. This high degree of mobility results in gangs being dispersed throughout the city and having limited contact with opposing gangs (Heinonen, 2011). It is also common for transnational gangs, or maras, in Latin America (Rodgers & Baird, 2015; Rodgers & Jones, 2009; Winton, 2004; Wolf, 2012; Zilberg, 2004) to exhibit patterns of mobile territoriality. For instance, gangs originating in many Honduran neighborhoods have members routinely traveling back-and-forth through Guatemala, El Salvador, and parts of Mexico (Mateo, 2011). Members of gangs in Norway, Sweden, and Russia have also been documented engaging in directed action territoriality, going on excursions to raid nearby cities (Stephenson, 2015). For instance, ethnic gangs in Norway display directed action territorial behavior, rapidly mobilizing members from their turf and hunting for rival neo-Nazi gang members throughout the city center when rumors arise that there were “Nazis in town” (Bjørgo, Carlson, & Haaland, 2004, p. 570). Also, Rostami and colleagues (2012, pp. 438–439) find the majority of Swedish gang members’ crimes are “committed outside of their own residential area” and do not “have a clear pattern regarding living in a specific residential area.” Overall, more empirical research examining how territoriality, mobility, and residential transience and relocation influence the behaviors of gang members, including patterns for violence, is needed. Future studies should further investigate the complex relationship between space and its utilization by gang members in the modern age. 36.6 Responding to Gangs with Geographically Targeted Interventions Ecological theories of crime, such as routine activities theory (Cohen & Felson, 1979; Felson, 1987; Felson & Boba, 2010) and crime pattern theory (Brantingham & (p. 853) Brantingham, 1984), examine the production of criminal opportunities in particular spatial locations by focusing on the interaction between the activity patterns of an individual and the context of the criminal event. That is, the social, natural, and built environments impact individuals’ activity patterns, bringing together a motivated offender with a suitable target that lacks the protection of a capable guardian. This suggests that utilizing situational crime prevention strategies can disrupt the recurring day-to-day activity patterns of an individual, thereby curbing opportunities for crime to occur (Clarke, 1997). Coupled with the use of problem-oriented policing strategies, Page 17 of 38 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 07 February 2018 Gangs and Space spatially targeted policing, in general, rarely has resulted in crime displacement but instead produced crime control benefits that diffuse beyond the targeted area (Grogger, 2002; Ratcliffe & Breen, 2011; Weisburd, Wyckoff, Ready, Eck, Hinkle, & Gajewski, 2006). The role that space plays in shaping the activities of gangs also has enormous implications for policies aimed at controlling gang-related crime and has generated a number of placed-based policing strategies (Braga et al., 2014; Groff, Ratcliffe, Haberman, Sorg, Joyce, & Taylor, 2015; Lasley, 1998; Papachristos, Meares, & Fagan, 2007; Ratcliffe & Breen, 2011; Tita et al., 2003; Valasik, 2014). The geography of an area, both natural and built, influences a gang’s claimed territorial space, either facilitating or impeding social interactions among street gangs (Grannis, 2009). Therefore, before any form of intervention strategy targeting gang violence gets employed, it is essential to account for the activity patterns of a gang and how space is utilized (Kennedy et al., 1996; Radil et al., 2010). 36.6.1 Altering the Built Environment An approach favored by policymakers to influence criminal opportunities is altering the built environment (MacDonald, 2015), what is generally referred to as CPTED, or crime prevention through environmental design (Crowe & Zahm, 1994; Jeffery, 1971; Moffat, 1983; Newman, 1972; Taylor & Gottfredson, 1986). An example of using CPTED to directly affect gang crime and violence is Operation Cul de Sac (OCDS). A situational crime prevention strategy, OCDS was deployed by the Los Angeles Police Department, placing traffic barriers (i.e., K-rails) at the end of targeted streets to restrict traffic flow in areas impacted by gang violence. The basic premise was that by restricting vehicle access, the opportunities available for gang violence to occur, specifically drive-by shootings, would also be reduced. Lasley’s (1998) evaluation found homicides and assaults decreased, especially those involving gangs. However, once the program was discontinued, restoring normal traffic patterns, increases in gang-related violence returned to the targeted area (see also Vargas, 2016). 36.6.2 Civil Gang Injunctions A civil gang injunction (CGI) can be thought of as a restraining order wherein gang members are restricted from congregating within a defined geographical region, called (p. 854) a “safety zone.” CGIs have become one of the most popular antigang strategies in the United States, United Kingdom and Australia in the last decade (Lansdell, Eriksson, Saunders, & Brown, 2012; Rosen & Venkatesh, 2007; Treadwell & Gooch, 2015), and the allure of CGIs or similar dispersal orders does not appear to be abating as an antigang strategy (Aldridge, Ralphs & Medina, 2011; Ayling, 2011; Barajas, 2007; Branson-Potts, 2013; Crawford, 2009; Crofts, 2011; Harling, 2008; Home Office, 2015; O’Deane, 2012; Palomo, 2002; Rossi, 2005; Swan & Bates, 2017; Walsh, 2002, 2003). As discussed above, members regularly hang out in their gang’s set space, which tend to be public locations, Page 18 of 38 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 07 February 2018 Gangs and Space such as a park or street corner (Tita et al., 2005). However, if a CGI is effective at influencing the daily behaviors of enjoined gang members, then gang members would refrain from loitering in these known set space locations. Valasik (2014) investigated the influence that a CGI has on the patterns of association among members of a gang before and after the group was enjoined with a CGI. Results showed that enjoined gang members were less likely to be observed hanging out in their gang’s set space following the enactment of a CGI (Valasik, 2014). However, the CGI did not displace the activities of enjoined gang members into the adjacent regions outside of a CGI’s safety zone. Instead, the CGI actually constrained the mobility of enjoined gang members, decreasing the likelihood that these individuals ventured outside of their gang’s territory. The lack of gang member displacement into neighboring communities also parallels Grogger’s (2002) findings that CGIs do not move crime around the corner. Valasik (2014) did reveal that enjoined gang members shifted where they associated with other members from public spaces to private spaces (i.e., private residences, driveways, front or back yards, etc.), a finding consistent with the research of Hennigan and Sloane (2013). 36.7 Conclusions We have attempted to present the importance of geographic space in terms of how gangs exploit as well as react to the local built environment. We know that gangs are more likely to form in neighborhoods where local levels of informal social control are lacking and levels of social disorganization are high. When choosing a suitable turf or set space, gang members are also likely to consider the accessibility and particular protective factors offered by the built environment (i.e., vacant buildings, street corners, alleys, etc.). High levels of crime often predate the arrival of a gang (Tita, 1999). We have also shown that exploiting the local geography is an important component of gang-specific crime control policies. Perhaps the primacy of place of residence in terms of which gang one joins and the location of a gang’s turf has diminished; however, we have no doubt that the local built environment will continue to play an important role in providing a life-space for gangs, especially the traditional urban street gang (Klein & Maxson, 2006). Just as the crack market of the early 1990s retreated from the streets into spaces more immune to criminal (p. 855) justice surveillance, the classic “street corner boys” of the mid-twentieth century may also be taking their daily routine activities into more private spaces. Certain criminal justice practices may also alter the importance of street corners and set space in terms of where gang members associate. Curfews, CGIs, and other forms of surveillance may cause gang members to shift from associating in public to gathering in a private setting instead (Aldridge et al., 2012; Hennigan & Sloane, 2013; Smith, S. 2014; Valasik, 2014). That being said, when gang-related crime or violence does occur, it does not remain in Page 19 of 38 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 07 February 2018 Gangs and Space private or restricted to the virtual world but transpires outside on the streets (Densely, 2013; Patton et al., 2013, 2016; White, 2006). Though we might be witnessing the declining significance of space, it is unimaginable that the importance of the local environment will completely disappear. Street gangs remain a localized phenomenon that is dependent upon the trust between individuals, requiring a medium for face-to-face interactions (Densley, 2013). As long as trust remains an important part of gang life, place will play an important role in the formation and maintenance of street gangs. References Adamson, C. (1998). “Tribute, turf, honor and the American street gang: Patterns of continuity and change since 1820.” Theoretical Criminology, 2(1): 57–84. Adamson, C. (2000). “Defensive localism in white and black: A comparative history of European-American and African-American youth gangs.” Ethnic and Racial Studies, 23(2), 272–298. Aldridge, J., Medina-Ariz, J., & Ralphs, R. (2012). “Counting gangs: Conceptual and validity problems with the Eurogang definition.” In F. Esbensen & C. L. Maxson (eds.), Youth Gangs in International Perspective: Research from the Eurogang Program of Research (pp. 35–51). New York, NY: Springer. Aldridge, J., Ralphs, R., & Medina, J. (2011). “Collateral damage: Territory and policing in an English gang city.” In B. Goldson (ed.), Youth in Crisis? “Gangs”, Territoriality and Violence (pp. 72–88). New York, NY: Routledge. Alonso, A. A. (2004). “Racialized identities and the formation of black gangs in Los Angeles.” Urban Geography, 25(7), 658–674. Anderson, E. (1976). A Place on the Corner. Chicago, IL: The Univeristy of Chicago Press. Anselin, L., Cohen, J., Cook, D., Gorr, W., & Tita, G. E. (2000). “Spatial analyses of crime.” Crime Justice, 4, 213–262. Aptekar, L. (1988). Street Children of Cali. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Atkinson-Sheppard, S. (2016). “The gangs of Bangladesh: Exploring organized crime, street gangs and ‘illicit child labourers’ in Dhaka.” Criminology and Criminal Justice, 16(2), 233–249. Ayling, J. (2011). “Pre-emptive strike: How Australia is tackling outlaw motorcycle gangs.” American Journal of Criminal Justice, 36(3), 250–264. (p. 856) Barajas, F. P. (2007). “An invading army: A civil gang injunction in a Southern California Chicana/o community.” Latino Studies, 5, 393–417. Page 20 of 38 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 07 February 2018 Gangs and Space Bellair, P. E., & McNulty, T. L. (2010). “Gang membership, drug selling, and violence in neighborhood context.” Justice Quarterly, 26(4), 644–669. Bergmann, L. (2008). Getting Ghost: Two Young Lives and the Struggle for the Soul of an American City. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Bjerregaard, B. (2010). “Gang membership and drug involvement untangling the complex relationship.” Crime and Delinquency, 56(1), 3–34. Bjørgo, T., Carlsson, Y., & Haaland, T. (2004). “Hate crime or gang conflict? Violence between youth groups in a Norwegian city.” In G. Mesko, M. Pagon, & B. Dobovsek (eds.), Policing in Central and Eastern Europe: Dilemmas of Contemporary Criminal Justice (pp. 1–19). Maribor, Slovenia: Faculty of Criminal Justice, University of Maribor. Blasko, B. L., Roman, C. G., & Taylor, R. B. (2015). “Local gangs and residents’ perceptions of unsupervised teen groups: Implications for the incivilities thesis and neighborhood effects.” Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(1), 20–28. Block, C. R. & Block, R. L. (1993). Street Gang Crime in Chicago. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Block, R. L. (2000). “Gang activity and overall levels of crime: A new mapping tool for defining areas of gang activity using police records.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 16(3), 369–383. Blumstein, A., & Cork, D. (1996). “Linking gun availability to youth gun violence.” Law and Contemporary Problems, 59(1), 5–24. Braga, A. A., Hureau, D. M., & Papachristos, A. V. (2014). “Deterring gang-involved gun violence: Measuring the impact of Boston’s Operation Ceasefire on street gang behavior.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 30(1), 113–139. Branson-Potts, H. (2013, September 26). “Gang injunction granted in Echo Park.” Los Angeles Times. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-gang-injunctiongranted-in-echo-park-20130926,0,7807855.story#axzz2tutWgIxo. Brantingham, P. J., & Brantingham, P. L. (1984). Patterns in Crime. New York, NY: Macmillan. Brantingham, P. J., & Brantingham, P. L. (1995). “Criminality of place: Crime generators and crime attractors.” European Journal of Criminal Policy and Research, 3(3), 5–26. Brantingham, P. J., Tita, G. E., Short, M., & Reid, S. E. (2012). “The social ecology of gang territorial boundaries.” Criminology, 50(3), 851–885. Brown, G. C., Vigil, J. D., & Taylor, E. R. (2012). “The ghettoization of blacks in Los Angeles: The emergence of street gangs.” Journal of African American Studies, 16(2), 209–225. Page 21 of 38 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 07 February 2018 Gangs and Space Brunson, R. K., & Miller, J. (2009). “Schools, neighborhoods, and adolescent conflicts: A situational examination of reciprocal dynamics.” Justice Quarterly, 26(2), 183–210. Bursik, R. J., Jr., & Grasmick, H. G. (1993). Neighborhoods and Crime: The Dimensions of Effective Community Control. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Calderoni, F., Berlusconi, G., Garofalo, L., Giommoni, L., & Sarno, F. (2016). “The Italian mafias in the world: A systematic assessment of the mobility of criminal groups.” European Journal of Criminology, 13(4), 413–433. Carroll, R., & Smith, N. (2015, May 18). “California’s surf wars: Wave ‘warlords’ go to extreme lengths to defend their turf.” Guardian. http://gu.com/p/492af/sbl. Cartwright, D. S., & Howard, K. I. (1966). “Multivariate analysis of gang delinquency: I. Ecologic influences.” Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1(3), 321–371. (p. 857) Chambliss, W. J. (1973). “The saints and the roughnecks.” Society, 11(1), 24–31. Clarke, R. V. (1997). Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies. New York, NY: Harrow & Heston. Cohen, J., & Tita, G. E. (1999). “Diffusion in homicide: Exploring a general method for detecting spatial diffusion processes.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 15(4), 451– 493. Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). “Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach.” American Sociological Review, 44 (August), 588–608. Comley, C. (2011). “Fall in line: How surfers’ perceptions of localism, territoriality and waves as limited resources influence surf-related aggression.” McNair Scholars Research Journal, 15, 15–29. Contreras, R. (2013). The Stickup Kids: Race, Drugs, Violence, and the American Dream. Berkeley: University of California Press. Crawford, A. (2009). “Criminalizing sociability through anti-social behavior legislation: Dispersal powers, young people and the police.” Youth Justice 9(5), 5–26. Crofts, T. (2011). “The law and (anti-social behaviour) order campaign in western Australia.” Current Issues in Criminal Justice 22(3), 399–414 Crowe, T., & Zahm, D. (1994). “Crime prevention through environmental design.” NAHB Land Development, 1994(Fall), 22–27. Curry, G. D., & Decker, S. H. (1996). “Understanding and responding to gangs in an emerging gang problem context.” Valparaiso University Law Review, 31(2), 523–533. Page 22 of 38 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 07 February 2018 Gangs and Space Curtis, J. W., Shiau, E., Lowery, B., Sloane, D., Hennigan, K., & Curtis, A. (2014). “The prospects and problems of integrating sketch maps with geographic information systems to understand environmental perception: A case study of mapping youth fear in Los Angeles gang neighborhoods.” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 41(2), 251–271. Décary-Hétu, D., & Morselli, C. (2011). “Gang presence in social network sites.” International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 5(2), 876–890. Decker, S. H., & Van Winkle, B. (1996). Life in the Gang: Family, Friends and Violence. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Densley, J. A. (2013). How Gangs Work: An Ethnography of Youth Violence. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Du Phuoc Long, P. (1996). The Dream Shattered: Vietnamese Gangs in America. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press. Durán, R. J. (2013). Gang Life in Two Cities: An Insider’s Journey. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Dyson-Hudson, R., & Smith, E. A. (1978). “Human territoriality: An ecological reassessment.” American Anthropologist, 80(1), 21–41. Eck, J. E. (1995). “A general model of the geography of illicit market places.” In J. E. Eck & D. Weisburd (eds.), Crime and Place. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press. Fader, J. J. (2016). “Criminal family networks: Criminal capital and cost avoidance among urban drug sellers.” Deviant Behavior, 1–16. DOI:10.1080/01639625.2016.1177388. Fagan, J. A. (1989). “The social organization of drug use and drug dealing among urban gangs.” Criminology, 27(4), 633–669. Fagan, J. A. (1996). “Gangs, drugs and neighborhood change.” In C. R. Huff (ed.), Gangs in America, 2nd ed. (pp. 39–74). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Felson, M. (1987). “Routine activities and crime prevention in the developing metropolis.” Criminology, 25(4), 911–931. (p. 858) Felson, M., & Boba, R. (2010). Crime and Everyday Life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Flores, E. O. (2014). God’s Gangs: Barrio Ministry, Masculinity, and Gang Recovery. New York, NY: New York University Press. Fremon, C. (2008). G-Dog and the Homeboys: Father Greg Boyle and the Gangs of East Los Angeles. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Page 23 of 38 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 07 February 2018 Gangs and Space Gambetta, D. (1996). The Sicilian Mafia: The Business of Private Protection. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Garot, R. (2010). Who You Claim: Performing Gang Identity in School and on the Streets. New York, NY: New York University Press. Gatz, M., & Klein, M. W. (1993). “Europe’s new gangs break American pattern by crossing ethnic lines, commuting to turf.” Psychology International 4(2), 1, 10–11. Geenen, K. (2009). “ ‘Sleep occupies no space’: The use of public space by street gangs in Kinshasa.” Africa: Journal of the International African Institute, 79(3), 347–368. Gerber, M. (2014, February 3). “With gentrification, Echo Park gang members move outside their turf.” Los Angeles Times. http://articles.latimes.com/2014/feb/03/local/ la-me-echo-park-gang-20140126. Gilpin, M. E. (1973). “Do hares eat lynx?” American Naturalist, 107(957), 727–730. Grannis, R. (2009). From the Ground Up: Translating Geography into Community through Neighbor Networks. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Griffiths, E., & Chavez, J. M. (2004). “Communities, street guns and homicide trajectories in Chicago, 1980–1995: Merging methods for examining homicide trends across space and time.” Criminology, 42, 941–978. Groff, E. R., Ratcliffe, J. H., Haberman, C. P., Sorg, E. T., Joyce, N. M., & Taylor, R. B. (2015). “Does what police do at hot spots matter? The Philadelphia policing tactics experiment.” Criminology, 53(1), 23–53. Grogger, J. (2002). “The effects of civil gang injunctions on reported violent crime: Evidence from Los Angeles County.” Journal of Law and Economics, 45, 69–90. Hagedorn, J. M. (1988). People and Folks: Gangs, Crime, and the underclass in a Rustbelt City. Chicago, IL: Lakeview Press. Hagedorn, J. M. (1994). “Neighborhoods, markets, and gang drug organization.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 31(3), 264–294. Hagedorn, J. M. (2008). A World of Gangs: Armed Young Men and Gangsta Culture. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Harling, N. (2008). “A review of Charleston, South Carolina’s anti-loitering ordinance and its likelihood of surviving constitutional scrutiny.” Charleston Law Review, 4, 775–806. Harper, J. (2015, August 4). “A gang of rich, white surfer dudes is terrorizing a California beach town.” VICE News. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/nn9eed/a-gang-of-richwhite-surfer-dudes-is-terrorizing-a-california-beach-town-721 Page 24 of 38 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 07 February 2018 Gangs and Space Hazlehurst, C. (2007). “Observing New Zealand ‘gangs,’ 1950–2000: Learning from a small country.” In J. M. Hagedorn (ed.), Gangs in the Global City: Alternatives to Traditional Criminology (pp. 120–151). Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Hecht, T. (1998). At Home in the Street: Street Children of Northeast Brazil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heinonen, P. (2011). Youth Gangs and Street Children: Culture, Nurture and Masculinity in Ethiopia. New York, NY: Berghahn Books. Heinsohn, R., & Packer, C. (1995). “Complex cooperative strategies in groupterritorial African lions.” Science, 269(5228), 1260–1262. (p. 859) Hennigan, K. M., & Sloane, D. (2013). “Improving civil gang injunctions: How implementation can affect dynamics, crime, and violence.” Criminology and Public Policy 12(1), 7–41. Hennigan, K. M., & Spanovic, M. (2012). “Gang dynamics through the lens of social identity theory.” In F. Esbensen & C. L. Maxson (eds.), Youth Gangs in International Perspective (pp. 127–149). New York, NY: Springer. Home Office (2015, July 16). “Injunctions to prevent gang-related violence and drug dealing: Statutory guidance.” https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ statutory-guidance-injunctions-to-prevent-gang-related-violence--2. Howell, J. C., Egley, A., Jr., Tita, G. E., & Griffiths, E. (2011). “U.S. gang problem trends and seriousness, 1996–2009.” US Department of Justice: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. National Youth Gang Center Bulletin, May (no. 6). Howell, J. C., & Griffiths, E. (2015). Gangs in America’s Communities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Huebner, B. M., Martin, K., Moule, R. K., Jr., Pyrooz, D., & Decker, S. H. (2016). “Dangerous places: Gang members and neighborhood levels of gun assault.” Justice Quarterly, 33(5), 836–862. Huff, C. R. (1989). “Youth gangs and public policy.” Crime and Delinquency, 35(4), 524– 537. Huff, C. R., & McBride, W. D. (1993). “Gangs and the police.” In A. P. Goldstein & C. R. Huff (eds.), The Gang Intervention Handbook (pp. 401–416). Champaign, IL: Research Press. Jankowski, M. S. (1991). Islands in the Street: Gangs and American Urban Society. Berkeley: University of California Press. Jeffery, C. R. (1971). Crime Prevention through Environmental Design. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Page 25 of 38 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 07 February 2018 Gangs and Space Johnson, B., Golub, A., & Dunlap, E. (2000). “The rise and decline of hard drugs, drug markets, and violence in inner-city New York.” In A. Blumstein, & J. Wallman (eds.), The Crime Drop in America (pp. 164–206). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Jost, C., Devulder, G., Vucetich, J. A., Peterson, R. O., & Arditi, R. (2005). “The wolves of Isle Royale display scale‐invariant satiation and ratio‐dependent predation on moose.” Journal of Animal Ecology, 74(5), 809–816. Kandel, J., & Crouch, A. (2016, April 5). “Planned class-action lawsuit targets Bay Boys ‘surfer gang.’ ” NBC Los Angeles. http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/PlannedClass-Action-Lawsuit-Targets-Lunada-Bay-Boys-Surfer-Gang-374019821.html. Kaffine, D. T. (2009). “Quality and the commons: The surf gangs of California.” Journal of Law and Economics, 52(4), 727–743. Katz, C. M., Maguire, E. R., & Choate, D. (2011). “A cross-national comparison of gangs in the United States and Trinidad and Tobago.” International Criminal Justice Review, 21(3), 243–262. Katz, C. M., & Schnebly, S. M. (2011). “Neighborhood variation in gang member concentrations.” Crime and Delinquency, 57(3), 377–407. Katz, C. M., & Webb, V. J. (2006). Policing Gangs in America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kennedy, D. M., Braga, A. A., & Piehl, A. M. (1997). “The (un)known universe: Mapping gangs and gang violence in Boston.” In D. L. Weisburd & J. T. McEwen (eds.), Crime Mapping and Crime Prevention (pp. 219–262). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press. Kennedy, D. M., Piehl, A. M., & Braga, A. A. (1996). “Youth violence in Boston: Gun markets, serious youth offenders, and a use-reduction strategy.” Law and Contemporary Problems, 59(1), 147–196. King, J. E., Walpole, C. E., & Lamon, K. (2007). “Surf and turf wars online: Growing implications of Internet gang violence.” Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(6), S66S68. (p. 860) Klein, M. W. (1995a). The American Street Gang. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Klein, M. W. (1995b). “Street gang cycles.” In J. Q. Wilson and J. Petersilia (eds.), Crime (pp. 217–236). San Francisco, CA: Institute for Contemporary Studies Press. Klein, M. W., & Maxson, C. L. (1985). “ ‘Rock’ sales in South Los Angeles.” Sociology and Social Research, 69(4), 561–565. Klein, M. W., & Maxson, C. L. (2006). Street Gang Patterns and Policies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Page 26 of 38 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 07 February 2018 Gangs and Space Kubrin, C. E., & Weitzer, R. (2003). “Retaliatory homicide: Concentrated disadvantage and neighborhood culture.” Social Problems, 50(2), 157–180. Lam, K. D. (2015). Youth Gangs, Racism, and Schooling: Vietnamese American Youth in a Postcolonial Context. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Lane, J. (2002). “Fear of gang crime: A qualitative examination of the four perspectives.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 39(4), 437–471. Lane, J., & J. W. Meeker. (2003). “Fear of gang crime: A look at three theoretical models.” Law and Society Review 37(2), 425–456. Lansdell, G., Eriksson, A., Saunders, B., and Brown, M. (2012). “Infringement systems in Australia: A precarious blurring of civil and criminal sanctions?” Alternative Law Journal 37(1), 41–45. Lasley, J. (1998). “ ‘Designing out’ gang homicides and street assaults.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. Leap, J. (2012). Jumped In: What Gangs Taught Me about Violence, Drugs, Love, and Redemption. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Lefebvre, H. (1974/1991). The Production of Space. D. Nicholson-Smith (trans.). Oxford: Blackwell. Levitt, S. D., & Venkatesh, S. A. (2000). “An economic analysis of a drug-selling gang’s finances.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(3), 755–789. Levenson, D. T. (2013). Adiós Niño: The Gangs of Guatemala City and the Politics of Death. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Ley, D., & Cybriwsky, R. (1974). “Urban graffiti as territorial markers.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 64(4), 491–505. Liebow, E. (1967). Tally’s Corner: A Study of Negro Streetcorner Men. New York, NY: Little, Brown. Lien, I. (2001). “The concept of honor, conflict, and violent behavior among youths in Oslo.” In M. W. Klein, H. Kerner, C. L. Maxson, & E. G. M. Weitekamp (eds.), The Eurogang Paradox: Street Gangs and Youth Groups in the U.S. and Europe (pp. 165–174). Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Lien, I. (2005). “Criminal gangs and their connections: Metaphors, definitions, and structures.” In S. H. Decker & F. M. Weerman (eds.), European Street Gangs and Troublesome Youth Groups (pp. 31–50). New York, NY: AltaMira Press. Page 27 of 38 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 07 February 2018 Gangs and Space Loyola, B. (2013, November 27). “The subterranean scene: On the rails with Mexico City’s reggaeton-loving subway gangs.” VICE News. http://www.vice.com/video/thesubway-gangs-of-mexico-city. Lyman, S. M., & Scott, M. B. (1967). “Territoriality: A neglected sociological dimension.” Social Problems, 15(20), 236–249. MacArthur, R. H. (1958). “Ecology of some warblers of northeastern coniferous forests.” Ecology 39(4), 599–619. MacDonald, J. (2015). “Community design and crime: The impact of housing and the built environment.” Crime and Justice 44(1), 333–383. (p. 861) Mares, D. (2010). “Social disorganization and gang homicides in Chicago, IL: A neighborhood level comparison of disaggregated homicides.” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 8(1), 38–57. Mateo, J. (2011). “Street gangs of Honduras.” In T. Bruneau, L. Dammer, & E. Skinner (eds.), Maras: Gang Violence and Security in Central America (p 87–104). Austin: University of Texas Press. Maxson, C. L. (1998). Gang Members on the Move. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. May, T., & Hough, M. (2004). “Drug markets and distribution systems.” Addiction Research and Theory, 12(6), 549–563. Mears, D. P., & Bhati, A. S. (2006). “No community is an island: The effects of resource deprivation on urban violence in spatially and socially proximate communities.” Criminology, 44(3), 509–548. Miller, W. B. (1966/2011). City Gangs. S. H. Decker (ed.). Phoenix: Arizona State University. Mills, E. S. (1990). Housing economics: A synthesis. In M. Chetterji & R. E. Kuenne (eds.), New Frontiers in Regional Science: Essays in Honor of Walter Isard, vol. 1 (pp. 257–274). New York: New York University Press. Moffatt, R. E. (1983). “Crime prevention through environmental design: A management perspective.” Canadian Journal of Criminology, 25, 19–31. Monod, J. (1967). “Juvenile gangs in Paris: Toward a structural analysis.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 4(1), 142–165. Moore, J. W. (1978). Homeboys: Gangs, Drugs, and Prison in the Barrios of Los Angeles. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Page 28 of 38 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 07 February 2018 Gangs and Space Moore, J. W. (1991). Going Down to the Barrio: Homeboys and Homegirls in Change. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Moore, J. W., Vigil, J. D., & Garcia, R. (1983). “Residence and territoriality in Chicano gangs.” Social Problems, 31(2), 182–194. Moule, R. K., Jr., Pyrooz, D. C., & Decker, S. H. (2014). “Internet adoption and online behaviour among American street gangs: Integrating gangs and organizational theory.” British Journal of Criminology, 54(6), 1186–1206. Morenoff, J. D., & Sampson, R. J. (1997). “Violent crime and the spatial dynamics of neighborhood transition: Chicago, 1970–1990.” Social Forces, 76(1), 31–64. Morselli, C., & Décary-Hétu, D. (2013). “Crime facilitation purposes of social networking sites: A review and analysis of the ‘cyberbanging’ phenomenon.” Small Wars and Insurgencies 24(1), 152–170. Newman, O. (1972). Defensible Space: Crime Prevention through Urban Design. New York, NY: Random House. O’Deane, M. D. (2012). Gang Injunctions and Abatement: Using Civil Remedies to Curb Gang-Related Crimes. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Ong, A. (2003). Buddha Is Hiding: Refugees, Citizenship, the New America. Berkeley: University of California Press. Padilla, F. M. (1992). The Gang as an American Enterprise. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Palomo, E. (2002). “ ‘The sheriff knows who the trouble makers are. Just Let him round them up’: Chicago’s new gang loitering ordinance.” University of Illinois Law Review, 3, 729–760. Papachristos, A. V. (2009). “Murder by structure: Dominance relations and the social structure of gang homicide.” American Journal of Sociology, 115(1), 74–128. (p. 862) Papachristos, A. V., Braga, A. A., & Hureau, D. M. (2012). “Social networks and the risk of gunshot injury.” Journal of Urban Health, 89(6), 992–1003. Papachristos, A. V., Braga, A. A., Piza, E., & Grossman, L. S. (2015). “The company you keep? The spillover effects of gang membership on individual gunshot victimization in a co-offending network.” Criminology, 53(4), 624–649. Papachristos, A. V., Hureau, D. M., & Braga, A. A. (2013). “The corner and the crew: The influence of geography and social networks on gang violence.” American Sociological Review, 78(3), 417–447. Page 29 of 38 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 07 February 2018 Gangs and Space Papachristos, A. V., & Kirk, D. S. (2006). “Neighborhood effects on street gang behavior.” In J. F. Short Jr. & L. A. Hughes (eds.), Studying Youth Gangs (pp. 63–84). Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press. Papachristos, A. V., Meares, T. L., & Fagan, J. (2007). “Attention felons: Evaluating project safe neighborhoods in Chicago.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 4(2), 223–272. Park, R. E., & Burgess, E. W. (1925/1967). The City. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Pattillo-McCoy, M. E. (1999). Black Picket Fences: Privilege and Peril among the Black Middle Class. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Patton, D. U., Eschmann, R. D., & Butler, D. A. (2013). “Internet banging: New trends in social media, gang violence, masculinity and hip hop.” Computers in Human Behavior, 29(5), A54-A59. Patton, D. U., Eschmann, R. D., Elsaesser, C., & Bocanegra, E. (2016). “Sticks, stones and Facebook accounts: What violence outreach workers know about social media and urbanbased gang violence in Chicago.” Computers in Human Behavior, pp. 1–10, DOI:10.1016/ j.chb.2016.05.052. Patton, D. U., Lane, J., Leonard, P., Macbeth, J., & Smith-Lee, J. R. (2016). “Gang violence on the digital street: Case study of a South Side Chicago gang member’s Twitter communication.” New Media & Society, pp. 1–19, DOI:10.1177/1461444815625949. Perrone, S. & White, R. (2000). “Young people and gangs.” Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice No. 167. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. Perry, T. (1995, May 8). “Turf wars spoil sanctity of Southland surf beaches.” Los Angeles Times. http://articles.latimes.com/1995-05-08/news/mn-63795_1_lunada-bay. Phillips, S. A. (1999). Wallbangin’: Graffiti and Gangs in L.A. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Phillips, S. A. (2012). Operation Fly Trap: L.A. Gangs, Drugs, and the Law. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Pickering, J., Kintrea, K., & Bannister, J. (2012). “Invisible walls and visible youth: Territoriality among young people in British cities.” Urban Studies, 49(5), 945–960. Polk, K. (1994). “Youth violence: Myth and reality.” In D. Chappell & S. Egger (eds.), Australian Violence: Contemporary Perspectives II. (pp. 51–70). Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. Polk, K. (1995). “Masculinity, honour, and confrontational homicide.” In T. Newburn & E. A. Stank (eds.), Just Boys Doing Business? Men, Masculinities and Crime (pp. 166–188). New York, NY: Routledge. Page 30 of 38 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 07 February 2018 Gangs and Space Popkin, S. J., Gwiasda, V. E., Olson, L. M., Rosenbaum, Dennis P., & Buron, L. (2000). The Hidden War: Crime and Tragedy of Public Housing in Chicago. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Pyrooz, D. C., Decker, S. H., & Moule, R. K., Jr. (2015). “Criminal and routine activities in online settings: Gangs, offenders, and the Internet.” Justice Quarterly, 32(3), 471–499. (p. 863) Pyrooz, D. C., & Mitchell, M. M. (2015). “Little gang research, big gang research.” In S. H. Decker & D. C. Pyrooz (eds.), The Handbook of Gangs (pp. 28–58). New York, NY: Wiley. Radil, S. M., Flint, C., & Tita, G. E. (2010). “Spatializing social networks: Using social network analysis to investigate geographies of gang rivalry, territoriality, and violence in Los Angeles.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 100(2), 307–326. Rafael, T. (2007). The Mexican Mafia. Jackson, TN: Encounter Books. Ratcliffe, J. H., & Breen, C. (2011). “Crime diffusion and displacement: Measuring the side effects of police operations.” Professional Geographer, 63(2), 230–243. Reuter, P. (2009). “Systemic violence in drug markets.” Crime, Law and Social Change, 52(3), 275–284. Rios, V. M. (2011). Punished: Policing the Lives of Black and Latino Boys. New York, NY: New York University Press. Rizzini, I., & Butler, U. M. (2003). “Life trajectories of children and adolescents living on the streets of Rio de Janeiro.” Children, Youth and Environments, 13(1), 182–201. Rocha, J. L. (2011). “Street gangs of Nicaragua.” In T. Bruneau, L. Dammer, & E. Skinner (eds.), Maras: Gang Violence and Security in Central America (pp. 105–120). Austin: University of Texas Press. Rodgers, D. (2006). “Living in the shadow of death: Gangs, violence and social order in urban Nicaragua, 1996–2002.” Journal of Latin American Studies, 38(2), 267–292. Rodgers, D., & Baird, A. (2015). “Understanding gangs in contemporary Latin America.” In S. H. Decker & D. C. Pyrooz (eds.), Handbook of Gangs and Gang Responses (pp. 478– 502). New York, NY: Wiley. Rodgers, D., & Jones, G. A. (2009). “Youth violence in Latin America: An overview and agenda for research.” In G. A. Jones & D. Rodgers (eds.), Youth Violence in Latin America: Gangs and Juvenile Justice in Perspective (pp. 1–24). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Rosen, E., & Venkatesh, S. A. (2007). “Legal innovation and the control of gang behavior.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 3, 255–270. Page 31 of 38 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 07 February 2018 Gangs and Space Rosenfeld, R., Bray, T. M., & Egley, A. (1999). “Facilitating violence: A comparison of gang-motivated, gang-affiliated, and nongang youth homicides.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 15(4), 495–516. Rossi, M. J. (2005). “Striking a balance: The efforts of one Massachusetts city to draft and effective anti-loitering law within the bounds of the Constitution.” Suffolk University Law Review, 4, 1069–1088. Rostami, A., Leinfelt, F., & Holgersson, S. (2012). “An exploratory analysis of Swedish street gangs applying the Maxson and Klein Typology to a Swedish gang dataset.” Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 28(4), 426–445. Ryti, R. T., & Case, T. J. (1992). “The role of neighborhood competition in the spacing and diversity of ant communities.” American Naturalist, 139(2), 355–374. Sabelis, M. W., Diekmann, O., & Jansen, V. A. A. (1991). “Metapopulation persistence despite local extinction: Predator‐prey patch models of the Lotka‐Volterra type.” Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society, 42(1–2), 267–283. Sack, R. D. (1983). “Human territoriality: A theory.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 73(1), 55–74. Salagaev, A. L., & Safin, R. R. (2014). “Capitalizing on crime: Gangs, ideology, and the transition to a liberal economy in the Russian Federation.” In J. M. Hazen & D. Rodgers (eds.), (p. 864) Global Gangs: Street Violence across the World (pp. 65–83). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Sampson, R. J., & Groves, B. W. (1989). “Community structure and crime: Testing socialdisorganization theory.” American Journal of Sociology, 94(4), 774–802. Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). “Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy.” Science, 277(5328), 918–924. Sarnecki, J. (2001). Delinquent Networks: Youth Co-offending in Stockholm. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schneider, E. C. (1999). Vampires, Dragons, and Egyptian Kings: Youth Gangs in Postwar New York. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Sela-Shayovitz, R. (2012). “Gangs and the web: Gang members’ online behavior.” Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 28(2), 389–405. Sela-Shayovitz, R., Pyrooz, D. C., & Decker, S. H. (2016). “Israeli and US gangs in the virtual world: The sociocultural context of gang members’ online activity.” In C. L. Maxson & F. Esbensen (eds.), Gang Transitions and Transformations in an International Context (pp. 115–138). New York, NY: Springer. Page 32 of 38 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 07 February 2018 Gangs and Space Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1942). Juvenile Delinquency in Urban Areas. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Shaw, M. B. (2016, April 1). “Sad days at Lunada Bay: Class action suit has L.A. surf ‘gang’ in hot water.” Surfer. http://www.surfermag.com/features/sad-days-at-lunadabay/. Simon, D., & Burns, E. (1997). The Corner: A Year in the Life of an Inner-City Neighborhood. New York, NY: Broadway Books. Skolnick, J. H. (1990). Gang Organization and Migration: Drugs, Gangs, and Law Enforcement. [Sacramento:] Office of the Attorney General, California Department of Justice. Smith, C. M. (2014). “The influence of gentrification on gang homicides in Chicago neighborhoods, 1994 to 2005.” Crime and Delinquency, 60(4), 569–591. Smith, S. (Creator). (2014, June 13). “Surveillance City.” Episode 12. In B. Maher (executive producer), VICE. New York, NY: Home Box Office. Smith, S. (Creator). (2016, August 29). “City of Lost Children.” Episode 11. In B. Maher (executive producer), VICE. New York, NY: Home Box Office. Spergel, I. A. (1995). The Youth Gang Problem: A Community Approach. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Spergel, I. A., & Curry, G. D. (1993). “The national youth gang survey: A research and development process.” In A. P. Goldstein & C. R. Huff (eds.), The Gang Intervention Handbook (pp. 359–400). Champaign, IL: Research Press. Stephenson, S. (2015). Gangs of Russia: From the Streets to the Corridors of Power. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Storrod, M. L., & Densley, J. A. (2017). “ ‘Going viral’ and ‘Going country’: the expressive and instrumental activities of street gangs on social media.” Journal of Youth Studies 20(6), 677–696. Sullivan, M. (1989). Getting Paid: Youth Crime and Unemployment in Three Urban Neighborhoods. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Suttles, G. D. (1968). The Social Order of the Slum: Ethnicity and Territory in the Inner City. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Swan, R. S., & Bates, K. A. (2017). “Loosening the ties that bind: the hidden harms of civil injunctions in San Diego County.” Contemporary Justice Review 20(1), 132–153. Page 33 of 38 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 07 February 2018 Gangs and Space Taniguchi, T. A., Radcliffe, J. H., & Taylor, R. B. (2011). “Gang set space, drug markets, and crime around drug corners in Camden.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 48(3), 327–363. Tapia, M. (2014). “Latino street gang emergence in the Midwest: Strategic franchising or natural migration?” Crime and Delinquency, 60(4), 592–618. (p. 865) Taylor, C. S. (1990). Dangerous Society. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press. Taylor, C. S. (1993). Girls, Gangs, Women and Drugs. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press. Taylor, R. B. (1988). Human Territorial Functioning: An Empirical, Evolutionary Perspective on Individual and Small Group Territorial Cognitions, Behaviors, and Consequences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Taylor, R. B., & Gottfredson, S. D. (1986). “Environmental design, crime, and prevention: An examination of community dynamics.” Crime and Justice, 8(1986), 387–416. Therolf, G. (2015, December 30). “Palos Verdes police chief promises to take on the ‘Bay Boys’ of Lunada.” Los Angeles Times. http://www.latimes.com/local/crime/la-melunada-bay-20151230-story.html. Thrasher, F. M. (1927). The Gang: A Study of 131 Gangs in Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Tita, G. E. (1999). An Ecological Study of Violent Urban Street Gangs and Their Crime. PhD dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University. Tita, G. E., & Cohen, J. (2004). “Measuring spatial diffusion of shots fired activity across city neighborhoods.” In M. F. Goodchild & D. G. Janelle (eds.), Spatially Integrated Social Science (pp. 171–204). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Tita, G. E., Cohen, J., & Engberg, J. (2005). “An ecological study of the location of gang ‘set space.’ ” Social Problems, 52(2), 272–299. Tita, G. E., & Greenbaum, R. T. (2009). “Crime, neighborhoods, and units of analysis: Putting space in its place.” In D. Weisburd, W. Bernasco, & G. J. N. Bruinsma (eds.), Putting Crime in Its Place: Units of Analysis in Geographic Criminology (pp. 145–170). New York, NY: Springer. Tita, G. E., & Radil, S. M. (2011). “Spatializing the social networks of gangs to explore patterns of violence.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 27(4), 521–545. Tita, G. E., & Ridgeway, G. (2007). “The impact of gang formation on local crime patterns.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 44(2), 208–237. Page 34 of 38 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 07 February 2018 Gangs and Space Tita, G. E., Riley, K. J., Ridgeway, G., Grammich, C. A., Abrahamse, A., & Greenwood, P. W. (2003). Reducing Gun Violence: Results from an Intervention in East Los Angeles. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Treadwell, J., & Gooch, K. (2015). “An ASBO for violent gangsters or just continuing criminalisation of young people? Thinking about the value of ‘Gangbo.’” Papers from the British Criminology Conference, 15, 60–76. Usher, L. E., & Kerstetter, D. (2015). “Re-defining localism: An ethnography of human territoriality in the surf.” International Journal of Tourism Anthropology, 4(3), 286–302 Valasik, M. (2014). “Saving the World, One Neighborhood at a Time”: The Role of Civil Gang Injunctions at Influencing Gang Behavior. PhD dissertation, University of California, Irvine.Valasik, M., Barton, M.S., Reid, S. E., & Tita, G. E. (2017). “Barriocide: Investigating the temporal and spatial influence of neighborhood structural characteristics on gang and non-gang homicides in East Los Angeles.” Homicide Studies, 21(4), 287–311. Valasik, M., Reid, S. E., & Phillips, M. D. (2016). “CRASH and burn: Abatement of a specialised gang unit.” Journal of Criminological Research, Policy and Practice, 2(2), 95– 106. Valasik, M., Gravel, J. & Tita, G. E. (2016). “Gangland it is a territorial thing: The influence of residency and mobility on the territoriality patterns of gang members.” Unpublished manuscript. Valdez, A., & Sifaneck, S. J. (2004). “ ‘Getting high and getting by’: Dimensions of drug selling behaviors among American Mexican gang members in South Texas.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 41(1), 82–105. (p. 866) Van Valkenburg, P., & Osborne, J. F. (2013). “Home turf: Archaeology, territoriality, and politics.” Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, 22(1), 1–27. Varese, F. (2011). Mafias on the Move: How organized Crime Conquers New Territories. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Vargas, R. (2016). Wounded City: Violent Turf Wars in a Chicago Barrio. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Venkatesh, S. A. (1997). “The social organization of street gang activity in an urban ghetto.” American Journal of Sociology, 103(1), 82–111. Venkatesh, S. A. (2000). American Project: The Rise and Fall of a Modern Ghetto. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vigil, J. D. (1983). “Chicano gangs: One response to Mexican urban adaptation in the Los Angeles area.” Urban Anthropology, 12(1), 45–75 Page 35 of 38 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 07 February 2018 Gangs and Space Vigil, J. D. (1988). Barrio Gangs: Street Life and Identity in Southern California. Austin: University of Texas Press. Vigil, J. D. (2002). A Rainbow of Gangs: Street Cultures in the Mega-city. Austin: University of Texas Press. Vigil, J. D. (2007). The Projects: Gang and Non-gang Families in East Los Angeles. Austin: University of Texas Press. Vigil, J. D., & Yun, S. C. (2002). “A cross-cultural framework to understand gangs: Multiple marginality and Los Angeles.” In C. R. Huff (ed.), Gangs in America III (pp. 161–167). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Walsh, C. (2002). “Curfews: No more hanging around.” Youth Justice, 2(2), 70–81. Walsh, C. (2003). “Dispersal of rights: A critical comment on specified provision of the anti-social behaviour bill.” Youth Justice, 3(2), 104–111. Waters, T. (1991, July 5). “The hazards of surfing Lunada Bay peninsula.” Los Angeles Times. http://articles.latimes.com/1991-07-05/local/me-1657_1_lunada-bay. Watkins, A. M., & Moule, R. K., Jr. (2014). “Older, wiser, and a bit more badass? Exploring Differences in juvenile and adult gang members’ gang-related attitudes and behaviors.” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 12(2), 121–136. Weerman, F. M., Maxson, C. L., Esbensen, F., Aldridge, J., Medina, J., & van Gemert, F. (2009). “Eurogang programme manual background, development, and use of the Eurogang instruments in multi-site, multi-method comparative research.” https:// www.umsl.edu/ccj/Eurogang/EurogangManual.pdf. Weisburd, D., Wyckoff, L. A., Ready, J., Eck, J. E., Hinkle, J. C., & Gajewski, F. (2006). “Does crime just move around the corner? A controlled study of spatial displacement and diffusion of crime control benefits.” Criminology, 44(3), 549–592. White, R. (2006). “Swarming and the social dynamics of group violence.” Trends & Issues in Crime & Criminal Justice, 326, 1–6. Whyte, W. F. (1943). Street Corner Society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Winton, A. (2004). “Young people’s views on how to tackle gang violence in ‘post-conflict’ Guatemala.” Environment and Urbanization, 16(2), 83–99. Winton, A. (2005). “Youth, gangs and violence: Analysing the social and spatial mobility of young people in Guatemala City.” Children’s Geographies 3(2), 167–184. (p. 867) Winton, A. (2014). “Gangs in global perspective.” Environment and Urbanization, 26(2), 401–416. Page 36 of 38 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 07 February 2018 Gangs and Space Wolf, S. (2012). “Mara Salvatrucha: The most dangerous street gang in the Americas?” Latin American Politics and Society, 54(1), 65–99. Wolseth, J. (2009). “Good times and bad blood: Violence, solidarity, and social organization on Dominican streets.” In G. A. Jones & D. Rodgers (eds.), Youth Violence in Latin America: Gangs and Juvenile Justice in Perspective (pp. 63–82). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Wolseth, J. (2011). Jesus and the Gang: Youth Violence and Christianity in Urban Honduras. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Womer, S., & Bunker, R. J. (2010), “Sureños gangs and Mexican cartel use of social networking sites.” Small Wars and Insurgencies, 21(1), 81–94. Yablonsky, L. (1962). The Violent Gang. New York, NY: MacMillan. Zeoli, A. M., Grady, S., Pizarro, J. M., & Melde, C. (2015). “Modeling the movement of homicide by type to inform public health prevention efforts.” American Journal of Public Health, 105(10), 2035–2041. Zeoli, A. M., Pizarro, J. M., Grady, S. C., & Melde, C. (2014). “Homicide as infectious disease: Using public health methods to investigate the diffusion of homicide.” Justice Quarterly, 31(3), 609–632. Zilberg, E. (2004). “Fools banished from the kingdom: Remapping geographies of gang violence between the Americas (Los Angeles and San Salvador).” American Quarterly, 56(3), 759–779. Notes: (1.) The Eurogang definition identifies a street gang as “any durable, street-oriented youth group whose involvement in illegal activity is part of their group identity.” Matthew Valasik Matthew Valasik is an Assistant Professor of Sociology and Criminology in the Department of Sociology at Louisiana State University. His primary interests are the ↵sociospatial dynamics of gang behavior and problem-oriented policing strategies (e.g., gang units, civil gang injunctions) used by law enforcement. George Tita George E. Tita is a Professor in the Department of Criminology, Law and Society and the Director of the Masters of Public Policy Program at the University of California, Page 37 of 38 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 07 February 2018 Gangs and Space Irvine. His current interests include studying systems that generate crime patterns, social network analysis of crime, and the study of illegal firearms markets. Page 38 of 38 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 07 February 2018