5=Revisiting Fear and Place

Revisiting fear and place: women's fear of attack and the builtenvironment

Hille Koskela a, Rachel Pain b

a Department of Geography, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 4, 00014 Helsinki, Finlandb Division of Geography and Environmental Management, University of Northumbria at Newcastle, Lipman Building,

Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 8ST, UK

Received 16 September 1998; in revised form 28 April 1999

Abstract

The e�ort to `design out fear' through altering built environments has been popular amongst academics and planners. Success is

limited, as simplistic notions of the fear of crime ± its experience by individuals and its constitution as a social reality ± tend to be

employed. This paper examines the relationship between the built environment and women's fear of crime, based on qualitative

studies in two European cities. While particular environments are often identi®ed when women talk about the threat of attack, this

re¯ects much broader processes operating to create fear. Fear in¯uences our experience of places, as much as places in¯uence our

experiences of fear. Ó 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Fear of violence; Gender; Design out fear; Urban spaces; Built environment

1. Introduction

We are left with a central problem. If massiveimprovements to domestic safety measures coupledwith enhanced local street lighting, path widening,and so on fail to make a signi®cant impact onresidents' fear of crime, what is there left to try?(Nair et al., 1993, p. 560)

1.1. Fear of crime and the built environment

The relationship between community safety andbuilt environments has been a popular focus in studiesof crime in the environmental disciplines (Coleman,1990; Fyfe and Bannister, 1996; Herbert and Davidson,1994; Smith, 1987; Van der Wur� et al., 1989). Thenotion that fear of crime can be `designed out', or atleast its worst e�ects moderated by changing built en-vironments, has underpinned many policy recommen-dations and initiatives (Nassar and Fisher, 1992; Ocand Tiesdell, 1997; Rowe, 1996; Vrij and Winkel,1991). However, as the quote above (the conclusion toa review of UK streetlighting research) suggests, studiesof the e�ects of strengthening housing defences, altering

street lighting and aspects of environmental designhave often failed to come up with consistent ®ndingsabout the long term bene®ts to feelings of safety(Atkins et al., 1991; Nair et al., 1993; Ramsey andNewton, 1991).

Part of the problem is methodological: tending to relyon before and after attitudinal surveys, research hasoften failed to capture the complex and dynamic rela-tionships which people have, both with the built envi-ronments they use and in their emotional responses tocrime. However, the problem is also one of how `fear ofcrime' is conceptualised. Much of the environmentaldesign literature takes a fairly crude and mechanisticapproach to the causal relationships involved; and so, inthe face of the apparent failure of environmental mod-i®cations, Nair et al. (1993) seem at a loss to suggestalternatives to `try'. This statement is symptomatic of anapproach in which social processes and physical spacetend to be treated as separate. Elsewhere, research sug-gests that they are interconnected. It is impossible tospeak of reactions to the threat of crime in particularenvironments without taking into account the social andpolitical relations which structure both the physicalspaces, and the daily lives, of the individuals involved(Koskela, 1997; Pain, 1997a,b; Painter, 1992; Smith,1989; Stanko, 1987; Valentine, 1989; Van der Wur�et al., 1989).

Geoforum 31 (2000) 269±280

www.elsevier.com/locate/geoforum

E-mail address: hille.koskela@helsinki.® (H. Koskela).

0016-7185/00/$ - see front matter Ó 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

PII: S 0 0 1 6 - 7 1 8 5 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 3 3 - 0

In fact, the `designing out fear' approach is premisedon the idea that physical design can lead to fear reduc-tion through altering the social world, originating fromNewman's (1972) ideas about crime and defensiblespace. It is not environmental alterations per se which itis hoped will reduce fear; rather it is the increased senseof ownership and informal surveillance of space, and thelikelihood of greater social interaction, which may resultfrom environmental change (Oc and Tiesdell, 1997;Newman, 1972). Such an argument cannot simply berejected as deterministic. However, our challenge in thispaper is that fear of crime is so closely embedded inbroader aspects of social life that, while improvementsto built environments may bene®t some aspects ofquality of life, they are unlikely to have signi®cant e�ectson fear of crime. We suggest that the built environmenthas received far more attention from academics andpolicy makers concerned with fear of crime than itwarrants, at the expense of the social causes of fear.

We explore the relationship between the built envi-ronment and fear of crime with reference to qualitativeresearch in two European cities. Both qualitativemethods and spatial comparisons at this scale haverarely featured in research investigating this relation-ship. There is a need for such inquiry to situate indi-viduals in particular social and geographical contexts,and to focus on reactions to very particular crimes (thegeneric `fear of [all] crime' has limited meaning here, asreactions to burglary, vandalism and sexual assault maybe as disparate as the crimes themselves). The studies wereport concentrated on women's fear of violent attack inHelsinki and Edinburgh. Men may also be concernedabout particular built environments (Hay 1993), andfear of crimes other than assault may be experiencedthere (both areas which might bene®t from further indepth research), but it is women's fear of violence whichhas emerged as the most pressing issue from crime sur-veys and feminist work alike. The ®ndings are speci®c tothis crime and to these cities but also, we hope, supportsome transferable principles which might inform thewider debate.

1.2. Women's safety and the built environment

Among the strongest critiques of mainstream fear ofcrime theory have been those of feminist criminologists,particularly Stanko (1987, 1990a, 1997), who has high-lighted the socio-political constitution of fear of crime,in particular its gendered nature. Elsewhere those fem-inists concerned with women's safety in relation topractical planning issues were amongst the earliest andstrongest supporters of `designing out fear'. Women'sfear of attack within built environments has receivedspecialist attention both from geographers (Valentine,1990; Wekerle and Whitzman, 1995) and architects andtown planners (Metrac, 1990; Women's Design Service,

1988), at least in the UK and North America wherewomen's safety has been on political agendas for sometime. In Finland safety has not been a signi®cant goalplanning until recently and the objective of taking betteraccount of women's concerns is just emerging. Else-where in Western Europe and in North America, manycity authorities have integrated women's concerns intomeasures aimed at reducing fear in particular environ-ments (Kelly, 1986; Oc and Tiesdell, 1997; Trench et al.,1992; Whitzman, 1992). The feminist perspective onenvironmental design sets women's unsafety ®rmly in asocio-political framework of patriarchal relations, re-lating fear to tangible risks and to women's broadersocial vulnerability as well as highlighting the man-madenature of particular designed environments (Matrix,1984; Greed, 1994).

Given recent developments in feminist geographicaland criminological theories, this strength of support canbe questioned on a number of grounds. First are theimportant contributions made by feminist criminolo-gists to the new directions which fear of crime theory istaking. Authors such as Stanko (1987, 1990a,b, 1997)have developed understanding of the social relationswhich underlie gendered fear, discussed later in thispaper, and which we suggested above, undermine theidea that fear can be `designed out'. Second, a feministreading of women's safety must critique the particularways in which discourses around women's safety havebeen spatialised in urban safety planning, where crime,disorder and fear are located within the public realmrather than socio-political structures such as gender,class, race and age which cut across space (Stanko,1990a; Walklate, 1989). While the emphasis of plannerson the public realm is to be expected, it con¯icts withmuch research showing that violence against womentakes place in both private and public space, withpatriarchal power relations being reproduced in bothsettings (Hall, 1985; Russell, 1982; Stanko, 1987; Mirr-lees-Black et al., 1996).

Third, some of the earlier literature on women's re-lationships with built environments had a tendency to beunintentionally essentialist (`they are women, thereforethey react like this to that environment'). Postmodernfeminist approaches cast doubt on making generalisedstatements about all women. Di�erence and diversityamongst women ± race, age, sexuality, pregnancy andmotherhood, income, living arrangements and so on ±can be expected to be re¯ected in women's attitudesto and use of particular environments (Boys, 1990;Longhurst, 1996; Rose et al., 1997), generating problemsfor identifying policy initiatives on crime (Walklate,1995).

Four, there seems a contradiction between theorisingfear in place in terms of patriarchal power relations, andadvocating positivistic change at the micro-scale. Theparadox arises from the feminist standpoint of listening

270 H. Koskela, R. Pain / Geoforum 31 (2000) 269±280

and responding to women's everyday experiences andconcerns, amongst which concern about built environ-ments is commonly articulated (Hall, 1985; Wekerle andWhitzman, 1995). Yet the strategy of tackling fearthrough design seems to con¯ict with the feminist goalsof reducing violence. The latter goals focus on perpe-trators rather than victims, and on challenging maledominance in all spheres (Hanmer and Saunders, 1993;Stanko, 1990b).

To recap, there are at least two di�erent `levels' ofdiscussion within the feminist tradition. Scholars whohave the basis of their thought in the critical tradition ofsocial science have emphasised the social and politicalnature of fear and pointed out that fear is inevitablyembedded in gendered power relations. Another groupof feminists, writing from the architectural and planningdisciplines and professions, have proposed the idea(seemingly naive in comparison) that the built environ-ment is a product of gender relations, that òur cities arepatriarchy written in stone, brick, glass and concrete'(Darke, 1996: 88), and that the male dominated plan-ning profession is `marginalising women and their needswithin the built environment' (Greed, 1994, p. 3). Fromthese notions arises the premise that changes in the builtenvironment can make a di�erence. Inevitably, the for-mer àcademic' group has had less in¯uence than thelatter `policy-oriented' group in the debate over practicalsolutions; the voices heard are of those whose focus hasbeen more practical but not necessarily so criticallyinformed.

The aim of this paper is not to explore all of thequestions raised for `designing out fear' by develop-ments in the feminist literature and current debates onfear of crime. Rather, we examine the nature of the re-lationship between women's fear and built environmentsin more depth, and consider some of the conceptual,practical and political issues involved in `designing outfear'. Using women's fear as an illustration, we arguethat the `designing out fear' approach is premised onsimplistic notions of the fear of crime, in terms of itsexperience by individuals within built environments andits constitution as a social reality.

2. Method

Amidst recent debates about the nature and meaningof fear of crime lies growing recognition that method-ologies frequently employed have sometimes concealedmore than they have revealed (Farrall et al., 1997).Despite the psycho-social complexities of the human actof committing crime, as well as those of experiencingand fearing crime, criminology and related disciplinesmost commonly take a positivist approach to knowledgeproduction (Walklate, 1997) with a commitment toquantifying human behaviour. Walklate (1997) relates

this to the modernist project with which she believescriminology to be engaged: the imperative of feedingcrime prevention policy with useful information. Muchfeminist criminological work, though critical, can alsobe considered to fall into the quantitative category. It isnot without problems, including di�erences in the de®-nition and measurement of `fear of crime' which do notfacilitate easy comparison between studies (Hale, 1996).There is no common agreement on what `fear of crime'is, but a growing awareness that it is not a ®xed trait thatsome people have and some do not (and hence some-thing easily and accurately measured by survey ques-tions), but rather `transitory and situational' (Fattahand Sacco, 1989, p. 211). Further epistemological andoperational problems of the traditional crime surveyhave been raised which belie the continuing popularityof the approach (Farrall et al., 1997; Walklate, 1995;Young, 1988).

Meanwhile, qualitative research has been suggestedas a way in which the plurality of meanings and nuancesin experience of `fear' can be explored, a challenge again®rst responded to by feminists such as Valentine (1989)and Stanko (1990a), and more recently taken up morewidely (Burgess, 1996; Evans et al., 1996; Hollway andJe�erson, 1997). One of the bene®ts of a qualitativeapproach is that it facilitates exploration of fear of crimeas multi-faceted and dynamic; an emotion which is sit-uated in the local details of individuals' circumstancesand life courses (Pain, 1997a; Hollway and Je�erson,1997), and sensitive to spatial, temporal and socialcontexts.

Our arguments are supported with data from twolarge studies of women's fear of violence, the substantive®ndings of which have been published elsewhere(Koskela, 1997; Pain, 1997b). The research in Edin-burgh, Scotland involved a mail questionnaire survey of389 women followed up by 45 in depth interviews with asubsample who volunteered to participate further. Mostinterviews were conducted in respondents own homesand lasted between one and three hours. They were taperecorded, transcribed, coded and analysed (see Straussand Corbin (1990) principles). The research in Helsinki,Finland is based on the Safety of Finns survey whichincluded 666 households in Helsinki, and a separatestudy which included 18 in depth interviews with women.The women interviewed in Helsinki were recruited withhelp of the National Consumer Research Centre, whichhad collected a `panel' of citizens representing di�erentages and social classes willing to take part in researchprojects. A signi®cant factor was that women did notparticipate in the research because of their levels of fear:taking part was voluntary, but women who came did notcome speci®cally because they were fearful. The inter-view sessions lasted for between one and a half and twoand a half hours and most of them were conducted at theinterviewers o�ce, some in the working places of the

H. Koskela, R. Pain / Geoforum 31 (2000) 269±280 271

participants. The interviews were tape-recorded with thepermission of the participants (except for the back-ground information which was entered on a form), andlater transcribed and analysed.

The di�erences in location, researcher, researchstrategy and aspects of operationalisation mean that thetwo studies are not directly comparable, and we do notpresent them as such. We draw most material used inthis paper from the qualitative interview data. In orderto retain original sense, interview material is presentedverbatim, with [. . .] indicating where material has beenremoved. The quotes from women in Helsinki aretranslated from Finnish.1 Both projects aimed to ex-amine the constitution of fear of crime in the broadsense outlined above, but gave particular emphasis to itsgeographical aspects ± the importance of place andspace. Our focus in this paper is narrower still, on thedimensions of women's fear which have a bearing on thebuilt environment. We have chosen to compare the twocities for this purpose as they contain a wide range ofdi�erent built environments. Scotland and Finland alsoprovide contrasts in terms of street crime rates, andlevels of fear of crime (insofar as surveys are able toindicate); therefore useful contexts in which to evaluatethe importance of physical environments.

3. Women's experiences of fear within the built environ-

ment

3.1. The association of risk with particular environments

High rates of fear of violent crime in public space areevident in the Edinburgh survey: over two thirds ofwomen reported being `very worried' or Ôfairly worried'

about being attacked by a stranger outside (Pain,1997b). 56% of women in the mail survey reported that`poor street lighting' had increased their anxiety aboutsexual attack, and 36% and 37% respectively implicated`badly designed buildings/estates' and `badly placedbushes and shrubbery'. Interviews revealed not onlymore detail about the places which women experiencedas fearful, but something of the nature of the relation-ship between the built environment and fear of attack.As several other studies have found, darkness, isolationand desertion are important cues of danger (Kelly, 1986;Warr, 1990; Wekerle and Whitzman, 1995; Valentine,1990).

Q: Are there any places round here which wouldworry you?

If I was out at night and walking down the Braes[main streets locally], things like that. I don't goup near Corstorphine Hill [woods and parkland]because there's nobody about whatsoever. Any-where a bit isolated, we're okay where we are butif the houses are spaced out. (Christine, twenties,secretary, no children, Corstorphine, Edinburgh)

Well quite a lot of it actually. The park, for exam-ple, that's never safe. And down at the shops here,especially at night. And The Gunner [pub] ± thatshould be closed down completely. There are placesyou sortae feel safe, like Davidson Mains [nearbyvillage], but then you've got to get a taxi thereand back if you can a�ord to. (Barbara, thirties, un-employed, two children, Pilton, Edinburgh)

We have a lane right next to us which I avoid whenit's getting dark. Anywhere on my own, either bymyself or even with my husband, if there's notmuch lighting there I feel very nervous. Especiallywith Edinburgh having so many little nooks andcrannies as well, I don't feel happy about it. (Dani-elle, twenties, local government o�cer, no children,Haymarket, Edinburgh)

I used to come in from Haymarket [train] Stationup Morrison Street at night and it was horrid. It'svery dark and there's no houses, just big walls.You feel that if anybody stopped a car and wentfor you there's nothing you could do. (Paula, twen-ties, nurse, no children, Haymarket, Edinburgh)

In Helsinki, 63% of women who participated theSafety of Finns survey reported that they found certainareas of the city unpleasant or frightening, and 44% saidthere were certain places in their daily environment they®nd unpleasant or frightening to walk in, especially inthe evenings. The most frightening places were identi®ed

1 Both studies were carried out from a feminist standpoint. However,

the Edinburgh study was carried out earlier than the Helsinki research

and, re¯ecting a broader shift in the literature in the 1990s, the former

set out to measure women's fear of attack, while the Helsinki research

also had an explicit focus on boldness and con®dence. In both studies

the interviewers were women, which is widely considered to be ethically

desirable in researching violence against women (Hanmer and Saun-

ders, 1984) as well as operationally advantageous in encouraging

women to disclose their experiences (albeit fostering an intimacy which

may be open to exploitation ± see Kelly, 1990). However, di�erences of

age, class, race and, in the Scottish research, nationality between the

researchers and interviewees may lead to problems in interpreting

language and meaning. In both cases the aim in analysis was to

minimise this problem through awareness, the use of critical friends,

representing women's views and experiences as honestly as possible,

and where appropriate by indicating their diversity. All quotes from

interviews in the Finnish research have been translated from tapes

transcribed in Finnish, which means `double-translation': interpreting

the feelings women expressed in interviews and re-translating them in

English. The aim has been to sustain the original expressions and tones

as honestly as possible, for example, by sustaining changes of active

and passive voice.


as forests, parks, recreation areas and paths, followed bystations and shopping centres, and underpasses, tunnels,bridges and cellars (Koskela and Tuominen, 1995). Theinterviews verify this:

Q: What do you think makes the di�erence; whysome places are more unpleasant?

I think the streets where there are only apartmentsand no display windows or other well-lit places arethe most frightening ones. (Paula, twenties, salessecretary, no children, Kannelm�aki, Helsinki)

I think that tunnels and such like are always nastybecause they are so deserted that if something hap-pens you cannot get help unless someone else justhappens to be there. (Petra, thirties, nursery teach-er, one child, Ruoholahti, Helsinki)

I've sometimes taken a bus from Merihaka [twolevel concrete housing area]. When you walk downthe stairs the place is oppressive. It is so massiveand there is an echo and the cars make a terriblenoise. (Elisa, thirties, student, no children, Tapan-invainio, Helsinki)

I hate Vihdintie [main street locally] in Haaga. It'sso wide and the blocks of ¯ats are so far from thestreet and there are no balconies. There's nothinghuman about the street. There's heavy tra�c andthe street lights are so far from each other that thereare dark spots in between. [...] It's like no-man'sland. (Hanna, thirties, printing worker, no children,Haaga, Helsinki)

Women were not treated as a single category in eitherstudy, and the salience of age, class, motherhood, dis-ability and sexuality to women's concerns about attackprovided important dimensions of the research (Pain,1997b; Koskela, 1997, 1999). In presenting quotes fromwomen who took part in the research, we include detailsabout their social background including age, occupa-tion, whether they have children, and their area of res-idence within each city. However, in the Edinburghstudy (carried out in three sharply contrasting socialareas), social class did not in¯uence how likely womenwere to express fear of being attacked in public space,although poorer women were signi®cantly more likely toworry about domestic violence (Pain, 1997b). Socialclass had no apparent e�ect on how likely women wereto perceive built environments as unsafe; all womenhighlighted certain local residential and public spaceswhere they feared attack. Equally there were no signif-icant di�erences by age, ability, or whether women hadchildren or not. In the Helsinki study, women's lifehistories and experiences seemed to have more impact

on their levels of fear than their social background. Forexample, all the women who had experienced violence,either in public or private space, were more fearful thanthose who only had experiences of minor harassment(Koskela, 1999). Ageing and having children seemed tomake women somewhat more concerned about theirenvironments.

Studies in both cities con®rm, then, that the physicalsituation of fear in particular built environments ismentioned frequently in women's accounts, and appearson ®rst sight to act as an important `cue' to fear of at-tack. However, rather than accepting this relationship atface value we want to investigate it more closely: it doesnot necessarily invite the conclusion that altering builtenvironments will have much impact on these or otherwomen's fear of attack. We argue, ®rstly, that there arepractical imperatives for casting some doubt on the`designing out fear' approach.

3.2. Practical barriers to `designing out fear'

A key question here is whether the built environmenthas a fundamental role in in¯uencing women's fear, orwhether its e�ect is underlain by processes which origi-nate elsewhere. Few commentators have suggestedanything other than the latter ± that public places areonly the most visible location in which certain concernsare expressed. Fears about attack may be transferredonto speci®c environments which become markers ofunsafety, but this does not mean that they cause orproduce fear. Below, we present evidence to support thisargument in four sections. First, that fear is spatiallypervasive and there are many contrasts in the environ-ments in which women fear attack. Second, we examinethe relationships between social and physical space moreclosely, and thirdly we note the importance of the rep-utation of places in contributing to fearfulness. Four, weexplore women's contrasting responses to the idea of`designing out fear' in the two cities.

3.2.1. Contrasts in the environments in which women fearattack

Both cities contain striking contrasts in the environ-ments with which women associate fear. In Edinburgh,there were contrasts between the quietness of some areasversus the number of people and noisiness of others; be-tween poor street lighting in some places making womenfearful of what they cannot see, and brightness in othersblamed for allowing potential attackers to see theirvictims; between the lack of surveillance and privacyengendered by gaps between houses, large gardens andopen spaces in a�uent suburbs, versus the claustrophobicnature of dense buildings and narrow alleys and closes inEdinburgh city centre and the peripheral housingschemes. And yet almost all of the women interviewed


who live in and use these diverse built environmentsidentify them as places in which they feel at risk.

Helsinki has a very di�erent built environment, moreuniform and open than the varying and often much olderstyles of architecture in Edinburgh. Most parts of Hel-sinki date from the twentieth century; there are manysquares and boulevards, and most streets are wide andopen. One exception is the concrete post-war housingareas with tunnels and bridges, such as Merihaka and It�a-Pasila, which provide some similar environmental fea-tures to Edinburgh's council schemes. On the whole,Helsinki is a much greener city, with urban parks in thecentre and forest parks around the suburbs and outskirts.Green urban spaces and woodlands are commonly per-ceived as dangerous places and feelings of insecurity oftenhave a deterrent e�ect on women's use of them (Burgess,1996, 1998; Madge, 1997). In both Helsinki and Edin-burgh women also associate fear of violence with thesenon-built semi-natural environments:

I wouldn't like to walk through St. Margaret'sPark, I wouldn't even consider doing that. Iwouldn't even do it during the day if it was veryquiet. (Irene, forties, technician, adult children,Corstorphine, Edinburgh)

There is a bit along that railway line there, that isthe way I would have to walk if I walked homefrom my work. But I don't do it. And again it's be-cause it's dark along that bit and then you go up theside of the Forestry Commission [woodland] ontothe main road. So I just, you know, I don't put my-self into the position if I can avoid it. (Rosalind, ®f-ties, administrator, no children, Corstorphine,Edinburgh)

I wouldn't go for hill walks and things like that onmy own. And things like walking along the canalbank, it sounds very nice, but you are very isolated.(Myra, forties, dental nurse, two children, Corstor-phine, Edinburgh)

I say I wouldn't go to the Central Park [large wood-land] at night without my dog. I can walk alongMannerheimintie [main street] but not into thewoods. I think it would be like asking for trouble.(Veera, twenties, waitress, no children, Pikku-Hu-opalahti, Helsinki)

I wouldn't go to Kaisaniemi park [in the city centre]at night, preferably not even during day-time. Atnight I wouldn't go to any park. (Riikka, twenties,translator, no children, Siltam�aki, Helsinki)

If I need to walk through a park I prefer to use thecompletely dark paths because it makes me less vis-

ible for potential attackers. (Viivi, twenties, student,no children, T�o�ol�o, Helsinki)

The fact that women were living in various neigh-bourhoods within the two cities with very di�erent builtenvironments made no di�erence to the likelihood oftheir reporting fear of attack, or identifying certain as-pects of the built environment which frightened them.Fig. 1 illustrates this point, showing that fear may beattached to spaces which appear to contrast: both emptyand crowded spaces, and both open and closed spaces.Despite the di�erent physical environments within andbetween Edinburgh and Helsinki, most women in bothcities mention fearful places in all these categories.

There are few types of built environment, or partic-ular features, which are not mentioned by at least somewomen. This tends to con®rm that it is fear of attackwhich comes ®rst and becomes expressed in particularsettings. This is not to imply that fear is an essentialquality of being female, and that women are simplyafraid of anything, anywhere ± we return to the socialconstruction of fear in the second half of the paper.

The argument for preventing fear through environ-mental design does not rest on the suggestion that it isunique properties of built spaces which create fear; justthat, as fear is attached to these properties, it provides agood site in which to have some practical impact upon it(Oc and Tiesdell, 1997). In a similar vein, feminist ge-ographers and architects have argued that man-madebuilt environments tend to reproduce women's fear(Matrix, 1984; Valentine, 1989; Women's Design Ser-vice, 1988), and hence intervention may reduce it. Wewould argue that this still overstates the in¯uence of thebuilt environment on fear of crime.

3.2.2. The relationship between social and physical spaceIt is evident from many women's accounts that it is

the social connotations attached to places which makethem fearful, as the examples below illustrate. Such`social cues' have been recognised as more important

Fig. 1. Categories of space which women associate with fear of attack

in Helsinki and Edinburgh.


than the design itself (Painter, 1989; Warr, 1990). Infact, women rarely mention one (physical) without theother (social), and the social often o�ers the explanationas to why some physical places are especially frighten-ing. Particular places tend to become labelled byindividuals, or more often, between groups of women,often because of incidents actually having happenedthere.

I don't walk around feeling nervous, but at thesame time I am aware that, if you're by yourself, es-pecially as the streets are quite dark ± there's an al-leyway to the delicatessen and I use a shortcutwhich I really shouldn't but I do, and there's thecarpark where I got ¯ashed at ± so I am aware thatsomething might happen cos it's not as well lit as itcould be. (Ann, twenties, teacher, no children, Hay-market, Edinburgh)

Q: Are there any areas you avoid?

Subconsciously, yes. I mean I don't think `goshthat's a place I'd never go,' but I would tend to planmy routes around better lit areas rather than any-thing else. And areas where there's not likely tobe about twenty yobs who've failed to score comingout at one time. (Elaine, forties, bank manager, nochildren, Haymarket, Edinburgh)

Er, I think Muirhouse, West Granton [local councilestates], because of the tunnels. There's drug ad-dicts, weird drug addicts and everything. You seethem if you go across the street to the shops, yousee them having their ®ghts. (Moira, sixties, nurse,no children, Pilton, Edinburgh)

When I walk through an archway to our yard it's arather unpleasant alley and I don't know what's atthe other end. Someone could be hiding in a nichethere. [...] Walking along the street, when passingthis park with bushes your imagination starts torun wild. You think that someone might come, thatsomeone might hide there looking at you. (Nadja,forties, secretary, no children, Alppila, Helsinki)

I wouldn't even think about it [going joggingalone]. I've seen so many ¯ashers in Laajasalo [sub-urb in Eastern Helsinki] that I really don't feel likegoing. (Jenni, twenties, unemployed, lives with par-ents, Laajasalo, Helsinki)

And maybe you're afraid of the wrong things. Inbig cities where there's quite a hubbub and terriblemurders and assaults happen you just go aroundcool-headed, but in the middle of a forest you startthinking that there might be some maniac coming

from behind a tree. (Petra, thirties, nursery teacher,one child, Ruoholahti, Helsinki)

Space is not viewed in a social vacuum, and indeed itis meaningless to consider the social and physicalproperties of space as dichotomous. For example, streetlighting alters the social as well as physical character ofthe space, suggesting that it is well ordered and con-trolled, making potential victims visible to others andincreasing the number of onlookers (Painter, 1989,1992). A subway provokes fear because it providesplaces for attackers to hide unseen. A quiet and desertedtown centre might provoke fear because of another es-sentially social quality (the absence of people). Likewise,women's routine avoidance of particular places islargely underpinned not by fear of concrete structuresbut by fear of unknown men. Even the darkness of thenight itself, a `natural' element of environmental dif-ference frequently implicated in the fear of crime, issocially mediated. In Helsinki, for example, summernights only become slightly dusky, whereas during thewinter darkness comes early in the afternoon. Never-theless, women tend to perceive summer and winternights as equally dangerous: in winter, because of fearsof attackers hiding in the darkness, and in summer,because the warmer temperatures mean there are morepeople around and make it easier to lurk in parks andforests. What makes women cautious is Ôthe socialnight': what is going on and how others behave inparticular places.

3.2.3. The reputation of placesSome places are feared not because of their built

fabric, but because they hold a certain reputationamongst women. Such images of place are central indecisions about which areas are best avoided (Gardner,1990; Smith, 1985; Valentine, 1992), and again, it is thesocial aspects of place which contribute to these images.For some places, it may be well publicised attacks onwomen which label them as unsafe for some timeafterwards, for others simply a general consensus thatthey are `bad' or `rough' areas. The post-war, low in-come housing estates in both Helsinki and Edinburghare cited by several women in each city as unsafe. As-pects of their design simply reinforce their (sometimesunfounded) reputation as locations where women aremore likely to be attacked.

You subconsciously avoid certain places, not neces-sarily because you would be afraid but becauseyou've got an unpleasant image of them. (Minna,twenties, waitress, no children, Olari, Helsinki [Me-tropolitan Area])

I try to avoid the surroundings of the [main] railwaystation, but it's mainly because I've read about it,


that it's the most dangerous area. (Nadja, forties,secretary, no children, Alppila, Helsinki)

Myllypuro [suburb in Eastern Helsinki] ± the namemakes my hair curl. I think about the child murdersand other crimes. But it's very much based onthings I've heard. (Manta, twenties, nursery assis-tant, pregnant, Roihuvuori, Helsinki)

It would generally be at night time, anywhere. Umor areas of the high rise ¯ats like Wester Hailes[council estate]. (Olivia, thirties, midwife, two chil-dren, Corstorphine, Edinburgh)

Well roundabout here obviously it's the Meadows[open space], there's no way I would cross theMeadows either early in the morning or late atnight. (Yvonne, twenties, student, no children,Haymarket, Edinburgh)

Q: Where do you get information about rape from?

Um women's magazines, newspapers, things likethat. Then generally you know discussing it withyourselves and that. I mean a good example is òhhow do you get to such and such' and it's `welldon't go that way but if you go this way,' youknow. (Danielle, twenties, local goverment o�cer,no children, Haymarket, Edinburgh)

Although, as stressed earlier, the majority of thewomen interviewed in both cities discussed particularbuilt environments in which they felt unsafe, the dan-gerous reputations which some places acquire clearlya�ects some women more directly than others (Valentine1990). In the Edinburgh research, low-income housingschemes such as Pilton and Wester Hailes were widelyreferred to as dangerous neighbourhoods, but only thewomen who lived there had to negotiate this socialdanger daily. In Helsinki the Eastern suburbs, part ofwhich are low-income housing areas with a high amountof refugees living there, clearly had a bad reputation.This also re¯ects the picture that crime statistics givequite well, although the `topography of fear' seems to besharper than that of crime (Koskela and Tuominen,1995).

3.2.4. Women's reactions to the idea of `designing outfear'

Much research has aimed to evaluate the e�ect ofparticular initiatives, largely through the use of ques-tionnaire surveys and inferences about the links withfear of crime. The two projects reported here providedthe opportunity to explore women's feelings and beliefsabout the potential of changes to the built environment

to reduce their fear of attack. Until such changes areactually made in one's local area, it is di�cult to predicttheir e�ect. However, di�erences between the two citiesstand out.

Generally, women in Edinburgh responded verynegatively to the idea of designing out fear, most feelingthat the threat of attack was more pervasive than couldbe tackled by altering the built environment alone.While they disliked dark places, several women inter-viewed were particularly doubtful about the e�ect ofschemes to improve street lighting.

I think there should be better lighting in some plac-es but that said, the places that aren't properly litare really places where I wouldn't consider walkinganyway. (Deborah, twenties, engineer, no children,Pilton, Edinburgh)

In some areas we do need more lighting.

Q: Would that make you feel safer?

Not really because I think it's going to happen any-way. Alleyways where there's no housing, de®nitelyI wouldn't want to walk down, even with lights.(Christine, twenties, secretary, no children, Cor-storphine, Edinburgh)

The stair's revolting, that, revolting. The lighting'sreally bad on the stairs as well. The archways, thetunnels is terrible, you ken. But I'm no too happywalking anywhere to be honest. (Shirley, thirties,factory worker, two children, Pilton, Edinburgh)

In Helsinki, the women interviewed were more likelyto feel that alterations to the environment of frighteningplaces would at least make them more pleasant, if notalways less worrying.

Q: What do you think would make cities less fright-ening?

That other cities would be as well lit as Helsinki.(Elisa, thirties, student, no children, Tapaninvainio,Helsinki)

To build them open and not closed in. [...] And placeswith lots of green are not frightening. (Susanna,twenties, nurse, no children, Meilahti, Helsinki)

I think it's clear that if there were more pedestrianstreets in Helsinki you wouldn't be so much afraid.There would always be people around. And even ifthe street wouldn't be wider it would feel more openwithout cars. (Maria, twenties, student, no children,Hakaniemi, Helsinki)


I think it was nice that the shopping centre was ren-ovated. I think it feels much more pleasant. It mattersthat it is better lit and more open. (Helena, thirties,children's nurse, one child, Laajasalo, Helsinki)

The di�erences in reactions between the cities is per-haps partly explained by fear of attack being less of aproblem generally for the women in Helsinki than thosein the Edinburgh study. In Helsinki, women were morelikely to regard male violence as an unpleasant accidentrather than an inevitable risk in everyday life, partlyowing to lower rates of violence in the city (and Finlandgenerally compared with the UK), and partly to themore pleasant built environments in Helsinki, as de-scribed earlier (see Koskela and Tuominen, 1995, Pain,1997b). It may also relate to di�erences in genderequality and independent mobility of women (Koskela,1997). It is also worth noting that crime preventioninitiatives to alter built environments have scarcely beenattempted anywhere in Finland, while women in Edin-burgh have ®rst hand experience of at least some im-provement schemes. Whichever explanation is accepted,the ®ndings emphasise the point that while environ-mental design is implicated in feelings of safety, it is notthe only nor the most important element.

4. The constitution of fear as a social reality

So far we have discussed practical issues which limitthe e�ectiveness of `designing out fear' in the case ofwomen's fear of violence. To support these arguments,from a feminist standpoint and drawing on the broaderliterature, we next focus brie¯y on some of the politicaland theoretical issues involved. How is women's fearconstituted at the broader level of social and politicalrelations? What relevance do these arguments have gen-erally to women's experiences of fear in di�erent envi-ronments and to e�orts to `design out fear' in particular?

4.1. The grounding of fear in risk

Many fear reduction strategies have treated fear notas directly connected to or informed by experience ofcrime, but as a separate problem (Home O�ce, 1989).By contrast, left realist criminologists such as Crawfordet al. (1990) have argued that high levels of fear can bejusti®ed by actual crime rates when the `dark ®gure' ofunreported crime is taken into account. Both positionsare variants on the `risk management' approach to fearof crime, in which risk and behaviour are assumed to bedirectly and unproblematically related, an assumptionwhich has recently been challenged (Sparks, 1992;Walklate, 1995, 1997). Increasingly, the relationshipsbetween crime, risk, perception and fear are beingproblematised (Ferraro, 1995; Pain, 1997c). For Walk-

late (1997), gender blindness lies at the heart of previ-ously assumed relationships between risk andvictimisation. Women's and men's relations to violencecan be directly compared only if it is assumed that theyexperience violence equally and react similarly, which isoften not the case (Tiby, 1991). Rape, for example, isperceived to be both extremely serious and relativelylikely (Warr, 1985) and is feared far more by womenthan men. `Risk' in this context is not a place-speci®ccalculation of possible harm, but a deep-rooted con-stituent of individual identity (Stanko, 1997).

However, feminists have also argued that hidden vi-olence has a part in explaining why women appearparadoxically fearful, given that the risks of attack ap-pear low from most victimisation surveys (Stanko,1987). Both popular discussions about women's fear andacademic discourses commonly constitute it as a prob-lem of public space and strangers, but most incidentstake place within the domestic sphere (Hanmer andSaunders, 1984; Valentine, 1992). Rape and sexual as-sault are amongst the most under reported of crimes.While even the highest estimates of the extent of violenceagainst women are unlikely to be ènough' to explainwomen's fear alone (Pain, 1997c), women's knowledgefrom ®rst and second hand experiences of sexual attackas well as, for some, their `tacit understanding of thelikelihood of experiencing male violence and the lack ofprotection they receive from those around them'(Stanko, 1987: 131), all play a role in the constitution offear. In addition, while only a violent criminal is generallyconsidered worthy of being afraid of, sexual harassmentand other non-criminal street violence provide animportant example of social processes forging fear inparticular contexts (Junger, 1987; Painter, 1992), as someof the interview material used here has suggested.

For some feminists, fear will be altered through en-vironmental design only where improvements tacklethese actual risks of violence and abuse to women, aswell as their fearfulness (Valentine, 1990; Women'sDesign Service, 1988). However, it is doubtful how farenvironmental changes can reduce attacks on women.First, the majority of these violent incidents take placenot in the public realm but in private and semi-privatespaces, especially the home. Second, `designing out fear'is underpinned by the assumption that most crime isopportunistic and that o�enders respond in a mecha-nistic way to environmental stimuli (Walklate, 1989), incontrast to which violence against women is often reg-ular, systematic and based on deep-rooted social in-equalities (Dobash and Dobash, 1992). However, thespatial and social dimensions of sexual violence ± the`where' and `why' criticisms ± do not preclude planningfor safety in public spaces, so long as anti-domestic at-tacks programmes are given greater publicity and ®-nance simultaneously. Despite these caveats, someresearch has shown that it is possible to create safer


spaces for women in particular public places (Wekerleand Whitzman, 1995).

4.2. The long term development of fear

As we discussed earlier, and as many architects andplanners are beginning to take on board, the relation-ship between physical, objective space and its social andpsychological dimensions is very complex and con-stantly changing (Madanipour, 1996). Proponents ofstrategies to `design out crime' justify them by assertingthat the outcome stage of o�enders' decision-makingbeing highly in¯uenced by situational factors (Clarke,1992). The fear of crime of potential victims works in avery di�erent way; fear can hardly be conceptualised asòpportunistic', yet similar mechanistic connections aremade. There is no conscious or subconscious decision tobe fearful in particular environments based on rationalassessments of risk, as runs the argument for criminals'behaviour. Rather, fear is a cumulative process devel-oping over a long time period, which is a�ected by andresponds to a whole range of social and personal expe-riences (Goodey, 1995; Hollway and Je�erson, 1997;Stanko, 1990a; Valentine, 1992). The many `breakings'which contribute to con®dence and fear (Koskela, 1997)± such as moving house, motherhood, ageing, bereave-ment, threatening incidents ± are social and subjectiveexperiences which are not restricted to certain spaces. Inboth the Helsinki and Edinburgh studies, such impor-tant life changes were likely to have in¯uenced the re-spondents' feelings of security. The complexconstruction of fear of crime predestines how we cometo particular places, already with strong ideas about ourrisks of criminal attack: fear of crime in¯uences themeaning of place, as much as places in¯uence fear.

In other words, what is being `solved' by `designingout fear' strategies (at least, in the studies whichshow positive results) is only one immediate and visibledimension of the problem of urban fear. As our researchsuggests, if one type of place in which some women feelfearful (a dark subway) is not encountered by otherwomen, then for the latter women another placewill become locally associated with fear. Importantly,attaching fear to particular places is one way of coping:

Woman cannot be fearful of all men all the time,therefore in order to maintain an illusion of controlover their safety they need to know where and whenthey may encounter `dangerous men' in order toavoid them. (Valentine, 1989, p. 171)

4.3. Gendered power relations and gendered fear

Many commentators have viewed fear of crime aslinked to broader concerns and insecurities (Hale, 1996).

Feminists have argued strongly that women's fear ofcrime is both a product of and reinforces their socialposition; `ìt is the very structure of women's lives thatcontinually places them at risk of danger'' (Stanko,1990b, p. 149). For poorer women, material factors suchas lower incomes and lack of private transport put themat additional risk from violence and from fear (Painter,1992), and women who are lesbian, members of ethnicminority groups or who have disabilities may also reporthigher levels of fear (Crawford et al., 1990; Pain, 1997b;Stanko, 1990a).

As a result, women's fear of violence is normalised.As Garland (1996) asserts, crime and its avoidance arenow an accepted part of everyday life. Feminist ac-counts have long drawn parallel arguments centring onthe routinisation of women's fear (Stanko, 1987, Paint-er, 1992; Valentine, 1989), suggesting that crime pre-vention policy tends to capitalise on and reinforce thisnotion of normalisation (Stanko, 1990b, 1997). At thevery least, the notion of normalisation supports thecriticism that `designing out fear' presents a particularconceptualisation of fear, not as deep-seated and in-grained, but as situational and thus at least partiallyresolvable by environmental change.

5. Conclusions

Q: What would make you feel safer?

All the rogues being shot, like [laughs]. No youcan't do that because there would be nobody leftwould there. I don't know. I don't think there isanything that would be kind of any safer. Nah,nah. Apart from maybe being in a wee fortress kindof thing. (Jeanette, thirties, machinist, four chil-dren, Pilton, Edinburgh)

In our comparison of Helsinki and Edinburgh wehave shown that the physical situation of fear of attackis mentioned frequently in women's accounts in bothcities; that there are wide contrasts in the environmentsfeared, within and between the two cities; and that inboth cities it is the social nature of these di�erent placeswhich provokes fear, including the reputation of placesas dangerous or safe. Women in Edinburgh respondnegatively to the idea of designing out fear, perhapsbecause of higher levels of violence in Scotland, andgreater familiarity with such initiatives compared withwomen in Helsinki to whom the idea is fairly new. Al-though making direct comparisons of the ®ndings oftwo separately conducted qualitative studies is notwithout its pitfalls, the results discussed here from twocities which are contrasting in physical and social


environments for women (and each of which containsmuch physical and social diversity), lend support to themain argument of this paper.

Environmental solutions to fear of crime are attrac-tive. Yet the example of women's fear shows clearlysome of the practical and conceptual con¯icts and dif-®culties of amelioration through environmental im-provements. Some of our arguments here are not new.We have sought to restate them in light of the con-tinuing prominence of this paradigm in this area; aprominence which is paradoxical given the complexityof fear of crime, as is increasingly bring drawn out in thegeographical and criminological literatures and recentdevelopments in feminist theory. This is not to vilify allsuch schemes. Changes do appear to have reduced fearof crime in certain contexts, though their proponentshave never naively suggested that amelioration can bemore than local or partial (Herbert and Davidson,1994). As part of a broader planning approach to revi-talise town and city centres and make them friendlier,greener, more attractive places for business, consumersand residents (Oc and Tiesdell, 1997), attempts to designout fear may have a whole range of other bene®cial ef-fects. However, what might be expected of such changesneeds to be kept in more perspective. Policy imperativeshave tended to lead theory and research, rather thantheory informing policy.

In the UK, there have been strong politicalimperatives for linking community safety so closely tothe built environment; in the UK this popular crimeprevention strategy derives from 1980s political ideologywhich sought to shift focus away from social andpolitical causes of crime (Gilling, 1997; Heal, 1992;Tilley, 1993; Walklate, 1989). In Finland the whole issueof safety on the streets has emerged much more recently,and there has been little discussion of `designing outfear' as yet. Instead of following a UK/North Americantrend which developed from certain political beginnings,it is important for other countries to learn from themistakes as well as the successes, rather than developingwomen's safety strategies based on myths of strangerrapists in public space, to whom `faults' in the builtenvironment lend otherwise unavailable opportunitiesto attack.

Geographers and planners should take greater ac-count of the complexity of fear; on this issue as manyothers social and physical space cannot be separated.Places may have some in¯uence on fear, but perhaps ofequal or greater signi®cance is the ways in which fearshapes our understanding, perception and use of spaceand place. Feminist politics inform us that genderedpower relations are key to women's fear. Many womenempower themselves through their own negotiation ofdanger, but crime prevention policies, be they in theform of behavioural advice, rape alarms, or redesignedstreets, have rarely done so.

References

Atkins, S., Husain, S., Storey, A., 1991. The in¯uence of street lighting

on crime and the fear of crime. Crime Prevention Unit Paper 29,

Home O�ce, London.

Boys, J., 1990. Women and the designed environment: dealing with

di�erence. Built Environment 16 (4), 249±256.

Burgess, J., 1996. Focusing on fear: the use of focus groups in a project

for the Community Forest Unit, Countryside Commission. Area 28

(2), 130±135.

Burgess, J., 1998. But is it worth taking the risk? How women

negotiate access to urban woodland: a case study. In: Ainley, R.

(Ed.), New Frontiers of Space, Bodies and Gender. Routledge,

London.

Clarke, R.V. (Ed.), 1992. Situational Crime Prevention: Successful

Case Studies. Harrow and Heston, New York.

Coleman, A., 1990. Utopia on Trial. Hilary Shipman, London.

Crawford, A., Jones, T., Woodhouse, T., Young, J., 1990. The Second

Islington Crime Survey. Centre for Criminology, Middlesex Poly-

technic.

Darke, J., 1996. The man-shaped city. In: Booth, C., Darke, J.,

Yeandle, S. (Eds.), Changing Places. Women's Lives in the City.

Paul Chapman, London.

Dobash, R.E., Dobash, R.P., 1992. Women, Violence and Social

Change. Routledge, London.

Evans, K., Fraser, P., Walklate, S., 1996. Whom can you trust. The

politics of `grassing' on an inner city housing estate. Sociological

Review 44 (3), 359±380.

Farrall, S., Bannister, J., Ditton, J., Gilchrist, E., 1997. Questioning

the measurement of the `fear of crime': ®ndings from a major

methodological study. British Journal of Criminology 37 (4), 658±

679.

Fattah, E.A., Sacco, V.F., 1989. Crime and Victimization of the

Elderly. Springer, New York.

Ferraro, K., 1995. Fear of Crime. SUNY Press, New York.

Fyfe, N.R., Bannister, J., 1996. City watching: closed circuit television

surveillance in public spaces. Area 28 (1).

Gardner, C.B., 1990. Safe conduct: women, crime and self in public

places. Social Problems 37, 311±328.

Garland, D., 1996. The limits of the sovereign state: strategies of crime

control in contemporary society. British Journal of Criminology 36

(4), 445±471.

Gilling, D., 1997. Crime Prevention. UCL Press, London.

Goodey, J., 1995. Fear of crime: children and gendered socialization.

In: Dobash, R.E., Dobash, P., Noaks, L. (Eds.), Gender and

Crime. University of Wales Press, Cardi�.

Greed, C.H., 1994. Women and Planning. Creating Gendered Real-

ities. Routlegde, London.

Hale, C., 1996. Fear of crime: a review of the literature. International

Review of Victimology 4, 79±150.

Hall, R.E., 1985. Ask Any Woman: A London Enquiry into Rape and

Sexual Assault. Falling Wall Press, Bristol.

Hanmer, J., Saunders, S., 1984. Well Founded Fear: A Community

Study of Violence to Women. Hutchinson, London.

Hanmer, J., Saunders, S., 1993. Women, Violence and Crime Preven-

tion. Avebury, Aldershot.

Hay, I.M., 1993. Fear of violence and the use of urban space in the

City of Unley. Discipline of Geography, Flinders University,

Adelaide.

Heal, K., 1992. Changing perspectives on crime prevention: the role of

information and structure. In: Evans, D.J., Fyfe, N.R., Herbert,

D.T. (Eds.), Crime, Policing and Place. Routledge, London.

Herbert, D., Davidson, N., 1994. Modifying the built environment: the

impact of improved street lighting. Geoforum 25 (3), 339±350.

Hollway, W., Je�erson, T., 1997. The risk society in an age of

anxiety: situating fear of crime. British Journal of Sociology 48 (2),

255±266.


Home O�ce 1989. Standing Conference on Crime Prevention, Report

of the Working Group on Fear of Crime. HMSO, London.

Junger, M., 1987. Women's experiences of sexual harassment: some

implications for their fear of crime. British Journal of Criminology

27 (4), 358±383.

Kelly, E., 1986. What makes women safe? Housing Review 35 (6).

Kelly, L., 1990. Journeying in reverse: possibilities and problems in

feminist research on sexual violence. In: Gelsthorpe, L., Morris, A.

(Eds.), Feminist Perspectives in Criminology. Open University

Press, Milton Keynes, pp. 107±114.

Koskela, H., 1997. `Bold walk and breakings': women's spatial

con®dence versus fear of violence. Gender, Place and Culture 4

(3), 301±319.

Koskela, H., 1999. Gendered exclusions: women's fear of violence and

changing relations to space. Geogra®ska Annaler, series B (forth-

coming).

Koskela, H., Tuominen, M., 1995. Y�okaupunki-pelon kaupunki?

(Night-city-the city of fear?). In: L�ahteenmaa, J., M�akel�a, L. (Eds.),

Helsingin Y�o (The Night of Helsinki). The City of Helsinki

Information Management Centre, Helsinki.

Longhurst, R., 1996. Refocusing groups: pregnant women's geograph-

ical experiences of Hamilton, New Zealand/Aotearoa. Area 28,

143±149.

Madanipour, A., 1996. Urban design and dilemmas of space.

Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 14, 331±355.

Madge, C., 1997. Public parks and the geography of fear. Tijdschrift

voor Economische en Sociale Geogra®e 88, 237±250.

Matrix 1984. Making Space: Women and the Man-made Environ-

ment. Pluto Press, London.

Metrac 1990. Special issue on women's safety in urban environments.

Women and Environments 12 (1).

Mirrlees-Black, C., Mayhew, P., Percy, A., 1996. The 1996 British

crime survey, England and Wales. Home O�ce Statistical Bulletin,

19/96.

Nair, G., Ditton, J., Phillips, S., 1993. Environmental improvements

and the fear of crime. British Journal of Criminology 33 (4), 555±561.

Nassar, J.L., Fisher, B., 1992. Design for vulnerability: cues and

reactions to fear of crime. Sociology and Social Research 76 (2),

48±58.

Newman, O., 1972. Defensible Space. Macmillan, New York.

Oc, T, Tiesdell, S. (Eds.), 1997. Safer City Centres: Reviving the Public

Realm. Chapman & Hall, London.

Pain, R.H., 1997a. Òld age' and ageism in urban research: the case of

fear of crime. International Journal of Urban and Regional

Research 21 (1), 117±128.

Pain, R.H., 1997b. Social geographies of women's fear of crime.

Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 22 (2), 231±244.

Pain, R.H., 1997c. Whither women's fear. Perceptions of sexual

violence in public and private space. International Review of

Victimology 4 (4), 297±312.

Painter, K., 1989. Crime Prevention and Public Lighting with Special

Focus on Elderly People. Centre for Criminology, Middlesex

Polytechnic.

Painter, K., 1992. Di�erent worlds: the spatial, temporal and social

dimensions of female victimisation. In: Evans, D.J., Fyfe, N.R.,

Herbert, D.T. (Eds.), Crime, Policing and Place. Routledge,

London.

Ramsey, M., Newton, R., 1991. The e�ect of better street lighting on

crime and fear: a review. Crime Prevention Unit Paper no. 29.

Home O�ce, London.

Rose, G., Kinnaird, V., Morris, M., Nash, C., 1997. Feminist

geographies of environment, nature and landscape. In: Women

and Geography Study Group (Eds.), Feminist Geographies:

Explorations in Diversity and Di�erence. Longman, Harlow.

Rowe, J., 1996. Editorial (special issue). Landscape and Urban

Planning 35 (2/3) 75±201.

Russell, D., 1982. Rape in Marriage. Macmillan, New York.

Smith, S.J., 1985. News and the dissemination of fear. In: Burgess, J.,

Gold, J. (Eds.), Geography, the Media and Popular Culture.

Croom Helm, London.

Smith, S.J., 1987. Design against crime. Beyond the rhetoric of

residential crime prevention. Property Management 5 (2), 146±150.

Smith, S.J., 1989. Social relations, neighbourhood structure, and the

fear of crime in Britain. In: Evans, D., Herbert, D. (Eds.), The

Geography of Crime. Routledge, London.

Sparks, R., 1992. Reason and unreason in `left realism': some problems

in the constitution of the fear of crime. In: Matthews, R., Young, J.

(Eds.), Issues in Realist Criminology. Sage, London.

Stanko, E.A., 1987. Typical violence, normal precaution: men, women

and interpersonal violence in England, Wales, Scotland and the

USA. In: Hanmer, J., Maynard, M. (Eds.), Women, Violence and

Social Control. Macmillan, London.

Stanko, E., 1990a. Everyday Violence: Women's and Men's Experience

of Personal Danger. Pandora, London.

Stanko, E., 1990b. When precaution is normal: a feminist critique of

crime prevention. In: Gelsthorpe, L., Morris, A. (Eds.), Feminist

Perspectives in Criminology. Open University Press, Milton Keynes.

Stanko, E.A., 1997. Safety talk: conceptualising women's risk assessment

as a `technology of the soul'. Theoretical Criminology 1 (4), 479±499.

Straus, A., Corbin, J., 1990. Basic of Qualitative Research: Grounded

Theory Procedures and Techniques. Sage, London.

Tiby, E., 1991. Kvinna och r�add? (Women and fear?). In: Wiklund, G.

(Ed.), R�adslan f�or brott (Fear of crime), BR�A-rapport, 1991:2,

Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention, Stockholm.

Tilley, N., 1993. Crime prevention and the safer cities story. The

Howard Journal 32 (1), 40±57.

Trench, S., Oc, T., Tiesdell, S., 1992. Safer cities for women: perceived

risks and planning measures. Town Planning Review 63 (2), 265±

278.

Valentine, G., 1989. The geography of women's fear. Area 21 (4).

Valentine, G., 1990. Women's fear and the design of public space. Built

Environment 16 (4).

Valentine, G., 1992. Images of danger: women's sources of informa-

tion about the spatial distribution of male violence. Area 24, 22±

29.

Van der Wur�, A., Van Stallduinen, L., Stringer, P., 1989. Fear of

crime in residential environments. Journal of Social Psychology 129

(2) 141±60.

Vrij, A., Winkel, F.W., 1991. Characteristics of the built environment

and fear of crime: a research note on interventions in unsafe

locations. Deviant Behaviour 12, 203±215.

Walklate, S., 1989. Victimology. Unwin Hyman, London.

Walklate, S., 1995. Gender and Crime: An Introduction. Prentice-Hall,

London.

Walklate, S., 1997. Risk and criminal victimisation: a modernist

dilemma?. British Journal of Criminology 37 (1).

Warr, M., 1985. Fear of rape amongst urban women. Social Problems

32, 238±250.

Warr, M., 1990. Dangerous situations: social context and fear of

victimisation. Social Forces 68 (3).

Wekerle, G.R., Whitzman, C., 1995. Safer Cities: Guidelines for

Planning, Design and Management. Van Nostrand-Reinhold, New

York.

Whitzman, C., 1992. Taking back planning: promoting women's safety

in public places: the Toronto experience. Journal of Architectural

and Planning Research 9 (2).

Women's Design Service 1998. Women's Safety on Housing Estates.

Women's Design Service, London.

Young, J., 1988. Risk of crime and fear of crime: a realist critique of

survey-based assumptions. In: Maguire, M., Pointing, J. (Eds.),

Victims of Crime: A New Deal? Milton Keynes, Open University

Press.


Documents

5=Revisiting Fear and Place