TÁMOP-4.2.2. A-11/1/KONV-2012-0069
The relationship between urban socio-spatial
structure, (in)security and residential well-being
Márton Berki
Research assistant,
Kodolányi János University of Applied Sciences
berkimarton@yahoo.com
Hungarian agglomerations surveyed
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Budapest
Debrecen
Szeged
Miskolc
Pécs
Győr
Nyíregyháza
Kecskemét
Székesfehérvár
Miskolci
Nyíregyházi
Győri
Budapesti
Debreceni
Székesfehérvári
Kecskeméti
Szegedi
Pécsi
• Questionnaire survey, carried out in January-February 2014
• Total sample size (cities + agglomerations): N = 5.000
Types of residential areas surveyed
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Historical inner city (city centre)
Inner residential belt (high status)
Inner residential belt (low status)
Housing estates (high status)
Housing estates (low status)
Detached houses (high status)
Detached houses (low status)
Rural character (high status)
Rural character (low status)
Villas (the highest status)
Gated communities
Recreation areas
Slum housing, blighted areas
Types of residential areas surveyed
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Historical inner city (city centre)
Inner residential belt (high status)
Inner residential belt (low status)
Housing estates (high status)
Housing estates (low status)
Detached houses (high status)
Detached houses (low status)
Rural character (high status)
Rural character (low status)
Villas (the highest status)
Gated communities
Recreation areas
Slum housing, blighted areas
Size of the subsample
(with the cities only):
n = 3.000
Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi Report (2009)
• According to Stiglitz et al. (2009), well-being is multi-dimensional:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Material living standards (income, consumption and wealth)
Health
Education
Personal activities including work
Political voice and governance
Social connections and relationships
Environment (present and future conditions)
Insecurity, of an economic as well as a physical nature
Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi Report (2009)
• According to Stiglitz et al. (2009), well-being is multi-dimensional:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Material living standards (income, consumption and wealth)
Health
Education
Personal activities including work
Political voice and governance
Social connections and relationships
Environment (present and future conditions)
Insecurity, of an economic as well as a physical nature
↓
THE CONNECTION(S) BETWEEN
URBAN STRUCTURE AND (IN)SECURITY
Main theories of criminology
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Classical theory of criminology (Beccaria)
Positivist theory of criminology (Lombroso, Guerry, Quetelet)
Individual trait theory (Glueck–Glueck, Mednick, Caspi, Moffitt)
Social disorganization theory (Shaw–McKay, Sampson, Bursik–Grasmick)
Differential association & social learning & subcultural theory
(Sutherland–Cressey, Sykes–Matza, Akers, Wolfgang–Ferracuti, Anderson)
Anomie & institutional-anomie theory (Merton, Messner–Rosenfeld)
Strain & general strain theory (Cohen, Cloward–Ohlin, Agnew)
Rational choice theory (Stafford–Warr, Patternoster, Cornish–Clarke, Matsueda)
Routine activities theory (Cohen–Felson)
Developmental life course theory (Moffitt, Sampson–Laub)
Critical theory of criminology (Bonger, Quinney, Greenberg, Currie, Colvin)
Broken windows theory (Wilson–Kelling)
(…)
Questions related to (in)security
• Is there a security alarm system in your household? (yes / no)
• Have you, or any other member of your household ever been
the victim of a home burglary or physical assault? (yes / no)
• How safe do you think it is to walk in your neighbourhood after dark?
(4 = very safe / 3 = rather safe / 2 = rather unsafe / 1 = unsafe)
• How serious do you perceive the following problems around your home?
(burglaries, theft / physical assaults / organised crime / financial crimes)
(5 = very serious / 1 = not serious)
Questions related to (in)security
• Is there a security alarm system in your household? (yes / no)
• Have you, or any other member of your household ever been
the victim of a home burglary or physical assault? (yes / no)
• How safe do you think it is to walk in your neighbourhood after dark?
(4 = very safe / 3 = rather safe / 2 = rather unsafe / 1 = unsafe)
• How serious do you perceive the following problems around your home?
(burglaries, theft / physical assaults / organised crime / financial crimes)
(5 = very serious / 1 = not serious)
Hard (objective) data vs. soft (subjective) perceptions
There is a security alarm system installed
within the household of the respondent
Villas (the highest status)
39.6%
Gated communities
29.4%
Detached houses (high status)
26.5%
Recreation areas
21.6%
Inner residential belt (high status)
20.4%
Housing estates (high status)
18.1%
Rural character (high status)
17.2%
Inner residential belt (low status)
12.3%
Historical inner city (city centre)
10.6%
Detached houses (low status)
8.3%
Rural character (low status)
6.1%
Housing estates (low status)
4.3%
Slum housing, blighted areas
2.8%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
(Only ‘yes’ answers are shown.)
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Any member of the respondent’s household has
already been the victim of a home burglary or physical assault
Housing estates (high status)
4.3%
Inner residential belt (high status)
4.9%
Historical inner city (city centre)
6.3%
Rural character (low status)
6.9%
Villas (the highest status)
7.2%
Inner residential belt (low status)
7.5%
Recreation areas
9.0%
Gated communities
11.1%
Housing estates (low status)
14.8%
Detached houses (low status)
16.3%
Rural character (high status)
21.2%
Detached houses (high status)
22.7%
Slum housing, blighted areas
25.6%
0%
5%
10%
(Only ‘yes’ answers are shown.)
15%
20%
25%
30%
How safe do you think it is to walk
in your neighbourhood after dark?
Housing estates (high status)
3.14
Recreation areas
3.07
Detached houses (low status)
3.04
Gated communities
3.01
Detached houses (high status)
2.88
Historical inner city (city centre)
2.83
Inner residential belt (high status)
2.82
Rural character (high status)
2.71
Villas (the highest status)
2.59
Housing estates (low status)
2.44
Rural character (low status)
2.34
Inner residential belt (low status)
2.34
Slum housing, blighted areas
2.21
1.00
1.50
2.00
1 = unsafe, 2 = rather unsafe,
3 = rather safe, 4 = very safe
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
Burglaries, theft
Inner residential belt (high status)
Physical assaults
Inner residential belt (low status)
3.79
3.49
Slum housing, blighted areas
3.63
Slum housing, blighted areas
Rural character (high status)
3.56
Inner residential belt (high status)
Inner residential belt (low status)
3.55
Rural character (low status)
3.06
3.36
3.16
Detached houses (low status)
3.28
Housing estates (low status)
3.03
Rural character (low status)
3.27
Detached houses (low status)
3.03
Housing estates (low status)
Rural character (high status)
3.08
Detached houses (high status)
2.89
2.57
Detached houses (high status)
Gated communities
2.54
Villas (the highest status)
2.24
Recreation areas
2.53
Recreation areas
2.19
Housing estates (high status)
Housing estates (high status)
2.33
Villas (the highest status)
2
1.85
Gated communities
2.15
1
2.04
Historical inner city (city centre)
2.23
Historical inner city (city centre)
2.25
3
4
5
1
Organised crime
Detached houses (low status)
2
3
4
3.45
Inner residential belt (low status)
3.52
Detached houses (low status)
3.51
Inner residential belt (low status)
3.16
Rural character (high status)
Rural character (low status)
3.15
Rural character (low status)
3.15
Housing estates (low status)
3.13
Housing estates (low status)
3.09
3.24
Villas (the highest status)
2.97
Villas (the highest status)
3.02
Inner residential belt (high status)
2.95
Inner residential belt (high status)
2.98
Slum housing, blighted areas
2.95
Slum housing, blighted areas
2.81
Detached houses (high status)
Recreation areas
Housing estates (high status)
2.27
Detached houses (high status)
2.23
Gated communities
2
2.15
Historical inner city (city centre)
1.73
1
2.52
2.35
Housing estates (high status)
1.84
Gated communities
2.54
Recreation areas
2.14
Historical inner city (city centre)
3
5
Financial crimes
3.54
Rural character (high status)
1.74
4
5
1.88
1
2
3
4
5
How serious
do you
perceive the
following
problems
around your
home?
Inner residential belt (low status)
Detached houses (low status)
Rural character (high status)
Inner residential belt (high status)
Slum housing, blighted areas
Rural character (low status)
Burglaries, theft
Physical assaults
Housing estates (low status)
Organised crime
Villas (the highest status)
Financial crimes
Detached houses (high status)
Recreation areas
Housing estates (high status)
Gated communities
1 = not serious
5 = very serious
Historical inner city (city centre)
1
2
3
4
5
Summary, conclusions
• Obviously, Hungarian cities can not be conceptualised as
homogeneous areas, nor in terms of (in)security, neither
concerning their residents’ perceptions of (in)security
• As for ‘hard’ (yes/no) questions, a more or less ‘expected’
spatial hierarchy has been revealed:
higher status areas ↔ lower rates of criminality
lower status areas ↔ higher rates of criminality
• On the other hand, ‘softer’ questions aimed at personal
perceptions shed light on a more unusual spatial hierarchy
of urban (in)security
Summary, conclusions
Source: Sýkora (2009)
Summary, conclusions
• Obviously, Hungarian cities can not be conceptualised as
homogeneous areas, nor in terms of (in)security, neither
concerning their residents’ perceptions of (in)security
• As for ‘hard’ (yes/no) questions, a more or less ‘expected’
spatial hierarchy has been revealed:
higher status areas ↔ lower rates of criminality
lower status areas ↔ higher rates of criminality
• On the other hand, ‘softer’ questions aimed at personal
perceptions shed light on a more unusual spatial hierarchy
of urban (in)security
Thank you for your attention!
• Text
• Text
• Text
TÁMOP-4.2.2. A-11/1/KONV-2012-0069
The relationship between urban socio-spatial
structure, (in)security and residential well-being
Márton Berki
Research assistant,
Kodolányi János University of Applied Sciences
berkimarton@yahoo.com