Crime hotspots as inferential claims: a systematic review in hotspotting studies (2000–2026)

Crime-hotspot maps increasingly guide patrol allocation and prevention policy, yet a hotspot is not a self-evident object but an inferential claim that depends on specification choices. This study evaluates whether empirical hotspot studies make those choices explicit, applying the Place Specification Framework (PSF) to three validity-relevant criteria: the justification of the spatial unit as a criminogenic behavioral setting, the definition of the crime construct and its population-at-risk or exposure base, and the specification of the interaction horizon that establishes local context. Following PRISMA 2020, I systematically reviewed English-language empirical hotspot-detection studies published in criminology and policing outlets between January 2000 and January 2026. Each study was coded Yes/No on each criterion using explicit textual evidence, with a second coder verifying the analytic sample and Fisher’s exact tests assessing prespecified cross-tabulations. Across 73 studies, full adherence was low, with only 30% meeting all three criteria. Adherence was higher for behavioral settings (73%) and interaction horizons (77%) than for constructs and exposures (47%). Hotspot studies thus specify where clustering occurs more clearly than what the hotspot represents and who is exposed to risk. PSF offers a practical reporting standard for more interpretable, actionable place-based evidence.