The relationship between urban socio-spatial structure, (in)security and residential well-being
Márton BerkiResearch assistant,
Kodolányi János University of Applied Sciences
TÁMOP-4.2.2. A-11/1/KONV-2012-0069
Hungarian agglomerations surveyed
• Budapest• Debrecen• Szeged• Miskolc• Pécs• Győr• Nyíregyháza• Kecskemét• Székesfehérvár
• Questionnaire survey, carried out in January-February 2014• Total sample size (cities + agglomerations): N = 5.000
Debreceni
NyíregyháziMiskolci
Szegedi
Pécsi
Székesfehérvári
Győri
Kecskeméti
Budapesti Debreceni
NyíregyháziMiskolci
Szegedi
Pécsi
Székesfehérvári
Győri
Kecskeméti
Budapesti
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) Size of the subsample • Detached houses (low status) (with the cities only):• Rural character (high status) n = 3.000• Rural character (low status)• Villas (the highest status)• Gated communities• Recreation areas• Slum housing, blighted areas
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) BETWEENURBAN 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 beenthe 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)
• Is there a security alarm system in your household? (yes / no)
• Have you, or any other member of your household ever beenthe 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
Questions related to (in)security
Slum housing, blighted areas
Housing estates (low status)
Rural character (low status)
Detached houses (low status)
Historical inner city (city centre)
Inner residential belt (low status)
Rural character (high status)
Housing estates (high status)
Inner residential belt (high status)
Recreation areas
Detached houses (high status)
Gated communities
Villas (the highest status)
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
2.8%
4.3%
6.1%
8.3%
10.6%
12.3%
17.2%
18.1%
20.4%
21.6%
26.5%
29.4%
39.6%
There is a security alarm system installedwithin the household of the respondent
(Only ‘yes’ answers are shown.)
Slum housing, blighted areas
Detached houses (high status)
Rural character (high status)
Detached houses (low status)
Housing estates (low status)
Gated communities
Recreation areas
Inner residential belt (low status)
Villas (the highest status)
Rural character (low status)
Historical inner city (city centre)
Inner residential belt (high status)
Housing estates (high status)
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
25.6%
22.7%
21.2%
16.3%
14.8%
11.1%
9.0%
7.5%
7.2%
6.9%
6.3%
4.9%
4.3%
Any member of the respondent’s household hasalready been the victim of a home burglary or physical assault
(Only ‘yes’ answers are shown.)
Slum housing, blighted areas
Inner residential belt (low status)
Rural character (low status)
Housing estates (low status)
Villas (the highest status)
Rural character (high status)
Inner residential belt (high status)
Historical inner city (city centre)
Detached houses (high status)
Gated communities
Detached houses (low status)
Recreation areas
Housing estates (high status)
1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
2.21
2.34
2.34
2.44
2.59
2.71
2.82
2.83
2.88
3.01
3.04
3.07
3.14
How safe do you think it is to walkin your neighbourhood after dark?
1 = unsafe, 2 = rather unsafe,3 = rather safe, 4 = very safe
Organised crime
Historical inner city (city centre)
Villas (the highest status)
Housing estates (high status)
Recreation areas
Gated communities
Detached houses (high status)
Housing estates (low status)
Rural character (low status)
Detached houses (low status)
Inner residential belt (low status)
Rural character (high status)
Slum housing, blighted areas
Inner residential belt (high status)
1 2 3 4 5
2.15
2.23
2.33
2.53
2.54
2.57
3.08
3.27
3.28
3.55
3.56
3.63
3.79
Gated communities
Historical inner city (city centre)
Housing estates (high status)
Recreation areas
Villas (the highest status)
Detached houses (high status)
Rural character (high status)
Detached houses (low status)
Housing estates (low status)
Rural character (low status)
Inner residential belt (high status)
Slum housing, blighted areas
Inner residential belt (low status)
1 2 3 4 5
1.74
1.85
2.04
2.19
2.24
2.25
2.89
3.03
3.03
3.06
3.16
3.36
3.49
Gated communities
Historical inner city (city centre)
Housing estates (high status)
Recreation areas
Detached houses (high status)
Slum housing, blighted areas
Inner residential belt (high status)
Villas (the highest status)
Housing estates (low status)
Rural character (low status)
Inner residential belt (low status)
Rural character (high status)
Detached houses (low status)
1 2 3 4 5
1.73
1.84
2.14
2.23
2.27
2.81
2.95
2.97
3.13
3.15
3.16
3.45
3.54
Historical inner city (city centre)
Housing estates (high status)
Recreation areas
Gated communities
Detached houses (high status)
Slum housing, blighted areas
Inner residential belt (high status)
Villas (the highest status)
Housing estates (low status)
Rural character (low status)
Rural character (high status)
Detached houses (low status)
Inner residential belt (low status)
1 2 3 4 5
1.88
2.15
2.35
2.52
2.54
2.95
2.98
3.02
3.09
3.15
3.24
3.51
3.52
Financial crimes
Burglaries, theft Physical assaults
Historical inner city (city centre)
Gated communities
Housing estates (high status)
Recreation areas
Detached houses (high status)
Villas (the highest status)
Housing estates (low status)
Rural character (low status)
Slum housing, blighted areas
Inner residential belt (high status)
Rural character (high status)
Detached houses (low status)
Inner residential belt (low status)
1 2 3 4 5
Burglaries, theftPhysical assaultsOrganised crimeFinancial crimes
1 = not serious5 = very serious
How serious do you perceive the following problems around your home?
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 criminalitylower status areas ↔ higher rates of criminality
• On the other hand, ‘softer’ questions aimed at personal perceptions shed light on a more unusual spatial hierarchyof 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 criminalitylower status areas ↔ higher rates of criminality
• On the other hand, ‘softer’ questions aimed at personal perceptions shed light on a more unusual spatial hierarchyof urban (in)security
Thank you for your attention!
• Text• Text• Text
The relationship between urban socio-spatial structure, (in)security and residential well-being
Márton BerkiResearch assistant,
Kodolányi János University of Applied Sciences
TÁMOP-4.2.2. A-11/1/KONV-2012-0069