The relationship between urban socio-spatial structure, (in)security and residential well-being

1. TÁMOP-4.2.2. A-11/1/KONV-2012-0069 The relationship between urban socio-spatial structure, (in)security and residential well-being MártonBerki Research assistant, KodolányiJános University of Applied Sciences berkimarton@yahoo.com

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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) (…)

8. 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)

9. 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

10. There is a security alarm system installedwithin the household of the respondent (Only ‘yes’ answers are shown.)

11. Any member of the respondent’s household hasalready been the victim of a home burglary or physical assault (Only ‘yes’ answers are shown.)

12. How safe do you think it is to walkin your neighbourhood after dark? 1 = unsafe, 2 = rather unsafe, 3 = rather safe, 4 = very safe

13. Burglaries, theft Physicalassaults Organisedcrime Financial crimes

14. How serious do you perceive the following problems around your home? 1 = not serious 5 = very serious

15. 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

16. Summary, conclusions Source: Sýkora (2009)

17. 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

18. Thank you for your attention! • Text • Text • Text

19. TÁMOP-4.2.2. A-11/1/KONV-2012-0069 The relationship between urban socio-spatial structure, (in)security and residential well-being MártonBerki Research assistant, KodolányiJános University of Applied Sciences berkimarton@yahoo.com