While I did not read the paywalled paper, it seems like a latent variable might also explain it: affluence and greenery might be positively correlated and police are less trigger-happy in rich neighbourhoods.
The same phenomenon could be seen historically in racialized policing, including in otherwise economically homogenous rural areas, where the pressures to prevent black-on-white crime (but not white-on-black) meant blacks were treated much more severely, particularly in encounters outside a predominately black neighborhood. Within black neighborhoods, policing was less severe, and just less policing generally. That's still true today, though these days it's difficult to distinguish the marginal effect of racial dynamics from the broader socioeconomic dynamics.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190122-can-blue-lights-... [2] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/02/240207120426.h...
Let's take as a hypothesis that more green space means more distance and maneuverability, as well as more populated space[1]. Meaning in police encounters of the type in which shootings are more likely, there may be more distance between the officer and suspect (i.e. officer feels safer, i.e. "improved short-term... mental health"), or the suspect can more easily evade so that there's never a close encounter in the first place. Likewise, there may be more bystanders nearby, i.e. "increasing use... by nearby neighbors", which inhibits an officer's inclination to escalate or shoot.
[1] As opposed to roadside encounters in rural areas, which may have been excluded from the notion of green space, or perhaps explains the lesser negative correlation in rural areas where, despite the "green space", encounters would typically be more constrained than in, e.g., a park.
noqc•1h ago
riedel•1h ago