Understanding the position of urban spatial configuration on the feeling of insecurity from crime in public spaces
Dimas Widya Putra
Wilmar A. Salim2 - 1Doctoral Program in Regional and City Planning, School of Architecture, Planning and Policy Development, Bandung Insitute of Technology, Bandung, Indonesia
- 2Department of Regional and City Planning, School of Architecture, Planning and Policy Development, Institut Teknologi Bandung (ITB), Bandung, Indonesia
Introduction: Many studies have discussed crime and the feeling of insecurity in the public space. These studies produce diverse findings from various variables and different objects. However, the urban spatial configuration is still left unexplored in the study of insecurity from crime in the public space. The purpose of this study is to discuss the position of urban spatial configuration elements on the feeling of insecurity from crime in the public space evidenced by international literature.
Methods: This study uses a systematic review method by evaluating studies published between 1970 and 2021.
Results and Discussion: The results of this study state that studies on crime and feeling of insecurity in public spaces in urban planning and urban design context mainly evaluated the design features (crime prevention through environmental design) and Socio-demographics at micro–meso scale in the built environment. In contrast, urban spatial configuration variable or macro scale still underexplored. Studies have shown that issues will occur if policy-making and planning in urban areas ignore individual perceptions of feeling insecure regarding crime at macro scale. The findings of this study become a research gap for further studies. This study suggests that more researchers should evaluate the feelings of insecurity from crime in public spaces on a macro scale, namely the urban spatial configuration dimension, including city size, development type, the distribution pattern of population and job, degree of clustering, and landscape connectivity.
1 Introduction
A public space is an arena for social interactions between individuals, and it impacts psychological aspects, such as comfort, tranquility, atmosphere, and security, formed in their minds (Carmona et al., 2003; Carr et al., 1992; Gallacher, 2005). A public space can act as a crime generator that creates feelings of insecurity due to interactions. Public spaces are inherently criminogenic environments that provide opportunities for crime in certain places and at certain times (Ceccato, 2016).
People are concentrated in public spaces, thereby creating opportunities for crime (Sherman et al., 1989). Crime is considered one of the causes of the feeling of insecurity. In the study of social psychology, the feeling of insecurity in public spaces is equated with fear of crime or how individuals perceive insecurity due to the characteristics of a dangerous place (Carro et al., 2008). So far, in the urban context, statistic data owned by the police have paid more attention only to the number of reported crimes, so the aspect of fear of crime in urban areas has been ignored, underexplored, and undocumented (Cozens, 2008).
Until now, several studies have been conducted, linking public spaces with crime and the perception of insecurity. However, studies on insecurity due to crime in public spaces have been primarily seen in the design aspect at the neighborhood unit scale (Ceccato, 2020). The perception of insecurity in public spaces at a spatial scale is still little explored, although according to Ceccato (2020), issues will occur if policy and planning decisions ignore the perception of insecurity at an urban scale. In the context of urban planning and urban design, the city hierarchy consists of several scales, including microscale (the characteristic of buildings and the surrounding lot coverage), mesoscale (neighborhood scale), and macroscale (city overall scale and its integration with other cities) (Sharifi, 2019). According to Kamalipour et al. (2014), fear of crime is closely related to the urban dimension and should be mapped analytically to spatial structures and patterns, functional attributes, and the urban morphology.
This article aims to understand the position of urban spatial configuration variables on crime and the feeling of insecurity in public spaces in urban planning and urban landscape contexts based on international literature evidence. The findings of this study become a research gap for further studies. More researchers should evaluate the feelings of insecurity from crime in public spaces on a macroscale (urban spatial configuration variables).
To achieve this goal, literature search is carried out within the year range of 1974–2021 using the reference databases of Mendeley, ResearchGate, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, and JSTOR. This article uses a systematic review analysis by visualizing published international studies. Excel software is also used to conduct a systematic review by coding and mapping a wide range of materials, including published studies of more than 5 decades to answer the following questions:
• What are the research gaps in studies about crime and the feeling of insecurity in public spaces within the built environment in the context of urban planning and urban landscape? Specifically, what variables are less researched on this topic, thus providing other researchers an opportunity to fill the gaps?
• How does the novelty of the framework contribute to the positioning of the urban spatial configuration dimension connected with the insecurity from crime in public spaces as a less-studied topic?
2 Urban planning phenomena related to the insecurity of crime
Early works on crime and insecurity in urban areas were heavily influenced by the discipline of sociology. Sociologists only concentrated on social problems as the cause of criminality by ignoring the built environment variables. This focus continued until the early 1960s. However, during this period, several researchers began to pay more attention to the relationship between the built environment and crime (Adel et al., 2016). A notable study of the built environment on crime and individual security perceptions was carried out by Jacobs (1961), who stated that an active street life or street corridor filled with various activities could reduce criminal acts and increase the perception of security. Jacobs (1961) underlined the role of “eyes on the street,” emphasizing that the public acts more as guards in public spaces than the police do.
Jacobs’ idea was inspired by the built environment typology in the United States of America in 1961. In that year, the design typology of the built environment in United States cities consisted of apartments and high-rise buildings separated by unsupervised public spaces and office areas becoming deserted after dinnertime, causing a void of informal supervision and the lack of sense of community among the residents. Jacobs noticed a different feeling in the Greenwich area in New York City, as this area has different characteristics from the other neighborhoods in the heart of the United States. When the community utilizes the street corridor appropriately for various kinds of lively activities, they most likely build a high security wall from crime. Jacobs found that natural control from the district is essential to foster a sense of security and could be achieved by increasing the number of people gathered in an area through strategies that promote the diversity of land use areas and create opportunities for positive social interactions (Jacobs, 1961).
In 1973, Newman published a book about “defensible space, crime prevention through urban design,” and nowadays, it is recognized as CPTED (crime prevention through environmental design). Newman’s ideas on a defensible space adapted the criminology theory by Jeffery (1971). In his idea, Newman integrated design concepts and visual control in neighborhood areas. An area will be safer when people have a sense of belonging and responsibility for being part of their community because they will keep an eye on each other (Newman, 1973).
Newman (1973) and Poyner (1983) extended the surveillance idea from Jacobs (1961) by examining the design of residential areas against criminal activity. They revealed that architectural design (building heights, windows, and stairs) and urban design features (roads and open spaces) could increase community cohesiveness and defensible spaces or protect places from criminal acts. The essence of a defensible space is to restructure the neighborhood’s physical layout so that the residents can control the area around their homes. The defensible space includes streets, expansive courtyards, lobbies, and corridors (Newman, 1996).
The CPTED concept by Newman (1996) has similarities with the “Eyes on the Street” by Jacobs (1961). Both concepts focus on supervision, including placing windows facing the road, maximizing lighting, cutting bushes to improve visibility on the road, and using a single entry access. In the modern era, technology supports the surveillance concept, for example, the use of CCTVs. CPTED consists of four strategies: access control, supervision, maintenance, and territory. The crime-prevention concept in public spaces to reduce crime and insecurity by Newman (1973) is understood more as an environmental design strategy than an evaluation from a broader scale or an urban scale.
Many well-known researchers in this scope have developed environmental design and insecurity studies, adopting the surveillance theory by Jacobs (1961) and Newman (1973). A surveillance theory has been developed by Skogan (1992), Ceccato (2013), Ceccato (2019), Ceccato (2020), Pain et al. (2006), Clarke et al. (1996), Loukaitou-Sideris et al. (2009), La Vigne (1996), Valentine (1990), Ceccato and Bamzar (2016), and Uittenbogaard (2015), in which they claimed that the lack of supervision and awareness in neighborhood areas leads to the emergence of social disorders in the environment, which eventually creates a possibility for someone to become a victim of crime.
However, the surveillance theory by Jacobs (1961), Newman (1973), Skogan (1992), Ceccato (2013), Ceccato (2019), Ceccato (2020), Pain et al. (2006), Clarke et al. (1996), Loukaitou-Sideris et al. (2009), La Vigne (1996), Valentine (1990), Ceccato and Bamzar (2016), and Uittenbogaard (2015) is challenged by the findings of Ramsay (1982), Soomeren (1996), Gentry (2015), Belanger (1999), Burrows (1980), Shellow et al. (1975), Loukaitou-Sideris et al. (2002), Bhattacharyya (2016), Sypion-Dutkowska and Leitner (2017), Dhillon and Bakaya (2014), Newton et al. (2015), Solymosi et al. (2015), Boessen and Hipp (2018), Newton (2004), Yu and Smith (2015), Crenshaw and John (1989), Talen (1996), and Roy and Bailey (2021), which revealed that the surveillance theory and environmental design including the layout of building plots, lightings, and police stations cannot establish a sense of community through strategies to unite people because the more the people on the streets, the more the opportunities for people to commit crimes. More trash, social chaos, social disorder, and social imbalance in the community also cause crime to occur.
The critique proposed also underlines that there is no direct relationship between the built environment design and behavior (feeling safe and avoiding being crime victims). According to Gans (1982) and Hunter (1975), non-physical variables affect the reduction of crime and increase the sense of security. These variables include their lifestyle, length of stay, sense of belonging, and social class. This claim is the anti-thesis of the design aspect in the built environment.
3 Data and methods
The literature search covered all publications within 50 years from 1970 to 2021 on Mendeley, ResearchGate, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, and JSTOR. The 50-year interval chosen refers to the interval studies conducted by Ceccato (2020), conducting a systematic review on the urban design and fear of crime at 50-year intervals. However, we emphasize that the method used in this study differs from that in Ceccato (2020). We refer to Mota et al. (2021), reading the published studies manually without software, such as VOSviewer.
To conclude the studies with the theme of public spaces, feelings of insecurity, and crime, a manual systematic literature review is carried out using excel software. The manual systematic literature review utilized in this study is inspired by Mota et al. (2021) and how they sorted, categorized, synthesized, and concluded studies on the research database. Several steps are taken in the manual systematic literature review, including the following:
• Inserting the distribution of studies during 1970–2021 related to crime and the feeling of insecurity in public spaces, which are evaluated based on the urban planning and urban design context.
• Classifying studies based on their focus and variables, which, among others, are CPTED, management of space, nodes (access and crossroads), land use, socio-demographic, economy, facade and building model, social kinship, social disorder, social support, density and activity, psychology and image, and government policy, into an excel spreadsheet to discover what topics the studies have mostly been conducted on and which ones are still understudied.
This study utilizes a systematic manual review using an excel spreadsheet as it requires an in-depth reading with some criteria to evaluate previous studies. The evaluations consist of the research focus and substance following its relevance to the urban planning and urban design context. An automatic systematic review using software such as VOSviewer is considered unlikely to synthesize journals by reading and sorting the required previous studies in detail. The criteria for the articles being evaluated are as follows:
• Articles focusing on the context of urban planning, urban design, and built environment features
• Articles in English
• Articles containing empirical findings and case studies
• Articles focusing on the review or literature review are excluded
• Articles must be peer-reviewed journals or IOP conference series as the justification of the quality of articles included in the analysis
• Articles must be indexed by Scopus and Web of Science as the justification of the quality of articles included in the analysis
By writing down “crime,” “the feeling of insecurity,” and “public space” separately on Mendeley, ResearchGate, Google Scholar, and JSTOR databases, millions of articles are obtained. We can see the number of findings in the “Result Section” on Mendeley, ResearchGate, Google Scholar, and the JSTOR website. However, after the keywords are narrowed down manually by typing “study about crime in public space” or “study about the feeling of insecurity in public space” in The process for conducting a systematic review in this study about how articles were found, eliminated, and sorted is described in the Prisma Flowchart (Figure 1).
FIGURE 1. PRISMA flowchart showing how articles are sorted based on the used criteria using a systematic manual review.
After the reduction following the selection criteria, as shown on the Prisma Flowchart, 72 articles were obtained. Afterwards, the articles were analysed based on scale and object.
These two criteria are used to analyze published studies and to draw conclusions regarding variables that are less researched on this topic. The reading of studies on this topic is presented using a diagram (Table 1).
TABLE 1. Number of analyzed articles based on the sources.
4 Studies on crime in public spaces in the context of urban planning and urban design
Smith and Clarke (2000); La Vigne (1996); Chaiken et al. (1974); Loukaitou-Sideris et al. (2002); La Vigne (1996); Lynch & Atkins (1988); Ceccato et al. (2015); and La Vigne (2015) found that crime in urban public spaces including subways occurs due to a lack of supervision and absence of guards, elements, which are included in the design features of CPTED. Kim et al. (2019); Satiawan et al. (2019); and Loukaitou-Sideris et al. (2001) found that the vulnerability to criminality in urban spaces is influenced by CPTED variables, including surveillance, street junction, lighting, visibility, and vegetation.
McCormick & Holland (2015) concluded that the implementation of CPTED can reduce crime. Yokohari et al. (2006); Chaiken et al. (1974); and Bhattacharyya (2016) concluded that criminal acts could be prevented as a result of good public space management by implementing maintenance strategies. Meanwhile, poor public space management, which may result in trash everywhere and graffiti, is a crime generator.
Studies have found a relationship between CPTED and crime in urban public spaces. CPTED has a significant effect on crime, and few studies have found an insignificant effect of CPTED on urban public spaces. Crime in urban public spaces occurs due to a lack of supervision and absence of guards, elements which are included in the design features of CPTED. CPTED can reduce crime.
Wuschke (2016) concluded that crime incidences are not uniformly distributed in all urban spaces. The typical locations that serve as hotspots are activity nodes and movement routes. Cohen and Felson (1979); Brantingham and Brantingham (1993); Yu (2009); Hart and Miethe (2015); and Song et al. (2019) found that crime occurs when human movement intersects in a space as part of the three elements of a city, namely, paths, nodes, and edges. A node is a centralized place of activity, namely, a public hall. Paths are encounters occurring due to movement and accessibility, namely, intersections or urban transit systems. An edge is an area that becomes the boundary of a settlement, place of work or recreation or other interactions. Loukaitou-Sideris et al. (2001) discovered that buildings with free accessibility and lack of supervision lead to crime.
Studies have found that circulation patterns and the accessibility of land use affect crime in public spaces. The typical locations that serve as hotspots are activity nodes and movement routes because of the abundance of potential targets for a crime to be committed. Activity nodes and activities affect crime in public spaces because there are potential victims at such locations. Crime occur when human movement intersects in a space as part of the three elements of a city, namely, paths, nodes, and edges because of the abundance of potential targets for a crime to be committed.
Kinney et al. (2008) and Dwidinita et al. (2018) claimed that commercial land use is related to the proportion of crimes, such as assault and motor vehicle theft. Gentry. (2015); Belanger (1999); Shellow et al. (1975); Burrows (1980); Loukaitou-Sideris et al. (2002); Newton et al. (2015); and Solymosi et al. (2015) stated that theft is more likely to occur in public spaces, such as transit stations with a high number of passengers on weekdays, and such transit stations have corridors connecting buses and parking lots as potential spaces for a crime to be committed. Loukaitou-sideris (1999); Dwidinita et al. (2018); and Loukaitou-Sideris et al. (2009) found that the abundance of “negative” environmental attributes and the lack of a “defensible space” constitute crime generators. These negative attributes include liquor stores, bars, check cashing stations, hot sheet motels, single room occupancy (SRO) hotels, adult bookstores or cinemas, parking lots, empty storefronts or plots, and abandoned buildings. In addition, areas with poor supervision and lighting are also categorized as negative spaces.
Sypion-Dutkowska and Leitner (2017) and Adams et al. (2015) found that crime usually occurs in several land use areas within the built environment, including alcohol shops, clubs and discotheques, cultural facilities, national housing, and commercial buildings. In contrast, halls, cemeteries, green areas, transportation hubs, and residential parks are considered low-crime areas. Nazmfar et al. (2020) stated that the crime rate is high and security is low when a location is further away from the population center and relatively quiet.
Loukaitou-Sideris et al. (2001); Loukaitou-Sideris et al. (2009); and Bhattacharyya (2016) found that the configuration of a neighborhood in urban areas has an impact on crime. Crime rates also increase in neighborhoods with undesirable places, such as liquor stores, check cashing stations, empty buildings, and places with graffiti and trash. Stucky and Ottensmann (2009) and Browning et al. (2010) found that land use directly affects crime rates and socioeconomic losses. Adams et al. (2015) and Hart and Miethe (2015) discovered that mixed-use areas that accommodate various activities can increase the risk of crime because of their potential as a crime generator.
Ceccato (2019) and Webb and Laycock (1992) found that surveillance with technology plays an essential role in reducing crime. The use of technology as environmental surveillance is a substitute for traditional surveillance in the form of eyes on the street in public spaces. Long et al. (2021) discovered that natural surveillance in the form of crowds in public spaces and the use of technology—CCTVs—play an essential role in preventing crime on the streets. However, Koskela (2000) found that surveillance and CCTV control in public spaces have little impact on preventing crimes of sexual harassment against women.
Studies have found that land use affects crime in public spaces. Crime rates also increase in neighborhoods with undesirable places, such as liquor stores, check cashing stations, empty buildings, and places with graffiti and trash. The density and activity affect crime in public spaces; crimes are more likely to occur in public spaces with a high number of people because there are lots of potential targets for a crime to be committed. The crime rate is high and security is low when a location is further away from the population center and is relatively quiet. Social disorder affects crime in public spaces because social disorders such as delinquents, drunks, and drug users are often affiliated with criminal networks. The economy affects crime in public spaces because areas categorized as poor areas have more perpetrators than rich areas. Space management affects crime in public spaces. Poor public space management, which may result in trash everywhere and graffiti, is a crime generator. Poor public space management represents a place with social disorganization.
Struyf (2020) revealed that street lighting could reduce crime. Mihinjac and Saville (2020) concluded that the SafeGrowth method and second-generation CPTED, emphasizing collaboration and building collectivity, can reduce crime. Escobar (2012) stated that social kinship within the environment reduces crime due to space control from social disorganization, such as gangs, urban militias, and disorganized groups.
Studies have found that there is a relationship between social kinship in public spaces and crime. Social kinship affects crime in public spaces. Social kinship within the environment reduces crime due to the space control from social disorganization.
Monqid (2012) revealed that crime and violence against women in public spaces occur because of gender segregation. Violence against women defines that public spaces belongs to men, resulting in the restriction placed on women in public spaces. Dhillon and Bakaya (2014) and Bhattacharyya (2016) revealed that harassment against women often occurs on busy streets during the day. The high rate of harassment is associated with factors such as usual attitudes toward women and the weak implementation of the law.
Studies have found that socio-demographics affect crime in public spaces. Crime and violence against women and elder people in public spaces occur because of gender segregation and age.
The studies on crime in public spaces show that, so far, most studies analyze CPTED and land-use objects and how the implementation of CPTED in the neighborhood area significantly affects crime in public spaces within the built environment of a city.
5 Studies on the perception of insecurity from crime in public spaces in the context of urban planning and design
Hung and Crompton (2006) concluded that the factors causing people to be reluctant to visit urban parks in Hong Kong are poor health and park management. Due to the poor management of the park, there is inappropriate behavior causing fear of crime. Jorgensen et al. (2013); Brown et al. (2007); Boessen and Hipp (2018); and Robinson et al. (2003) found that social disorders present in public spaces in a crowded environment, including frightening individual appearance, fights that occur on streets, rascal groups on the streets, quiet areas, unsupervised dogs, trash, graffiti, vacant land, limited visual surveillance, and the potential for hiding places, lead to the emergence of personal feelings of insecurity in urban areas. Studies have found that space management affects the feeling of insecurity in public spaces. Due to the poor management of urban public spaces, there is inappropriate behavior causing fear of crime.
Yeoh and Yeow (1997), Tandogan and Ilhan (2016), and Trench et al. (1992) found that the “spatial expression of patriarchy,” i.e., the role of men is more significant than women’s, increases women’s fear of becoming victims of crime in a public space, resulting in them preferring to stay close together, moving in safe places, and avoiding public spaces, such as roads in the city, park, plaza, public transportation, and its surrounding area, especially while carrying out activities in the afternoon to the evening. Pain (1991) found that there is segregation of women from men, where men dominate public spaces more than women. The amount of violence against women in the private space psychologically impacts women by perceiving it in public spaces. As a result, women are more likely to avoid public spaces because of the fear of crime from the formed image.
Erkan and Topcu (2021) found that gender is a factor that influences the fear of crime in the public sphere in Muslim and Asian countries. Women have a higher level of fear of crime than men in Muslim and Asian countries. Valentine (1996); Morrell (1996); Valera-Pertegas and Guàrdia-Olmos (2017); Yates and Ceccato (2020); Koskela and Pain (2000); and Whitley and Prince (2005) discovered that women, people with disabilities, and some lesbians, as minority groups, feel insecure in public spaces. Fear is influenced by several places that give an impression to individuals with disabilities, so the perception of places often arises. Ross (2000) found that women who carry out activities on the streets (public spaces) in poor areas have a perception of feeling insecure and high levels of fear of crime. In addition, women with white skin color feel safer than other ethnicities in public spaces.
Rezvani and Sadra (2019); Shibata et al. (2015); Valera-Pertegas and Guàrdia-Olmos (2017); and Ceccato (2016) found that the fear of crime in public spaces is caused by the mentality, socio-demographic, and image of a place captured by individuals. These factors are important issues that reduce access to public places and limit interactions with public places. Studies have found that socio-demographics affect the feeling of insecurity in public spaces. In public spaces, there is the “spatial expression of patriarchy,” i.e., the role of men is more significant than women’s, which increases women’s fear of becoming victims of a crime in public spaces. There is a relationship between a public space image and the feeling of insecurity and it is usually generated by the elderly and women. The image of a public space affects the feeling of insecurity in a public space. Human psychology related to an image affects the feeling of insecurity in public spaces. Women, people with disabilities, and some lesbians, as minority groups, feel insecure in public spaces. Fear is influenced by several places that give an impression to individuals with disabilities, which often generates a perception of such places.
García-Cervantes (2021) found that social dimensions of kinship, community, and individual relationships influence insecurity and violence in urban spaces. Valente and Vacchiano (2020) discovered that the fear of crime is differentiated by the location. In Argentina, the fear of crime is positively related to socioeconomic vulnerability, whereas in Brazil, it is caused by the consequences of previous victimization and mistrust of others. Chirisa et al. (2016) and Peluso (2013) found that the feeling of insecurity in urban areas results from increased crime and violence triggered by several socioeconomic challenges, politics, and local government policies. Local governments are authorities in charge of implementing and designing public policy strategies. Politicians, managers, and experts must compare everyday actions with the complexity of the four main concepts: security, insecurity, fear, and degradation.
Roy and Bailey (2021) found that the lack of security of women, the existence of the ‘male gaze,’ the negative male personality in public spaces, the presence of middle-aged men and strangers, and places where harassment is reported repeatedly harm women’s perceptions of safety. Conversely, social control increases women’s perceptions of safety in public spaces. The existence of social control is caused by activities in public spaces and busy streets due to daily human commuting, hawkers, and shop owners involved in activities, which are considered safe areas.
Brunton-Smith and Sturgis (2011) found that the characteristics of the built environment, visual signs of disorder (vandalism, abandoned or vacant buildings, unsupervised youth, graffiti, and trash), and recorded crimes all have direct and independent effects on the individual-level fear of crime. In addition, individual differences in the fear of crime are severely constrained by the socioeconomic characteristics of the neighborhood where people live, and poor areas are often associated with social disorders.
Studies have found that social support and kinship affect the feeling of insecurity in public spaces because social dimensions of kinship, community, and individual relationships influence insecurity in urban spaces. The economy also affects the feeling of insecurity because poor areas are often associated with social disorders and affect the feeling of insecurity.
Mazlaghani (2014); Clarke et al. (1996); La Vigne (1996); Valentine (1990); Bogacka (2011); Uittenbogaard (2014); Loukaitou-Sideris (2015); Svensdotter and Guaralda (2018); Viswanath and Mehrotra (2007); Stjernborg and Bamzar (2020); Pain and Townshend (2002); Azari et al. (2015); Carro et al. (2008); Valera and Guàrdia (2014); Ceccato (2013); Mahadevia and Lathia (2019); Ceccato et al. (2013); Ceccato (2016); Kostenwein (2021); Koskela (2002); Yavuz and Welch (2010); and Shibata (2021) found that several CPTED variables including surveillance, CCTV, lighting, and absence of graffiti in a neighborhood area affect the perception of security in public spaces, including transit-oriented development areas (subway stations and bus stops).
Bennetts et al. (2017) highlighted the importance of several CPTED principles, including activity, maintenance, and line of sight and revealing the importance of familiarity and personal security strategies. Carro et al. (2008) and Wrigley-Asante et al. (2019) concluded that CPTED variables, including surveillance, lighting, and the absence of graffiti, affect individuals’ feelings of security in public spaces. Kostenwein (2021) found that, apart from CPTED, other variables of environmental design, such as gated communities, increase the residents’ feeling of security. Nevertheless, Tanulku (2016) stated that a gated community is not completely safe, as it creates new forms of danger and unsafe situations. The sense of security in a gated community is formed by the developer’s design and the resident community. Lim et al. (2020) concluded that the biggest factor influencing security and reducing crime in public spaces is CPTED, rather than CPSD (crime-prevention methods through social development).
Machielse (2015); Viswanath and Mehrotra (2007); Valentine (1989); Börjesson (2012); and Yavuz & Welch (2010) found that women are more likely to feel insecure than men to do activities in public spaces due to the poor environmental design, such as poor lighting, narrow roads, too many bushes and trees that reduce visibility, and the presence of delinquents and sloppy people. Maruthaveeran and van den Bosh (2015) and Lindgren and Nilsen (2012) found that the design attributes or facilities in parks affect the fear of crime in public parks.
Wallace et al. (1999) found that CCTVs do not have a significant impact on the feeling of security in public spaces, such as in the transportation hub. Ceccato and Bamzar (2016) stated that the safest environment for older people is high surveilled neighborhoods and the least safe environment is quiet places. Shahdadi (2016) stated that security is an external and objective idea, while the feeling of security is an inner and mental idea. Generally, there are two aspects of security: an objective aspect evaluated by environmental factors (CPTED) and objective behavior and a subjective aspect based on a group’s sense of security (image). In urban science, the concept of security includes both urban security and environmental security.
Studies have found that CPTED has a significant effect on the feeling of insecurity in public spaces. Several CPTED variables, including surveillance, CCTVs, lighting, and the absence of graffiti in a neighborhood area, affect the perception of security in public spaces, including transit-oriented development areas (subway stations and bus stops).
Newton (2004) and Mahadevia and Lathia (2019) found that not only the density in public spaces, such as bus stops, affect the feeling of insecurity but also the specific time at which the peak accumulation of passengers occurs. Potential criminals usually have observed certain hours with the highest activity intensity in public spaces. Loukaitou-Sideris et al. (2009) showed that deserted bus stops and train carriages, parking lots, dimly lit areas, and crowded public transport provide a stressful environment for many women. They often have to change their modes of transportation and travel patterns to avoid it.
Hong and Chen (2014) found that an environment with good pedestrian accessibility and facilities makes people feel safer and free from crime. Density is considered a barrier to activities in public spaces. However, some pieces of literature reveal the opposite fact that the residents in safe and dense areas are more likely to walk, and it is likely due to surveillance. Uittenbogaard (2015) found that environmental attributes around stations that indicate crowds, such as busy squares, cycling and walking trails, residential neighborhoods, and taxi stands, do not provide significant control over public spaces from the entrances to the underground lanes. Only cycling and passenger lanes to the station positively contribute to surveillance.
Studies have found that the density and activities in public spaces affect the feeling of insecurity. Social disorders present in public spaces in quiet areas, including frightening individual appearance, fights that occur on streets, rascal groups on the streets, unsupervised dogs, trash, graffiti, vacant land, limited visual surveillance, and the potential for hiding places, lead to the emergence of personal feelings of insecurity. However, insecurity increases in urban areas with a high concentration of people and buildings because there are many targets as potential victims.
Wiebe et al. (2015) found that most teenagers feel less safe in public spaces, especially when they travel using public transportation. Their fear increases after dark as the security is considered lower and commonly associated with social disorders, such as the presence of drunken people and other forms of negative activities. Pain et al. (2006) and Painter (1996) showed that street lighting helps increase security and reduce crime.
Studies have found that social disorders affect the feeling of insecurity in public spaces. The characteristics of the built environment, visual signs of disorder (vandalism, abandoned or vacant buildings, unsupervised youth, graffiti, and trash), and recorded crimes all have direct and independent effects on the individual-level fear of crime.
Yu and Smith (2015); Breetzke and Pearson (2014) concluded that the lanes to public spaces in certain land uses have a low level of security as there are many bad occurrences in these land use areas. Certain land use areas, e.g., poor and congested Hispanic neighborhoods with more foreign-born people, have higher crime rates than wealthier and more educated neighborhoods. Smit et al. (2015) found that closed neighborhoods impact residents’ pattern of daily activities, willingness to access public spaces, and personal security. Viswanath and Mehrotra (2007) and Breetzke and Pearson (2014) found that certain land use areas with liquor stores, empty and unmaintained bus stops, and the existence of bad social factors (such as youth gathering and whistling) increase the feeling of insecurity. Adams et al. (2015) and Hart and Miethe (2015) concluded that mixed land use can increase insecurity because the activities are directed in an area. Studies have found that land use affects the feeling of insecurity in public spaces. The feeling of insecurity increases in neighborhoods with undesirable places, such as liquor stores, check cashing stations, empty buildings, and places with graffiti and trash. The safest environment for older people and minority groups is highly-surveilled neighborhoods, while the least safe environment is quiet places. Certain urban land uses can be categorized as unsafe areas. A mixed land-use area is considered to increase the feeling of insecurity in public spaces.
Al-bayati (2016) concluded that urban forms affect the perception of the feeling of insecurity of the city population caused by terrorism. There is a relationship between urban forms and the feeling of insecurity. Appropriate urban forms can increase individual security for the individuals living inside.
Studies on public spaces and the feeling of insecurity tend to analyze CPTED variables and elaborate their significant effect on creating residents’ feelings of security in public spaces in the neighborhood areas. Studies about this topic have also evaluated more about the socio-demographics and how socio-demographic characters (gender, age, income, culture, etc.) significantly affect the emergence of feelings of insecurity in public spaces. Marginalized communities (e.g., black, LGBT, and Hispanic) with their socio-demographic characteristics feel insecure in a crowded public space because of their perceived psychological state and image.
6 Discussion
From the previous studies, it is known that there are two views on the surveillance theory. The first view argues that many activities in public spaces will reduce the feeling of insecurity because of the supervision or eyes on the street. On the other hand, the second view claims that activities in public spaces will create feelings of insecurity as individuals have the potential to become targets of crime.
The first view that supports the theory of Jacobs and Newman is better understood as a design approach in the built environment to increase security. The strategies include setting the building facade and lighting, placing security posts and CCTVs, and setting gates, walls, and circulation near the entry access into the neighborhood area. The surveillance from the setting neighborhood helps maximize visual control in public spaces. Contrary to the surveillance theory, the second view is more directed at the social setting in the built environment. The socio-demographic setting of an area has more influence on the feeling of insecurity and crime than the physical setting. Poor and slum areas, less gender equality lifestyles and cultures, low perception of minorities, such as LGBT, lack of kinship in an environment, and the culture of social class division are positively correlated with the feeling of insecurity from crime.
Previous studies have also shown differences in individuals’ feelings of insecurity. In Asian, African, and Middle Eastern countries, the feeling of insecurity is affected by socio-demographics, such as the female status which is under the male’s status [Yeoh and Yeow (1997); Viswanath and Mehrotra (2007); Yavuz and Welch (2010); Tandogan and Ilhan (2016); Rezvani and Sadra (2019); Roy and Bailey (2021)]. Meanwhile, in America and Europe, the fear in public spaces is caused by design features, such as surveillance and visibility [Lindgren and Nilsen (2012); Valentine (1989); Mahadevia and Lathia (2019); Uittenbogaard (2014); Loukaitou-Sideris et al. (2009)]. This may happen because of the principle of role equality in Western countries. The findings of this study state that every city with different characteristics of urban forms and cultures will have a different human psychological response (perceived insecurities) toward urban features.
Studies during 1970–2021 focus more on the variables of environmental design features at the neighborhood scale (micro- and mesoscale) (Table 2 and Figure 2), such as CPTED, which consists of social control and land use (Figure 3). Meanwhile, variables at urban spatial configuration (macroscale) are still under-researched. Apart from focusing on the neighborhood, it is essential to evaluate the feeling of insecurity at a city scale (a city’s overall structure). As there are various typologies with their respective characteristics in each area, a comprehensive and non-partial analysis is needed.
TABLE 2. Studies during 1970–2021 related to the object and scale.
FIGURE 2. Various substance scales in studies on the feeling of insecurity from crime in public spaces during 1970–2021.
FIGURE 3. Various objects in studies on crime and the feeling of insecurity in public spaces during 1970–2021.
The macroscale covers a city’s overall structure and its current and future position in relation to other cities and settlements within the wider city network. Some of the main elements and aspects of the macroscale are the city size, development type (i.e., compact, organic, and unplanned), land use (distribution patterns of populations and jobs), degree of clustering, and landscape connectivity. The mesoscale relates to the structure and layout of neighborhoods, blocks, lots, open spaces, and roads. Some of the main elements and aspects of the macroscale are the neighborhood shape and design, neighborhood density, land-use mix, size and layout of lots and blocks, design and structure of streets, and size/shape and distribution pattern of open spaces. The microscale is related to the granular design and structure of buildings and their position in adjacent buildings, open spaces, pathways, and human interactions between buildings. Some of the main elements and aspects of the microscale are the physical arrangement and structural features of buildings, which can be in the form of materials, roofs, walls, rooms, fenestration, façade, the extent of setback, lot coverage, emergency routes, parking requirements, and unit types of the building and housing (Sharifi (2019)).
The findings of the systematic review of this study are reinforced by the findings of a literature review from Ceccato (2020). According to Ceccato (2020), studies on the relationship between public spaces, crime, and the fear of crime during 1968–2018 are only reviewed in the neighborhood scale with a focus on the design aspects or CPTED variables, including reducing the permeability and maximizing control by creating barriers (gates, fences, and walls). CPTED and visibility variables are parts of the neighborhood shape and design in creating a safe environment.
7 Conclusion
In the context of urban planning and urban landscape, the research gap on the feeling of insecurity from crime in public spaces within the built environment is on urban spatial configuration variables. There are still a few studies at this scale, whereas to study the relationship between urban public spaces and the feeling of insecurity, it is necessary to evaluate beyond the micro- and mesoscale or neighborhood units in the built environment.
It is essential to assess urban spatial configuration dimensions (microscale), rather than focusing solely on environmental design features (micro- and mesoscale). Design variables, such as CPTED, which focus on reducing the permeability and maximizing control by creating barriers (such as gates, fences, and walls), have been extensively evaluated, and we have gained a great deal of insight from this approach. Few articles on studies evaluating urban morphological variables related to feelings of insecurity in public spaces (macroscale) have been found on search engines; some of them are articles by Al-bayati (2016) and Saraiva and Ana (2021). Al-bayati (2016) evaluates urban forms in relation to the feeling of insecurity with a focus on terrorism, which is not an urban crime, as explained by Soomeren (1996) and Silva & Li (2020).
The novelty framework of the study illustrates that more researchers should evaluate the feelings of insecurity from crime in public spaces on a macroscale, namely, the urban spatial configuration dimension. Variables of urban spatial configuration need to be implemented to assess the perception of insecurity (Figure 4). Future studies can evaluate variables of urban spatial configuration, including urban development patterns (planned unit development and unplanned development or organic urban development) and city sizes, distribution of people and jobs, and cluster connectivity. According to Kamalipour et al. (2014), most of the studies on the fear of crime, implicitly and explicitly, ignore the complex relationship between the fear of crime and the built environment, even though the fear of crime is closely related to the perception of urban crime on spatial structures and patterns, functional attributes, and urban morphology that need to be mapped analytically.
FIGURE 4. Novelty framework.
Al-bayati (2016) claimed that different urban spatial configurations affect individual responses to security. Williams et al. (2000) suspected that to understand the urban spatial configuration related to feelings of insecurity and criminality, a wide range of elements, including land use and the density of the surroundings, distribution of settlements, linkages with the surrounding environment, and accessibility between areas, must be observed in a comprehensive manner.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Materials; further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Author contributions
DW is the corresponding writer. WS is the supervising lecturer, providing input and direction. PN is the second supervising lecturer, providing input and direction. NP is the third supervising lecturer, providing input and direction.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors, and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Adams, W., Herrmann, C. R., and Felson, M. (2015). “Crime, transportation and malignant mixes,” in Safety and security in transit environments (London: Palgrave Macmillan UK), 181–195. doi:10.1057/9781137457653_10
Adel, H., Salheen, M., and Mahmoud, R. A. (2016). Crime in relation to urban design. Case study: The Greater Cairo Region. Ain Shams Eng. J. 7 (3), 925–938. doi:10.1016/j.asej.2015.08.009
Al-bayati, D. (2016). Urban form and insecurity: A case study of three districts in baghdad. PhD Thesis, Griffith School of Environment. doi:10.25904/1912/450
Azari, A., Pirbasi, M., and Shirchi, F. (2015). The influence of urban design in preventing and reducing the amount of crime and raucousness and the delivery of sense of security (lahijan as A case). Curr. World Environ. 10 (1), 474–483. doi:10.12944/CWE.10.Special-Issue1.59
Belanger, M. (1999). Crime mobility and public transport: The case of the New York city subway. Doctoral Dissertation, Newark, NJ: Rutgers University.
Bennetts, H., Soebarto, V., Oakley, S., and Babie, P. (2017). Feeling safe and comfortable in the urban environment. J. Urbanism Int. Res. Placemaking Urban Sustain. 10 (4), 401–421. doi:10.1080/17549175.2017.1310746
Bhattacharyya, R. (2016). Street violence against women in India: Mapping prevention strategies. Asian Soc. Work Policy Rev. 10 (3), 311–325. doi:10.1111/aswp.12099
Boessen, A., and Hipp, J. R. (2018). Parks as crime inhibitors or generators: Examining parks and the role of their nearby context. Soc. Sci. Res. 76, 186–201. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2018.08.008
Bogacka, E. (2021). “Safety of urban park users the case of Poznań, Poland,” in Crime and fear in public places. Editors Ceccato, and M. Nalla (Oxfordshire: Routledge Taylor & Francis), 108–124.
Bogacka, E. (2011). The role of public safety in the functioning and development of Poznań. Scientific Works of the University of Economics in Wrocław, 196–205.
Börjesson, M. (2012). Valuing perceived insecurity associated with use of and access to public transport. Transp. Policy 22, 1–10. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.04.004
Brantingham, P. L., and Brantingham, P. J. (1993). Nodes, paths and edges: Considerations on the complexity of crime and the physical environment. J. Environ. Psychol. 13 (1), 3–28. doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80212-9
Breetzke, G. D., and Pearson, A. L. (2014). The fear factor: Examining the spatial variability of recorded crime on the fear of crime. Appl. Geogr. 46, 45–52. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.10.009
Brown, B. B., Werner, C. M., Amburgey, J. W., and Szalay, C. (2007). Walkable route perceptions and physical features. Environ. Behav. 39 (1), 34–61. doi:10.1177/0013916506295569
Browning, C., Byron, R., Calder, C., Krivo, L., Kwan, M., Lee, J., et al. (2010). Commercial density, residential concentration, and crime: Land use patterns and violence in neighborhood context. J. Res. Crime Delinquency 47 (3), 329–357. doi:10.1177/0022427810365906
Brunton-Smith, I., and Sturgis, P. (2011). Do neighborhoods generate fear of crime? An empirical test using the British crime survey. Criminology 49 (2), 331–369. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2011.00228.x
Burrows, J. (1980). “Closed-circuit television and crime on the london underground,” in Designing out crime. Editors R. Clarke, and P. Mayhew (London: HMSO), 75–83.
Carmona, M., Heath, T., Oc, T., and Tiesdell, S. (2003). Public places-urban spaces: The dimensions of Urban Design. Oxford: Architectural Press.
Carr, S., Francis, M., Rivlin, L., and Stone, A. (1992). “Needs in public space,” in Urban design reader. Editors M. Carmona, and S. Tiesdell, 230–240.
Carro, D., Valera, S., and Vidal, T. (2008). Perceived insecurity in the public space: Personal, social and environmental variables. Qual. Quantity 44 (2), 303–314. doi:10.1007/s11135-008-9200-0
Ceccato, V., Cats, O., and Wang, Q. (2015). “The geography of pickpocketing at bus stops: An analysis of grid cells,” in Safety and security in transit environments: An interdisciplinary approach. Editors V. Ceccato, and A. Newton (London: Palgrave Macmillan UK), 76–98.
Ceccato, V., and Bamzar, R. (2016). Elderly victimization and fear of crime in public spaces. Int. Crim. Justice Rev. 26 (2), 115–133. doi:10.1177/1057567716639096
Ceccato, V. (2013). Moving safely: Crime and perceived safety in Stockholm’s subway stations. Pennsylvania: Lexington books.
Ceccato, V. (2016). Public space and the situational conditions of crime and fear. Int. Crim. Justice Rev. 26 (2), 69–79. doi:10.1177/1057567716639099
Ceccato, V. (2019). Special issue: Crime and control in the digital era. Crim. Justice Rev. 44 (1), 5–10. doi:10.1177/0734016818818688
Ceccato, V. (2020). “The architecture of crime and fear of crime,” in Crime and fear in public places (Oxfordshire: Routledge). (Issue July). doi:10.4324/9780429352775-4
Ceccato, V., Uittenbogaard, A., and Bamzar, R. (2013). Security in Stockholm’s underground stations: The importance of environmental attributes and context. Secur. J. 26 (1), 33–59. doi:10.1057/sj.2011.32
Chaiken, J. M., Lawless, M. S., and Stevenson, K. A. (1974). The impact of police activity on crime: Robberies on the New York city subway system. New York: Rand Institute.
Chirisa, I., Bobo, T., and Matamanda, A. (2016). Policies and strategies to manage urban insecurity: Focus on selected African cities. Joppa 3 (2), 93–106.
Clarke, R. V., Belanger, M., and Eastman, J. A. (1996). “Where angels fear to tread: A test in the New York city subway of the robbery/density hypothesis,” in Preventing mass transit crime. Editor R. V. Clarke (Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press), 217–235.
Cohen, L. E., and Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. Am. Sociol. Rev. 44 (4), 588. doi:10.2307/2094589
Cozens, P. (2008). Crime prevention through environmental design in western Australia: Planning for sustainable urban futures. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Plan. 3 (3), 272–292. doi:10.2495/SDP-V3-N3-272-292
Cozens, P., Neale, R., Whitaker, J., and Hillier, D. (2003). Managing crime and the fear of crime at railway stations. A case study in south wales (UK). Int. J. Transp. Manag. 1 (3), 121–132. doi:10.1016/j.ijtm.2003.10.001
Crenshaw, E., and John, C. (1989). The organisationally dependent community: A comparative study of neighbourhood attachement. Urban Aff. 24, 608–619. doi:10.1177/004208168902400306
de Rafael, G. H., and Fernández-Prados, J. S. (2019). Victimization, social structure and psychosocial variables: The case of Spain in 1999 and 2016. Soc. Sci. 8 (3), 102. doi:10.3390/socsci8030102
Dhillon, M., and Bakaya, S. (2014). Street harassment: A qualitative study of the experiences of young women in Delhi. SAGE Open 4 (3), 215824401454378. doi:10.1177/2158244014543786
Dwidinita, D., Sunarti, E. T., and Setijanti, P. (2018). Understanding the relationship between urban morphology and crime in south krembangan, surabaya. Int. J. Sci. Res. Publ. (IJSRP) 8 (7), 173–177. doi:10.29322/IJSRP.8.7.2018.p7929
Erkan, N. C., and Topcu, B. S. (2021). Gender-based differences in fear of crime in public spaces: An investigation of a safe district in Istanbul. Urbani Izziv 32 (2), 87–97. doi:10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2021-32-02-02
Escobar, G. (2012). El uso de la teoría de la desorganización social para comprender la distribución de homicidios en Bogotá, Colombia. Rev. INVI 27 (74), 21–85. doi:10.4067/s0718-83582012000100002
Gans, H. J. (1982). The urban villagers: Group and class in the life of Italian-Americans. Free Press; Collier Macmillan Publishers.
García-Cervantes, N. (2021). Violence and insecurity in urban space: An analytical approach based on the ecological framework for violence. Rev. Geog. Amer. Cent. 1 (66), 45–78. doi:10.15359/rgac.66-1.2
Gentry, K. (2015). “Apple picking: The rise of electronic device thefts in boston subways,” in Safety and security in transit environments (Springer), 39–55.
Hart, T. C., and Miethe, T. D. (2015). “Public bus stops and the meso environment: Understanding the situational context of street robberies,” in Safety and security in transit environments (London: Palgrave Macmillan UK), 196–212. doi:10.1057/9781137457653_11
Hong, J., and Chen, C. (2014). The role of the built environment on perceived safety from crime and walking: Examining direct and indirect impacts. Transportation 41 (6), 1171–1185. doi:10.1007/s11116-014-9535-4
Hung, K., and Crompton, J. L. (2006). Benefits and constraints associated with the use of an urban park reported by a sample of elderly in Hong Kong. Leis. Stud. 25 (3), 291–311. doi:10.1080/02614360500409810
Hunter, A. (1975). The loss of community: An empirical test through replication. Am. Sociol. Rev. 40, 537–552. doi:10.2307/2094194
Jeffery, C. R. (1971). Crime prevention through environmental design. Am. Behav. Sci. 14 (4), 598. doi:10.1177/000276427101400409
Jorgensen, L. J., Ellis, G. D., and Ruddell, E. (2013). Fear perceptions in public parks. Environ. Behav. 45 (7), 803–820. doi:10.1177/0013916512446334
Kamalipour, H., Faizi, M., and Memarian, G. (2014). Safe place by design: Urban crime in relation to spatiality and sociality. Curr. Urban Stud. 02 (02), 152–162. doi:10.4236/cus.2014.22015
Kim, D., Hong, S. W., and Jeong, Y. (2019). Crime prevention effect of the second generation crime prevention through environmental design project in South Korea: An Analysis. Soc. Sci. 8 (6), 187. doi:10.3390/socsci8060187
Kinney, J. B., Brantingham, P. L., Wuschke, K., Kirk, M. G., and Brantingham, P. J. (2008). Crime attractors, generators and detractors: Land use and urban crime opportunities. Built Environ. 34 (1), 62–74. doi:10.2148/benv.34.1.62
Koskela, H., and Pain, R. (2000). Revisiting fear and place: Women’s fear of attack and the built environment. Geoforum 31 (2), 269–280. doi:10.1016/S0016-7185(99)00033-0
Koskela, H. (2002). Video surveillance, gender, and the safety of public urban space: “Peeping tom” goes high tech? Urban Geogr. 23 (3), 257–278. doi:10.2747/0272-3638.23.3.257
Koskela, H. (2000). ‘The gaze without eyes’: Video-surveillance and the changing nature of urban space. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 24 (2), 243–265. doi:10.1191/030913200668791096
Kostenwein, D. (2021). Between Walls and fences: How gated Communities in bogotá shape Exclusive and insecure public spaces Outside the gates [ISTP]. Doctoral Thesis. Zürich: ETH Zurich. doi:10.3929/ethz-b-000490605
La Vigne, N. (2015). “Crime in and around metro transit stations: Exploring the utility of opportunity theories of crime,” in Safety and security in transit environments (London: Palgrave Macmillan UK), 251–269. doi:10.1057/9781137457653_14
La Vigne, N. (1996). Crime prevention through the design and management of the built environment: The case of the DC metro. Newark, NJ: Rutgers University.
Lim, S. B., Yong, C. K., Malek, J. A., Jali, M. F. M., Awang, A. H., and Tahir, Z. (2020). Effectiveness of fear and crime prevention strategy for sustainability of safe city. Sustain. Switz. 12 (24), 10593. doi:10.3390/su122410593
Lindgren, T., and Nilsen, M. R. (2012). Safety in residential areas. Tijdschr. Voor Econ. En. Soc. Geogr. 103 (2), 196–208. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9663.2011.00679.x
Long, D., Liu, L., Xu, M., Feng, J., Chen, J., and He, L. (2021). Ambient population and surveillance cameras: The guardianship role in street robbers’ crime location choice. Cities 115, 103223. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2021.103223
Loukaitou-Sideris, A., Bornstein, A., Fink, C., Samuels, L., and Gerami, S. (2009). How to ease women’s fear of transportation environments: Case studies and best practices. Available at: http://transweb.sjsu.edu/MTIportal/research/publications/documents/2611-women-transportation.pdf.
Loukaitou-Sideris, A., Liggett, R., and Iseki, H. (2002). The geography of transit crime: Documentation and evaluation of crime incidence on and around the green line stations in los angeles. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 22 (2), 135–151. doi:10.1177/0739456x02238443
Loukaitou-sideris, A. (1999). Hot spots of bus stop crime. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 65 (4), 395–411. doi:10.1080/01944369908976070
Loukaitou-Sideris, A., Liggett, R., Iseki, H., and Thurlow, W. (2001). Measuring the effects of built environment on bus stop crime. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 28 (2), 255–280. doi:10.1068/b2642r
Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (2015). “Intimidated riders: US women’s perspectives about safety in transit settings,” in Safety and security in transit environments (London: Palgrave Macmillan UK), 291–308. doi:10.1057/9781137457653_16
Lynch, G., and Atkins, S. (1988). The influence of personal security fears on women’s travel patterns. Transportation 15, 257–277. doi:10.1007/bf00837584
Mahadevia, D., and Lathia, S. (2019). Women’s safety and public spaces: Lessons from the sabarmati riverfront, India. Urban Plan. 4 (2), 154–168. doi:10.17645/up.v4i2.2049
Maruthaveeran, S., and van den Bosh, C. K. (2015). Fear of crime in urban parks – what the residents of Kuala Lumpur have to say? Urban For. Urban Green. 14 (3), 702–713. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2015.05.012
Mazlaghani, H. (2014). Feeling of safety and fear in a city A comparison study between two city districts in Tehran and Stockholm. Uppsala: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.
McCormick, J. G., and Holland, S. M. (2015). Strategies in use to reduce incivilities, provide security and reduce crime in urban parks. Secur. J. 28 (4), 374–391. doi:10.1057/sj.2012.54
Mihinjac, M., and Saville, G. (2020). Crime and fear in Hollygrove – building neighbourhood resilience. Int. J. Comp. Appl. Crim. Justice 44 (4), 335–352. doi:10.1080/01924036.2020.1719534
Monqid, S. (2012). Violence against women in public spaces: The case of Morocco. Égypte/Monde Arabe 9, 105–117. doi:10.4000/ema.3011
Morrell, H. (1996). “Women’s safety,” in Changing places: Women’s lives in the city. Editors C. Booth, J. Darke, and S. Yeandle (London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd), 100–110.
Mota, E. A., de Oliveira, V. F., Barban do Patrocinio, A., Rodrigues, V., and Guerra-Sá, R. (2021). Detection of Schistosoma mansoni long non-coding RNAs in the infected C57BL/6 mouse liver. Exp. Parasitol. 222, 108062. doi:10.1016/j.exppara.2020.108062
Nazmfar, H., Alavi, S., Feizizadeh, B., and Mostafavi, M. A. (2020). Analysis of spatial distribution of crimes in urban public spaces. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 146 (3), 05020006. doi:10.1061/(asce)up.1943-5444.0000549
Newman, O. (1973). Defensible space; crime prevention through urban design. New York: Macmillan Publishing.
Newton, A. D. (2004). Crime on public transport: ‘Static’’ and “non-static’’ (moving) crime events. West. Criminol. Rev. 5 (3), 25–42.
Newton, A., Partridge, H., and Gill, A. (2015). “In and around: Identifying predictors of theft within and near to major mass underground transit systems,” in Safety and security in transit environments (Springer).
Pain, R., MacFarlane, O., Turner, K., and Gill, S. (2006). When, where, if, and but’: Qualifying GIS and the effect of streetlighting on crime and fear. Environ. Plan. A 38 (11), 2055–2074. doi:10.1068/a38391
Pain, R. (1991). Space, sexual violence and social control: Integrating geographical and feminist analyses of women’s fear of crime. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 15 (4), 415–431. doi:10.1177/030913259101500403
Pain, R., and Townshend, T. (2002). A safer city centre for all? Senses of ‘community safety’’ in newcastle upon tyne. Geoforum 33 (1), 105–119. doi:10.1016/S0016-7185(01)00025-2
Painter, K. (1996). The influence of street lighting improvements on crime, fear and pedestrian street use, after dark. Landsc. Urban Plan. 35 (2–3), 193–201. doi:10.1016/0169-2046(96)00311-8
Peluso, P. (2013). The roots of the organized criminal underworld in campania. Sociol. Anthropol. 1 (2), 118–134. doi:10.13189/sa.2013.010211
Poyner, B. (1983). Design against crime: Beyond defensible space. First Edit. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Rezvani, M., and Sadra, Y. (2019). Sociological explanation of fear of crime in public spaces case study mashhad. Sociol. Criminology-Open Access 07 (01), 202. doi:10.35248/2375-4435.19.7.202
Robinson, J. B., Lawton, B. A., Taylor, R. B., and Perkins, D. D. (2003). Multilevel longitudinal impacts of incivilities: Fear of crime, expected safety, and block satisfaction. J. Quantitative Criminol. 19 (3), 237–274. doi:10.1023/A:1024956925170
Ross, C. E. (2000). Neighborhood disadvantage and adult depression. J. Health Soc. Behav. 41, 177–187. doi:10.2307/2676304
Roy, S., and Bailey, A. (2021). Safe in the city? Negotiating safety, public space and the male gaze in Kolkata, India. Cities 117, 103321. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2021.103321
Saraiva, M., and Ana, A. (2021). “Of form and feeling: Correlating urban form and feelings of insecurity in porto, Portugal,” in XXVIII International Seminar On Urban Form ISUF2021: Urban Form And The Sustainable And Prosperous Cities, 29th June – 3rd July 2021, 107–114.
Satiawan, P. R., Tucunan, K. P., and Azarine, R. Y. (2019). The spatial configuration of crime in Surabaya. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 340 (1), 012035. doi:10.1088/1755-1315/340/1/012035
Shach-Pinsly, D. (2019). Measuring security in the built environment: Evaluating urban vulnerability in a human-scale urban form. Landsc. Urban Plan. 191, 103412. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.08.022
Shahdadi, A. (2016). Citizens ’ security feeling and physical factors in communal spaces ( case study: Bandar abbas city. Am. J. Life Sci. Res. 4 (1). doi:10.21859/ajlsr-0401034
Sharifi, A. (2019). Urban form resilience: A meso-scale analysis. Cities 93, 238–252. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2019.05.010
Shellow, R., Bartel, E. W., and Romualdi, J. (1975). Security of patrons on urban transportation systems. Transportation Research Institute Report No. 6.
Sherman, L. W., Gartin, P. R., and Buerger, M. E. (1989). Hot spots of predatory crime: Routine activities and the criminology of place. Criminology 27 (1), 27–56. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1989.tb00862.x
Shibata, S., Hanyu, K., Hata, T. D., and Yamaoka, Y. (2015). “Perception of disorder and crime, and responses to them in Japanese ‘mega’’ railway stations,” in Safety and security in transit environments (London: Palgrave Macmillan UK), 270–288. doi:10.1057/9781137457653_15
Shibata, S. (2021). “Transit safety among college students in tokyo- kanagawa, Japan: Victimization, safety perceptions and preventive measures,” in Crime and fear in public places. Editors V. Ceccato, and M. Nalla (Oxfordshire: Routledge), 160–175.
Silva, P., and Li, L. (2020). Urban crime occurrences in association with built environment characteristics: An African case with implications for urban design. Sustain. Switz. 12 (7), 3056. doi:10.3390/su12073056
Skogan, W. (1992). Disorder and decline: Crime and the spiral of decay in American neighborhoods. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Smit, T., Landman, K., and Venter, C. (2015). “The impact of crime and neighbourhood enclosures on travel behaviour and transport patterns in south Africa,” in Safety and security in transit environments (Springer), 234–250.
Smith, M., and Clarke, R. (2000). “Crime and public transport,” in Crime and justice: A review of the research. Editors M. Tonry, and N. Morris (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), 169–233.
Solymosi, R., Borrion, H., and Fujiyama, T. (2015). “Crowd spatial patterns at bus stops: Security implications and effects of warning messages,” in Safety and security in transit environments (Springer), 156–178.
Song, G., Bernasco, W., Liu, L., Xiao, L., Zhou, S., and Liao, W. (2019). Crime feeds on legal activities: Daily mobility flows help to explain thieves’ target location choices. J. Quantitative Criminol. 35 (4), 831–854. doi:10.1007/s10940-019-09406-z
Soomeren, P. V. (1996). “Urban planning and the prevention of crime; theories and experiences,” in CEN/TC325/WG2 NNI (Netherlands: Delft).
Stjernborg, V., and Bamzar, R. (2020). “Does context matter? Older adults’ safety perceptions of neighborhood environments in Sweden,” in Crime and fear in public places (Oxfordshire: Routledge), 250–264.
Struyf, P. (2020). “Fear of the dark,” in Crime and fear in public places (Oxfordshire: Routledge), 347–361. doi:10.4324/9780429352775-24
Stucky, T. D., and Ottensmann, J. R. (2009). Land use and violent crime. Criminology. Criminology 47 (4), 1223–1264. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2009.00174.x
Svensdotter, A., and Guaralda, M. (2018). Dangerous Safety or Safely Dangerous. Perception of safety and self-awareness in public space. J. Public Space 3 (1), 75–92. doi:10.5204/jps.v3i1.319
Sypion-Dutkowska, N., and Leitner, M. (2017). Land use influencing the spatial distribution of urban crime: A case study of szczecin, Poland. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Information 6 (3), 74. doi:10.3390/ijgi6030074
Talen, E. (1996). Sense of community and neighbourhood form: An assessment of the social doctrine of new urbanism. Urban Stud. 36, 1361–1379. doi:10.1080/0042098993033
Tandogan, O., and Ilhan, B. S. (2016). Fear of crime in public spaces: From the view of women living in cities. Procedia Eng. 161, 2011–2018. doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2016.08.795
Tanulku, B. (2016). Gated communities as spatial manifestations of moral differentiation and competition: An example from istanbul, Turkey. J. Cult. Geogr. 33 (3), 310–338. doi:10.1080/08873631.2016.1143642
Trench, S., Oc, T., and Tiesdell, S. (1992). Safer cities for women: Perceived risks and planning measures. Town Plan. Rev. 63 (2), 279–278. doi:10.3828/tpr.63.3.r16862416261h337
Uittenbogaard, A. C. (2015). “An assessment of guardianship opportunities as provided by the environments of transit stations,” in Safety and security in transit environments (London: Palgrave Macmillan UK), 56–75. doi:10.1057/9781137457653_4
Uittenbogaard, A. C. (2014). Assessing guardianship opportunities at underground stations. Secur. J. 27 (2), 147–163. doi:10.1057/sj.2014.3
Valente, R., and Vacchiano, M. (2020). Determinants of the fear of crime in Argentina and Brazil: A cross-country comparison of non-criminal and environmental factors affecting feelings of insecurity. Soc. Indic. Res. 154 (3), 1077–1096. doi:10.1007/s11205-020-02545-y
Valentine, G. (1996). “(Re)negotiating the ‘heterosexual street’’: Lesbian production of space,” in Body space: Destabilizing geographies of gender and sexuality. Editor N. Dunkan (London: Routledge), 145–153.
Valentine, G. (1990). Women’s fear and the design of public space. Built environment. Marcham: Alexandrine Press, 288–303.
Valera, S., and Guàrdia, J. (2014). Perceived insecurity and fear of crime in a city with low-crime rates. J. Environ. Psychol. 38, 195–205. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.02.002
Valera-Pertegas, S., and Guàrdia-Olmos, J. (2017). Vulnerability and perceived insecurity in the public spaces of Barcelona/Vulnerabilidad y percepción de inseguridad en el espacio público de la ciudad de Barcelona. Psyecology 8 (2), 177–204. doi:10.1080/21711976.2017.1304880
Viswanath, K., and Mehrotra, S. T. (2007). Shall we go out?” Women’s safety in public spaces in Delhi. Econ. Political Wkly. 42 (17), 1542–1548.
Wallace, R. R., Rodriguez, D. A., White, C., and Levine, J. (1999). Who noticed, who cares? Passenger reactions to transit safety mea-sures. Transp. Res. Rec. 1666, 133–138. doi:10.3141/1666-16
Webb, B., and Laycock, G. (1992). Tackling car crime: The nature and extent of the problem. 30. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242478885_Tackling_car_crime_The_nature_and_extent_of_the_problem.
Whitley, R., and Prince, M. (2005). Fear of crime, mobility and mental health in inner-city London, UK. Soc. Sci. Med. 61 (8), 1678–1688. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.03.044
Wiebe, D., Richmond, T., Poster, J., Guo, W., Allison, P., and Branas, C. (2015). “Adolescents’ fears of violence in transit environments during daily activities,” in Safety and security in transit environments (Springer), 137–155.
Williams, K., Burton, E., and Jenks, M. (2000). Achieving sustainable urban form. 1st ed. Oxfordshire: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203827925
Wrigley-Asante, C., Frimpong, L. K., Amu, J. T., Owusu, G., and Oteng-Ababio, M. (2019). Determinants of perceived insecurity in a low-income neighborhood in Accra, Ghana. J. Urbanism Int. Res. Placemaking Urban Sustain. 12 (4), 476–495. doi:10.1080/17549175.2019.1635189
Wuschke, K. (2016). Planning for crime: Exploring the connections between urban space, development and patterns of crime. Burnaby: Simon Fraser University.
Yates, A., and Ceccato, V. (2020). Individual and spatial dimensions of women’s fear of crime: A scandinavian study case. Int. J. Comp. Appl. Crim. Justice 44 (4), 277–292. doi:10.1080/01924036.2020.1719531
Yavuz, N., and Welch, E. W. (2010). Addressing fear of crime in public space: Gender differences in reaction to safety measures in train transit. Urban Stud. 47 (12), 2491–2515. doi:10.1177/0042098009359033
Yeoh, B. S. A., and Yeow, P. L. (1997). Where women fear to tread: Images of danger and the effects of fear of crime in Singapore. GeoJournal 43 (3), 273–286. doi:10.1023/A:1006817400224
Yokohari, M., Amemiya, M., and Amati, M. (2006). The history and future directions of greenways in Japanese New Towns. Landsc. Urban Plan. 76 (1–4), 210–222. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.09.033
Yu, S. V. (2009). Bus stops and crime: Do bus stops increase crime opportunities in local neighborhoods? Newark, NJ: Rutgers University.
Keywords: urban spatial configuration, crime, feeling of insecurity, public space, systematic review
Citation: Widya Putra D, Salim WA, Indradjati PN and Prilandita N (2023) Understanding the position of urban spatial configuration on the feeling of insecurity from crime in public spaces. Front. Built Environ. 9:1114968. doi: 10.3389/fbuil.2023.1114968
Received: 03 December 2022; Accepted: 10 March 2023;
Published: 30 March 2023.
Edited by:
Salman Shooshtarian, RMIT University, AustraliaReviewed by:
Rongxi Peng, Peking University, ChinaRonny Bowo Leksono, Riau Provincial Development Planning Agency, Indonesia
Muhammad Taufiq, University of North Sumatra, Indonesia
Copyright © 2023 Widya Putra, Salim, Indradjati and Prilandita. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Dimas Widya Putra, r.dimaswidyaputra@gmail.com