Content uploaded by Yaser Sadra
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Yaser Sadra on May 31, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Yaser Sadra
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Yaser Sadra on Oct 21, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Yaser Sadra
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Yaser Sadra on Oct 21, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Research Article Open Access
Sadra and Rezvani, Social Crimonol 2019, 7:1
DOI: 10.4172/2375-4435.1000202
Research Article Open Access
Sociology and Criminology-Open Access
S
o
c
i
o
l
o
g
y
a
n
d
C
r
i
m
i
n
o
l
o
g
y
:
O
p
e
n
A
c
c
e
s
s
ISSN: 2375-4435
Volume 7 • Issue 1 • 1000202Social Crimonol, an open access journal
ISSN: 2375-4435
Sociological Explanation of Fear of Crime in Public Spaces Case Study
Mashhad
Mahdie Rezvani2 and Yaser Sadra1*
1Department of Computer Sciences, Shandiz Institute of Higher Education, Mashhad, Iran
2Department of Sociology, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad (FUM), Mashhad, Iran
*Corresponding author: Yaser Sadra, Department of Computer Sciences,
Shandiz Institute of Higher Education, Mashhad, Iran, Tel: 00989151041295;
E-mail: y.sadra@shandiz.ac.ir
Received March 19, 2019; Accepted March 27, 2019; Published April 03, 2019
Citation: Rezvani M, Sadra Y (2019) Sociological Explanation of Fear of Crime in
Public Spaces Case Study Mashhad. Social Crimonol 7: 202. doi: 10.4172/2375-
4435.1000202
Copyright: © 2019 Rezvani M, et al. This is an open-access article distributed
under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original author and source are credited.
Abstract
Fear of crime is an especially a problem that has troubled the urban communities, affected the urban dissatisfaction
and many factors in the city have created and intensied it. Fear of crime is of important issues which reduces access
to public places and restricts interaction with these places. The research method is surveying and the information
collection technique is through questionnaire. Probable span sampling (PPS) method is used. Sample population was
2000 households which were selected randomly in ve categorical clusters from Mashhad city. In this research we
try In addition to investigation social factors, it has been tried in the research that spatial components affecting fear of
crime in public places inside and outside the neighborhoods is considered.
Keywords: Security; Fear of crime; Public space; Urban
Introduction
Fear of crime is a social reality and it is specially a problem that
has troubled the urban communities, aected signicantly the urban
dissatisfaction [1] and many factors in the city have created and
intensied it. Urban space is structural in which human life is moving
through it. So, human movement in this structure needs a space which
is compatible with spiritual, psychological, and physical conditions of
the residences. Urban space without its psychological security is just
a sole communication artery; the presence of fear of crime in urban
environment shows troubles of communities in modern age. Fear is
created in a person by understanding the potential danger of a place
(whether explicitly or mentally) and it is a consequence of experiences,
memories and relations with others [2]. So, fear of crime includes a
wide range of tentative and sensitive reactions to crime and disorders
which individuals and communities are the creators of it. Fear of
crime in urban public places is a social issue. As public places form
the most important part of the urban environment that include streets,
squares, alleys, and all places where people have physical and visual
access [3,4]. Fear of crime is of important issues which reduces access
to public places and restricts interaction with these places. Fear aects
city form, urban and residential design and spatial distribution of the
resident signicantly [5]. In fact the relation between fear of crime
and city and reinforcing this relation by some urban characteristics
(population accumulation, racial and cultural inhomogeneity etc.)
causes the resident of large cities to fear from facing crimes and this
fear and anxiety restricts the individual’s interaction with the space. In
addition to investigation social factors, it has been tried in this research
that spatial components aecting fear of crime in public places inside
and outside the neighborhoods is considered. According to Harwy, any
general theory about a city should be able to relate social processes of
the city to its spatial form. e method of space formation can aect
social processes deeply. In fact the spatial form of a place is a reection
of social relations. Based on his opinion, the role of space and location
can be recognized in personal life by sociologic imagination or it can
be found that how these relations between people and organizations
are aected by the place which is separating them. So, in order to build
a bridge between sociological and geographical vision the relation
between urban spatial form and the communicative behavior within
it should be studied.
Among urban public places, streets and their pathways are the
most fundamental vital parts of the city. e entire city will be secure
from fear and vandalism if the streets of the city are secured from fear
and vandalism. Protecting city security is the main task of streets and
pathways of a city [6] and the importance of the street as key element
of forming a urban structure should be rebuilt [7]. Lack of fear and
the sense of security in public places are necessary conditions of urban
life. Tangible security of an environment is a necessary condition for
attracting people to the sectors within the city. According to Ellin,
public place is destroyed of people do not use a place out of fear or
inconvenience. On the other hand, one of the characteristics of poor
and inecient urban space is the capability of creating fear and anxiety.
Following the presence of stress and pressure in the environment,
perception range of the individual is reduced and vast part of logical
thinking ability is lost and the learning ability is also decreased.
Fear of crime is one of the eective components of public health so
that many studies are focused on its eect on welfare and personal well-
being [8]. On the other hand, fear of crime in personal level reduces
personal freedom (following the restriction of movement and activity),
public communication, mutual trust and individual’s social capital,
causes anxiety and fear in the person, alienation and dissatisfaction in
life and unnecessary protection and care of the people and in social
level it reduces informal social control, transforms public streets of the
city to dangerous places and decreases usage of urban areas, uniformity
and coordination of the district and also reduces participation in
neighborhood associations and social groups [8-11]. us, fear of
crime has the importance as the crime itself so that many people are
aected by fear of crime rather than crime itself.
e high feeling of insecurity among citizens requires more
attention to the subject of the research. In Previous studies is
Page 2 of 11
Citation: Rezvani M, Sadra Y(2019) Sociological Explanation of Fear of Crime in Public Spaces Case Study Mashhad. Social Crimonol 7: 202. doi:
10.4172/2375-4435.1000202
Volume 7 • Issue 1 • 1000202Social Crimonol, an open access journal
ISSN: 2375-4435
less attention simultaneously to the action and structural factors
aecting the fear of crime and according to the importance of social
phenomenon of fear of crime and its harmful consequences and lack
of special emphasis on spatial components on fear of crime, choosing
this topic for the research seems necessary. e aim of this study is to
answer the following questions: How much is the amount of fear of
crime in public places of Mashhad city? What are the eective factors
on fear of crime in public places of Mashhad city?
Empirical Background
Micsheli [12], they research on fear of crime in Italy and the factors
aecting it. Miceli [12], He showed that fear of crime associated with
the extent of the crime is broader than the crime itself. McCrea et al
[11] Explores the fear of crime and disorder and showed individual
characteristics play an important role in explaining the fear of germ
that are local, Schafer et al, He showed that women more than men
experience fear of crime. Kristjansson did comparative research on
insecurity in the two European countries. Fergosen and Mindle [13]
studied individual levels of fear of crime and factors aecting it. ey
studied models of vulnerability, disorder and social cohesion eective
fear of crime model of irregularities was the best model to describe
the fear of crime, to analyze and model of irregularities was the best
model to describe the fear of crime by Kohm [9]. His study spatial data,
victimization patterns and local experience to explain the fear of crime
in Washington. Daglar with Using qualitative research and in-depth
interviews among students explored the fear of crime, Nicholson [14]
with emphasis on the impact of family structure, to the conclusion
that fear of crime had no signicant eect on the family structure and
local environment variables and are more eective. are some of the
researchers who studied fear of crime, it is criteria, insecurity feeling
and fear of victimization security condition in urban areas inside the
country and measured and assessed personal and structural factors
carefully (Appendix).
Relevant Literature Linking Fear of Crime
eoretical framework
In this section we rst investigate convergence and divergence of
theoretical and empirical records of fear of crime and then present our
proposed denition of fear of crime and nally express eective factors
on fear of crime and according to that we reveal our theoretical analysis
model.
Environmental and special approach: is approach Based on this
approach the key to understanding the fear of crime is how people
experience and interpret urban areas and factors aecting fear of
crime should be studied within three components of urban location
-as meaningful part of the city-, i.e. mental image of people from the
place, people activity in the place and physical and compositional
structure of the place. According to this approach people see the
environment eectively as a measurement means for assessing danger
and supportive factors. Environment provides people a possibility of
visual conrmation of criminal danger probability. So fear is related
to the city and the method of using urban areas and to its denotation.
Newman believes that poor designing of urban areas and in fact the
compositional structure of the urban area increases the opportunity for
crime realization and also decreases the people territory and willing for
using and defending district areas. According to Newman, residences
of the district can have major role in decreasing the ground for crime
committing in their district by using special methods. Many studies
have approved that there is a relation between fear of crime and
spatial view so that fear is more aected by spatial conguration rather
than the crime itself. e Queen Linch’s theory [15] of urban form
meaning and Samoel Shamay’s theory of location sense emphasize
on the role of people’s mental visions of the place for reducing fear
of crime and insecure feeling. Linch [15] emphasize on urban area
legibility for providing security so that legible urban area let people
communicate with it easily and recognize dierent parts of the space
and they do not experience frustration and insecurity. According to
the theory of “location sense” of Shamay, dependency and attraction
to a place reinforce the sense of emotional security in the human.
So understanding and feelings of a person is tied to the meaning of
the environment and is unied with it. Jackob’s theory of street eyes
emphasize on the role of people presence and movement in the area
and also on variation of area functionality and visional penetration
(windows and balconies view of the streets and public area) for
providing security in urban areas.
According to the theory of broken window (1982), living among
signs of disorder and indecency may lead to inducing anxiety, fear,
anger, and depression. As the residences of these districts feel the
threat and lack of interconnection among themselves. In this approach
disorder means observable factors which represent violation of social
order and control in the district. Tibaldz’s theory of human-based city
also outlines the role of compositional factors (visional penetration and
creating various usages in public areas) and mental image of people
from the place (legibility of the public place) to secure public areas.
Non-environmental approaches
According to this approach, factors other than environmental and
spatial elements are aecting the formation of fear of crime. Among
theories related to this approach, vulnerability theory, victimization
theory and social control theory can be names. “Vulnerability theory”
explains what provides the ground for fear in the people is inability
and powerlessness against crime and defending from themselves.
Sometimes this feeling is due to physical inability and sometimes due
to standing in a certain social position. Economic and social positions
of the people are important factors aecting social vulnerability. ose
who live in delinquency areas or do not have suitable economic position
to gain necessary supportive resources will have more insecure feelings
and consequently experience more fear. According to the theory of
“victimization”, direct and indirect victimization (being informed
about other’s victimization by acquaintances and following crime news
through media like visual, audio or written media) have signicant
eect on creating fear of crime. According to the theory of “social
control”, fear is determined in relation to the ability of the people to
apply control on their living area and other’s behavior and activities.
Based on this approach people are afraid of something which is not
able to prevent it or overcome victimization or when they feel inability.
is approach creates a clear relation between urban life situations and
incidence of fear of crime.
Factors Aecting Fear of Crime
ere are many factors aecting fear of crime. ese variables
can be investigated in two levels of agent and structure (minor and
major) by structural theory of Gindez [16]. Personal and demographic
variables are generally considered in the level of agent (minor) and
social variables in the level of structure (major).
Reactive factor
One of the reactive variables aecting fear of crime is vulnerability.
Some of the other aecting personal factors on the amount of fear of
Page 3 of 11
Citation: Rezvani M, Sadra Y(2019) Sociological Explanation of Fear of Crime in Public Spaces Case Study Mashhad. Social Crimonol 7: 202. doi:
10.4172/2375-4435.1000202
Volume 7 • Issue 1 • 1000202Social Crimonol, an open access journal
ISSN: 2375-4435
crime are gender and age. e eect of gender on the fear of crime
is approved in many researches. In fact the fear of crime in women
is more than men. However, victimization experience is more in
men [2,11,13]. Age is another eective variable among demographic
variables. Although young people especially young men aged 16-24
years old are oen at risk of crimes, older people report the highest
level of fear of crime [13]. Mental assumptions of people related to
their surroundings are of reactive factors aecting the amount of fear
of crime. Location sense and location legibility have signicant eect
on reducing fear of crime as two types of implication understanding
of the people about their surroundings [7,15]. e amount of people
presence and movement in public places [15] which is an indication
of people activity in the place is another reactive factor aecting
the amount of fear of crime. Duration of residency in a place is also
another reactive factor which aects the amount of fear of crime
reductively. Victimization also creates fear of crime which is in two
forms of direct and indirect victimization [9]. Cumulative eectiveness
of the neighborhood, including people participation in district social
works and monitoring district al works, social informal control and
trust and resident support of each other also aect reducing fear of
crime. According to Kent Ferraro theory, understanding the risk has
signicant role in creation of fear of crime [2,13].
Structural factors
Compositional and physical structure of a place including eective
structural factors on fear of crime can be outlined as visual accessibility
[7] and disorder and non-defensive areas. e presence of various
functions in the place is of characteristics of urban area compositional
properties which increase people presence in the area and the security
of the area is supplied by unconscious monitoring of the people [7].
Existence of undefended areas in the residential district (such as
obsolete and abandoned lands and buildings, dark streets and recessed
areas) which reduce visual view of a place and provide the ground for
committing a crime also increase fear of crime. Disorder in public areas
of the city is another spatial characteristic which aect fear of crime.
Disorder in a society or a neighborhood increases vulnerability sense
and anxiety stem from the crime. On the other hand, disorder increase
will lead to the reduction of social coherence and also aect district
satisfaction and cumulative eectiveness negatively [13].
Location rank is another structural factor aecting the amount
of fear of crime which means those who live in districts with higher
economic-social position residents will have lower fear of crime.
Major Hypothesis of Fear of Crime
Fear of crime is essentially aected by two classes of reactive and
structural factors and the interaction between them. Now we study the
relation between reactive also structural factors and Fear of crime.
Reactive factors
• Vulnerability increases the fear of crime.
• Victimization increases the fear of crime.
• Understanding the risk of the crime increases the fear of crime.
• People’s mental images of a place decrease the fear of crime.
• People’s activities in a place decrease the fear of crime.
• Cumulative eectiveness in a place decreases the fear of crime.
• e more is the age ratio is in a neighborhood, the more will be
the fear of crime.
• e more is the gender ratio of women than men the more will
be the fear of crime in the neighborhood.
• e longer is the duration of residency the lower will be the
fear of crime.
Structural factors
• Visual penetration of a place leads to the reduction of fear of
crime.
• Varying the usage of a place decreases the fear of crime.
• Disorder in a place increases the fear of crime.
• Undefended areas in a neighborhood increase the fear of crime.
• Residential rank decreases the fear of crime.
Interaction between structural and reactive factors
• Victimization increases vulnerability sense.
• Elders feel more vulnerability.
• Women are more vulnerable than men and have more fear of
crime.
• Location disorder decreases cumulative eectiveness and in-
creases the fear of crime.
Fear of crime in public places is considered as dependent variable
in this research which includes fear of crime in public places inside and
outside the neighborhood. Independent variable: includes two general
categories of reactive and structural factors and the interaction between
them as follows:
Reactive factors consist of vulnerability, victimization, gender
ratio of the place, age ratio of the place, mental image of the place,
activity in the place, cumulative eectiveness, and residency duration
in the place and understanding the risk of the crime. Structural factors
include visual penetration of the place, usage versatility of the place,
undefended area, and site rank. e interaction between personal and
structural factors is also considered as independent variable which
includes: disorder and eectiveness, gender ratio and vulnerability, age
ratio and vulnerability, site rank and vulnerability.
Research Method
e most important reason for select Mashhad in this research
is Cultural diversity and ethnic heterogeneous. Mashhad has a
disintegrate context. Mashhad is a religious metropolis with many
job opportunities and suitable educational and health facilities
like London. e dierence is that Mashad evidently, attract many
emigrants from internal Small towns and Villages also, since Mashhad
have common boundary with Afghanistan, a large number of poor and
jobless emigrant move to Mashhad. As a result, Mashhad becomes too
full of crime metropolis. Consequently, foreign immigrants commit to
dierent kind of crimes and make insecurity.
e ve areas selected in this study were selected by these logical
spectra that are expected to be a multicultural religious city. In other
words, these elected areas contain rstly, Sajjad area with the capitalist
class and wealthy stratum lack petty crimes. Secondly, Lashgar area
with trades people, employees, and also foreigners mostly from Arabic
countries of the Persian Gulf with relatively low level of petty crimes,
irdly, koye Amir area with relatively poor and the marginalized
stratum with relatively high level of petty crimes and eventually, Khajeh
Page 4 of 11
Citation: Rezvani M, Sadra Y(2019) Sociological Explanation of Fear of Crime in Public Spaces Case Study Mashhad. Social Crimonol 7: 202. doi:
10.4172/2375-4435.1000202
Volume 7 • Issue 1 • 1000202Social Crimonol, an open access journal
ISSN: 2375-4435
Rabi areas with poor people and temporary jobs had many petty crimes
and Avini area with a large number of poor people and marginalized
due to lack of jobs and the families of criminals, criminals and foreigner
from war-torn countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq with very high
level of petty crimes was studied. ese areas respectively, zones 1, 10,
2, 3, and 5 of Mashhad Municipality also from each region selected
randomly 10 neighborhoods and each neighborhood to collect data
from 45 persons.
e method of the paper is surveying and the data collection tool
is questionnaire. Sampling method is stratied non-proportionate.
It means that by considering the sample (2250 household), 50 blocks
(each block is assumed as a neighborhood) in 5 dierent rank clusters
in Mashhad city and in each block 450 house hold were selected
randomly. Blocks were also selected by stratied method and probability
proportionate with the size method. In each block 400 households were
selected orderly and a member of each family answered the questions
who were above 18 years old and more. For all variables of the research,
their factorial score is calculated by factorial analysis as weight criterion.
Scale range is calculated 0-100 for all criteria. Dispersion statistics is
used for descriptive purposes and one way ANOVA for comparing
the average of research variables in dierent neighborhoods. Pearson’s
coecient of contingency and general linear model-multivariate is
used for data analysis (Figure 1).
Results
In all neighborhoods men (43 percent) and women (57 percent)
were included. Average of age in neighborhood was over 30 years old.
Fear of crime description in public areas of Mashhad city
e most common fear of crime in public places inside the
neighborhoods was fear of housebreak (average 49.3) and the most
common fear of crime in public places outside the neighborhood was
fear of purse snatching (average 56.6). e lowest fear of crime in public
places inside and outside the neighborhood is assault by others. As the
average fear of assault inside and outside the neighborhood is 25.3 and
38.8 respectively. Fear of purse snatching (average 33.3) and fear of
mugging and racketeering (average 31.3) are the most common fears
in public places inside the neighborhood aer housebreaking. Below
graphs show the amount of fear of crime in public places inside and
outside the neighborhood, moreover, the gures indicate that which
crime inside and outside areas have Higher frequency (Figure 2).
e comparison of average fear of crime in public places inside
and outside the neighborhoods of dierent residential areas show that
fear of crime in public places is varied for dierent neighborhoods.
Citizens are afraid of pure snatching, mugging and racketeering,
assault, avenue obtrusiveness in public places inside the neighborhoods
more than public places outside the neighborhood. House breaking is
a kind of crime that citizens experience just in public places inside the
neighborhoods. All a result, citizens fell more security in inside their
neighborhoods. As has been noted in previous studies, house breaking
variable is dierent another variables. Since when people walk either
inside or outside the neighborhood or neighborhoods they lack defenses
instrument and they are mostly alone while these days houses have been
equipped with security systems, alarms and surveillance cameras, the
ordinary citizens do not mobile these item with their selves.:
Figure 1: Five areas elected in Mashhad, Iran.
Page 5 of 11
Citation: Rezvani M, Sadra Y(2019) Sociological Explanation of Fear of Crime in Public Spaces Case Study Mashhad. Social Crimonol 7: 202. doi:
10.4172/2375-4435.1000202
Volume 7 • Issue 1 • 1000202Social Crimonol, an open access journal
ISSN: 2375-4435
Fear of pure snatching in public places inside the neighborhood is
more than public places outside the neighborhood. Because residents
are more familiar relevant to their spatial and area residents and if they
have been attacked by a stranger more likely their neighbors help them
moreover in public places inside the neighborhood local social capital
is stronger, but in public places outside the neighborhood people
experience more fear due to anonymity of space and strangers residents
and less likely when they are at risk receive help from other. Weighted
mean of fear of crime in public places inside the neighborhoods of
Lashgar and Khajeh Rabi district was more than other neighborhoods
and was lower for very low neighborhood. Weighted mean of fear
of crime in public places outside the neighborhoods of Lashgar and
Khajeh Rabi district was also more than other neighborhoods but
the lowest fear of crime in public places outside the neighborhoods
belonged to the neighborhoods located in Sajjad district. On the other
word, residents of Lashgar and Khajhe Rabi are more exposed to the
fear of crime outside the neighborhood than others (Table 1).
Below graphs show which any oense is repeated within each
region. In Sajjad area that it is wealthy and rich the residents experience
fear of crime in public places inside the neighborhoods is lower than in
other areas. Residents of Khajeh Rabi area experience the highest level
of Fear of crime expect fear of avenue obtrusiveness and Fear of assault.
On the other hand, residents of Lashgar area with heterogeneous
context allocated fear of avenue obtrusiveness and Fear of assault with
the most frequent (Figure 3).
e graphs shows all kind of crime are just over in Khajeh rabi
area expect fear of avenue obtrusiveness and fear of assault. e most
important reason, in favor of this matter can be that in lashgar area
has dierent context. On the other word, resident in lashgar area are
most pilgrim from another cities in Iran or tourist from Arabic country
and since Arabs are oen aggressive the rate of assault is high also
Arabs like Iranian woman so they make avenue obtrusiveness as a
consequence, people special Iranian woman feel insecurity. In Avini
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
High Medium Low None
Species
Abundance distribution percent
(a)
Purse snatching Mugging & Racketeering Assault Avenue obtrusiveness Housebreaking
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
High Medium Low None
Species
Abundance distribution percent
(b)
Purse snatching Mugging& Racketeering Avenue obtrusiveness Assault
Figure 2: Fear of crime in public places (a) inside and (b) outside the neighbourhood.
Variable name Residency Signicance level of
difference of average
fear of crime in different
neighborhoods
Neighborhood of
Sajjad district
Neighborhood of
Lashgar district
Neighborhood of
Koye Amir district
Neighborhood of
Khajhe Rabi district
Neighborhood of
Shahid Avini district
Fear of crime in public
places inside the
neighborhoods
26 44.6 32.8 41.6 20.6 0.000
Fear of crime in public
places outside the
neighborhood
31.2 58.9 45 45.4 45.2 0.000
Table 1: Weighted mean of fear of crime in public places inside and outside the neighborhoods separated by residency district.
Page 6 of 11
Citation: Rezvani M, Sadra Y(2019) Sociological Explanation of Fear of Crime in Public Spaces Case Study Mashhad. Social Crimonol 7: 202. doi:
10.4172/2375-4435.1000202
Volume 7 • Issue 1 • 1000202Social Crimonol, an open access journal
ISSN: 2375-4435
area nearly, we face fear of housebreaking and another crimes allocated
low rate. Major reason can be that residents of there are oen religious,
calm, peaceful, honorable poor so they commit crime less than another
area. Overall in Sajjad area that rich people leave there all crimes repeat
less than another area on the other words, they commit petty crimes
less than another area.
Descriptive statistics of fear of crime in public places inside
the neighborhood
Variable of fear of crime in public places inside the neighborhood
has the mean of 33.1 with minimum and maximum scores of 0 and
100 respectively. Standard deviation of the variable of fear of crime in
public places inside the neighborhood (16.3) shows that people’s fear of
crime in public places inside the neighborhood is very uctuating. Half
of respondents have a score lower than 34.1 and a quarter have a score
more than 48.3 for the variable of fear of crime in public places inside
the neighborhoods.
As the following table shows fear of crime in public places
outside the neighborhood (45.1) is an indication of higher fear of
crime of respondents in public places outside rather than inside
the neighborhood. In other words, people outside of their own
neighborhoods experience more fear of crime (Table 2).
Describing structural factors aecting fear of crime
e following table shows descriptive statistics of spatial factors
aecting fear of crime show. e results of the table are as follows:
undefended areas of the studied neighborhoods are 46.9 percent.
Visual accessibility of the investigated neighborhoods for the residents
is lower than 50 percent and equals 46.6 percent. Usage versatility in
studied areas is lower than 50 percent and the disorder observed in
public places inside the neighborhoods is 49.8 present (Table 3).
Table 4 shows mean spatial characteristics of the studied
neighborhoods. Spatial factors aecting fear of crime in Neighborhoods
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
High Medium Low None
Species
Residency district
(b)
Sajjad Lashgar Koye Amir Khajeh Rabi Shahid Avini
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
High Medium Low None
Species
Residency district
(c)
Sajjad Lashgar Koye Amir Khajeh Rabi Shahid Avini
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
High Medium Low None
Species
Residency district
(a)
Sajjad Lashgar Koye Amir Khajeh Rabi Shahid Avini
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
High Medium Low None
Species
Residency district
(d)
Sajjad Lashgar Koye Amir Khajeh Rabi Shahid Avini
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
High Medium Low None
Species
Residency district
(e)
Sajjad Lashgar Koye Amir Khajeh Rabi Shahid Avini
Figure 3: Abundance percent of fear of crime in public places inside the neighbourhoods separated by residency district, (a) Fear of purse
snatching, (b) Fear of mugging and racketeering, (c) Fear of avenue obtrusiveness, (d) Fear of assault, (e) Fear of housebreaking.
Variable name Minimum Maximum Mean Skewness Standard
deviation
Quartiles
First quartiles Second
quartiles
Third
quartiles
Fear of crime in public
places inside the
neighborhood
0100 33.1 0.02 16.3 18.3 34.1 48.3
Fear of crime in public
places outside the
neighborhood
0100 45.1 0.3 18.7 31.2 46.8 58.3
Table 2: Descriptive statistics of fear of crime in public places inside and outside the neighbourhood.
Page 7 of 11
Citation: Rezvani M, Sadra Y(2019) Sociological Explanation of Fear of Crime in Public Spaces Case Study Mashhad. Social Crimonol 7: 202. doi:
10.4172/2375-4435.1000202
Volume 7 • Issue 1 • 1000202Social Crimonol, an open access journal
ISSN: 2375-4435
of Khajeh Rabi are more than other area. Results of mean comparison
are as follows (Table 5).
Multi-variable analysis of fear of crime
In this section, multi-variant standard deviation is used to test
the simultaneous and reciprocal eects of structural and personal
(reactive) factors on fear of crime in public places inside and outside
the neighborhood. Table 6 shows all variable have Signicance level
expect Legibility and Usage versatility.
Variables not incorporated into the models of fear of crime in public
places inside and outside the neighborhoods are as follows: there has
been no signicant relation between variables of direct victimization,
site eligibility, social capital of the neighborhood, informal social
control and gender ratio of the place from reactive factors and variables
of usage versatility, visual penetration of the place fro, structural factors
and fear of crime in public places inside and outside the neighborhoods
in the model of fear of crime. Also the interaction between vulnerability
and gender ratio, disorder and informal social control and disorder
and social capital of the neighborhood has no eect on fear of crime in
public places inside the neighborhoods (Tables 7 and 8).
In fear of crime model, variables of vulnerability, site legibility, site
sense, informal social control, neighborhood cooperation, age ratio of
the place and residency duration from reactive factors and variables of
usage versatility from structural factors had no signicant relation with
the fear of crime in public places inside the neighborhoods. Also the
interaction between variables of vulnerability and gender and age ratio
of the place, disorder, and neighborhood cooperation has no eect on
fear of crime in public places inside the neighborhoods.
Discussion
Undefended areas in the place (as one of the compositional
characteristics of the place), site sense (one of the people’s mental
images from the place) and activity and the presence of the people in
the place are three basic components forming the concept of a place
and have signicant eect on fear of crime inside the neighborhoods.
Findings showed that the more people understand the risk of crime
incidence in their neighborhood, the more their fear of crime in
public places outside the neighborhood will be. In multi-variant
analysis, victimization experience is also predictor of fear of crime in
public places inside and outside the neighborhood Social-economic
position of a person is a factor aecting fear of crime. is variable
Variable name Minimum Maximum Mean Skewness Quartiles
First quartiles (25) Second quartiles (50) Third quartiles (75)
Undefended areas 0100 31.5 0.003 22.2 31.9 38.8
Visual penetration 0100 58 0.27 50 58.3 63.8
Usage versatility in the area 0100 32.4 1.3 13.8 23 33.7
Disorder 0100 35.7 0.13 28.3 36.6 41.6
Table 3: Descriptive statistics of factors affecting fear of crime.
Variable name Neighborhoods of
Sajjad district
Neighborhoods of
Lashgar district
Neighborhoods of
Koy Amir district
Neighborhoods of
Khajeh Rabi district
Neighborhoods of
Shahid Avini district
Signicance level
of the difference of
mean spatial factors in
different neighborhoods
Undefended areas 21.67 32.50 26.39 44.17 33.06 0.000
Visual accessibility 57.2 55.2 53.8 69.7 52.2 0.004
Usage versatility 53.3 13.8 23 55.8 16.1 0.000
Disorder 25.1 35.8 31.5 47.6 38.3 0.052
Table 4: Mean of spatial factors affecting fear of crime separated by resident district.
Variable name Neighborhoods of
Sajjad district
Neighborhoods of
Lashgar district
Neighborhoods
of KoyAmir
district
Neighborhoods
of Khajeh Rabi
district
Neighborhoods
of Shahid Avini
district
Signicance level
of the difference
of mean spatial
factors in different
neighborhoods
Vulnerability 55.2 37.5 38.6 55.5 75.5 0.000
Understanding the risk of the crime 23.8 40.2 25.5 36.9 26 0.000
Victimization Direct experience of
victimization
0 0 0 0 0 0.000
Indirect experience
of victimization
1 1 0 0 0.000
Cumulative
effectiveness in the
place
Neighborhood
cooperation
14.7 12.2 16.8 18.7 7.2 0.000
Social capital of the
neighborhood
64.5 66.6 73.9 74.2 71.8 0.000
Informal social
control
56.3 59.4 58.6 75.5 49.2 0.000
Mental image of the
place
Legibility 88.8 81.3 88.8 87.8 63.6 0.000
Sire sense 51.6 55.4 66.4 61 26.4 0.000
Activity in the place Movement in the
place
51.6 55.4 66.4 61 26.4 0.000
Table 5: Descriptive statistics of personal factors affecting fear of crime.
Page 8 of 11
Citation: Rezvani M, Sadra Y(2019) Sociological Explanation of Fear of Crime in Public Spaces Case Study Mashhad. Social Crimonol 7: 202. doi:
10.4172/2375-4435.1000202
Volume 7 • Issue 1 • 1000202Social Crimonol, an open access journal
ISSN: 2375-4435
is a reverse predictor of their fear of crime in public places inside or
outside the neighborhood. Residency area had the most prediction
ability concerning fear of crime in public places inside and outside the
neighborhood. So, in public place having higher level of informal social
control fear of crime were lower inside and outside the neighborhood.
Understanding and interfering of the neighbors from informal social
control capacity is a preventive measure related to fear of crime and
insecurity feeling. ose who live in neighborhoods with higher fear of
crime do not consider themselves competent for controlling criminal
behavior of others. Social capital of the neighborhood is proved as
another structural factor aecting fear of crime in public places inside
the neighborhood. is means in public places where residents have
more social capital (trust and support) towards each other fear of crime
is lower inside the neighborhood. e eect of spatial factors on fear of
crime in public places inside and outside the neighborhood shows that
compositional and spatial factors of the living area aect fear of crime
signicantly. So, there is a relation between fear of crime and spatial
view and fear of crime is aected by spatial conguration.
Visual accessibility and lighting of public places also cause fear
of crime to decrease for the people inside the neighborhoods. e
relation between movement and the presence of people in the place
and fear of crime in public places inside the neighborhoods is proved. It
means fear of crime becomes lower by increasing usage versatility and
consequent people presence in public places inside the neighborhoods.
Among studied structural and reactive factors, site rank has the greatest
eect on the fear of crime in public places inside the neighborhoods. It
means that fear of crime is decreased by increasing site rank of people’s
residency. And the eect of residency on fear of crime is approved in
previous researches. Findings showed that the more people understand
the risk of crime incidence in their neighborhood, the more their
fear of crime in public places outside the neighborhood will be. Also
this is supported by previous researches and according to Ferraro [2]
understanding the risk of the crime is one of the main determining
factors of crime rather than the crime itself. In multi-variant analysis,
victimization experience is also predictor of fear of crime in public
places inside and outside the neighborhood which previous researchers
(Kohm [9]) also supported it. Although there is a dierence that
direct victimization experience predicts more fear of crime in public
places inside the neighborhoods and indirect victimization experience
predicts more fear of crime in public places outside the neighborhoods.
According to Bawmer and Scogan, fear of crime is created in a person
by personal experience of victimization or being informed of other’s
victimization.
Social-economic position of a person is a factor aecting fear
of crime which is proved in previous researches. Social-economic
position of a person is a reverse predictor of their fear of crime in
public places inside or outside the neighborhood. As Scogan and Max
Field stated 1981, those who feel more vulnerability than others, feel
more fear of crime and insecurity. It should be noted that reciprocal
eects of people’s social-economic position and direct and indirect
victimization on fear of crime in public places inside the neighborhood
in multi-variant analysis were signicant. It means that in studied
areas where people had lower social-economic position and direct
experience of victimization fear of crime were higher. As this has been
proved in previous researches studies of Kristjansson; Fergosem and
Mindle, Louis and Salem, Taylor conrmed results of this research
that Residency area had the most prediction ability concerning fear
of crime in public places inside and outside the neighborhood. So,
in public place having higher level of informal social control fear of
crime were lower inside and outside the neighborhood. Social capital
of the neighborhood is proved as another structural factor aecting
fear of crime in public places inside the neighborhood. is is proved
in theoretical and empirical backgrounds. Variable of site legibility
aected fear of crime in public places inside the neighborhood
reductively. According to Linch acceptable image of the place and
legible view of the place for the person create secure feeling and avoid
confusion. Visual accessibility and lighting of public places also cause
fear of crime to decrease for the people inside the neighborhoods. As
according to Tibaldz and Car, lighting and visual accessibility of public
Variable name Signicance level (sig) Eta squared statistics
Site rate 0.000 0.20
Disorder 0.01 0.05
Presence in the area 0.00 0.02
Legibility 0.11 0.02
Usage versatility 0.47 0.00
Visual penetration 0.00 0.14
Site sense 0.00 0.11
Social capital of the neighborhood 0.00 0.11
Informal social control in the place 0.03 0.04
Neighborhood cooperation in the place 0.00 0.13
Undefended areas 0.00 0.24
Vulnerability 0.01 0.09
Understanding the risk of the crime 0.00 0.35
Gender ratio of the place 0.06 0.03
Direct victimization 0.00 0.08
Indirect victimization 0.00 0.09
Vulnerability and gender ratio of the place 0.19 0.07
Vulnerability and gender ratio of the place 0.00 0.13
Disorder and informal social control 0.00 0.09
Disorder and social capital of the place 0.00 0.11
Disorder and neighborhood cooperation 0.00 0.09
Residency duration 0.00 0.09
Table 6: Results of Play multi-variant test.
Page 9 of 11
Citation: Rezvani M, Sadra Y(2019) Sociological Explanation of Fear of Crime in Public Spaces Case Study Mashhad. Social Crimonol 7: 202. doi:
10.4172/2375-4435.1000202
Volume 7 • Issue 1 • 1000202Social Crimonol, an open access journal
ISSN: 2375-4435
places increase spatial clarication for the residents and following that
they decrease fear of crime.
e relation between movement and the presence of people in
the place and fear of crime in public places inside the neighborhoods
is proved. As Francis Tibalds (2002, 2006) and Jean Jacobs also
emphasized the key role of usage versatility of the place and increasing
the presence of people in the place to reduce fear of crime and insecure
feeling. According to them, the presence of people in the place is like
assigning invisible eyes to control and manage the place. Among the
studied spatial factors, only the relation of resident permanency and
area identity with fear of crime outside the neighborhoods is proves.
In other words, resident permanency and identity stability of public
places lead to reduction of fear of crime in public places outside the
neighborhoods. is means fear of crime of resident in places with
the records of changing name and identity of the streets and alleys
and multiplicity of home moving is more in places outside their
neighborhood. e eect of residency duration is also proved in
previous researches.
Conclusion
Fear of crime is an especially a problem that has troubled the urban
communities, aected the urban dissatisfaction and many factors in the
city have created and intensied it fear of crime has a destructive impact
on social capital. Fear of crime lead to strengthen the sense of insecurity
Results of inter-categorical test (Fear of crime in public places (the neighborhood)) Signicance level Eta squared statistics
Final approved model Inside 0.00 0.90
Outside 0.00 0.90
Reactive factors Vulnerability Inside 0.00 0.08
Outside 0.48 0.00
Direct victimization Inside 0.00 0.08
Outside 0.48 0.00
Indirect victimization Inside 0.34 0.00
Outside 0.00 0.05
Understanding the risk of the
crime
Inside 0.03 0.02
Outside 0.00 0.32
Image of places Site sense Inside 0.00 0.02
Outside 0.73 0.00
Legibility of the place Inside 0.05 0.02
Outside 0.61 0.00
Neighborhood cooperation Inside 0.00 0.13
Outside 0.00 0.83
Mass Effect in places Informal social control Inside 0.12 0.01
Outside 0.78 0.00
Social capital of the
neighborhood
Inside 0.59 0.00
Outside 0.00 0.10
Activity in the place (presence in
the place)
Inside 0.00 0.11
Outside 0.01 0.03
Age ration of the place Inside 0.00 0.11
Outside 0.94 0.00
Gender ration of the place Inside 0.21 0.00
Outside 0.00 0.2
Residency duration Inside 0.00 0.09
Outside 0.11 0.01
Visual penetration Inside 0.79 0.00
Outside 0.00 0.13
Undefended areas of the place Inside 0.00 0.32
Outside 0.00 0.28
Structural factors Disorder Inside 0.04 0.02
Outside 0.00 0.22
Site rank Inside 0.00 0.32
Outside 0.00 0.28
Interaction between reactive
and structural factors
Vulnerability and age ratio of the place Inside 0.00 0.13
Outside 0.89 0.00
Vulnerability and site rank Inside 0.00 0.26
Outside 0.00 0.28
Disorder and social capital of the place Inside 0.14 0.01
Outside 0.00 0.08
Disorder and informal social control Inside 0.27 0.00
Outside 0.00 0.07
Disorder and neighborhood cooperation Inside 0.00 0.07
Outside 0.30 0.00
Table 7: Results of the inter-categorical tests.
Page 10 of 11
Citation: Rezvani M, Sadra Y(2019) Sociological Explanation of Fear of Crime in Public Spaces Case Study Mashhad. Social Crimonol 7: 202. doi:
10.4172/2375-4435.1000202
Volume 7 • Issue 1 • 1000202Social Crimonol, an open access journal
ISSN: 2375-4435
Variables affecting
fear of crime in
public places
outside the
neighborhoods
Reactive factors Variable name Signicance level
(sig)
Efcacy
coefcient
Vulnerability 0.00 3.9
Indirect victimization 0.03 2.1
Understanding the risk of the crime 0.00 5.06
Mental image of the place Site sense 0.00 -5.02
Cumulative effectiveness Neighborhood cooperation 0.00 -5.02
Activity and presence in the place 0.00 -5.6
Age ration of the place 0.00 4.7
Residency duration 0.00 -4.2
Structural factors Undefended areas 0.00 -5.6
Disorder 0.04 2
Site rank (residency in Khajeh Rabi district) 0.00 -5.6
Site rank (residency in Shahid Avini district) 0.01 -2.5
Interaction between
structural and reactive
factors
Vulnerability and age ration of the place 0.00 0.04
Vulnerability and site rank (residency in Sajjad neighborhood) 0.00 -2.2
Vulnerability and site rank (residency in Shahid Avini neighborhood 0.00 -3.5
Disorder and Neighborhood cooperation 0.00 -3.7
Variables affecting
fear of crime in
public places inside
the neighborhoods
Reactive factors Direct victimization 0.00 3.9
Indirect victimization 0.00 3.1
Understanding the risk of the crime 0.00 8.9
Cumulative effectiveness Social capital of the neighborhood 0.00 -4.4
Activity and presence in the place 0.01 -2.4
Structural factors Undefended areas 0.00 4.1
Visual penetration of the place 0.00 -5.2
Site rank (residency in Khajh Rabi district) 0.00 3.1
Site rank (residency in Shahid Avini district) 0.04 2.07
Interaction of reactive
and structural factors
Vulnerability and site rank (residency in Khajeh Rabi district) 0.00 -2.9
Vulnerability and site rank (residency in Shahid Avini district) 0.04 -2
Disorder and informal social control 0.00 -3.7
Disorder and social capital of the neighborhood 0.00 -4
Table 8: Parameters of reactive and structural factors affecting fear of crime.
in society. Fear of crime is of important issues which reduces access to
public places and restricts interaction with these places; reduce social
trust and social participation. e research method is surveying and the
information collection technique is through questionnaire. Probable
span sampling (PPS) method is used. Sample population was 2000
households which were selected randomly in ve categorical clusters
from Mashhad city. e most important reason for select Mashhad
in this research is Cultural diversity, disintegrate context and ethnic
heterogeneous. We try to select 5 areas according with regarding wide
range of citizens from rich and poor.
In this research we try In addition to investigation social factors,
it has been tried in the research that spatial components aecting
fear of crime in public places inside and outside the neighborhoods
is considered. As a consequence, eective variable that have power
of explain the fear of crime include victimization experience, Social-
economic position of a person, informal social control, Visual
accessibility and lighting of public places, movement and the presence
of people in the public place and the stability of residence and identity
space. According to recognize aecting factors on fear of crime due
to reduction that and prevention of adverse eects it is better to take
action in this regard done such as Increasing usage versatility of the
place such as residential, business and recreational usage to enhance
the presence of people in public places. Improving and enhancing
visual accessibility of the pathways in public places such as lighting
of the pathways, reinforce the neighborhood identity and site sense
of the resident, securing public spaces and holding training classes
for vulnerable groups such as women, elders and teaching feeling
management and correct decision making in the context of facing the
crime and the criminal.
References
1. Liska AL, Lawrence JJ, Sanchirico A (1982) Fear of crime as a social fact.
Social Forces 60: 760-770.
2. Ferraro KF (1995) Fear of Crime interpreting victimization Risk. New York:
SUNY Press 76: 350-351.
3. Pirmore J (1994) urban spaces, translated by Hossein Rezaee, Tehran: Tehran
municipality CH.
4. Fialkoof Y (2004) Urban sociology, translated by Abdolhossein Nik Gohar,
Tehran: publication of Agah.
5. Lemanski C (2004) A new apartheid? The spatial implications of fear of crime in
Cape Town, South Africa. Environment and Urbanization 16: 101.
6. Jacobs J (2007) Death and life of large cities of America, translated by
Hamidreza Parsi, Arezoo Aatooni, Tehran: Tehran University.
7. Tibaldz F (2002) Citizen-oriented urbanism, translated by Mohamma
Ahamdinezhadm Esfahan: Khak.
8. Green G, Gilberston JM, Grimsely MF (2002) Fear of crime and health in
residential tower blocks: A case study in Liverpool, UK. Eur J Public Health
12: 10-15.
9. Kohm SA (2009) Spatial Dimensions of Fear in a High-Crime Community: Fear
of Crime or Fear of Disorder. Canadian J Criminol Criminal Justice 51: 1-30.
10. Franklin TW, Franklin CA, Fearn NE (2008) A Multilevel Analysis of the
Vulnerability, Disorder, and Social Integration Models of Fear of Crime. Soc
Just Res 21: 204-227.
11. McCrea R, Tung-Kai S, Western J, Stimson RJ (2005) Fear of crime in Brisbane;
Individual, social and neighbourhood factors in perspective. J Sociol 41: 7-27.
Page 11 of 11
Citation: Rezvani M, Sadra Y(2019) Sociological Explanation of Fear of Crime in Public Spaces Case Study Mashhad. Social Crimonol 7: 202. doi:
10.4172/2375-4435.1000202
Volume 7 • Issue 1 • 1000202Social Crimonol, an open access journal
ISSN: 2375-4435
12. Miceli R, Roccato M, Rosato R (2004( Fear of crime in Italy: Spread and
Determinants. Environment and Behavior 36: 776.
13. Ferguson KC, Mindel KM, Charles H (2007) Modeling fear of crime in dallas
neighborhoods: A test of social capital theory. Crime & Delinquency 53:
322-349.
14. Nicholson, David F (2010) Disadvantaged neighborhood and fear of crime:
Does family structure matter? A dissertation for the Degree of Doctor of
Philosophy, University of Oklahoma, Graduate College.
15. Linch Q (1995) City face, translated by Manoochehr Mazini, Tehran: Tehran
University
16. Gindez A (1999) Modernism and status; society and personal identity in new
age, translated by Mohsen Salasi, Tehran: Ney publication.
