The Relation Between Dwelling Type and Fear of Crime

540459
research-article2014
EABXXX10.1177/0013916514540459Environment and BehaviorRollwagen
Article
Environment and Behavior
2016, Vol. 48(2) 365–387
The Relationship © 2014 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permissions:
Between Dwelling Type sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0013916514540459
and Fear of Crime eab.sagepub.com
Heather Rollwagen1
Abstract
Urban sociologists and criminologists have maintained housing’s importance
in providing individuals with a sense of security within their neighborhood.
Yet it remains unclear whether all types of housing provide this sense of safety
in the same way. This article provides an analysis of the relationship between
dwelling type and fear of crime. Data from the 2009 Canadian General Social
Survey are analyzed. Results suggest that living in a multiunit dwelling has
no statistically significant impact on fear of crime in the neighborhood;
however, individuals living in high-rise and low-rise residences are less likely
to be fearful of crime while at home in the evening. One possible explanation
for these findings is the fortress effect: High-rise buildings isolate individuals
in physical space, providing security in the home, and creating physical and
social distance from the rest of the neighborhood. The implications of these
findings are discussed.
Keywords
housing, fear of crime, apartment buildings, built environment, crime
One important benefit of housing is the sense of security it is meant to pro-

vide to its inhabitants (Low, 2004; Pynoos et al., 1973; Saunders, 1990).
Security from crime, while only one dimension of security, is particularly
1Ryerson University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Corresponding Author:
Heather Rollwagen, Department of Sociology, Ryerson University, 350 Victoria Street,
Toronto, Ontario M5B 2K3, Canada.
Email: hrollwagen@ryerson.ca
Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at Universidad Nacional Aut Mexic on January 19, 2016
366 Environment and Behavior 48(2)
important to consider: Fear of crime has been shown to negatively impact

individuals and communities (Anderson, 1999; Hindelang, Gottfredson, &
Garofalo, 1978; Keane, 1998; Merry, 1981). Research examining the rela-
tionship between housing and fear of crime has largely focused on particular
housing contexts, such as gated communities (Blakely, 1995; Wilson-
Doenges, 2000; Vilalta, 2011) and public housing (Alvi, Schwartz,
DeKeseredy, & Maume, 2001; Burby & Rohe, 1989; DeLone, 2008; Palmer,
Ziersch, Arthurson, & Baum, 2005; Rohe & Burby, 1988). While this litera-
ture highlights the importance of the physical environment in shaping per-
ceptions of crime and safety, its focus is on the neighborhood context rather
than the type of dwelling. Other research has examined dwelling type by
including it as a control variable in multivariate analyses of fear of crime
(Keane, 1992; Lagrange & Ferraro, 1989; Wood et al., 2008). Results of this
research suggest there is indeed a relationship between housing type and fear
of crime; however, within this research, there is little conceptual and theoreti-
cal consideration of the nature of this relationship.
This research seeks to fill this gap. This article examines the relationship
between dwelling type and fear of crime. Using data from a large sample of
Canadian urban residents, I examine how living in a high-rise or low-rise
apartment differs from living in a single family detached home in terms of
fear of crime in the neighborhood and fear of crime while at home. Results of
this research provide further insight into the way in which the built environ-
ment shapes the urban social experience. I begin by situating this analysis in
the relevant theory and research.
Housing and Fear of Crime

Theories of environmental criminology focus on how the design and struc-
ture of physical space impedes surveillance and facilitates criminal opportu-
nities (Coleman, 1985; J. Jacobs, 1961; Jeffrey, 1971; Newman, 1972). Oscar
Newman’s theory of defensible space is of particular relevance to crime and
housing. In his book, Newman (1972) discusses how residential spaces can
be designed in a way to defend against criminal activity. A central feature of
defensible space is territoriality. Territoriality refers to real and symbolic bar-
riers that elicit a sense of control and responsibility for a physical space
(Newman, 1972). Assigning responsibility for physical space means that resi-
dents are likely to “employ a full range of counter mechanisms to indicate
their concerned observation of questionable activity and their control of the
situation” (Newman, 1972, p. 4). In other words, strong territorial function-
ing prompts residents to exercise informal social control. According to defen-
sible space design principles, residents of multiunit dwellings (apartment
Rollwagen 367
buildings) are more likely to experience crime because there are more com-
munal spaces over which there is little territoriality, such as common hall-
ways, lobbies, stairwells, and outdoor grounds.
Another aspect of defensible space involves surveillance. Newman (1972,
p.80) argues that buildings should be designed so that all public and semipri-
vate spaces come under continual and natural observation by the residents of
the building. Surveillance is important not just to monitor criminal activity,
but to reduce anxiety among neighborhood residents. To facilitate surveil-
lance, residents must become familiar with their neighbors such that they
may be able to identify possible intruders. Therefore, buildings designed to
facilitate resident interaction will result in increased informal surveillance
capabilities. This idea is similar to that proposed by Jane Jacobs (1961), who
argues that neighborhoods designed to facilitate frequent face-to-face inter-
action will build trust and relationships among neighbors, thereby bringing
more people into public space and increasing informal surveillance. Newman
argues that high-rise buildings are vulnerable to criminal activity because the
large number of residents makes it difficult to learn who is a neighbor and
who is an intruder, which reduces the capacity for residents to engage in
informal surveillance. While the role of neighborhood social networks and
social ties in controlling crime has been established in other research (see
Bellair, 1997; Bursik, 1984; Rountree & Warner, 1999; Sampson & Groves,
1989), Newman and Jacobs’ theories are unique insofar as they specify a
relationship between the built environment and the potential for residents to
form social ties.
Research examining this theory provides some empirical support for the
claims made (Greenberg, Rohe, & Williams, 1982; Newman, 1972; Taylor,
Gottfredson, & Brower, 1984). Not surprisingly, however, is that this theory
has also been critiqued for being architecturally deterministic and failing to
consider the complexities surrounding the etiology of crime (Banham, 1973;
Hillier, 1973; Mayhew, 1979; Taylor, Gottfredson, & Brower, 1980). Despite
this criticism, defensible space concepts have prompted an entire field of
academic study and professional practice, known as Crime Prevention
Through Environmental Design (CPTED). CPTED design principles remain
popular among policy makers and urban planners today (Coleman, 1985; J.
M. Jacobs & Lees, 2013; Reynald & Elffers, 2009; Taylor et al., 1984).
Explaining fear of crime, however, is not the focus of Newman’s theory.
Nevertheless, Newman addresses the issue of fear of crime by suggesting that
the presence of crime inspires fear of crime, which has disastrous conse-
quences: “the fear and uncertainty generated by living in [a high-crime] envi-
ronment can slowly eat away and eventually destroy the security and sanctity
of the apartment unit itself” (Newman, 1972, pp. 3-4). It is thus implied that
implementing principles of defensible space is about reducing both crime and

the fear of crime. The mechanisms conditioning the relationship between the
built environment and crime (i.e., territoriality and informal surveillance) can
also be used to theorize the relationship between the built environment and
fear of crime. That is, residents of multiunit buildings will be more likely to
be fearful of crime, as there is less territorial functioning and greater anonym-
ity among residents.
Some research has tested this theory in relation to fear of crime, with
mixed results. Newman and Franck (1982) examine the effect of building
size on fear of crime. They find that residents living in larger buildings have
a higher level of fear of crime—an effect which is partially explained by the
fact that residents of high-rise buildings feel as though they have little control
over common areas and outdoor spaces. These findings have been echoed
elsewhere. In a study of residents living in a deprived area of Glasgow,
Scotland, Kearns and colleagues (2012) find that individuals living in high-
rise buildings are more likely to feel unsafe walking in their neighborhood
after dark and feel unsafe in their home. Other research has specifically
explored which aspects of high-rise housing relate to fear of crime. In a study
of British families living in apartment buildings, Lowry (1990) finds that
safety is a primary concern, particularly with respect to crime that occurs in
public stairwells. Research from Singapore on high-rise buildings suggests
that many individuals living in high-rise buildings may fear crime, but this is
associated with the potential for criminal victimization in the elevators of the
buildings (Yuen et al., 2006). Other research has failed to support Newman’s
theory. Specifically, Vilalta (2011) examines how apartment-dwellers differ
from non-apartment-dwellers in terms of fear of crime at home in the eve-
ning. Results show that living in an apartment building has no relation to fear
of crime at home when controlling for theoretically relevant variables.
Normoyle and Foley (1988) test the defensible space model among a popula-
tion of elderly tenants living in public housing and find that elderly residents
of high-rise buildings report less anxiety about crime than tenants of walk-
ups and row houses.
It is possible that the relationship between living in an apartment and fear
of crime is mediated by social ties. As suggested by Newman (1972) and J.
Jacobs (1961), social relationships among neighbors reduce the fear of crime
insofar as familiarity creates a sense of reassurance and trust among neigh-
bors. Indeed, research shows that familiarity with neighborhood residents
mitigates a sense of danger and fear (Clampet-Lundquist, 2010; Merry,
1981). Newman also theorizes that residents of larger residential buildings
experience greater anonymity, and are therefore more likely to be fearful.
Once again, research suggests that residents of apartment buildings are less
Rollwagen 369
likely to be socially connected to their neighbors (Heller, Byerts, & Drehmer,

1984; Lawton, Nahemow, & Teaff, 1975). However, research has not exam-
ined the possibility that the relationship between dwelling type and fear of
crime is mediated by social ties.
In short, environmental criminology suggests that the built environment
plays a role in shaping individual experiences and perceptions of crime.
Research examining this relationship provides mixed support. Moreover,
several limitations of the research make it difficult to refine the theoretical
relationship between housing and crime. For example, the concept “fear of
crime” is defined in vastly different ways. Some research considers a general
measure of fear of crime, the language for which implies fear of crime that is
experienced in a public area (Newman & Franck, 1982; Normoyle & Foley,
1988). Other research considers fear of crime in private space, generally the
home (Vilalta, 2011). With a notable exception (Kearns et al., 2012), there is
no comparison of these two measures within the same study. Given that fear
of crime is a context-specific concept (Hale, 1996), the private/public distinc-
tion is necessary to thoroughly articulate the relationship between housing
and fear of crime. A second limitation of the research is the emphasis on
studying housing located in deprived or low-income areas. For example,
Newman and Franck (1982) look at moderate-income, federally assisted
housing areas and low-income housing projects in their research, and Kearns
and colleagues (2012) only looked at high-rise housing in deprived areas.
Granted, important insight is gained from this research. However, to fully
understand the effects of housing on fear of crime, it is important to consider
the relationship in a range of neighborhood contexts.
This research makes a modest attempt to overcome some of these limita-
tions through an examination of the relationship between housing type and
fear of crime. Specifically, I compare the effects of apartment living (distin-
guishing between high-rise apartment and low-rise apartment) on two differ-
ent measures of fear of crime: fear of crime in the neighborhood and fear of
crime at home. Furthermore, I examine how social ties mediate the relation-
ship between dwelling type and fear of crime, even when controlling for
theoretically relevant variables.
Data, Variables, and Method of Analysis

Data for this analysis came from the Canadian General Social Survey, which
is an annual nation-wide survey administered by Statistics Canada used to
collect data on social trends or policy issues. The survey on crime and victim-
ization is administered once every 5 years. The present study used data from
the public use microdata file of Cycle 23 of the survey, which was collected
between February and November, 2009. The survey instrument included

questions relating to perceptions of crime, including several measures of fear
of crime (fear in the neighborhood at night; fear at home at night; fear while
on public transportation). Other data were collected, including sociodemo-
graphic information (gender, age, income, education), housing information
(dwelling type, tenure, length of time in current home, living arrangement),
and information relating to one’s experience in the neighborhood (social ties
and perceptions of neighborhood disorder).
A stratified sample of households was generated using random digit dial-
ing, and one member of the household (age 15 or over) was randomly selected
to participate in the survey. Sample weights were applied to account for the
complex sampling design. Surveys were administered using Computer
Assisted Telephone Interviewing in either of the two official languages
(French and English). In total, 19,422 interviews were conducted, and the
non-response rate was 38%. However, for the purposes of this analysis, only
those living in urban areas were considered. Urban residents are those who
live in a Census Metropolitan Area (population of at least 100,000) or a
Census Agglomeration area (an urban core population of at least 10,000). The
sample size for the current study was 15,783.
Two dependent variables were examined in this analysis. The first, fear of
crime while in the neighborhood, was measured by asking respondents how
safe they felt from crime walking alone in their area after dark. Response
options included feeling very safe, reasonably safe, somewhat unsafe, very
unsafe, does not walk alone, not stated, and don’t know. For the purposes of
this analysis, individuals who responded as saying they felt very unsafe or
somewhat unsafe were coded as 1, and those who felt very safe or reasonably
safe were coded as 0. Individuals who did not respond or who reported not
walking alone were not included in the analysis.1 The second dependent vari-
able, fear of crime while at home, was measured by asking respondents how
they felt while home alone in the evening or at night. Response options
included feeling very worried, somewhat worried, not at all worried, never
alone, not stated, and don’t know. Once again, to allow for a binary response
variable, respondents who reported feeling very or somewhat worried were
coded as 1, and respondents who reported feeling not at all worried were
coded as 0. Respondents who reported never being alone or who did not
respond were coded as missing and excluded from the analysis. As such, both
dependent variables capture the extent to which respondents reported feeling
fearful, either while walking alone in their neighborhoods after dark or while
alone in their homes at night. Similar measures of fear of crime have been
used elsewhere (Green et al., 2002; Vilalta, 2011).
Rollwagen 371
The independent variable is the type of dwelling in which the respondent

currently lives. This variable was included as a set of dummy variables which
distinguishes between low-rise apartments (less than five stories), high-rise
apartments (five or more stories), single family detached homes, and other
residences (row homes, semidetached homes, duplexes, and mobile homes).
Unfortunately, it was impossible to disaggregate the types of dwellings in the
“other” category, as this was the manner in which the data were made avail-
able. In addition to dwelling type, the mediating effect of social ties was
examined. This variable was measured by asking respondents how many
neighbors they know, with the response options being none, a few, or many/
most.
Control variables were also included based on research suggesting their
potential impact on fear of crime, and potential impacts associated with the
independent variable (Austin, Furr, & Spine, 2002; Fattah & Sacco, 1989;
Hale, 1996; Hunter, 1978; Lagrange, Ferraro, & Supancic, 1992; Lowenkamp,
Cullen, & Pratt, 2003; Markowitz, Bellair, Liska, & Liu, 2001; Pain, 2000;
Wilson-Doenges, 2000; Wyant, 2008). The following control variables were
included in the models: homeownership, duration of time lived in the resi-
dence, perceptions of neighborhood disorder, gender, age, visible minority,
low income, and education, and living alone. Table 1 provides a summary of
the measurement of all variables included in the models, and Table 2 provides
the summary statistics and frequencies for the variables.
All analyses were carried out using SPSS version 18. To examine the
effect of dwelling type on both dichotomous measures of fear of crime, logis-
tic regression was used. Block loading was used to examine the unique effects
of each variable, particularly the way in which social ties mediate the rela-
tionship between dwelling type and fear of crime at home in the neighbor-
hood. It is also important to note that multicollinearity was examined as a
potential threat, particularly as it applies to the relationship between home-
ownership and housing type—a common concern in housing research (Rossi
& Weber, 1996). There were no correlations among independent variables
higher than .5, indicating that multicollinearity was not a concern (Abu-
Bader, 2010).
Missing data were also examined carefully. With the exception of one
variable, the variables in the model had less than 5% of cases missing for an
unknown reason, and were therefore not a significant concern. However, with
respect to income, 12.2% of respondents did not state their household income,
and an additional 9.8% claimed not to know their household income, result-
ing in a loss of 22% of the sample. An analysis of these missing cases indi-
cated that there were no substantively significant relationships between not
reporting one’s income and the type of dwelling in which one lives. Table 2
Table 1. List of Variables and Measurement.
Variable Measurement
Fear of crime in Dichotomous variable: 0 = not fearful/1 = fearful
neighborhood
Fear of crime at home Dichotomous variable: 0 = not fearful/1 = fearful
Dwelling type Dummy variables: High-rise/low-rise/other/single
family detached home (reference)
Homeownership Dichotomous variable: 0 = do not own residence/
1 = own residence
Duration of residence Dummy variables: Less than 1 year (reference)/1-5
years/more than 5 years
Social ties Dummy variables: Don’t know any neighbors
(reference)/know a few neighbors/know many or
most neighbors
Perceptions of neighborhood Scale ranging from 0 to 27 (low scores = low
disorder disorder)
Scale constructed based on perceived seriousness
of nine indicators of disorder: Noisy neighbors
and loud parties; loitering; people sleeping on
streets; litter; vandalism and graffiti; harassment;
drug use; drunk and rowdy behavior; and
prostitution. Scale reliability α = .86
Gender Dichotomous variable: 0 = male/1 = female
Age Dummy variables: 15-34
(reference)/35-44/45-64/65 and older
Visible minority Dichotomous variable: 0 = not visible minority/1 =
visible minority
Income 1 = low income/0 = not low income
Household size of 1-2 people with household
income less than $15,000; household size of 3-4
people and household income less than $20,000;
or household size of 5+ people and household
income less than $30,000
Education Dummy variables: Less than high school
(reference)/high school diploma/any post-
secondary
Living arrangement Dichotomous variable: 0 = do not live alone/1 =
live alone
presents the descriptive statistics of all the variables after the missing income
cases are removed. However, Little’s (1988) test to determine if cases are
missing completely at random suggests that there is some systematic pattern
Rollwagen 373
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics of All Model Variables.

Variable Categories Percentage/M (SD)a Valid responses Percentage/M (SD)b
Neighborhood Not fearful 77.8% 14,656 80.0%

fear Fearful 15.0% 14.1%
Home fear Not fearful 81.9% 15,652 82.4%
Fearful 17.2% 16.9%
Dwelling type High rise 6.4% 15,636 6.3%
Low rise 10.4% 10.9%
Single family 64.8% 65.0%
detached
Other 17.4% 17.6%
Homeownership Own home 77.6% 15,684 77.9%
Do not own home 21.8% 22.1%
Duration of Less than 1 year 9.9% 15,678 10.2%
residence 1 to 5 years 29.4% 30.6%
More than 5 years 60.1% 59.2%
Social ties Know no neighbors 5.1% 15,747 4.9%
Know a few 53.0% 53.2%
neighbors
Many/most neighbors 41.6% 41.7%
Perceived disorder (scale from 0 to 27) 2.68 (3.93) 14,522 2.79 (3.89)
Gender Male 49.3% 15,783 50.7%
Female 50.7% 49.3%
Age 15 to 34 33.7% 15,783 32.0%
35 to 44 17.7% 19.3%
45 to 64 33.3% 35.1%
65 and older 15.3% 13.5%
Visible minority Not a visible 82.9% 15,610 85.9%
minority
Visible minority 16.0% 13.9%
Income Not low income 74.9% 12,268 96.4%
Low income 2.8% 3.6%
Education Less than high school 16.0% 15,580 14.0%
High school diploma 13.6% 13.4%
Any post-secondary 69.0% 72.6%
Living arrangement Do not live alone 88.3% 15,783 87.8%
Live alone 11.7% 12.2%
aDescriptive statistics for full sample of urban respondents (N = 15,783).

bDescriptive statistics for sample of respondents who reported their income (n = 12,268).
in the missing cases. To assess this issue further, multiple imputation with
five iterations was used to impute predicted values for missing cases (Rubin,
2009). The logistic regression models were re-run using the imputed data set,
and pooled results were compared with the original models. For nearly all the
variables, particularly the key independent variables (dwelling type and
social ties), the parameter estimates in the imputed model were extremely
similar to those in the original model. One exception concerns the variable
for income: The odds ratios estimating the effect of being low income on the
odds of being fearful in the neighborhood were modestly larger in the imputed
models, suggesting that the original (non-imputed) models are underestimat-
ing the extent to which being low income affects fear of neighborhood crime.
However, the value of the odds ratios varied considerably across iterations of
the imputed model, indicating that the imputation method was not reliably
predicting the missing values. It is important to note that “if the imputation
model is seriously flawed in terms of capturing the missing-data mechanism,
then so will be any analysis based on such imputation” (Barnard & Meng,
1999, p.34). As there are only minor differences between the models on the
variables of interest, and as the reliability of the imputed model estimates
could be questioned, the original (non-imputed) models are presented in this
article. At the same time, caution should be exercised when interpreting the
effects of income, given the ways in which missing cases may be biasing
these estimates.
Results
Table 3 presents the results of the logistic regression predicting fear of crime
in the neighborhood. The first model shows the control variables, which are
known to contribute to fear of neighborhood crime. With the exception of
length of residence and living alone, these variables have a statistically sig-
nificant effect on neighborhood fear of crime, and explain 19.2% of the vari-
ance in the model. The second model specifically examines the effect of
dwelling type on fear of neighborhood crime. As predicted by Newman, indi-
viduals living in high-rise apartments are more likely to be fearful of neigh-
borhood crime: The odds of being fearful increase by 34%, even when
controlling for other variables. It appears this relationship only holds for
high-rise apartments, as there is no statistically significant relationship
between living in a low-rise apartment and fear of neighborhood crime.
Newman also suggested that individuals living in apartments are more likely
to be fearful because they lack social connections that would enable higher
levels of informal social control. This possibility is tested in the final model,
which examines how social ties mediate the relationship between dwelling
type and fear of neighborhood crime. By controlling for how many neighbors
an individual knows, the effect of high-rise living becomes not statistically
significant, which suggests that social ties are mediating the relationship
between dwelling type and fear of neighborhood crime. Indeed, social ties
have quite an impact: The odds of feeling fearful in the neighborhood are 2.5
times greater for those who do not know any neighbors compared with those
who know many or most of their neighbors. These results, therefore, provide
support for Newman’s theory.
Rollwagen 375
Table 3. Logistic Regression Predicting the Odds of Urban Residents’ Feelings of
Fear in Their Neighborhood After Dark.
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
β SE Exp(β) β SE Exp(β) β SE Exp(β)
Perceptions of disorder 0.12 0.01 0.13 0.12 0.01 1.12 0.12 0.01 1.12
Own home −0.30 0.07 0.74 −0.22 0.09 0.80 −0.19 0.09 0.83
Duration of residencea
1-5 years 0.09 0.11 0.08 0.11 0.17 0.11
5 years or more 0.20 0.11 0.20 0.11 0.36 0.11 1.44
Women 1.58 0.06 4.87 1.59 0.06 4.88 1.59 0.06 4.92
Ageb
35 to 44 years 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.12 0.09
45 to 64 years 0.44 0.07 1.56 0.44 0.07 1.55 0.47 0.08 1.60
65 and older 0.88 0.10 2.40 0.85 0.10 2.34 0.90 0.10 2.46
Visible minority 0.26 0.08 1.30 0.23 0.08 1.26 0.21 0.08 1.23
Low income 0.21 0.14 0.21 0.14 0.22 0.14
Educationc
Any post-secondary −0.64 0.08 0.53 −0.64 0.08 0.53 −0.66 0.08 0.52
High school −0.51 0.11 0.60 −0.51 0.11 0.60 −0.53 0.11 0.59
Live alone 0.07 0.09 0.03 0.09 −0.01 0.09
Dwelling typed
High rise 0.29 0.12 1.34 0.21 0.13
Low rise 0.10 0.11 0.06 0.11
Other 0.12 0.08 0.09 0.08
Social tiese
Know a few neighbors −0.61 0.12 0.54
Know many/most neighbors −0.92 0.12 0.40
Constant −2.85 −2.93 −2.38
−2 log likelihood 8,268.74 8,262.52 8,202.28
Nagelkerke pseudo-R2 .192 .192 .201
Source. 2009 General Social Survey.

Note. Odds ratios are presented only for independent variables that have a statistically significant effect on
the dependent variable (p < .05). N included in model = 10,615.
aReference group: Respondent has lived in residence for less than 1 year.
bReference group: 15-34 years.
cReference group: Less than high school.
dReference group: Lives in a single family detached house.
eReference group: Respondent does not know any neighbors.
The findings are considerably different, however, in the model predicting

fear of crime in the home. Results of this logistic regression (Table 4) suggest
that dwelling type plays an important role in predicting fear of crime at home,
but not in the way anticipated by Newman’s theory. Once again, the first
model examines only the known contributors to fear of crime at home.
Dwelling type is entered in the second model. Results suggest that living in
an apartment has the opposite effect on fear of crime at home than it did for
Table 4. Logistic Regression Predicting the Odds of Urban Residents’ Feelings of
Fear at Home After Dark.
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
β SE Exp(β) β SE Exp(β) β SE Exp(β)
Perceptions of disorder 0.08 0.01 1.08 0.09 0.01 1.09 0.09 0.01 1.09
Own home 0.28 0.07 1.32 −0.03 0.08 −0.02 0.08
Duration of residencea
1-5 years −0.11 0.09 −0.09 0.09 −0.06 0.09
5 years or more −0.04 0.09 −0.05 0.09 0.01 0.09
Women 1.06 0.05 2.88 1.06 0.05 2.90 1.07 0.05 2.90
Ageb
35 to 44 years 0.27 0.07 1.30 0.27 0.07 1.31 0.28 0.07 1.32
45 to 64 years 0.15 0.07 1.16 0.16 0.07 1.17 0.16 0.07 1.18
65 and older 0.09 0.10 0.17 0.10 0.18 0.10
Visible minority 0.41 0.07 1.51 0.46 0.07 1.59 0.44 0.07 1.56
Low income 0.43 0.13 1.54 0.45 0.13 1.57 0.46 0.13 1.59
Educationc
Any post-secondary −0.23 0.08 0.80 −0.21 0.08 0.81 −0.22 0.08 0.80
High school −0.27 0.10 0.76 −0.27 0.10 0.77 −0.27 0.10 0.76
Live alone −0.34 0.09 0.71 −0.19 0.09 0.83 −0.20 0.09 0.82
Dwelling type
High rise −0.93 0.14 0.40 −0.96 0.14 0.38
Low rise −0.62 0.11 0.54 −0.64 0.11 0.53
Other −0.53 0.07 −0.07 0.07
Social ties
Know a few neighbors −0.06 0.12
Know many/most neighbors −0.24 0.13
Constant −2.57 −2.29 −2.20
−2 log likelihood 10,222.41 10,155.24 10,142.70
Nagelkerke pseudo-R2 .095 .103 .105
Source. 2009 General Social Survey.

Note. Odds ratios are presented only for independent variables that have a statistically significant effect on
the dependent variable (p < .05). N included in model = 11,449.
aReference group: Less than high school.
bReference group: Lives in a single family detached house.
cReference group: Respondent does not know any neighbors.
predicting fear of neighborhood crime: The odds of feeling fearful at home

are actually lower for those living in high- or low-rise apartment buildings.
Specifically, the odds of being fearful at home are 2.5 times greater for those
living in single detached homes compared with those living in high-rise
apartments, and 1.85 times greater compared with those living in low-rise
apartments. Furthermore, when controlling for social ties (Model 3), the
effect of dwelling type is similar, and the effect of social ties is not statisti-
cally significant. Therefore, there is no evidence to suggest that social ties
Rollwagen 377
mediate the relationship between dwelling type and fear of crime at home. In
short, these results suggest that dwelling type is important in understanding
fear of crime, but this variable operates very differently depending on whether
one is predicting fear of crime in public space as opposed to fear of crime in
private space.
While the focus of this analysis is on the relationship between dwelling
type and fear of crime, it is also important to highlight several other key find-
ings. Among the strongest predictors increasing both neighborhood fear and
fear at home is an individual’s perception of neighborhood disorder.
Specifically, this variable explains 4.5% of the variance in the model predict-
ing neighborhood fear, and 2.9% of the variance in the model predicting fear
at home. As suggested by Hunter (1978), the presence of disorder is associ-
ated with criminal activity; therefore, concern for personal safety when
exposed to minor neighborhood annoyances and misbehavior is a rational
response. The results also demonstrate the demographic inequalities in sense
of safety from crime. Specifically, women are considerably more likely to be
fearful: The odds of feeling fearful in the neighborhood are 5 times greater
for woman than men, and the odds of feeling fearful at home are nearly 3
times greater. This finding is consistent with past research (Ferraro, 1995;
Stanko, 1993). This research also shows that individuals identifying as a vis-
ible minority are more likely to be fearful at home and in the neighborhood,
and low-income individuals are more likely to be fearful at home. These find-
ings are also reflected in past research (Miethe, 1995; Will & McGrath,
1995). However, it has been suggested that the effect of race and income on
fear of crime is explained by the fact that these variables are actually “proxy”
measures for neighborhood of residence (Sacco & Kennedy, 2002, p. 207). In
other words, these relationships may disappear if it were possible to control
for neighborhood-level variables. Lastly, this analysis produced some sur-
prising results with respect to length of residence. This variable was included
as a control variable based on research suggesting that individuals perceptu-
ally adapt to the threat of crime over time (Taylor & Shumaker, 1990). While
prior research on this effect is mixed (Kanan & Pruitt, 2002; Taylor &
Shumaker, 1990), this study finds that individuals who have lived in their
neighborhood for a long time are more likely than new residents to be fearful
of neighborhood crime. This unexpected finding warrants consideration and
theoretical explanation in future research.
Discussion and Conclusion

Theories of environmental criminology propose that the built environment
shapes broader experiences and perceptions of crime (Brantingham &
Brantingham, 1991; Newman, 1972). This research examines the type of

housing in which one lives, and considers its effect on fear of crime in the
home and in the neighborhood. This research seeks to provide insight into the
relationship between housing and fear of crime by distinguishing between
fear of crime in public and private space, and by using data collected from a
large sample of urban residents.
Newman (1972) argues that apartment buildings have lower territorial
functioning, which would increase fear of crime. Newman also argues that
residents of multifamily buildings experience greater fear of crime because
of the increased anonymity among building residents. According to this prop-
osition, the presence of social ties mediates the relationship between dwelling
type and fear of crime. Results of this analysis provide empirical support for
Newman’s theory insofar as it can be used to explain fear of neighborhood
crime. Residents of high-rise apartments are more likely to be fearful of
neighborhood crime, and this effect is largely explained by social ties.
However, Newman’s theory does not explain the relationship between dwell-
ing type and fear of crime while at home. Results of this analysis suggest that
individuals living in high- and low-rise apartments are actually less likely to
be fearful of crime in their home compared with residents of single family
detached homes. Furthermore, social ties do not appear to have any relation-
ship to fear of crime at home. These contradictory findings reinforce the
importance of considering the way in which fear of crime is experienced in a
social context.
Indeed, the most interesting finding of this analysis is the evidence sug-
gesting that living in an apartment actually decreases the odds of being fear-
ful while alone at home in the evening. This is contrary to what one might
expect, and the theory of defensible space does not sufficiently explain the
findings. Instead, I suggest that the concept of the “fortress effect” can be
useful in this regard. Urban planners have used the term “fortress effect” to
explain the implications of isolating structures from surrounding urban areas
(Robertson, 1997). The fortress effect has been used in relation to downtown
malls to show how malls become “islands of activity” and isolated from the
outside neighborhood (Robertson, 1997). This isolation provides mall patrons
with an added sense of security while inside: The enclosed space and the
presence of private security will ensure that mall patrons do not see any
“undesirable” individuals (Frieden & Sagalyn, 1989). Apartment buildings
may operate in a similar way: The physical structure of apartment buildings
is such that individuals are physically isolated from the neighborhoods in
which they live. This isolation from the neighborhood may provide a sense of
security while inside the apartment, which explains why apartment-dwellers
are less likely to report being fearful while at home in the evening.
Rollwagen 379
If apartment-dwellers are indeed “fortifying” themselves within their

homes, the implications for neighborhood and community well-being must
be considered. More specifically, it is possible that the physical isolation
from the neighborhood also leads to social isolation. Green, Gilbertson, and
Grimsley (2002) suggest that recent security upgrades in towers have
increased sense of safety at home, but may have negative implications for
sense of community among residents: “turning tower blocks into ‘fortresses’
may increase residents’ alienation from the typically bleak landscape which
surrounds them” (Green et al., 2002, p. 15). Feeling safe in one’s home, there-
fore, may come at a cost to one’s broader interaction in public space.
One might consider the ways in which apartments operate in a way similar
to gated communities. Granted, gated communities are distinct from apart-
ments: In gated communities, the walls and fences preclude public access to
space which would otherwise be open and shared by all citizens of the local-
ity (Blakely & Snyder, 1997). However, much like gated communities, apart-
ment buildings provide an additional layer of security between public and
private space by virtue of a common entrance through which access is con-
trolled. This additional layer of security inherent in apartment buildings fur-
ther removes individuals from public space. Research on gated communities
suggests that living in a gated community isolates individuals from the out-
side neighborhood (Low, 2004). In addition, the presence of security (be it
gates, walls, or security personnel) serves as a daily reminder of the per-
ceived dangers on the other side (Blakely & Snyder, 1997). Blakely and
Snyder (1997) argue that relying on technology or hired guards nullifies indi-
vidual responsibility for the security of the neighborhood. This individual-
level approach to security may lead to less regulation, and even a breakdown
of social ties (Taylor & Brower, 1985). In short, the research on gated com-
munities suggests that fortification has numerous adverse consequences for
communities. If a fortification effect is operating in multiunit dwellings, there
may be similar implications for neighborhood social processes.
There are, of course, limitations to this analysis which must be recognized.
A central limitation of this analysis relates to the measurement of key vari-
ables. Specifically, the measure of “dwelling type” fails to capture the diver-
sity of housing. For example, the category of “high rise” refers to all dwellings
that are five stories or higher; however, it is likely that the experience of liv-
ing in a 30-story apartment is qualitatively different from living in a 6-story
one. In addition, the dependent variables (fear of crime at home and in the
neighborhood) are measured using a single indicator asking respondents to
self-report their concern or worry about crime. While similar measures have
been used in past research (Schafer, Huebner, & Bynum, 2006; Sprott &
Doob, 1993; Vilalta, 2011), this approach to measurement has also been
critiqued for its failure to capture a wide range of emotions (Ditton, Bannister,
Gilchrist, & Farrall, 1999), and its tendency to measure non-crime-related
neighborhood concerns (Bannister & Fyfe, 2001).
Another important limitation is the omission of 22% of the sample based
on missing data for the income variable. Non-response for measures of
income is a widespread issue in health and social scientific research (Turrell,
2000). Multiple imputation analyses provide some evidence that income non-
response in this sample results in an underestimation of the true effect of
being low income on fear of crime in the neighborhood and home. It is also
possible that this non-response is affecting other estimates, as research sug-
gests that non-response tends to be higher among women, the elderly, the
unmarried, and persons of low socioeconomic position (Craig & McCann,
1978; Dengler, Roberts, & Rushton, 1997). Thus, while efforts were made to
assess and understand the potential threat of non-response, it remains an issue
of concern.
This research also does not consider the neighborhood context in which
the respondent’s home is situated. Research suggests that the social structure
of the neighborhood plays a role in shaping perceptions of crime (Perkins,
Meeks, & Taylor, 1992). Neighborhood-level variables, such as average
income and education of residents, unemployment rate, ethnic and racial het-
erogeneity, and the proportion of female-headed households, have implica-
tions for the ability of residents to form social connections and informally
control crime (Sampson & Groves, 1989). Furthermore, controlling for
neighborhood-level variables may explain away the individual-level effects
of being a visible minority and low income. Given the data used, it was
impossible to control for these neighborhood-level factors that likely play an
important role in the process through which perceptions of crime are formed.
Future research might consider the relationship between dwelling type and
fear of crime while controlling for neighborhood-level variables.
Last, it is important to recognize that individuals are not randomly distrib-
uted into housing types; rather, they self-select themselves into particular
types of housing based not only on the functional utility of the residence but
also on the extent to which the image of a particular home and neighborhood
matches the individual’s own self-concept (Sirgy, Grzeskowiak, & Su, 2005).
In contemporary North American society, the single detached home repre-
sents the “ideal” home for many. The public perception of single family
homes is that they are ideal places in which to raise a family, in part because
they are perceived as safe (Mee, 2010; Miller, 1995). In the past, high-rise
buildings have been considered undesirable and even dangerous places to
live (Costello, 2005). These perceptions have shifted slightly with the
increased construction of condominium towers, which are marketed to
Rollwagen 381
upper-income individuals as a “playground for the wealthy” and a symbol of

affluent living (Costello, 2005, p. 50). Perceptions and ideas about housing
play an important part of the process through which individuals select living
arrangements. The models in this article do not take into consideration the
possible bias created through self-selection, which limits this analysis.
The construction of high-rise buildings is a growing industry. In Toronto,
for example, there are 130 new high-rise building projects underway, 92% of
which are residential buildings (Emporis, 2014). The construction of so many
high-rise residential buildings may be detrimental to the urban environment
if, by living in these buildings, individuals become physically and socially
isolated from the surrounding neighborhoods. However, one should not infer
that high-rise buildings are an undesirable type of urban housing; rather, it is
suggested that further research might consider the specific features of the
housing environment which promote and inhibit interaction in public space.
This insight can in turn inform the design of residential buildings. One might
also consider how the fortifying effects of high-rise housing might be miti-
gated. For example, some research suggests that incorporating nature into the
high-rise environment has a positive impact on encouraging social interac-
tion among neighbors (Coley, Sullivan, & Kuo, 1997). In short, while this
study offers some insight into the way in which housing relates to fear of
crime, considerably more research is required to better inform urban planning
and housing initiatives.
Acknowledgments
I am grateful to the editor and two reviewers for comments on an earlier draft of this
article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.
Note
1. Those who reported not walking alone (approximately 6.9% of the sample) are
more likely to live in low- or high-rise apartments as opposed to other types
of dwellings. There are a variety of reasons why people may not walk alone in
their neighborhoods after dark: They may be physically incapable (or perceive
themselves to be physically incapable), uninterested, unavailable (due to work

or childcare constraints), or they may be fearful of crime. If they are fearful of
crime, one might argue that they should be coded accordingly and included in
the analysis. This possibility was investigated: Generally, the results of the mul-
tivariate analysis do not differ significantly from the original models. However,
in the model where those who do not walk alone are considered to be fearful, the
effect of living in a high-rise apartment becomes statistically significant. Despite
this interesting finding, it remains problematic to assume that fear of crime is the
reason these individuals do not walk alone; therefore, these individuals are not
included in this analysis.
References
Abu-Bader, S. H. (2010). Advanced & multivariate statistical methods for social sci-
ence research. Chicago, IL: Lyceum.
Alvi, S., Schwartz, M. D., DeKeseredy, W. S., & Maume, M. O. (2001). Women’s
fear of crime in Canadian public housing. Violence Against Women, 7, 638-661.
doi:10.1177/10778010122182640
Anderson, E. (1999). Code of the street: Decency, violence and the moral life of the
inner city. New York, NY: Norton.
Austin, D. M., Furr, L. A., & Spine, M. (2002). The effects of neighborhood conditions
on perceptions of safety. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 417-427. doi:10.1016/
S0047-2352(02)00148-4
Banham, R. (1973). The Parkhill victory. New Society, 18, 154-156.
Bannister, J., & Fyfe, H. (2001).Introduction: Fear and the city. Urban Studies, 38,
807-813. doi:10.1080/00420980123505
Barnard, J., & Meng, X. (1999). Applications of multiple imputation in medical stud-
ies: From AIDS to NHANES. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 8, 17-36.
doi:10.1177/096228029900800103
Bellair, P. E. (1997). Social interaction and community crime: Examining the importance
of neighbor networks. Criminology, 35, 677-701. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1997.
tb01235.x
Blakely, E. (1995). Fortress communities: The walling and gating of American sub-
urbs. Land Lines, 7, 1-3.
Blakely, E., & Snyder, M. (1997). Fortress America: Gated communities in the
United States. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution Press.
Brantingham, P. J., & Brantingham, P. L. (1991). Environmental criminology.
Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Burby, R. J., & Rohe, W. M. (1989). Deconcentration of public housing effects on
residents’ satisfaction with their living environments and their fear of crime.
Urban Affairs Review, 25, 117-141. doi:10.1177/004208168902500108
Bursik, R. J. (1984). Urban dynamics and ecological studies of delinquency. Social
Forces, 63, 393-414. doi:10.1093/sf/63.2.393
Clampet-Lundquist, S. (2010). “Everyone had your back”: Social ties, perceived
safety, and public housing relocation. City & Community, 9, 87-108. doi:10.1111/
j.1540-6040.2009.01304.x
Rollwagen 383
Coleman, A. (1985). Utopia on trial. London, England: Hilary Shipman.

Coley, R. L., Sullivan, W. C., & Kuo, F. E. (1997). Where does community grow?
The social context created by nature in urban public housing. Environment and
Behavior, 29, 468-494. doi:10.1177/001391659702900402
Costello, L. (2005). From prisons to penthouses: The changing images of high-rise living
in Melbourne. Housing Studies, 20, 49-62. doi:10.1080/0267303042000308723
Craig, C. S., & McCann, J. (1978). Item nonresponse in mail surveys: Extent and
correlates. Journal of Marketing Research, 15, 285-289. doi:10.2307/3151264
DeLone, G. J. (2008). Public housing and the fear of crime. Journal of Criminal
Justice, 36, 115-125. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2008.02.003
Dengler, R., Roberts, H., & Rushton, L. (1997). Lifestyle surveys—The complete
answer? Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 51, 46-51. doi:10.1136/
jech.51.1.46
Ditton, J., Bannister, J., Gilchrist, E., & Farrall, S. (1999). Afraid or angry?
Recalibrating the “fear” of crime. International Review of Victimology, 6, 83-99.
doi:10.1177/026975809900600201
Emporis. (2014, January 21). High-rise construction in North America: Toronto con-
tinues to lead going into 2014. Retrieved from http://www.emporis.com/press/
press-releases
Fattah, E. A., & Sacco, V. F. (1989). Crime and victimization of the elderly. New
York, NY: Springer.
Ferraro, K. F. (1995). Fear of crime: Interpreting victimization risk. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Frieden, B. J., & Sagalyn, L. B. (1989). Downtown Inc.: How America builds cities.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Green, G., Gilbertson, J. M., & Grimsley, M. F. J. (2002). Fear of crime and health
in residential tower blocks. European Journal of Public Health, 12, 10-15.
doi:10.1093/eurpub/12.1.10
Greenberg, S. W., Rohe, W. M., & Williams, J. R. (1982). Safety in urban neighbor-
hoods: A comparison of physical characteristics and informal territorial control
in high and low crime neighborhoods. Population and Environment, 5, 141-165.
doi:10.1007/BF01257054
Hale, C. (1996). Fear of crime: A review of the literature. International Review of
Victimology, 4, 79-150. doi:10.1177/026975809600400201
Heller, T., Byerts, T. O., & Drehmer, D. E. (1984). Impact of environment on social
and activity behavior in public housing for the elderly. Journal of Housing for the
Elderly, 2, 17-25. doi:10.1300/J081V02N02_03
Hillier, B. (1973). In defense of space. RIBA Journal, 539-544.
Hindelang, M. J., Gottfredson, M. R., & Garofalo, J. (1978). Victims of personal
crime: An empirical foundation for a theory of personal victimization. Cambridge,
MA: Ballinger.
Hunter, A. (1978, November). Symbols of incivility: Social disorder and fear of crime
in urban neighborhoods. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Society of Criminology, Dallas, TX.
Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of the American city. New York, NY: Vintage.
Jacobs, J. M., & Lees, L. (2013). Defensible space on the move: Revisiting the urban
geography of Alice Coleman. International Journal of Urban and Regional
Research, 37, 1559-1583. doi:10.1111/1468-2427.12047
Jeffrey, C. R. (1971). Crime prevention through environmental design. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Kanan, J. W., & Pruitt, M. V. (2002) Modeling fear of crime and perceived victimiza-
tion risk: The (in)significance of neighborhood integration. Sociological Inquiry,
72, 527-548. doi:10.1111/1475-682X.00033
Keane, C. (1998). Evaluating the influence of fear of crime as an environmental
mobility restrictor on women’s routine activities. Environment and Behavior, 30,
60-74. doi: 10.1177/0013916598301003
Keane, C. (1992). Fear of crime in Canada: An examination of concrete and formless
fear of victimization. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 34, 215-224.
Kearns, A., Whitley, E., Mason, P., & Bond, L. (2012). “Living the high life”?
Residential, social and psychosocial outcomes for high-rise occupants in a
deprived context. Housing Studies, 27, 97-126. doi:10.1080/02673037.2012.
632080
Lagrange, R. L., & Ferraro, K. F. (1989). Assessing age and gender differ-
ences in perceived risk and fear of crime. Criminology, 27, 697-720.
doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1989.tb01051.x
Lagrange, R. L., Ferraro, K. F., & Supancic, M. (1992). Perceived risk and fear of
crime: Role of social and physical incivilities. Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency, 29, 311-334. doi:10.1177/0022427892029003004
Lawton, M. P., Nahemow, L., & Teaff, J. (1975). Housing characteristics and the well-
being of elderly tenants in federally assisted housing. Journal of Gerontology, 30,
601-607. doi:10.1093/geronj/30.5.601
Little, R. J. A. (1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data
with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83, 1198-
1202. doi:10.1080/01621459.1988.10478722
Low, S. (2004). Behind the gates: Life, security, and the pursuit of happiness in for-
tress America. New York, NY: Routledge.
Lowenkamp, C. T., Cullen, F. T., & Pratt, T. C. (2003). Replicating Sampson
and Grove’s test of social disorganization theory: Revisiting a criminologi-
cal classic. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 40, 351-373.
doi:10.1177/0022427803256077
Lowry, S. (1990). Housing and health: Families and flats. British Medical Journal,
300, 245-247.
Markowitz, F. E., Bellair, P. E., Liska, A., & Liu, J. (2001). Extending social disorga-
nization theory: Modeling the relationships between cohesion, disorder and fear.
Criminology, 39, 293-320. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2001.tb00924.x
Mayhew, P. (1979). Defensible space: The current status of a crime prevention theory.
Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 18, 150-159. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2311.1979.
tb00389.x
Rollwagen 385
Mee, K. J. (2010). “Any place to raise children is a good place”: Children, housing
and neighborhoods in inner Newcastle, Australia. Children’s Geographies, 8,
193-211. doi:10.1080/14733281003691434
Merry, S. E. (1981). Urban danger: Life in a neighborhood of strangers. Philadelphia,
PA: Temple University Press.
Miethe, T. D. (1995). Fear and withdrawal from urban life. Annals of
the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 539, 14-27.
doi:10.1177/0002716295539001002
Miller, L. J. (1995). Family togetherness and the suburban ideal. Sociological Forum,
10, 393-418. doi: 10.1007/BF02095828
Newman, O. (1972). Defensible space: Crime prevention through urban design. New
York, NY: Macmillan.
Newman, O., & Franck, K. A. (1982).The effects of building size on personal crime
and fear of crime. Population and Environment, 5, 203-220. doi:10.1007/
BF01257071
Normoyle, J. B., & Foley, J. M. (1988). The defensible space model of fear and
elderly public housing residents. Environment and Behavior, 20, 50-74.
doi:10.1177/0013916588201003
Pain, R. (2000). Place, social relations and the fear of crime: A review. Progress in
Human Geography, 24, 365-387. doi:10.1191/030913200701540474
Palmer, C., Ziersch, A., Arthurson, K., & Baum, F. (2005). “Danger lurks around
every corner”: Fear of crime and its impact on opportunities for social interac-
tion in stigmatized Australian suburbs. Urban Policy and Research, 23, 393-411.
doi:10.1080/08111470500354216.
Perkins, D., Meeks, J. W., & Taylor, R. B. (1992). The physical environment of street
blocks and residential perceptions of crime and disorder: Implications for theory
and measurement. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 21-34. doi:10.1016/
S0272-4944(05)80294-4
Pynoos, J., Schafer, R., & Hartman, C. (1973). Housing urban America. Chicago, IL:
Aldine.
Reynald, D. M., & Elffers, H. (2009). The future of Newman’s defensible space
theory: Linking defensible space and the routine activities of place. European
Journal of Criminology, 6, 25-46. doi:10.1177/1477370808098103
Robertson, K. A. (1997). Downtown retail revitalization: A review of
American development strategies. Planning Perspectives, 12, 383-401.
doi:10.1080/026654397364591
Rohe, W. M., & Burby, R. J. (1988). Fear of crime in public housing. Environment
and Behavior, 20, 700-720. doi:10.1177/0013916588206003
Rossi, P. H., & Weber, E. (1996). The social benefits of homeownership: Empirical
evidence from national surveys. Housing Police Debate, 7, 1-35. doi:10.1080/
10511482.1996.9521212
Rountree, P. W., & Warner, B. D. (1999). Social ties and crime: Is the relationship
gendered? Criminology, 37, 789-814. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1999.tb00505.x
Rubin, D. B. (2009). Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. New York, NY:
John Wiley.
Sacco, V. F., & Kennedy, L. W. (2002). The criminal event. Toronto, ON: Nelson.
Sampson, R. J., & Groves, W. B. (1989). Community structure and crime: Testing
social disorganization theory. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 774-802.
doi:10.1086/229068
Saunders, P. R. (1990). A nation of home owners. London, England: Unwin Hyman.
Schafer, J. A., Huebner, B. M., & Bynum, T. S. (2006). Fear of crime and criminal
victimization: Gender-based contrasts. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 286-301.
doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2006.03.003
Sirgy, M. J., Grzeskowiak, S., & Su, C. (2005). Explaining housing preference and
choice: The role of self-congruity and functional congruity. Journal of Housing
and the Built Environment, 20, 329-347. doi:10.1007/s10901-005-9020-7
Sprott, J. B., & Doob, A. N. (1993). Fear, victimization, and attitudes to sentencing,
the courts, and the police. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 39, 275-292.
Stanko, E. A. (1993). The case of fearful women: Gender, personal safety and fear
of crime. Women & Criminal Justice, 4, 117-135. doi:10.1300/J012v04n01_06
Taylor, R. B., & Brower, S. (1985). Home and near-home territories. In I. Altman &
C. Werner (Eds.), Home environments (pp. 183-212). New York, NY: Plenum.
Taylor, R. B., Gottfredson, S. D., & Brower, S. N. (1980). The defensibility of defen-
sible space: A critical review and a synthetic framework for future research. In
T. Hirschi & M. Gottfredson (Eds.), Understanding crime (pp. 53-71). Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Taylor, R. B., Gottfredson, S. D., & Brower, S. N. (1984). Block crime and fear:
Defensible space, local social ties, and territorial functioning. Journal of Research
in Crime and Delinquency, 21, 303-331. doi:10.1177/0022427884021004003
Taylor, R. B., & Shumaker, S. A. (1990). Local crime as a natural hazard: Implications
for understanding the relationship between disorder and fear of crime. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 619-641. doi:10.1007/BF00931234
Turrell, G. (2000). Income non-reporting: Implications for health inequalities research.
Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 54, 207-214. doi:10.1136/
jech.54.3.207
Vilalta, C. J. (2011). Fear of crime in gated communities and apartment buildings: A
comparison of housing types and a test of theories. Journal of Housing and the
Built Environment, 26, 107-121. doi:10.1007/s10901-011-9211-3
Will, J. A., & McGrath, J. H. (1995). Crime, neighborhood perceptions, and the
underclass: The relationship between fear of crime and class position. Journal
of Criminal Justice, 23, 163-176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0047-2352(95)
00004-A
Wilson-Doenges, G. (2000). An exploration of sense of community and fear
of crime in gated communities. Environment and Behavior, 32, 597-611.
doi:10.1177/00139160021972694
Wood, L., Shannon, T., Bulsara, M., Pikora, T., McCormack, G., & Giles-Corti, B.
(2008). The anatomy of the safe and social suburb: An exploratory study of the
built environment, social capital and residents’ perceptions of safety. Health &
Place, 14, 15-31. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2007.04.004
Rollwagen 387
Wyant, B. R. (2008). Multilevel impacts of perceived incivilities and perceptions of

crime risk on fear of crime: Isolating endogenous impacts. Journal of Research in
Crime and Delinquency, 45, 39-64. doi:10.1177/0022427807309440
Yuen, B., Yeh, A., Appold, S. J., Earl, G., Ting, J., & Kwee, L. K. (2006).
High-rise living in Singapore public housing. Urban Studies, 43, 583-600.
doi:10.1080/00420980500533133
Author Biography
Heather Rollwagen is an assistant professor in the Sociology Department at Ryerson
University. Her research broadly examines the dynamics and processes relating to
perceptions of crime and social control.

The Relation Between Dwelling Type and Fear of Crime

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

The Relation Between Dwelling Type and Fear of Crime

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

540459

One important benefit of housing is the sense of security it is meant to pro-

1Ryerson University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

important to consider: Fear of crime has been shown to negatively impact

Housing and Fear of Crime

implementing principles of defensible space is about reducing both crime and

likely to be socially connected to their neighbors (Heller, Byerts, & Drehmer,

Data, Variables, and Method of Analysis

between February and November, 2009. The survey instrument included

The independent variable is the type of dwelling in which the respondent

Table 1. List of Variables and Measurement.

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics of All Model Variables.

Neighborhood Not fearful 77.8% 14,656 80.0%

aDescriptive statistics for full sample of urban respondents (N = 15,783).

β SE Exp(β) β SE Exp(β) β SE Exp(β)

Source. 2009 General Social Survey.

The findings are considerably different, however, in the model predicting

β SE Exp(β) β SE Exp(β) β SE Exp(β)

Source. 2009 General Social Survey.

predicting fear of neighborhood crime: The odds of feeling fearful at home

Discussion and Conclusion

Brantingham, 1991; Newman, 1972). This research examines the type of

If apartment-dwellers are indeed “fortifying” themselves within their

upper-income individuals as a “playground for the wealthy” and a symbol of

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

themselves to be physically incapable), uninterested, unavailable (due to work

Coleman, A. (1985). Utopia on trial. London, England: Hilary Shipman.

Wyant, B. R. (2008). Multilevel impacts of perceived incivilities and perceptions of

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen