Content uploaded by G D Ellis
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by G D Ellis on Sep 22, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Environment and Behavior
45(7) 803 –820
© The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0013916512446334
eab.sagepub.com
446334EAB45710.1177/001391651244633
4Jorgensen et al.Environment and Behavior
© 2012 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
1California State University, Sacramento, USA
2Texas A&M System, College Station, USA
3University of Utah, Salt Lake City, USA
Corresponding Author:
Lisa J. Jorgensen, California State University, Sacramento, 6000 J Street, Solano Hall 4000,
Sacramento, CA 95819-6110, USA.
Email: lisa.jorgensen@csus.edu
Fear Perceptions in
Public Parks:
Interactions of
Environmental
Concealment, the
Presence of People
Recreating, and Gender
Lisa J. Jorgensen1, Gary D. Ellis2, and
Edward Ruddell3
Abstract
This research examined the effect of concealment (environmental cues),
presence or absence of people recreating (social cues), and gender on in-
dividuals’ fear of crime in a community park setting. Using a 7-point single-
item indicator, 732 participants from two samples (540 park visitors and
192 college students) rated their estimates of fear of crime to 24 photo-
graphic representations of a community park. All three, two-factor interac-
tion effects were significant in the park visitor sample, but in the student
sample, only the Presence of People Recreating × Gender effect was sig-
nificant. These results suggest that social and environmental cues may jointly
affect fear experiences and that the presence of other people recreating in
a park environment and the gender of an individual may influence fear of
Article
at Texas A&M University - Medical Sciences Library on September 21, 2016eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from
804 Environment and Behavior 45(7)
crime when recreating alone in a park setting. Implications include design and
management techniques that promote safe park environments.
Keywords
fear of crime, environmental cues, social cues, gender, and community parks
Introduction
Community parks are ordinarily good for people. The outdoor and natural
environments of parks provide opportunities for people to participate in a
variety of desired recreation experiences, and these experiences provide
individuals with an array of benefits, including personal, social, economic,
and environmental benefits (Manning, 1999). However, features of the social
and environmental qualities of outdoor spaces, such as parks, may create
fearful conditions, especially among women (Ferraro, 1996; Stanko, 1995;
Warr, 1984). This study investigates whether fear of crime ratings of park
scenes by women and men vary by environmental cues (level of conceal-
ment), social cues (presence or absence of people recreating), and gender of
the person recreating in a park.
Fear of Crime
Fear of crime is an emotional response that can be triggered by a range of
crime-related circumstances (Hale, 1996). Fear can be triggered by a criminal
encounter, such as being harassed by a stranger (Garofalo, 1981). More com-
monly, individuals experience fear of crime in an actual criminal encounter
(Garofalo, 1981). Sometimes individuals fear a “bad” neighborhood or park,
simply from hearing about it, and thereby avoid it (Nasar & Jones, 1997).
When in a novel setting, individuals may scan their environment for signs of
danger and feel fear or safety as a result (Warr, 1990).
For a variety of reasons, women often report more fear of crime in public
spaces than men (Stanko, 1995). Women may be socialized to experience a
wider range of situations as dangerous (Cops & Pleysier, 2011). They may also
feel at greater risk due to fear of sexual harassment (Henderson & Bialeschki,
1993; Major, 2008), and the fear of rape and confrontation crimes (Ferraro,
1996; Warr, 1984). Compared with men, women report higher fear of crime in
outdoor public spaces, which may limit their visits to places like parks (Keane,
1998; Pain, 2001). Either gender, when experiencing fear of crime, may cope by
avoiding public spaces, especially at night or when alone. Such self-restrictions
at Texas A&M University - Medical Sciences Library on September 21, 2016eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Jorgensen et al. 805
may be experienced as a loss of spontaneity, freedom, choice (Warr, 1984;
Whyte & Shaw, 1994), and leisure (Mannell & Kleiber, 1997).
Cues That Evoke Fear of Crime
Environmental Cues
Past research has shown that an array of cues in the environment may
evoke fear (Garofalo, 1981). These include low lighting (Fisher & Nasar,
1992, 1995), physical incivilities such as litter (Robinson, Lawton, Taylor,
& Perkins, 2003), and views of buildings, walls, or landscaping that pro-
vide concealment for offenders (Fisher & Nasar, 1992, 1995; Nasar, Julian,
Buchman, Humphreys, & Mrohaly, 1983). In park settings, it is especially
important to investigate how natural elements may evoke fear of crime.
Park settings are designed to buffer distractions of surrounding stressors of
urban life and provide secluded areas for park visitors to “get away”
(Cranz, 1982). Parks often provide seclusion for visitors, including loca-
tions away from traffic and with attractive landscaping. Many individuals
seek out park spaces for their natural beauty, but if trees and bushes are
seen as providing hiding places for offenders, then the attractive natural
elements of parks may be bound up in negative fear perceptions as well
(Herzog & Miller, 1998). For this reason, this research focuses on trees and
bushes that may block views and hide offenders.
Blocked views are one element of Appleton’s prospect/refuge theory, an
evolutionary theory of landscape preferences (Appleton, 1975). The theory
posits that if humans could see (i.e., had good or open visual prospect) and
not be seen (had a refuge or hiding place), then they might be more likely
to survive threats in the environment. This theory was one basis for many
studies of how cues in the environment might evoke fear.
For active visitors of parks, fear might be inspired when views are blocked
by overgrown shrubs, meandering paths, or trees with low canopies. The hid-
ing places that constitute a refuge for the participant are likely less relevant to
active park visitors, given that it is difficult to imagine a jogging or walking
circuit that would be completely enclosed in a refuge. For this reason, we
focus on the areas surrounding a path to see whether landscaping evokes more
fear when it provides concealment for potential offenders. In past research,
campus areas identified as fearful had greater concealment (weighted by dis-
tance from the path; Nasar, Fisher, & Grannis, 1993), more hiding places
(Blöbaum & Hunecke, 2005; Nasar & Jones, 1997), and hiding places with
poor visual access from walking paths (Nasar & Fisher, 1993).
at Texas A&M University - Medical Sciences Library on September 21, 2016eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from
806 Environment and Behavior 45(7)
Social Cues
Individuals in public settings also rely on the presence of other people as
cues that might increase or decrease fear. For example, Goffman suggested
that individuals constantly monitor their surroundings, albeit without
awareness, for social cues that look out of place or potentially threatening
(Goffman, 1971). Within criminology many studies have focused on a
crime-related social cue, called social incivilities, such as disreputable or
potentially dangerous-looking individuals. In theory, social incivilities sug-
gest to legitimate visitors of a setting that reputable locals such as residents
or the police are not really in control of an area, leaving it open to unlawful
acts (Wilson & Kelling, 1982). Social incivilities that have been found to
inspire fear include inebriated individuals, disreputable looking individuals,
individuals sleeping on public benches, or groups of youth loitering in pub-
lic (Brown, Werner, Amburgey, & Szalay, 2007; LaGrange, Ferraro, &
Supancic, 1992; Price-Spratlen & Santoro, 2011; Robinson et al., 2003).
Less frequently studied are the individuals whose presence preserves a sense
of safety in public. Warr (1990) noticed how past research had emphasized the
effects of the presence of socially threatening others but had not investigated the
ways in which the presence of certain others might lower fear. He tested vignettes
with varied descriptions of setting and company by different types of social
approaches. For example, participants imagined they were alone versus “on a
crowded street corner downtown,” “on a crowded sidewalk,” or “at home with
friends.” They were approached by strangers identified as a salesperson or a
person with a knife. Being accompanied by others when approached by the
stranger often decreased participant’s fears, although there were sometimes
complicated interactions involving the gender of the participant. The settings
Warr tested did not include landscaped settings such as parks, where the land-
scaping features themselves might evoke or prevent fear.
William Whyte’s (1980) extensive structured observations of New York
parks and other public spaces also suggested that the presence of people can
encourage safe use. Whyte observed that well-used public spaces were pop-
ulated with people engaging in what he termed “mutually acceptable use.”
For example, park visitors would expect to see other people in the area par-
ticipating in typical park uses, such as picnicking, walking, and so on. When
legitimate visitors are seen engaging in expected and acceptable uses of a
space, he speculated that they serve as cues that attract other visitors as well.
Similarly, college students on a night walk through a campus noted that the
absence of others made them fearful (Nasar & Jones, 1997), although this
study did not test experimentally manipulated social and physical cues.
at Texas A&M University - Medical Sciences Library on September 21, 2016eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Jorgensen et al. 807
Thus, the responses to written vignettes (Warr, 1990) and the observations of
parks and plazas with flourishing social life (Whyte, 1980) suggest that peo-
ple rely on appropriate others as cues of safety. The authors suggest that the
presence of others reassures by underscoring that only legitimate uses are
supported in the setting, or by making anonymous criminal acts more diffi-
cult, or by providing rescuers in the event of an attack.
Past experimental studies of fear cues have often focused on environmen-
tal cues alone or focused on the negative potential of social incivilities (for
an exception, see Brower, Dockett, & Taylor, 1983). The present study
examines two common features found in public parks: the environmental
cue of concealment and the social cue of the presence of appropriate others.
The study tests whether men and women perceive these cues, and their com-
bination, as creating low-fear park settings. According to past research,
females may be especially sensitive to cues of danger (Warr, 1990), such that
women will interpret a negative cue—either concealment or the absence of
people—as evoking more fear. Thus, this study tested the effects of gender,
concealment, presence of people recreating and interactions between and
among these factors on fear judgments in two samples: park visitors and
university students.
Method
Sampling
Two samples of potential park visitors were selected for this study. One
of these was a sample of visitors to three community parks in Salt Lake
City, Utah (park visitors). The other was a sample of students at The
University of Utah (students). The three parks offered similar recreation
opportunities (e.g., walking, jogging, rollerblading, skateboarding, pic-
nicking, and team sports) and locations (located among residential
homes, small businesses, and near main city thoroughfares). It was con-
sidered important to collect data from these two populations because park
visitors may adapt to the social setting of a given park and, thus, may
report lower levels of fear of crime than individuals sampled from loca-
tions outside of parks.
Sampling of park visitors was conducted using randomly assigned time
blocks for each of the three parks, across 9 days. Sampling student participants
was conducted by randomly selecting from students using the student union
facility on the university campus, also during randomly assigned time blocks,
across 8 days.
at Texas A&M University - Medical Sciences Library on September 21, 2016eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from
808 Environment and Behavior 45(7)
Park visitor participants included 328 females and 212 males (n = 540).
The age range for the park visitor sample was between the ages of 26 and 65
(80%), with 45% between 26 and 45 and 35% between 46 and 65. The major-
ity of the park visitor sample reported recreating “at least once a week” (55%)
and “at least once a month” (22%). The student sample was comprised of 86
females and 106 males (n = 192). Ages of the student sample were pri marily
between the ages of 18 and 25 (81%). The student sample reported visiting
the park most often “at least once a month” (36%) and “at least once a year”
(25%). Thus, as expected, the student sample yielded fewer individuals who
were as familiar with parks as those sampled in the parks.
Design and Measures
The design was a 2 (concealment: low/high) × 2 (presence of people recreat-
ing: present/absent) × 2 (gender) design, with repeated measures on the first
two factors. Participants were presented with 24 photographs (12 pairs of
replicates) of a community park setting that systematically varied conceal-
ment (low/high) and presence of people recreating (present/absent); Figure 1
Figure 1. Examples of images across the four cells (People Present Recreating ×
Concealment in Park Setting).
at Texas A&M University - Medical Sciences Library on September 21, 2016eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Jorgensen et al. 809
shows an example of images across the four cells. Although some differences
have been found between on-site and graphical representations, generally
results are similar for participants’ judgments of site plans (Fisher & Nasar,
1992) or photos (Marans, 1993). Each study participant was given a series of
24 photographs of community park scenes with the following instructions:
Imagine you are in this park area [the researcher pointed to the photo-
graph] recreating alone without a dog or another person, and you are
moving toward what you see in the photograph. After you have looked
at the photograph, rate your level of fear of crime to that area.
Fear of crime, the dependent variable, was operationalized with a single
item, following past practice (Fisher & Nasar, 1992; Nasar & Fisher, 1993;
Roman & Chalfin, 2008) by having study participants rate their level of fear
of crime on a 7-point scale (from 1 = no fear of crime to 7 = extremely high
fear of crime).
Preliminary testing of a larger pool of photographs ensured good represen-
tations of concealment. To begin, 37 photographs of landscape scenes with no
people were taken at a park in northern California. All scenes were taken along
paths and trails and exhibited near-view forest scenes, adopting the perspec-
tive of a person moving along the photographed pathway. The same scene was
photographed a second time, but this time with other people recreating in the
scene. Each photo pair constituted a replicate. A panel of four expert judges
(faculty who conduct research in the area and were familiar with the underly-
ing concepts) rated the photos for concealment on a 5-point scale, from low to
high concealment. Mean concealment scores, along with standard deviations
indicating the degree of consistency among the judges, were calculated for
each of the scenes. Ten photographs representing low concealment (M < 2.0)
and eight photographs representing high concealment (M > 4.5) were selected.
The photographs were then reviewed by another judge familiar with the visual
preferences literature for sources of nuisance variance that might be depicted
in the scenes, such as water, dogs, and so on, that might be an additional source
of fear. From this screening, a total of 24 photographs were chosen, 6 each for
the 4 combinations of concealment and people. The photographs were ran-
domly ordered and printed into a booklet, one photograph per page, with room
for the responses on each page.
Reliability analyses were conducted to measure the internal consistency of
ratings of the six photographs in each cell. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients
ranged from .89 to .97. Consequently, fear scores were collapsed across the
six photographs per cell by summing the fear scores.
at Texas A&M University - Medical Sciences Library on September 21, 2016eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from
810 Environment and Behavior 45(7)
Data Analysis
After conducting descriptive analyses, scores were tested in a 2 × 2 × 2
(Concealment × People Recreating × Gender) design using linear mixed
modeling, testing for all main effects and interactions. Factors in the
designs included the random effect of research participants (students in one
analysis and park visitors in the other) and the three fixed effects: gender,
concealment, and presence of people. The models tested included the main
effects of concealment, presence of people recreating, and gender, the three
two-factor interaction effects, and the three-factor interaction effect. A
significant Presence of People Recreating × Gender interaction effect
was found in both data sets, and the means were plotted to facilitate inter-
pretation. Because the interactions were ordinal and their effect sizes were
small (ηp
2 < .09), however, main effects of gender and presence-of-people
are also reported and interpreted.
Results
Descriptive Statistics
Marginal means are presented in Table 1. In both samples, females reported
greater fear than males, high concealment yielded greater fear than low con-
cealment, and the absence of people recreating produced greater fear than
when people recreating were present. Within the park visitor sample, the
greatest level of fear was reported when people recreating were absent from
Table 1. Main Effects of Gender, Concealment, and Presence of People Recreating
on Fear of Crime.
Gender Concealment
Presence of other
people
Sample Male Female Low High Present Absent
Park visitor
M11.820 15.067 12.444 15.117 11.796 15.765
SD 6.370 8.324 6.302 8.809 6.874 8.109
Students
M11.700 13.189 11.172 13.560 10.203 14.529
SD 5.189 6.747 5.469 6.818 5.149 6.585
at Texas A&M University - Medical Sciences Library on September 21, 2016eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Jorgensen et al. 811
the photographs (M = 15.765), and the lowest level of fear was reported was
when people were present (M = 11.796). Standard deviations in the park
visitor sample ranged from 6.302 in the low-concealment condition to 8.809
in the high-concealment condition. Levene’s test was used to evaluate the
homogeneity of variance of each outcome variable, across the levels of the
random effects factor (students and park visitors). Three of the four tests
were found to be significant (p < .05). Probabilities were .050 (high conceal-
ment, people recreating present), .038 (high concealment, people recreating
absent), .025 (low concealment, people recreating present), and .003 (low
concealment, people recreating absent). It is notable that the large sample
size certainly affected the outcome of tests. Nonetheless, these violations of
the homogeneity of variance assumption should be noted.
Within the student sample, the highest level of fear was also reported in
the people-absent condition (M = 14.529), and the lowest levels of fear were
reported in the people-present condition (M = 10.203). Standard deviations in
the student sample ranged from 5.149 (people present condition) to 6.818
(high-concealment condition). One of the four Levene’s test results was sig-
nificant: low concealment, no people (p = .047). All other p values were .48
or higher.
Mixed-Model Results
Table 2 provides a summary of the results of the mixed model analyses of the
two data sets. The three-factor interaction effect was not significant for either
sample. For the park visitors, all three, two-factor interactions were signifi-
cant (p < .05). Effect sizes (ηp
2), though, were negligible. The effect size of
two of these was less than .02, and the third, by Presence of People
Recreating × Gender was .069. That interaction is plotted in Figure 2. The
interaction is ordinal; females reported greater fear than males in both the
people-present recreating and people-absent recreating conditions. All three
main effects were significant, but effect sizes were consistently small. The
largest was the effect of gender (ηp
2 = .062), and the smallest was the effect
of concealment (ηp
2 = .008).
Results from the student sample are also reported in Table 2. The Presence
of People Recreating × Gender effect was significant, F(1,570) = 27.147,
p < .001, ηp
2 = .085, and that effect is plotted in Figure 3. No other interaction
effect was significant. Consistent with the park visitor results, the Presence of
People Recreating × Gender interaction is also ordinal and weak in the stu-
dent sample. It is, thus, reasonable to interpret the significant main effect of
presence of people, F(1,570) = 414.432, p < .001, ηp
2 = .587. The other two
at Texas A&M University - Medical Sciences Library on September 21, 2016eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from
812 Environment and Behavior 45(7)
main effects were also significant, and their effect sizes (ηp
2) differed dra-
matically. The effect size of concealment was .356 and only .021 for gender.
The contrast between effect sizes of concealment and presence of people
across the two samples is striking. Large effect sizes for the main effect of
concealment and people present were observed in the student sample, but not
in the parks sample. The significant People Present Recreating × Gender
interaction had a similar effect size across the two samples (.085 in the student
sample and .069 in the parks sample). The three-factor interaction was not
significant and negligible in effect size in both samples.
Discussion
Results suggest that both social and environmental fear cues affect fear in
park settings. In both studies, fear was found to be a function of gender,
concealment, and presence of people. Women indicated higher fear than
men, conditions of concealment evoked greater fear than conditions that
did not afford opportunity for concealment, and the absence of other people
recreating in the setting yielded greater fear than situations in which people
were depicted as being present. The significant but weak Presence of
People × Gender interaction effect observed in both samples suggests
that absence of people may elevate fear among women to a greater extent
than among men. Differences in effect sizes across the two studies are
particularly notable. In particular, both concealment and presence of peo-
ple produced moderate-to-strong effect sizes (ηp
2 = .356 and .587, respec-
tively) in the student sample, but negligible effect sizes in the park visitor
Table 2. Effect of G, C, and P on Fear of Crime.
Park visitor sample Student sample
Source df F p ηp
2df F p ηp
2
G 1,523 31.811 <.001 .062 1,190 4.014 .047 .021
C 1,1569 247.852 <.001 .008 1,570 119.299 <.001 .356
P 1,1569 509.852 <.001 .012 1,570 414.432 <.001 .587
G × C 1,1569 5.981 .015 .013 1,570 .026 .871 <.001
G × P 1,1569 55.368 <.001 .069 1,570 27.147 <.001 .085
C × P 1,1569 15.176 <.001 .001 1,570 .087 .768 .001
G × C × P 1,1569 .255 .613 .002 1,570 .520 .471 .008
Note: G = gender; C = concealment; P = presence of people recreating; mixed-model results.
at Texas A&M University - Medical Sciences Library on September 21, 2016eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Jorgensen et al. 813
sample (ηp
2 = .012 and .008, respectively). Perhaps park visitors develop
strategies to minimize their fear during park visits, and thus habituate to
fear cues in park environments.
Participants in this study reported their highest levels of fear of crime in
areas where there were no other people recreating. Perhaps park visitors
equate the presence of nonthreatening others in the area with safety, and in
turn, this association reduces their levels of fear of crime in concealed park
areas, supporting previous research that also found presence of “nonthreaten-
ing others” in outdoor public spaces act as cues of safety that reduce fear of
crime (Warr, 1990; Whyte, 1980). Supporting Whyte’s (1980) observation
that people are attracted to public areas where other people are present, each
sharing the space of “mutually acceptable use,” this study found that the mere
presence of appropriate others reduced fear of crime. Levels of fear of crime
were lowest where people were present and recreating, in both low- and high-
concealment park areas.
In addition, women participants’ fear of crime, from both the park sample
and student sample, was influenced by the presence or absence of people rec-
reating in an area (ηp
2 = .069 and .085, respectively). The presence or absence
of other park visitors recreating in a park setting demonstrated a change in
women’s levels of fear of crime than for men in the studies, where their fear of
crime in a particular setting (either of high or low concealment) was
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
People PresentPeople Absent
Fear
Female
Male
Figure 2. Presence of People Recreating in the Park × Gender (park visitor data).
at Texas A&M University - Medical Sciences Library on September 21, 2016eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from
814 Environment and Behavior 45(7)
dependent on whether people were in the area recreating. When people were
not present recreating in an area where women visitors were recreating alone,
females from both studies demonstrated an increase in their fear of crime in
that area. However, when park visitors recreating were added to the same set-
tings, their levels of fear of crime decreased at a higher rate than did fear of
crime ratings for men (Figures 2 and 3). These findings suggest that the
women in these studies appear to be more fearful of being a victim of crime in
nonpopulated park areas when there are no other people (exhibiting mutually
acceptable use) in the immediate area and the buffering effect of nonthreaten-
ing others may be greater for women than for men.
For the park visitors, it appears the gender of the visitor has more of an
influence on their level of fear than areas of concealment or presence of
people recreating (ηp
2 = .062). Perhaps women who recreate regularly in
park settings have developed a sense of familiarity to the setting, and in
turn, may employ coping type strategies that allow them to engage in recre-
ation activities of their choice (Henderson & Bialeschki, 1993; Westover,
1986; Whyte & Shaw, 1994). However, for the females in the student sam-
ple, fear of crime when recreating alone in a park setting was influenced
more by the levels of concealment in the setting (ηp
2 = .356) and the presence
or absence of another visitor recreating in the setting (ηp
2 = .587). The latter, the
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
People Present People Absent
Fear
Female
Male
Figure 3. Presence of People Recreating in the Park × Gender (student data).
at Texas A&M University - Medical Sciences Library on September 21, 2016eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Jorgensen et al. 815
presence or absence of people recreating in the park area, had more of an
influence on their fear of crime in that setting. This may be an indication
that women who do not visit parks regularly have not acquired the same
type of familiarity to the environmental setting and, as such, may not be
willing to recreate in parks.
Implications
The results of this study present important implications for park designers and
managers. The findings of this research suggest that fear of crime is dependent
on the presence or absence of another person recreating in the park setting
(nonthreatening others). Perhaps paths in parks can be designed and managed
to assure that some paths, at least, are designed and programmed to keep a
critical mass of people in sight of others at all times. This might include closing
off certain paths at low-use times, such as night, to assure greater presence of
people in higher use areas. Designing in natural surveillance opportunities
would also facilitate activating the informal policing powers of legitimate
visitors. Design for informal surveillance has long been a tenet of crime pre-
vention approaches, such as defensible space or Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design (CPTED; Crowe, 2000; Wekerle & Whitzman, 1995).
Park managers can reduce areas of concealment, while still maintaining the
beauty of the natural environment and/or attract more use to such areas.
When discussing environmental preferences and fear in outdoor settings,
Kaplan, Kaplan, and Ryan (1998) suggested that areas of blocked or
obstructed “visual access” create fear for people when in these type of areas
because blocked visual access can limit one’s ability to see out of that area,
seeing others in the area. They provide a number of design suggestions that
can be used to increase the visual access without taking away from visitors’
preferences. Some of their suggestions include opening up areas by reducing
shrubbery and creating open spaces of light, keeping tree canopies at eye
level, and removing low branches. This type of maintenance can maintain
the natural appeal of an area, while still allowing for a visual acuity inherent
in the area for those people recreating in an area alone.
One important CPTED strategy is to attract a diversity of use to a particu-
lar area. Founded in Jacob’s idea of “eyes on the streets,” the thought behind
this strategy is the more people in an area the less crime (Vrij & Winkel,
1991). For example, when a park or recreation area is designed to attract a
continual flow of people throughout the day and evening it will ensure an
informal surveillance in the area (Schweitzer, Kim, & Mackin, 1999). With
more people observing an area, crime and subsequent fear of crime will be
at Texas A&M University - Medical Sciences Library on September 21, 2016eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from
816 Environment and Behavior 45(7)
less likely. These types of design and programming strategies of attracting
diversity of use are also found in William Whyte’s recommendations for gen-
erating use of public places by providing amenities, such as cafes, that
enhance the social image and use of an area.
Park managers may also consider creating inclusive, equitable outdoor
recreation experiences for women by providing various types of programs
and services that directly address women’s fear of crime when recreating
alone in a park setting. Recreation managers and programmers can facili-
tate this by creating programs that provide women park visitors with infor-
mation regarding various types of coping strategies to promote safety in
parks and outdoor recreation environments, such as adding information
signage along trailheads and paths, distributing information on recreating
safely in the park, and/or coordinating programs specifically designed for
this need, including partner (or group) walks, self-defense courses, and/or
community awareness classes.
A number of limitations deserve acknowledgment. First, although both
studies identified social and environmental influences on fear, reported lev-
els of fear never exceeded the midpoint of the 7-point scale. Other outcomes,
such as perceived risk might show different results (Wyant, 2008). This may
indicate that although people may experience a level of fear of crime in cer-
tain areas of a park setting, such as in areas of high concealment with no
people present, that fear is not very high, or it may indicate the conditions
depicted in the photographs used for this study may not have evoked respon-
dent’s fear of crime. The latter may be due to a number of extenuating fac-
tors, such as sample characteristics, location of the study, and/or familiarity
with parks in general (although the photographs came from parks in a differ-
ent state from the participants). Greater fear ratings might be obtained by
varying the places where samples are drawn, including more crime-prone
cities or low-income areas (Taylor, 2001), or including incivilities as a factor
in the photographs, such as including some inappropriate visitors in the pho-
tographs of park visitors or signs of poor park maintenance (Brower, 1980).
In addition, other fields considering environmental cues have begun to move
away from photographic representations of sites to more interactive, simu-
lated types of measurements (Heft & Nasar, 2000; Wang & Taylor, 2006)
that represent a more “real” experience. Future research in this area may
include simulations of an individual walking through a park environment
and rating level of fear as the environment changes across levels of conceal-
ment and whether people are recreating in an area.
This research, if replicable, could be used by park designers and manag-
ers to provide equitable opportunities for outdoor experiences for all
at Texas A&M University - Medical Sciences Library on September 21, 2016eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Jorgensen et al. 817
community members. A feeling of safety in parks is “a prerequisite to the
use of urban open spaces” (Kaplan et al., 1998, p. 32). Gaining an under-
standing of how both environmental and social cues interact to influence
park visitors’ fears of crime in a community park setting provides park man-
agers, landscape planners, and policy makers the opportunity to manage col-
lectively for safe environments and quality recreation experiences.
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 pub-
lication of this article.
References
Appleton, J. (1975). The experience of landscape. New York, NY: John Wiley.
Blöbaum, A., & Hunecke, M. (2005). Perceived danger in urban public space. Envi-
ronment and Behavior, 37, 465-486.
Brower, S., Dockett, K., & Taylor, R. B. (1983). Residents’ perceptions of territorial
features and perceived local threat. Environment and Behavior, 15, 419.
Brower, S. N. (1980). Territory in urban settings. In I. Altman, A. Rapoport, &
J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Human behavior and environment: Advances in theory and
research. Volume 4: Environment and culture (pp. 179-207).
Brown, B. B., Werner, C. M., Amburgey, J. W., & Szalay, C. (2007). Walkable route
perceptions and physical features: Converging evidence for en route walking
experiences. Environment and Behavior, 39, 34-61.
Cops, D., & Pleysier, S. (2011). “Doing gender” in fear of crime: The impact of gen-
der identity on reported levels of fear of crime in adolescents and young adults.
British Journal of Criminology, 51, 58-74.
Cranz, G. (1982). The politics of park design: A history of urban parks in America.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Crowe, T. D. (2000). Crime prevention through environmental design. Woburn, MA:
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Ferraro, K. F. (1996). Women’s fear of victimization: Shadow of sexual assault?
Social Forces, 75, 667-690.
Fisher, B. S., & Nasar, J. L. (1992). Fear of crime in relation to three exterior site
features. Environment and Behavior, 24, 35-65.
Fisher, B., & Nasar, J. L. (1995). Fear spots in relation to microlevel physical cues:
Exploring the overlooked. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 32, 214.
at Texas A&M University - Medical Sciences Library on September 21, 2016eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from
818 Environment and Behavior 45(7)
Garofalo, J. (1981). The fear of crime: Causes and consequences. The Journal of
Criminal Law and Criminology, 72, 839-857.
Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order. New York,
NY: Basic Books
Hale, C. (1996). Fear of crime: A review of the literature. International Review of
Victimology, 4, 79-150.
Heft, H., & Nasar, J. L. (2000). Evaluating environmental scenes using dynamic ver-
sus static displays. Environment and Behavior, 32, 301-322.
Henderson, K. A., & Bialeschki, D. (1993). Fear as a constraint to active lifestyles for
females. Journal of Physical Education Recreation & Dance, 64, 44-44.
Herzog, T. R., & Miller, E. J. (1998). The role of mystery in perceived danger and
environmental preference. Environment and Behavior, 30, 429-449.
Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., & Ryan, R. L. (1998). With people in mind: Design and man-
agement of everyday nature. Washington, DC: Island Press.
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.
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 &
Delinquency, 29, 311-334.
Major, W. F. (2008). Is safety a concern for women runners? Academic Leadership
Journal, 6, 51-55.
Mannell, R. C., & Kleiber, D. A. (1997). A social psychology of leisure. State College,
PA: Venture.
Manning, R. E. (1999). Studies in outdoor recreation: Search and research for satis-
faction. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press.
Marans, R. W. (1993). Environmental simulation. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Nasar, J. L., & Fisher, B. (1993). “Hot spots” of fear and crime: A multi-method inves-
tigation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13, 187-206.
Nasar, J. L., Fisher, B., & Grannis, M. (1993). Proximate physical cues to fear of
crime. Landscape and Urban Planning, 26, 161-178.
Nasar, J. L., & Jones, K. M. (1997). Landscapes of fear and stress. Environment and
Behavior, 29, 291-323.
Nasar, J. L., Julian, D., Buchman, S., Humphreys, D., & Mrohaly, M. (1983). The
emotional quality of scenes and observation points: A look at prospect and refuge.
Landscape Planning, 10, 355-361.
Pain, R. (2001). Gender, race, age and fear in the city. Urban Studies, 38, 899-913.
Price-Spratlen, T., & Santoro, W. A. (2011). Neighborhood disorder and individual
community capacity: How incivilities inform three domains of psychosocial
assessment. Sociological Spectrum, 31, 579-605.
at Texas A&M University - Medical Sciences Library on September 21, 2016eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Jorgensen et al. 819
Robinson, J. B., Lawton, B. A., Taylor, R. B., & Perkins, D. D. (2003). Multilevel
longitudinal impacts of incivilities: Fear of crime, expected safety, and block sat-
isfaction. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 19, 237-274.
Roman, C. G., & Chalfin, A. (2008). Fear of walking outdoors. A multilevel ecologic
analysis of crime and disorder. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 34,
306-312.
Schweitzer, J. H., Kim, J. W., & Mackin, J. R. (1999). The impact of the built envi-
ronment on crime and fear of crime in urban neighborhoods. Journal of Urban
Technology, 6, 59-73.
Stanko, E. A. (1995). Women, crime, and fear. Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science, 539, 46-58.
Taylor, R. B. (2001). Breaking away from broken windows: Baltimore neighborhoods
and the nationwide fight against crime, grime, fear, and decline. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Vrij, A., & Winkel, F. W. (1991). Characteristics of the built environment and fear of
crime: A research note on interventions in unsafe locations. Deviant Behavior, 12,
203-215.
Wang, K., & Taylor, R. B. (2006). Simulated walks through dangerous alleys:
Impacts of features and progress on fear. Journal of Environmental Psychology,
26, 269-283.
Warr, M. (1984). Fear of victimization: Why are women and the elderly more afraid.
Social Science Quarterly, 65, 681-702.
Warr, M. (1990). Dangerous situations: Social context and fear of victimization.
Social Forces, 68, 891-907.
Wekerle, G., & Whitzman, C. (1995). Safe cities: Guidelines for planning, design and
management. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Westover, T. N. (1986). Park use and perception: Gender differences. Journal of Park
and Recreation Administration, 4, 1-8.
Whyte, L., & Shaw, S. (1994). Women’s leisure: An exploratory study of fear of vio-
lence as a leisure constraint. Journal of Applied Recreation Research, 19, 5-21.
Whyte, W. H. (1980). The social life of small urban spaces. New York, NY: Project
for Public Spaces.
Wilson, J., & Kelling, G. (1982). Broken windows. Atlantic, 249, 29-38.
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 & Delinquency, 45, 39, 39-64.
Author Biographies
Lisa J. Jorgensen is an assistant professor with the Department of Recreation, Parks
and Tourism Administration at California State University, Sacramento. Her areas of
at Texas A&M University - Medical Sciences Library on September 21, 2016eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from
820 Environment and Behavior 45(7)
research have been in fear of crime in community park settings, women’s constraints
to leisure, and coping behaviors.
Gary D. Ellis is professor and head of the Department of Recreation, Park and
Tourism Sciences in the Texas A&M System. His research interests are in staging
recreation experiences, youth development, and management in the experience
industries.
Edward Ruddell is an associate professor for the Department of Parks, Recreation,
and Tourism at the University of Utah. His research includes environmental interpre-
tation, philosophy of leisure, recreation goal interference and conflict, social psychol-
ogy of leisure, and restorative environments and scenic beauty.
at Texas A&M University - Medical Sciences Library on September 21, 2016eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from
