Content uploaded by Ismail Onat
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ismail Onat on Oct 25, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Research Article
Volume - 4 Issue 3 - August 2017
DOI: 10.19080/JFSCI.2017.04.555643
J Forensic Sci & Criminal Inves
Copyright © All rights are reserved by Ismail Onat
Social Incivilities and Perception of Safety: A
Qualitative Comparison between Commuters
and Residents
Ismail Onat* and Nusret M Sahin
Criminology Department, University of Scranton, USA
Indiana University South Bend, USA
Submission: August 15, 2017; Published: August 24, 2017
*Corresponding author: Ismail Onat, Sociology, Criminal Justice and Criminology Department, University of Scranton, O’Hara Hall, 800 Linden
Street, Scranton, PA 18510, USA, Email:
J Forensic Sci & Criminal Inves 4(3): JFSCI.MS.ID.555643 (2017) 001
Introduction
An environment with its social and physical features plays
a key role in affecting how safe the occupants perceive a place.
As a unique environment, the college campus has garnered a
addresses the feeling of safety on university campuses [1-9]. For
the most part, the studies on safety perception among college
students focused on gender difference. However, the familiarity
with and the time spent on a campus also matter to how safe the
students perceive a campus. Besides, few studies have examined
although safety perception of college campuses has a large body
of research.
The current research assumes the time spent on campus
may be a mitigating factor in the relationship between
perception of safety and the gender of students. In addition,
fear-provoking social cues in the settings may have differential
impacts on resident and commuter students of the same campus,
regardless of gender. This study tests this assumption with
student interviews in an open college campus of the Rutgers
University in Newark, New Jersey. Taking social incivilities into
consideration, the current research contributes to the literature
with a qualitative comparison of safety perception between
residents and commuters on the same university campus.
Findings help to focus on where to manage public behavior to
modify the perceived safety.
Literature Review
Personal safety is associated with physical and social
contexts as well as personal factors [10,11]. Perceived personal
safety is related to feeling free from the fear that may arise from
any harm [11]. According to Warr [12], “When individuals face an
ostensibly dangerous environment, they may naturally experience
fear for their own personal safety.” The differential features of
social environments in urban settings have been largely probed
example, Taylor [16] observed that a socio-physical environment
Abstract
living vs. commuting respondents to the area when taking also gender into consideration. It examines the link between perceived safety and
environmental cues while considering that familiarity with the area, independent of gender difference, can mitigate in this relationship. The
research draws on in-depth interviews with twenty-eight students of a university campus in an urban city. Homeless people, street vendors,
beggars, and people congregating at street corner were the recurring themes across interviews. The results of the analysis suggest that the
commuter group correlates the importune begging and congregating on streets with safety, without a gender difference among respondents.
In addition, female respondents more frequently reported homeless people as a problem, without a residential difference among the female
Keywords: Campus safety; Homeless; Street vendor; Beggar; Group congregation
Journal of Forensic Sciences & Criminal Investigation
How to cite this article: Ismail O, Nusret M S. Social Incivilities and Perception of Safety: A Qualitative Comparison between Commuters and Residents.
J Forensic Sci & Criminal Inves. 2017; 4(3): 555643. DOI: 10.19080/JFSCI.2017.04.555643.
002
different individuals report varying levels of fear in the same
area. However, the research on the link between the social
environment and safety concerns has been mostly quantitative
[16], and more studies are needed to unfold the mechanism and
processes in this relationship.
In the literature on campus safety, scholars previously
or gender difference in perceiving danger [2,5,7]. Since crime
occurs in different settings with distinct social and physical
characteristics, fear arising from crime, similarly, varies by
behavior in public places. Most qualitative research on the safety
of university campuses has not captured the resident-commuter
difference in the impact of social incivilities on safety perception.
environment with the perception of safety, this current study is
basically focused on three ecological themes that emerged from
the qualitative data and the literature review. The recurring
themes across interviews with college students were associated
with the street homeless people, street vendors, beggars, and
people congregating at street corners in the relevant literature.
According to Wilson and Kelling 1982, when a community
experiences disorder in public places, the residents feel
threatening behavior that disturbs life in, especially, urban
areas [17]. The disorderly social behaviors might be in the
forms of, among many others, rowdy teenagers congregating
around street corners, drinking in public, or panhandling.
Social disorder is mainly about the situations involving anti-
social behavior in the neighborhood [15,18]. Arguably, social
setting. Also known as incivilities thesis [19], “broken windows”
theory posits that unchecked physical disorder and untended
disorderly social behavior cause residents of an area to be
their neighborhood weakens. According to [20], the incivilities
underlie signs of crime or its related clues. Thus, the presence
of incivilities might raise an individual`s fear directly [21-23]
or indirectly [13,15,21,24]. In other words, the perception of
high levels of social disorder in a particular place is related to
higher levels of fear of crime [18,21,25-29]. However, some
argued that the perception of environment in a neighborhood
may vary from one person to another based on their familiarity
with the environment [16,19,30]. The perception of safety
about the same locality may also differ between residents and
nonresidents. Empirical research on campus safety mostly
compared the perception and fear by gender. Fisher and May
groups congregating was the fear-provoking cues to them. But,
Patton and Gregory [8] reported that the gender difference in
of 11,161 college students.
Drawing on this literature review, the current study examines
perceived safety that in turn causes safety concern on
campus;
c) Whether the students` perceptions vary by the state of
residency on or off the campus.
Methodology
Procedures
The current research was based on the in-depth interviews
with a sample of 28 Rutgers University students who continued
their college education on campus in Newark, New Jersey. The
research team consisted of graduate students to collect the data
for this study during the fall semester in 2013. Doctoral students
of the Rutgers School of Criminal Justice program conducted
interviews with undergraduate students of the Rutgers Newark
campus. Researchers used a semi structured interview guide to
ensure a standard in the data collection. Before deciding what
questions to ask participants, the researchers met with a ranked
learn more about safety related issues on the campus. Then,
the interview guide was prepared with the contribution of
researchers in order to collect data by each researcher`s area
of interest. The in-depth interviews were semi structured,
with open-ended questions that enabled considerable probing.
Research involved 28 interviews in total.
the different departments of the Rutgers University in Newark,
but it ended up being somewhat overloaded with criminal justice
students. As the members of the research team were graduate
students in the criminal justice program, the college students
were reached at their classrooms by one researcher from our
research team. Those who were willing to participate in provided
the research representative with their email addresses. Then, the
researcher who invited the student to participate in our research
assigned a volunteer to each of other researchers. However, not
every student who provided his or her email address responded
to the invitation emails from the members of researcher’s team,
thus some of them did not participate in interviews.
Data Analysis
With respect to sample characteristics, the subjects ranged
in age from 18 to 34, with the mean age 22.14. They were from
different races, of which 5 were African American, 2 Haitian-
American, 6 multiracial, 5 Hispanic, 3 South Asian, and 7 White.
The sample was balanced in gender, as 14 participants were
male, 13 female, and 1 gender queer. The sample included 22
U.S. citizens and 6 international students. The subjects were not
students, 6 two-year students, 2 two-and-a-half year students,
How to cite this article: Ismail O, Nusret M S. Social Incivilities and Perception of Safety: A Qualitative Comparison between Commuters and Residents.
J Forensic Sci & Criminal Inves. 2017; 4(3): 555643. DOI: 10.19080/JFSCI.2017.04.555643.
003
Journal of Forensic Sciences & Criminal Investigation
education also varied. The research team interviewed students
from Criminal Justice (11), Psychology (5), Political Science
(3), Accounting (2), English (2), Actuarial Science (1), Geology
(1), Medical Imaging (1), Journalism (1), and Social Work (1)
departments.
The sample was also balanced with respect to participants`
state of residency on campus. The current study is mainly
interested in the relationship of environmental factors with
safety perception, and the basic assumption is that the perception
of safety may change by the state of residency, particularly
between residents and nonresidents of campus. Accordingly,
the sample included 11 participants who are living on campus, 2
near campus, and 15 off campus. For the ease of analysis, those
living near campus were included into the group of the resident
students.
The students who were commuters or campus residents
in this study were comparable on a number of demographic
characteristics. The resident participants were younger (mean
age= 20.85 years) than their commuter counterparts (mean
Among commuters 8 students were male, 7 were female. In
the residents` group, 6 participants were male, 6 female and 1
gender queer. The representativeness of a sample of students
on the Rutgers Newark campus could not be determined
conclusively because the parameters of the population are
unknown. Nevertheless, we took steps to make our sample more
representative. For example, we initiated a selection process
interviews. Participants were contacted after screening their
race, gender, residence, and years in the university to balance
the sample on these parameters. The criterion for selecting race,
gender, and years in college was based on the previous studies
After the selection of the sample, the semi-structured
interviews were conducted informally. The interviews were
consent, and then transcribed verbatim. The researchers
were close to the participants in age, and the interviews
concepts and terminology. Interview participants were granted
a ten-dollar Starbucks gift card for their participation in the
research. The result was a relaxed atmosphere that appeared
one hour to one and a half hours. The general impression was
that the interviewees thought seriously about the questions and
responded truthfully. The students took part in the research
voluntarily. To preserve their anonymity, respondents are
results of this research are presented in a qualitative form.
Study Setting
Rutgers Newark Campus is located in Newark City that is a
distressed urban city. Newark is the largest city in New Jersey.
According to 2010 United States Census, its population is about
280,000 people [31]. Poverty is a consistent problem in the city
with one-third of population being impoverished [32]. Crime is
also an important issue of the city. The Rutgers Newark Campus
is not physically isolated from the rest of Newark City. There
are over 2,000 students living on campus between Rutgers
University - Newark, as well as Rutgers Biomedical and Health
space that any person can use.
Findings
about the perception of safety of the interviewees. One
question measured the environmental factors that could shape
individual`s safety perception. Interviewers asked respondents
“whether there are particular people, places or things in the
environment that make them feel more (or less) safe at times.”
Another question was “whether they have been worried about
their safety”, to which responses included the expressions of
thoughts about the environment. With respect to social disorder,
the most frequent mentions were about homeless people,
vendors, beggars, and a group of people standing on the corner.
College students reported their ideas about disorder and safety
concerns in 19 interviews (about 64%). Table 1 illustrates the
frequencies of the mentioned cues by the residency status and
gender. The following part is a qualitative analysis that is useful
to understand the nature of the relationship between perception
of environment and safety.
Table 1: Mention frequency by categories of residency and gender.
Incivilities Residents Commuters Male Female
Homeless 5 5 4 7
Street
vendor 2 2 2 2
Beggar 2 7 3 4
Congregating
on streets 2 5 3 4
Social Disorder
The college students used various words about boorish
behavior of other people, which causes a feeling of danger. They
talked about homeless people, beggars, vendors, candy sellers
or youth congregating at a street corner and yelling passersby.
“obnoxious”, “inconvenient”, “invading your space”,
“junkies”, and “unstable.”
Homeless
In this study, the views on homeless people as a safety concern
were more of a resident-commuter similarity than difference. In
Journal of Forensic Sciences & Criminal Investigation
How to cite this article: Ismail O, Nusret M S. Social Incivilities and Perception of Safety: A Qualitative Comparison between Commuters and Residents.
J Forensic Sci & Criminal Inves. 2017; 4(3): 555643. DOI: 10.19080/JFSCI.2017.04.555643.
004
mentioning homelessness, female respondents outnumbered
male students by seven to four. For some, homeless people are
not harmful, though they elicit discomfort for the students in an
environment. As an example of this similarity, Amina, (female
people are not dangerous. Amina, a junior student in economics
program, noted there are homeless people on campus, and they
give a feeling of discomfort rather than insecurity. The discomfort
comes from their cursing or yelling at people.
“…even in front of my dorm sometimes there are like people
who might make your feel uncomfortable like homeless people
and I don’t want to offend them in any way. …, [one of them]
was obviously homeless and he was constantly cursing at people
because they weren’t giving him money and all that. That’s like I
wouldn’t say I felt insecure because he can’t really do anything
to me right there. It just makes me uncomfortable sometimes.”
justice program- is that their behaviors are unpredictable, as she
witnessed a homeless person happened to walk into classrooms
and tried to snatch food from somebody:
“I had a situation that there are homeless people. I am not
saying that there is something wrong with them, but there was a
situation once I remember during the summer, homeless person
literally walked in to the classroom and he was trying to snatch
food from somebody. I feel like this is kind of crossing the line,
you know, yea you are within the campus area. It is public, but I
would not want him to come into the building. I am not saying
that they will do anything to me, but it just makes me feel
uncomfortable. It’s not that it is just you know like people when
they’re hungry or scared or whatever, they might do different
things, you know so.”
For the harmfulness of homeless people, there was a
variation of thoughts among participants who see homeless as
not dangerous. A female resident and freshman student, Chante
noted that “they’re not harming anyone but in a way it’s kinda like
why are these people on here.” Besides their yelling and cursing,
homeless people ask students for money. One participant
mentioned this when asked whether there is anything good or
bad living on campus. A male campus resident and junior in
Criminal Justice program, Brad remarked, “bad! I would say there
is always like you know homeless people asking you for money. It`s
just inconvenient. It doesn’t make me feel good about where I am
when that happens.”
The presence of homeless people is also a reason for avoiding
a public place. Though most homeless people are not dangerous
for her, Christian, a male commuter and freshman in Accounting
program, said, “Especially the business school, right here, it’s just
a building located there and it’s near places that I wouldn’t want
to hang out. You see homeless people around.” For others, it was
not the case that homeless people are not harmful. Around the
campus, there are people asking students for money, introducing
himself as a homeless veteran. When the students do not oblige
the homeless people’s request for money, these people begin to
curse at the students. Sometimes they can even threat the people
who are present in the immediate environment. A male resident
and freshmen student in English department, Waverly sees
them as scaring and unstable. A female commuter and junior in
Criminal Justice program, Lauren sums this up in her narrative
about a frightening situation of hers and her friend:
“… I was outside with my friend and there was this guy who
approached us asking for money – not money food. But he was like,
“I’m a war veteran.” … “And my wife left me so now I’m homeless
and I don’t have money to eat so I’m just trying to get some food.”
And we were like, “I have a card, like a debit card. There’s a truck
there. I can get you food.” And he was like, “No, I just need the
cash.” Blah blah blah! So then my friend was like, “Here are two
dollars.” And a lot of people don’t carry cash around anymore like
… I usually just have the debit card or the credit card because
that’s like, if I need it, I’ll use it in the store or something. Um,
and when we gave him the money, he actually was like: “This is
S-.” The S-word. And he’s like, “I can`t buy nothing with this.”.. We
can get a hot dog for like a dollar at that truck… But we were
trying to tell him like, “there’s a truck there that would give you
food for $2.” And he like, screaming, kind of getting closer to
my friend and cursing or saying how we’re inconsiderate.
He was saying, “You’re just generalizing me. I’m not gonna go get
drugs. I’m gonna go get food.” I’m like yea but there’s a truck right
there where you can go get food at, right there. he was like I cant
get anything for $2. He just left screaming. He was getting closer
to my friend so my friend was like, “You do that again, I’m gonna
punch you in the face. Get away from me.” And it was just like, okay,
at that point, something’s about to happen right now and I don’t
want to be a part of it. When he left and started like, screaming
about whatever he was screaming about He got away and left. It
was a guy. We probably wouldn’t have told him anything.”
Based on her own experience with a homeless on campus,
Tamara, a female commuter and senior student majoring in
Social Work, was not as comfortable as other participants in
arguing that a homeless can`t do anything wrong to a person.
Furthermore, she avoided places where homeless people were
walking around because they are “approaching you and
invading your space”.
“... there is homeless people always walking around. They
always approaching you, invading your space…. I’m in Subway
[a restaurant on campus] and this guy he walks up to me. He is not
saying anything, but he knows (mumbles), I’m like okay he is just
staring at me. And so the guy, the store owner goes (acts out like a
move away action), he is yelling at him get out. But I mean frequent
homeless people walking in and out of Subway and stuff like that.
So it kind of makes you nervous, cause you don’t know what
peoples intentions are nowadays, so I love my Subway but I try
How to cite this article: Ismail O, Nusret M S. Social Incivilities and Perception of Safety: A Qualitative Comparison between Commuters and Residents.
J Forensic Sci & Criminal Inves. 2017; 4(3): 555643. DOI: 10.19080/JFSCI.2017.04.555643.
005
Journal of Forensic Sciences & Criminal Investigation
to just get it and go. I will just grab a sandwich and eat it in my
class, I feel much safer eating it in my class…. in Smith Hall, last
semester specially in the summer time. I took a summer course and
this lady, I won’t say she is homeless but she had a lot of baggage
with her in the building, she kept going around asking people for
money and I’m like okay, what is she doing here. Everyone pretty
much ignored here, then she started lashing out, just cursing and
stuff. But there was no security on site, like who knows she could
have attacked somebody been, ran out the building and went her
look into on campus…”
In this sample of college students, the most common form of
social incivility reported by students was the homeless people
in and around the campus. Homeless people beg for money,
and they do this not for their needs but just for more money.
In our sample, not every respondent had an experience with a
homeless person, but the discomfort that homeless people cause
in general was spoken about among the students.
Street Vendors
Four participants similarly reported that people who sell
items on the streets make them uncomfortable in the area. The
wording also varied by respondent, which included “vendors”,
“people trying to sell you stuff on street”, and “candy sellers”. While
Quinn (a male resident and sophomore in Business program)
street vendors are doing as harassment. Tough she did not
witness a robbery case directly, Yardley (a female resident and
junior in Criminal Justice program) linked her experience with
a candy seller to an armed robbery incident when she told, “I
saw this guy with a little girl, and they were selling candy
on campus. And then, like, weeks later they sent out an
email saying that it was a strong-arm robbery where the
guy who was selling candy forced a guy to give money, like,
a donation.”
The street vendors bother some students too, and how
description of places where he avoids:
“.. there’s places that I just don’t go just because I don’t
really have to go there… it’s mainly because there’s always
like vendors there and they’re always trying to hustle you.
They’re just like “yeah, “I’ve got a hat for two bucks man, two
bucks!”: And that’s the main reason. It’s not safety, it’s just
more of a, a hassle or annoyance more than anything else…
they—it’s more of an annoyance than anything else. It’s just like
“I don’t wanna buy—like I’m a dude, why would I wanna buy
your purses?”.. “Stop haggling me for money for your addiction or
whatever it is that you might have.”… “I feel bad for you, but it’s
just like I don’t wanna be the one that’s helping you with it.” I was
just like “I’m sorry if it makes you feel like an a-hole for ignoring
you, but that’s how it is... Yeah. I try to like, if I have like, some
pocket change from like a previous transaction, I’ll be like “alright,
this is all the change I have.”.. And like I won’t give him like my
dollar bills, but I’ll give him like coins. I have, like I’ve maybe some
karma or some.. (laughs).”
In residential-versus-commuter comparison, two
respondents were resident, and two commuters also mentioned
vendors. This balance was also observed in gender as two
students were male and two female.
Beggars
Six participants in the sample, which included three residents
and three commuters, mentioned that some people asked them
used the words “sketchy people”, “beggar”, or “panhandler” to
describe these people. With respect to the feelings that their
behaviors caused in students, the participants stated that those
behaviors heightened students` concerns about safety. For
Shaun, “it is like a turn-off. It sort of deters me from, from
even, sometimes umm, walkin’ throughout the campus and
just, you know”, which should be policed too.
People Congregating at Street Corners
Seven subjects in our research had reports about this
“a
group of people standing on the corner”, “a crowd of people”,
“gang members around corner stores”, or “people congregating
in certain blocks”. Our respondents expressed their feelings as
“raising awareness”, “having a feeling of what`s going on”, or
“it`s like I can`t walk this area by myself” as seen in Heather`s
accounts, who was a female commuter and freshman in Criminal
Justice program:
“…So I walked over and there was like a group of people
standing on the corner. Obviously they were African Americans.
They were males, and uh, you know, I’m walking and they were
like, “Yeah white meat,” you know, like, yeah and I was, “Nope.” And
I turned around. I went back. I was like, “I’m not doing this because
I know Newark is not the safest of places.” So it’s like I can’t - I
can’t walk in that area by myself” Commuters were different
who mentioned it were commuters. Four female and three male
students talked about this social incivility.
Discussion and Conclusion
This study examined the cues in the social environment that
provoke safety concerns of the students of a college campus. The
recurring words used by participants were associated with four
main concepts in the relevant literature; homeless people, street
vendors, beggars, congregations at street corner. Few studies
safety of campus, and they compared gender difference in this
perception. To contribute to the body of research on campus
safety, the current study compared whether and how commuters
Journal of Forensic Sciences & Criminal Investigation
How to cite this article: Ismail O, Nusret M S. Social Incivilities and Perception of Safety: A Qualitative Comparison between Commuters and Residents.
J Forensic Sci & Criminal Inves. 2017; 4(3): 555643. DOI: 10.19080/JFSCI.2017.04.555643.
006
and residents perceive the same environment differently on their
safety by taking gender difference into consideration across
the themes. Such an analysis is important in three respects.
To improve quality of life on campus, practically important is
the environment as unsafe. Besides, familiarity with campus is
related to time spent on site, and the perception may vary by
residential status, regardless of gender. Further, prior studies did
not comprehensively address all the social cues in one setting as
the current research does. With all those aspects in mind, the
accounts of 13 campus residents and 15 commuter students
were examined. The sample was also balanced in gender with 14
female, 13 male and 1 genders queer.
Beggars and people congregating at street corners were
more frequently expressed in the commuter group. In comparing
perception by gender, homeless people were more frequently
to themes under the category of social disorder, the presence
of homeless people was reported as a reason for avoiding a
public place. There was not an observable contrast between
residents and commuters in their views about homeless people,
though more female students talked about homelessness. Some
participants viewed homeless people as dangerous, while
others did not do so. These safety concerns were observed in
other studies as well [33-35]. Although students reported
their views differently on homeless people, some evaluated the
physical closeness of an aggressive homeless as harmless but
uncomfortable in various respects.
There is a scant attention in the literature on the safety
aspect of vending legally on streets for people of the area, and he
views about street vendors are mixed. For some, street-sellers
and safety of streets [36], and they were also associated with
safety risks for others [37]. The latter was distinctly observed
in our sample of college students, and some participants
further stated them to be a hustle or annoyance when street
vendors importunely insisted them to buy what they were
selling. It also turned out that importunely asking for money
occurred in three different forms; homeless begging for money,
beggars/panhandlers, and street vendors. Though the students
distinguished the themes, future research should probe whether
and how the students view those three groups differently.
Commuter respondents more frequently mentioned the
presence of beggars and panhandlers around to be a concern
for safety in accord with the previous literature [38,39]. The last
aspect of social disorder was congregations on streets. People
who congregate at street corners may be perceived offensive
towards passers bys with even their presence, and the current
Thinking back the familiarity of an occupant with the area, in
the relevant literature is also the argument that knowledge of an
area might have a protective effect on perception when people
know each other and the area around the clock [39-41]. Our
attention on groups loitering such as “how do you feel when
you see a group loitering in and around the campus?” However,
the observation that commuters more frequently matched this
theme with their safety lends partial support to the protective
effect of familiarity with the area on how the occupants perceive
it, and thus the residents might not have mentioned them to
the same extent. To explore further, future research should
ask the subjects how they perceive when a group of people are
congregating and loitering around the street corners.
The research had limitations as well. As eluded to above,
participants were predominantly from criminal justice program
in our interviews, though the sample included students from ten
versus-night-time comparison were not in our interviews. Given
that the questions in the interview were open-ended for the
relationship between the social incivilities and safety concerns,
built object or behavior on campus; these patterns suggest that
on the perception of college students not only by gender but also
by their familiarity with the campus.
individual in the open-campus universities since people from
On the other hand, there is no doubt that feeling safe increases
the quality of life for the members of a community, including the
college students. For the safety and comfort of college students,
other institutions with similar ecological features might also
the environment while future research should probe more
educational facilities.
References
1. Day K (1994) Conceptualizing women’s fear of sexual assault on
campus: A review of causes and recommendations for change.
Environment and Behavior 26(6): 742-765.
2. Fisher BS, May D (2009) College Students’ Crime-Related Fears on
Campus Are Fear-Provoking Cues Gendered?. Journal of Contemporary
Criminal Justice 25(3): 300-321.
3. Hilinski CM (2009) Fear of crime among college students: A test of the
shadow of sexual assault hypothesis. American Journal of Criminal
Justice 34(1-2): 84-102.
4. Kelly BT, Torres A (2006) Campus safety: Perceptions and experiences
of women students. Journal of College Student Development 47(1): 20-
36.
5. Kirk NL (1988) Factors affecting perceptions of safety in a campus
environment. EDRA: Environmental Design Research Association 19:
215-221.
6. McConnell EH (1997) Fear of crime on campus: A study of a Southern
university. Journal of Security Administration 20(2): 22-46.
How to cite this article: Ismail O, Nusret M S. Social Incivilities and Perception of Safety: A Qualitative Comparison between Commuters and Residents.
J Forensic Sci & Criminal Inves. 2017; 4(3): 555643. DOI: 10.19080/JFSCI.2017.04.555643.
007
Journal of Forensic Sciences & Criminal Investigation
7. Nasar JL, Jones KM (1997) Landscapes of fear and stress. Environment
and behavior 29(3): 291-323.
8. Patton RC, Gregory DE (2014) Perceptions of safety by on-campus
location, rurality, and type of security/police force: The case of the
community college. Journal of college student development 55(5):
451-460.
9. Wilcox P, Jordan CE, Pritchard AJ (2007) A multidimensional
examination of campus safety: Victimization, perceptions of danger,
worry about crime, and precautionary behavior among college women
in the post-Clery era. Crime and Delinquency 53(2): 219-254.
10. Blöbaum A, Hunecke M (2005) Perceived danger in urban public space:
The impacts of physical features and personal factors. Environment
and Behavior 37(4): 465-486.
11. Waters J, Neale RH, Hutson S, Mears K (2004) Personal safety on
method. In: Khosrowshahi F (Eds.), 20th Annual ARCOM Conference,
University of Glamorgan, Llantwit Road, Pontypridd, CF37 1DL, UK, 1:
411-418.
12. Warr M (2000) Fear of crime in the United States: Avenues for research
and policy. Criminal justice 4(4): 451-489.
13. Ferraro, Kenneth F (1995) Fear of crime: Interpreting victimization
risk. Albany: State University of New York Press, USA.
14. Garofalo J, Laub J (1978) The fear of crime: Broadening our perspective.
Victimology 3: 242-253.
15. LaGrange RL, Ferraro KF, Supancic M (1992) Perceived risk and fear
of crime: Role of social and physical incivilities. Journal of Research in
Crime and Delinquency (29): 31-334.
16. Taylor RB (2001) Breaking Away from Broken Windows: Baltimore
Evidence and Implications for the Nationwide Fight Against Crime,
Grime, Fear and Decline, Westview Press, New York, USA.
17. Kelling G, Coles CM (1996) Fixing Broken Windows: Restoring and
Reducing Crime in Our Communities. Free Press, New York, USA.
18. Skogan W (1990) Disorder and decline. Free Press, New York, USA.
19. Harcourt BE (2001) Illusion of Disorder. The False Promise of Broken
Windows Policing. Cambridge, USA.
20.
Neighborhood Reactions. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, USA.
21. Covington J, Taylor RB (1991) Fear of crime in urban residential
neighborhoods: Implications of between-and within-neighborhood
sources for current models. Sociological Quarterly 32: 231-249.
22. Perkins DD, Taylor RB (1996) Ecological Assessments of Community
Disorder: Their Relationship to Fear of Crime and Theoretical
Implications. American Journal of Community Psychology 24: 63-107.
23. Robinson JB, Lawton BA, Taylor RB, Perkins D (2003) Multilevel
longitudinal impacts of incivilities: Fear of crime, expected safety, and
block satisfaction. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 19: 237-274.
24. Rountree PW, Land KC (1996) Perceived risk versus fear of crime:
Empirical evidence of conceptually distinct reactions in survey data.
Social forces 74(1): 1353-1376.
25. Bursik RJ, HG Grasmick (1993) Neighborhoods and crime: the
dimensions of effective community control. Lexington Books, New
York, USA.
26. Lewis DA, Salem G (1986) Fear of crime: Incivility and the Production
of a Social Problem., NJ: Transaction Books, New Brunswick, USA.
27. Markowitz FE, PE Bellair, AE Liska, J Liu (2001) Extending social
disorganization theory: modeling the relationships between cohesion,
disorder, and fear. Criminology 39: 293.
28. McGarrell EF, Giacomazzi AL, Thurman QC (1997) Neighborhood
Disorder, Integration, and the Fear of Crime. Justice Quarterly 14(3):
479-500.
29. Taylor RB, Hale M (1986) Testing alternative models of fear of crime.
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 77: 151-189.
30. Martin-Storey A, Crosnoe R (2014) Perceived Neighborhood Safety and
Adolescent School Functioning. Applied developmental science 18(2):
61-75.
31. US Bureau of the Census (2015) Population estimates: Newark, New
Jersey, US.
32. Joshua (2017) “Report: Newarkers Among New Jersey’s Poorest”. New
York, USA.
33. Gearin E, Kahle C (2006) Teen and adult perceptions of urban green
space Los Angeles. Children Youth and Environments 16(1): 25-48.
34.
M, et al. (2016) Attitudes of medical students towards homeless
people. Probl Hig Epidemiol 97(4): 377-381.
35. Perkins DD, Wandersman A, Rich RC, Taylor RB (1993) The physical
environment of street crime: Defensible space, territoriality and
incivilities. Journal of Environmental Psychology 13(1): 29-49.
36. Jacobs J (1961) The death and life of great American cities. Vintage
Books, New York, USA.
37. Bromley R (2000) Street vending and public policy: a global
review. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 20(1/2):
1-28.
38. Skogan W (1986) Fear of crime and neighborhood change. Crime and
justice 8: 203-229.
39. Wilson James Q, George L, Kelling (1982) Broken windows: The police
and neighborhood safety. Atlantic Monthly p. 29-38.
40. Innes M, Jones V (2006) Neighbourhood Security and Urban Change:
Risk. Resilience and Recovery, Report from Joseph Rown Tree
Foundation, UK.
41. Pain R (1997) Old age’and ageism in urban research: the case of fear
of crime. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 21(1):
117-128.
Journal of Forensic Sciences & Criminal Investigation
How to cite this article: Ismail O, Nusret M S. Social Incivilities and Perception of Safety: A Qualitative Comparison between Commuters and Residents.
J Forensic Sci & Criminal Inves. 2017; 4(3): 555643. DOI: 10.19080/JFSCI.2017.04.555643.
008
Your next submission with Juniper Publishers
will reach you the below assets
• Quality Editorial service
• Swift Peer Review
• Reprints availability
• E-prints Service
• Manuscript Podcast for convenient understanding
• Global attainment for your research
• Manuscript accessibility in different formats
( Pdf, E-pub, Full Text, Audio)
• Unceasing customer service
Track the below URL for one-step submission
https://juniperpublishers.com/online-submission.
This work is licensed under Creative
Commons Attribution 4.0 License
DOI:
10.19080/JFSCI.2017.04.555643
