Journal of Criminal Justice 79 (2022) 101884

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Criminal Justice

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jcrimjus

Nightlife activity and crime: The impact of COVID-19 related nightlife

restrictions on violent crime
Anders Ejrnæs *, Rune H. Scherg
Department of Social science and Business, Roskilde University, Universitetsvej 1, Postboks 260, 4000 Roskilde, Denmark

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Objectives: The present study examines how varying levels of restrictions on the nightlife economy have impacted
Alcohol outlet violent crime during the COVID-19 pandemic and the extent to which the crime preventive side-effects of re­
COVID-19 restrictions strictions are associated with the density of alcohol outlets.
Violent crime
Methods: The Data stems from geocoded locations of violent crimes combined with data on the density of on-
Routine activity theory
premises alcohol outlets and the level of COVID-19 restrictions in Copenhagen, Denmark. We use a negative
binomial count model with cluster robust standard error to assess the effect of the interaction between alcohol
outlet density and COVID-related restriction levels on the nightlife economy on the frequency of violent crime.
Results: The article reveals how both the level of restrictions on the nightlife economy and the density of alcohol
outlets significantly impacted the frequency of violent crime. The regression analysis shows that the effect of
restrictions on the nightlife economy depends on the concentration of on-premises alcohol outlets in the area. In
areas with a high concentration of outlets, we observe a much higher reduction in crime as consequence of the
COVID-19 related restrictions.
Conclusions: The results shows that a more restricted nightlife economy, including earlier closing times, could
have a crime preventive effect, especially in areas with a high density of alcohol outlets.

1. Introduction
Several studies suggest a positive correlation between on-premises
alcohol outlet concentration and violent crime (e.g., Conrow, Aldstadt,
& Mendoza, 2015; Groff & Lockwood, 2014; Wei, Grubesic, & Kang,
2020) and between outlet opening hours and violent crime (e.g., Burton
et al., 2017; De Goeij et al., 2015; De Vocht et al., 2017; Kypri, Jones,
McElduff, & Barker, 2011; Kypri, McElduff, & Miller, 2014; Rossow &
Norström, 2012; Wilkinson, Livingston, & Room, 2016). This suggests a
link between the availability of alcohol, level of nightlife activity, and
violent crime. Currently, however, our knowledge of the interplay be­
tween opening hours and alcohol outlet density is limited. The COVID-
19 pandemic provides a unique opportunity to study this relationship, as
the pandemic and associated restrictions represent a natural experiment
in which the nightlife activity levels change due to the varying re­
strictions on bars, restaurants, nightclubs, etc. The central question is,
thus, whether restrictions on nightlife establishments will reduce the
level of violent crime differently in areas with high alcohol outlet con­
centrations compared to low-concentration areas. Specifically, the
present study investigates the extent to which COVID-19 nightlife re­
strictions moderate the relationship between alcohol outlet concentra­
tion and violent crime. We estimated a negative binomial model to test
the effect of both COVID-19 related restrictions and alcohol outlet
concentration on the level of violent crime as well as the interaction
effect. Our hypothesis is that the different measures implemented to
reduce the spread of the COVID-19 virus (specifically, the restrictions
aimed at reducing nightlife activity) will reduce violent crime more in
areas with high concentrations of on-premises alcohol outlets. Data on
geocoded locations of criminal offences were combined with geocoded
data on the concentration of on-premises alcohol outlets.
We contribute to the literature on the criminogenic impact of COVID-
19 restrictions and nightlife activity in several ways. First, we use 0.01
km2 grid cells (100 m × 100 m) as our unit of analysis, which is more
finely grained than most other analyses. The geographical unit used in
most studies is based on census tract data or LSOA (Lower Super Output
Area) (Langton, Dixon, & Farrell, 2021a; Lightowlers, Pina-Sánchez, &
McLaughlin, 2021). Second, the gradual opening (and lockdown) of
Danish society allows distinction to be drawn between different levels of

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ejrnaes@ruc.dk (A. Ejrnæs), scherg@ruc.dk (R.H. Scherg).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2022.101884
Received 10 November 2021; Received in revised form 12 January 2022; Accepted 12 January 2022
Available online 24 January 2022
0047-2352/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Ejrnæs and R.H. Scherg
opening-hour restrictions and, thus, different levels of nightlife activity.
Third, the examination of the interaction between alcohol outlet density
and the level of restrictions enables us to examine the mechanism behind
the drop in violent crime during the COVID-19 lockdown. This allows us
to move beyond the results found in the existing literature on the overall
effect of COVID-19 restrictions on violent crime and to identify more
closely how the restrictions disrupt the criminogenic processes.
This study then contributes both to the literature on the criminogenic
effect of COVID-19 restrictions and the literature on how nightlife ac­
tivity (i.e., the impact of the spatial concentration of alcohol outlets and
their opening hours) has an impact on violent crime. Several studies
have shown a significant drop in violent crime during the pandemic
(Langton, Dixon, & Farrell, 2021; Nivette et al., 2021), and numerous
authors assume that the drop in crime is related to nocturnal activity and
alcohol consumption (Nivette et al., 2021). However, no studies have
directly linked the drop in violent crime during the pandemic
geographically to places with high concentrations of alcohol outlets and
the nightlife economy. Several studies have previously found a robust
association between alcohol outlet concentration and violent crime
(Conrow et al., 2015; Groff & Lockwood, 2014; Wei et al., 2020). As
regards the effect of opening hours, smaller experimental studies have
shown an effect of reducing the opening hours of on-premises alcohol
outlets in smaller areas; however, no studies have examined the differ­
ential effect of nightlife restrictions.
2. Theory
Cohen and Felson’s (1979) seminal article, “Social change and crime
rate trends: A routine activity approach,” made clear that crime and
victimization is closely related to everyday routine activities. This is
particular evident in the temporal and spatial distribution of crime,
which mirrors the different opportunities for crime in different settings.
Theorizing the spatial dimension of routine activity theory, Branting­
ham and Brantingham (1995) have proposed a framework for under­
standing the different mechanisms whereby different places can become
crime hotspots. They distinguish between places that can be considered
crime attractors (i.e., places attracting many motivated offenders) and
places that function as crime generators (by attracting many suitable
targets). Areas with high concentrations of alcohol outlets have gener­
ally been considered crime attractors (Brantingham & Brantingham,
1995, p. 8).
Empirical work has generally found a solid connection between
alcohol outlet density and crime, violent crime in particular (e.g., Con­
row et al., 2015; Groff & Lockwood, 2014; Wei et al., 2020). Research
has also suggested that the association between alcohol outlet density
and violent crime is not linear but curvilinear (J-shaped). In other
words, the link between alcohol outlet density and violent crime seems
strongest in areas with the highest density of on-premises alcohol out­
lets. This “multiplier effect” suggests a saturation or tipping point, where
the normal mechanism that holds violent crime in check breaks down
(Gmel, Holmes, & Studer, 2016; Levine, 2017; Livingston, 2008; Pri­
demore & Grubesic, 2013; Wei et al., 2020). Several explanations for
this multiplier effect have been suggested (see, e.g., Levine, 2017, p.
160), where self-selection seems especially important, as areas with very
high concentrations of on-premises outlets seem to create a culture of
heavy drinking and loud music combined with extensive street activities
both inside and outside the establishments, which attracts a certain type
of risk-seeking patrons. But not only do areas with high concentrations
of on-premises alcohol outlets function as crime attractors, they can also
be seen as crime generators in the sense that many people seek out these
areas because of their vibrant nightlife and become easy targets as
intoxication renders them increasingly vulnerable to violent
victimization.
Opportunities and alcohol availability can also be seen as affecting
crime in the connection found between on-premises alcohol outlet
opening hours and crime. Although there are exceptions (Humphreys &
2
Journal of Criminal Justice 79 (2022) 101884
Eisner, 2014), the vast majority of studies examining the crime–opening
hours connection have found a significant positive connection (Burton
et al., 2017; De Goeij et al., 2015; De Vocht et al., 2017; Kypri et al.,
2011, 2014; Rossow & Norström, 2012; Wilkinson et al., 2016). In a
study of the effect of increasing opening hours in Amsterdam, De Goeij
et al. (2015) found that increasing openings hour by 1 h increased
alcohol-related damage by 34%.
The COVID-19 pandemic triggered a major disruption in the daily
lives of most people as it led to city-, region-, and country-wide lock­
downs. The effect of these lockdowns was most pronounced for those
living in the most densely populated cities. While this disruption also
affected crime levels, the impact has varied for different crime types and
different countries (Ashby, 2020; Campedelli, Favarin, Aziani, &
Piquero, 2020). It is beyond the scope of this paper to untangle the
underlying reasons for these heterogeneities, but they are likely a
consequence of differences in lockdown measures and the general so­
cioeconomic vulnerability of the populations and the different
compensation measures introduced in different countries.
Although some research indicates that, on some measures, violence
might have increased in the USA during the pandemic (Mohler et al.,
2020; Rosenfeld & Lopez, 2020), most research conducted in other
countries has shown that the pandemic and accompanying lockdown
measures have reduced levels of violence (Andresen & Hodgkinson,
2020; Gerell, Kardell, & Kindgren, 2020; Langton et al., 2021; Payne &
Morgan, 2020; Payne, Morgan, & Piquero, 2020). At present, it is not
obvious what kind of violence has contributed to this drop, but a British
study based on emergency room data, for example, found that the
reduced violence was limited to violence outside the home, whereas
violence at home did not wane (Shepherd, Moore, Long, Mercer Kollar,
& Sumner, 2021). Additionally, although early evidence has suggested
that domestic violence might actually have increased during the lock­
down (Piquero, Jennings, Jemison, Kaukinen, & Knaul, 2021), other
studies have not reached the same conclusion (Lopez & Rosenfeld, 2021;
Wang, Fung, & Weatherburn, 2021).
The present study specifically examines the impact of lockdown
measures on nightlife-related violence. Based on our theoretical
framework, we present the following hypotheses:
1) Tighter restrictions on the nightlife economy due to COVID-19 will
reduce the level of police-recorded, violent crime.
2) Higher concentrations of on-premises alcohol outlets will increase
violent crime.
3) COVID-19 restrictions on the nightlife economy will reduce violent
crime more in areas with high concentrations of on-premises alcohol
outlets.
3. The context of the study: Copenhagen
Copenhagen is the capital of Denmark and has roughly 700,000 in­
habitants.1 Denmark is a highly developed, comprehensive welfare
state, and Copenhagen is being branded as a dynamic modern city with
aspirations to attract tourists to its vibrant cultural life. Compared to
other Nordic countries, Denmark has relatively liberal alcohol policy,
including lower legal age limits for off-premises alcohol sales (16 years
for beer and wine, 18 years for hard liquor), lower taxes on alcoholic
beverages, and liberal rules for retail sales (Tingerstedt et al., 2020).
Denmark responded to the COVID-19 pandemic with a relatively
rapid lockdown of society but was also quick to reopen parts of society
once the rate of infection began to wane. The prompt reopening of so­
ciety in different phases provides a unique opportunity to examine the
1
Embedded within the municipality of Copenhagen is the small municipality
of Frederiksberg. Although the make-up of Frederiksberg is somewhat different
from Copenhagen, the two municipalities are highly integrated, which is why
we include Frederiksberg in our analysis of violence in Copenhagen.
A. Ejrnæs and R.H. Scherg Journal of Criminal Justice 79 (2022) 101884

impact on violent crime at different levels of restrictions on the nightlife
economy.
3.1. Data and methods
The data consists of geocoded locations of reported violent crime. For
each violent incident, we have data for its location, as the police record
the address of the incident and time of its occurrence. The geocode crime
data was aggregated to 10,000 m2 /0.01 km2 grids. Crime incidents were
also aggregated in weekly slots. Because we needed to locate violent
events precisely in time and space, we only include crime data with
precise geographic information (i.e., crime data with complete address
information). The data consists of violent crime statistics obtained for
the period January 1–October 30 in 2019 and 2020. The unit of the
analysis was 0.01 km2 grid cells per week. There are 10,509 grid cells
observed, and 88 weekly slots, which yielded 945,810 observations.
However, as the geographic location of incidents of crime is tied to an
address in the police registration process, we restrict our data set to grid
cells within the Copenhagen/Frederiksberg area, wherein is located at
least one address according to the national register of addresses to avoid
a substantial number of false zero cells. We have also excluded a grid cell
where a prison is located. The negative binomial regression analysis is
then based on 7469 grid cells in 80 weekly slots. We end up with a data
set consisting of 597,520 observations.
3.2. Dependent variable
Our dependent variable is the number of incidents of violent crime
per 0.01 km2 per week. The Danish national police supplied us with data
covering all of the violent crime reported to the police in the period
January–October for both 2019 and 2020. The total number of violent
incidents was 2405, and the number of violent incidents/0.01 km2/week
ranged from 0 to 33 (see Table 1).
(defined using a queen specification). The weighted average of alcohol
outlet density at location i, that is xi, is given by xi + 2*(Σj wijxj), where
the weighted sum is over those “neighbors” j that have a nonzero value
for element wij in the weight matrix (Ejrnæs, Scherg, Cold, & Staunstrup,
2021).
The weighted average of on-premises alcohol outlet density/0.01
km2 ranges from 0 to 36.25. The second independent variable indicates
the level of restrictions on on-premises alcohol outlets. Because the
alcohol outlet opening hours vary during the pandemic due to different
restrictions on the nightlife economy, we constructed a five-category
variable (no extraordinary restrictions, few restrictions on opening
hours, medium levels of restrictions, high levels of restrictions on
nightlife, and closed nightlife) indicating the level of restrictions on
opening hours. The “no restriction” category consists of the weeks before
the COVID-19 pandemic without any extraordinary restrictions on
opening hours. The opening hours for on-premises alcohol outlets in
Denmark are normally decided by local municipal licensing boards,
which can permit an establishment to remain open until 5 am.
Approximately 20% of on-premises alcohol outlets in Copenhagen are
licensed to serve alcoholic beverages until 5 am (Københavns Kommune,
2020). “Few restrictions” covers the weeks where no on-premises
alcohol outlet was allowed to be open after 2 am. “Medium re­
strictions” indicates that no on-premises alcohol outlets were allowed to
close later than 12 pm, and “high level of restrictions” covers the weeks
where all on-premises alcohol outlets had to close at 10 pm. “Closed”
indicates the period during the lockdown in which all on-premises
alcohol outlets were closed.
The weeks marked with an “x” are excluded from the analysis, as new
restrictions took effect midweek (See Fig. 1).
We also seek to control for the general activity in an area by
including a variable measuring the number of addresses in it. Similarly,
we seek to control for the effect of seasonality by including a quarter-
year variable.

3.3. Independent variable

3.4. Statistical model

The main independent variable is the geographically averaged on-

We estimated a negative binomial regression for police-recorded
premises alcohol outlet density. This data was obtained by combining
violent crime. Negative binomial regression was selected due to the
data from the Alcohol Permission System, which is operated by the
count nature of the data on violent crime and the skewed distribution of
national police, and information from the central business register in
the dependent variable. Because observation within grid cells is not
Denmark. On-premises alcohol outlets are defined as establishments
independent, we use cluster robust standard error. To test how re­
selling alcoholic beverages for consumption onsite (e.g., restaurants,
strictions on the nightlife economy moderate the effects of alcohol
bars, nightclubs). All on-premises alcohol outlets with an address in
outlets on police-recorded violent crime, we include an interaction term.
Copenhagen or Frederiksberg were entered into the data set. Each outlet
In the regression model we control for number of addresses and seasonal
was geocoded and aggregated to the grid.
variation in crime. We use the interaction model below to test our main
As the level of nightlife activity in an area depends not only on the
hypothesis.
concentration of on-premises alcohol outlets in that particular area but
also on the concentration of on-premises alcohol outlets in neighboring Log (Violent incident)it = β0 +βk X +β1 Few restrtriction +β2 Medium restrction
areas, we calculate a geographic average for each grid cell that considers +β3 High level of restrcitions +β4 Closed +β5 Outlet density
the number of outlets in the focal area together with neighboring areas
+β6 Few restrtriction*Outlet density
+β7 *Outlet density*Medium restrction
Table 1
Descriptive statistics
+β8 High level of restrcitions*Outlet density
+β9 Closed*Outlet density +β10 *adresses
Obs Mean Std. Dev. Min Max
+β12 Quarter2 +β13 Quarter3 +β14 Quarter4 + €cyi
Violent incident 597,520 0.005 0.089 0 33
Restriction level
Few restrictions 597,520 0.025 0.156 0 1 • Violent incident: the number of police-recorded violent incidents in a
Medium restrictions 597,520 0.163 0.369 0 1
High level of restrictions 597,520 0.075 0.263 0 1
grid cell i for week t.
Closed 597,520 0.100 0.300 0 1 • Few restrictions: dummy variable that 1 equals those weeks where
Alcohol outlet density 597,520 0.616 1.858 0 36.25 the opening hours for on-premises alcohol outlets are restricted to
Addresses 597,520 12.352 9.260 1 80.0 2.00 am.
Season • Medium restrictions: dummy variable that 1 equals weeks where the
Quarter 2 597,520 0.325 0.468 0 1 opening hours are restricted to 12.00 pm.
Quarter 3 597,520 0.250 0.433 0 1 • High level of restrictions: dummy variable that 1 equals weeks where
Quarter 4 597,520 0.125 0.331 0 1
the opening hours are restricted to 10 pm.

3
A. Ejrnæs and R.H. Scherg Journal of Criminal Justice 79 (2022) 101884

No Few Medium High Closed

extraordinary restrictions on restrictions on restrictions on
restrictions opening hours opening hours opening hours
Week

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44

2019 x x xx
2020 x x xx

Fig. 1. COVID-19 restrictions on nighttime economy opening hours.

• Outlet density: continuous variable indicating the geographically As part of the descriptive statistics, we did an explorative spatial
weight number of on-premises alcohol outlets in the grid cell i. analysis – specifically a hotspot analysis of violent crime in Copenhagen
• Addresses: number of addresses in the grid cell i. (search radius 200 m, grid size 10 m and using a quartic kernel). Fig. 3
• Quarter2: dummy variable that equals 1 in April, May, and June. compares concentrations of violent crime before the COVID-19
• Quarter3: dummy variable that equals 1 in July, August, and pandemic (March–October 2019) and during the pandemic (March
September. 2020–October 2020). The hotspot analysis shows how the level of vio­
• Quarter4: dummy variable that equals 1 in October. lent crime dropped in Copenhagen during the pandemic and that the
drop seems particular salient in central Copenhagen (See Fig. 3).
4. Results
4.2. Negative binomial analysis
4.1. Descriptive results
Table 2 presents the results of the negative binomial regression with
Fig. 2 illustrates the time series for incidents of violent crime. The clustered standard error. We report the incident rate ratio (IRR), which
figure compares the development in violent crime in areas without any can be interpreted as the ratio of violent incidents of a category
alcohol outlets (i.e., alcohol outlet density =0) and the number of in­ compared with that of the reference group. Incident rates greater than 1
cidents of violent crime in areas with alcohol outlets (i.e., alcohol outlet indicate a positive relationship, whereas incident rates lower than 1
density > 0). indicate a negative relationship.
The figure reveals two interesting details. Firstly, that in areas Model 1 shows that the level of nightlife restrictions has a significant
without any alcohol outlets, the COVID-19 pandemic and the associated impact on the number of violent incidents. Fig. 4 shows that during the
restrictions hardly affect the number of incidents of crime. Secondly, we lockdown, when the nightlife establishments were closed, we find the
see that the number of violent crime incidents actually drops a few highest drop in violent crime compared to the period before the lock­
weeks before the COVID-19 restrictions were implemented.2 On down. The figure shows that we find a clear negative relationship be­
average, the number of incidents of crime dropped by approximately tween the level of restrictions and the number of violent incidents pr.
40% after the restrictions were introduced in areas with alcohol outlets. 0.01 km2 grid cells. If we compare the no-restrictions scenario with the
lockdown period, we see a (1–0.51 = 0.49) 49% reduction in violent
crime. The medium restrictions scenario, where the closing hour for on-
90
premises alcohol outlet was 12 pm, we see a 28% reduction in crime. The
results confirm the first hypothesis: that opening-hours restrictions
80

reduce overall violent crime indicents. According to the marginal effect

70

analysis, the violent count decreases by approximately 0.003 during the

60
Violent inciden

50 No alcohol

40
30
20
10
0 previous studies indicating a robust association between alcohol outlet
0 20 40 60 80
Number of weeks beginiing 1. January 2019
Fig. 2. Development in violent crime (January 2019–October 2020).
2 restrictions. In this model, we examine the extent to which the effect of
The so-called anticipatory benefits are a well-known phenomenon in crime
prevention (Smith, Clarke, & Pease, 2002). Specifically, data on weekly
spending at restaurants and bars in Denmark, published by a major Danish bank
(“Danske Bank”), indicate that people went out less in the weeks before the
lockdown. Specifically, this might have been influenced by the many media
reports early in the pandemic about people contracting the coronavirus in a
nightlife setting in an Austrian ski resort.
outlet lockdown (See Fig. 4).
Near alcohol Model 2 includes the outlet density variable. The significant positive
coefficient indicates a positive association between alcohol outlet den­
outlet
sity and police-recorded violent incidents. The result is in line with
density and violent incidents. For a 1-unit increase in the outlet density
100
variable, the frequency of violent crime incidents increases by (1–1.24
= 0.24) 24%. We can then confirm the second hypothesis, which states
that a greater concentration of alcohol outlets increases the likelihood of
violent incidents.
Model 3 adds an interaction term between outlet density and level of
COVID-19 restrictions on nightlife is moderated by the density of on-
premises alcohol outlets in the area. We find a significant interaction
effect, which indicates that COVID-19 restrictions have primarily had an
effect on violent crime in areas with a high concentration of on-premises
alcohol outlets. The result of the negative binomial regression shows
that the effect of nightlife restrictions depends on the concentration of

4
A. Ejrnæs and R.H. Scherg Journal of Criminal Justice 79 (2022) 101884

Fig. 3. Hotspot analysis.

Table 2
Explaining violent crime.
(1) (2) (3)

Ref: No restrictions
Few restrictions 0.866 0.937 1.013
Medium restrictions 0.723*** 0.780*** 0.860
High restrictions 0.587*** 0.663*** 0.762*
Closed 0.508*** 0.558*** 0.677***
Addresses 1.043*** 1.017*** 1.016***
Ref: Quarter1 . . .
Quarter2 1.228** 1.228* 1.230*
Quarter3 1.127 1.114 1.118
Quarter4 1.166 1.106 1.105
Outlet density 1.244*** 1.271***

Interaction effect
Few restrictions × on-premises alcohol outlet 0.951
density
Medium restrictions × on-premises alcohol 0.939***
outlet density
High level restrictions × on-premises alcohol 0.915***
outlet density Fig. 4. Prediction of violent crime incident at various restrictions level.
Closed × on-premises alcohol outlet density 0.872***

_cons
Lnalpha 52.49*** 26.93*** 25.83***
N 597,520 597,520 597,520
Pseudo R2 0.0154 0.0524 0.0536
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
alcohol outlets in the area. This means that the positive associations
between alcohol outlets and violent crime weakens when there are re­
strictions on opening-hours. To illustrate the results, we have calculated
the predicted reduction in incidents of crime in areas with different
alcohol outlet density levels (See Table 3). In areas with one alcohol
outlet/0.01 km2, we find a 19% reduction in incidents of violent crime in
the medium restrictions scenario compared to “no restrictions.” In areas
with 10 alcohol outlets/0.01 km2, we find a 54% reduction in incidents
of violent crime.
Fig. 5 shows how the level of restrictions reduces the strength of the
curvilinear association between on-premises alcohol density and in­
cidents of violence. In other words, the COVID-19 nightlife restrictions
have a much higher crime preventive effect in areas with high alcohol
outlet density.
4.3. Robustness check
Several checks were conducted to confirm the robustness of these
findings. First, we employed a negative binomial multi-level model in
which weeks are nested into grid cells (Supplementary material
Table 1). To account for the nested structure in the data, we include a
random intercept for grid cells that informs about the variability in vi­
olent crime across different grid cells. The results of the multilevel model
did not deviate from the results of the negative binomial model with
clustered standard error.
Second, the negative binomial regression with clustered standard
error was also compared with a linear regression with fixed effects for
grid cells (Supplementary material Table 2). The results of the fixed
effect regression were consistent with the negative binomial regression
results. Third, we also ran a regression with the outlet density variable
recoded into three dummy variables indicating different outlet density
levels (Supplementary material Table 3). Again, the result does not
deviate substantially from the former analysis. We also ran a regression
where we excluded one outlier grid cell which had an extraordinary rate
of violence on one day in 2019 caused by a political demonstration
(Supplementary material Table 4). Again, the results did not deviate
substantially. Finally, we also ran a regression with the variable indi­
cating the number of alcohol outlets without the neighborhood effect
(spatial smoothening) (Supplementary material Table 5). While the re­
sults again did not deviate, the size of the effects was reduced when
using the number-of-outlets variable without the neighborhood effect.
The robustness check indicates that the neighboring grid cells have a
substantial impact on violent crime (which is not surprising given the

5
A. Ejrnæs and R.H. Scherg
Table 3
Crime Reduction.
1 Alcohol outlet
Estimated Count Percent Reduction
Ref: No restrictions 0.0044
Few restrictions 0.0043 4%
Medium restrictions 0.0036 19%
High restrictions 0.0031 30%
Closed 0.0026 41%
Fig. 5. The interaction between alcohol outlets and level of restrictions.
rather small grid cells).
5. Conclusion
On the one hand, this study sheds some light on the mixed results of
previous research on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on crime.
Our study showed how specifically nightlife-related violent crime was
impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic because of the restrictions on so­
cial activity. We could not see any impact on violence in other settings.
Although this finding can hide underlying developments in other types
of violence (e.g., workplace violence might have also fallen, while do­
mestic violence might have increased), the results clearly indicate that
restrictions on the opening hours of on-premises alcohol outlets were a
major reason why violent crime in Copenhagen fell during the COVID-19
pandemic.
On the other hand, the study sheds light on the question about the
connection between nightlife related activity, alcohol availability, and
violent crime. Our findings show that the concentration of on-premises
alcohol outlets increases the level of violent crime. Second, that re­
strictions on opening hours reduce violent crime. This finding is in line
with previous research. However, the most interesting results are that
the reductions in violent crime resulting from COVID-19 restrictions
were larger in areas with high concentrations of alcohol outlets. This
means that the crime preventive effects of restrictions on nightlife
opening hours are moderated by the concentration of alcohol outlets.
The results are consistent with opportunity theory, according to which
restrictions on social activities and interactions reduce criminal oppor­
tunity. More specifically, the article supports the alcohol availability
thesis, which suggest that greater alcohol availability, both in terms of
the concentration of outlets and temporally in terms of opening hours,
has a strong impact on violent crime. Secondly, the study indicates that
it is especially in the late hours that violent crime occurs in the most
active nightlife areas. Our results clearly indicate that limiting late-
hours nightlife activity in areas with high concentrations of alcohol
Journal of Criminal Justice 79 (2022) 101884
5 Alcohol outlets 10 Alcohol outlets
Estimated Count Percent Reduction Estimated Count Percent reduction
0.0116 0.0388
0.0092 21% 0.0238 39%
0.0073 37% 0.0178 54%
0.0057 51% 0.0121 69%
0.0040 66% 0.0066 83%
outlets will have a significant impact on violent crime in these areas.
Crime prevention effects can thus be achieved by either reducing the
concentration of alcohol outlets where there is already a high concen­
tration of on-premises alcohol outlets or by reducing the opening hours
for the establishments with the longest opening hours. Specifically, in
our case, placing restrictions on alcohol outlets in the high-density areas
of the city will likely have a significant impact on crime while only
affecting a small subset of all on-premises alcohol outlets.
5.1. Limitations
Our study has several limitations. First, we rely on police-recorded
data, which are limited by the considerable number of incidents of
crime that go unreported. Our study will likely underestimate the real
number of violent incidents. However, the level of police-recorded crime
has traditionally been high in Denmark. Secondly, we rely on a time
invariant measure of alcohol outlets. The time period is relatively short,
however, and the level of compensation was relatively high during the
lockdown. There is therefore reason to expect that the geographical
distribution of alcohol outlets does not change substantially during the
period. Third, the COVID-19 pandemic fundamentally changed daily
routines. We are therefore unable to completely isolate the effect of the
specific nightlife restrictions from other social-distancing initiatives.
Finally, this study lacks external validity because it only focuses on one
city, and it could be highly dependent on specific characteristics of the
Danish welfare state and the alcohol licensing policy in Denmark.
Funding
This work was supported by the The Danish Crime Prevention
Council.
Acknowledgements
We thank Adam Cold for helping in collecting and cleaning the data
and Jan K. Staunstrup for geo-coding the data.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary material to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2022.101884.
References
Andresen, M. A., & Hodgkinson, T. (2020). Somehow I always end up alone: COVID-19,
social isolation and crime in Queensland, Australia. Crime Science, 9(1), 1–20.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40163-020-00135-4
Ashby, M. P. (2020). Initial evidence on the relationship between the coronavirus
pandemic and crime in the United States. Crime Science, 9, 1–16. https://doi.org/
10.1186/s40163-020-00117-6
Brantingham, P., & Brantingham, P. (1995). Criminality of place. European Journal on
Criminal Policy and Research, 3(3), 5–26.
Burton, R., Henn, C., Lavoie, D., O’Connor, R., Perkins, C., Sweeney, K., … Sheron, N.
(2017). A rapid evidence review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of alcohol
control policies: An English perspective. The Lancet, 389, 1558–1580. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32420-5
Campedelli, G. M., Favarin, S., Aziani, A., & Piquero, A. R. (2020). Disentangling
community-level changes in crime trends during the COVID-19 pandemic in
Chicago. Crime Science, 9(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40163-020-00131-8
6
A. Ejrnæs and R.H. Scherg
Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity
approach. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 588–608. https://doi.org/10.2307/
2094589
Conrow, L., Aldstadt, J., & Mendoza, N. S. (2015). A spatio-temporal analysis of on-
premises alcohol outlets and violent crime events in Buffalo, NY. Applied Geography,
58, 198–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2015.02.006
De Goeij, M. C., Suhrcke, M., Toffolutti, V., van de Mheen, D., Schoenmakers, T. M., &
Kunst, A. E. (2015). How economic crises affect alcohol consumption and alcohol-
related health problems: A realist systematic review. Social Science & Medicine, 131,
131–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.02.025
De Vocht, F., Heron, J., Campbell, R., Egan, M., Mooney, J. D., Angus, C., & Hickman, M.
(2017). Testing the impact of local alcohol licencing policies on reported crime rates
in England. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 71(2), 137–145. https://
doi.org/10.1136/jech-2016-207753
Ejrnæs, A., Scherg, R. H., Cold, A. E. E., & Staunstrup, J. (2021). Natteliv og vold:
Undersøgelse af voldskriminaliteten under nedlukningen af nattelivet https://dkr.
dk/materialer/vold-og-voldtaegt/natteliv-og-vold pga. corona.
Gerell, M., Kardell, J., & Kindgren, J. (2020). Minor Covid-19 association with crime in
Sweden. Crime Science, 9(1), 1–9.
Gmel, G., Holmes, J., & Studer, J. (2016). Are alcohol outlet densities strongly associated
with alcohol-related outcomes? A critical review of recent evidence. Drug and Alcohol
Review, 35(1), 40–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/dar.12304
Groff, E. R., & Lockwood, B. (2014). Criminogenic facilities and crime across street
segments in Philadelphia: Uncovering evidence about the spatial extent of facility
influence. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 51(3), 277–314. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0022427813512494
Humphreys, D. K., & Eisner, M. P. (2014). Do flexible alcohol trading hours reduce
violence? A theory-based natural experiment in alcohol policy. Social Science &
Medicine, 102, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.11.038
Kommune, K. (2020). Statistik over alkoholbevillinger og nattilladelser i København
september 2020 [Statistics on on-premises alchohol licenses in the City of Copenhagen].
The City of: Copenhagen.
Kypri, K., Jones, C., McElduff, P., & Barker, D. (2011). Effects of restricting pub closing
times on night-time assaults in an Australian city. Addiction, 106(2), 303–310.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.03125.x
Kypri, K., McElduff, P., & Miller, P. (2014). Restrictions in pub closing times and lockouts
in Newcastle, Australia five years on. Drug and Alcohol Review, 33(3), 323–326.
https://doi.org/10.1111/dar.12123
Langton, S., Dixon, A., & Farrell, G. (2021). Six months in: Pandemic crime trends in
England and Wales. Crime Science, 10(1), 1–16.
Langton, S., Dixon, A., & Farrell, G. (2021a). Small area variation in crime effects of
COVID-19 policies in England and Wales. Journal of Criminal Justice, 75(June),
Article 101830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2021.101830
Levine, N. (2017). The location of late night bars and alcohol-related crashes in Houston,
Texas. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 107, 152–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
aap.2017.05.010
Lightowlers, C., Pina-Sánchez, J., & McLaughlin, F. (2021). The role of deprivation and
alcohol availability in shaping trends in violent crime. European Journal of
Criminology. https://doi.org/10.1177/14773708211036081
Livingston, M. (2008). Alcohol outlet density and assault: A spatial analysis. Addiction,
103(4), 619–628. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2008.02136.x
Journal of Criminal Justice 79 (2022) 101884
Lopez, E., & Rosenfeld, R. (2021). Crime, quarantine, and the U.S. coronavirus pandemic.
Criminology & Public Policy. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12557. April, 1–22.
Mohler, G., Bertozzi, A. L., Carter, J., Short, M. B., Sledge, D., Tita, G. E., …
Brantingham, P. J. (2020). Impact of social distancing during COVID-19 pandemic
on crime in Los Angeles and Indianapolis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 68, Article
101692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2020.101692
Nivette, A. E., Zahnow, R., Aguilar, R., Ahven, A., Amram, S., Ariel, B., … Eisner, M. P.
(2021). A global analysis of the impact of COVID-19 stay-at-home restrictions on
crime. Nature Human Behaviour, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01139-
z
Payne, J., & Morgan, A. (2020). Property Crime during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A
comparison of recorded offence rates and dynamic forecasts (ARIMA) for March 2020 in
Queensland, Australia. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/de9nc
Payne, J. L., Morgan, A., & Piquero, A. R. (2020). COVID-19 and social distancing
measures in Queensland, Australia, are associated with short-term decreases in
recorded violent crime. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1–25. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11292-020-09441-y
Piquero, A. R., Jennings, W. G., Jemison, E., Kaukinen, C., & Knaul, F. M. (2021).
Domestic violence during the COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence from a systematic
review and meta-analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 101806. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2021.101806
Pridemore, W. A., & Grubesic, T. H. (2013). Alcohol outlets and community levels of
interpersonal violence: Spatial density, outlet type, and seriousness of assault.
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 50(1), 132–159. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0022427810397952
Rosenfeld, R., & Lopez, E. (2020). Pandemic, social unrest, and crime in U.S. cities. In
Council on criminal justice. 2.72.
Rossow, I., & Norström, T. (2012). The impact of small changes in bar closing hours on
violence. The Norwegian experience from 18 cities. Addiction, 107(3), 530–537.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03643.x
Shepherd, J. P., Moore, S. C., Long, A., Mercer Kollar, B. L. M., & Sumner, S. A. (2021).
Association between COVID-19 lockdown measures and emergency department
visits for violence-related injuries in Cardiff, Wales. The Journal of the American
Medical Association, 325(9), 885–887. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.25511
Smith, M. J., Clarke, R. V., & Pease, K. (2002). Anticipatory benefits in crime prevention.
Crime Prevention Studies, 13, 71–88.
Tingerstedt, C., Mäkelä, P., Agahi, N., Moan, I. S., Bye, E. K., Parikka, S., … Lau, C. J.
(2020). Comparing older people’s drinking habits in four Nordic countries: Summary
of the thematic issue. Nordisk Alkohol- & Narkotikatidskrift, 37(5), 434–443. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1455072520954326
Wang, J. J. J., Fung, T., & Weatherburn, D. (2021). The impact of the COVID-19, social
distancing, and movement restrictions on crime in NSW, Australia. Crime Science,
1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40163-021-00160-x
Wei, R., Grubesic, T. H., & Kang, W. (2020). Spatiotemporal patterns of alcohol outlets and
violence: A spatially heterogeneous Markov chain analysis. Environment and Planning
B: Urban Analytics and City Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399808320965569
Wilkinson, C., Livingston, M., & Room, R. (2016). Impacts of changes to trading hours of
liquor licences on alcohol-related harm: A systematic review 2005–2015. Public
Health Research and Practice, 26(4). https://doi.org/10.17061/phrp2641644