Geography of fear of crime: Examining intra-urban differentials in Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolis, Ghana
Louis K. Frimpong
Louis K. Frimpong, Department of Geography & Resource Development, University of Ghana, Legon. Email: kusilouis@gmail.com
Ghana Journal of Geography Vol. 8(1) Special Issue, 2016 Pages 79-102 :
Abstract
Fear of crime continues to be a concern for state security agencies, city planners, and residents living in urban areas. While significant strides have been made by way of research to understand the correlates of fear of crime, which include mainly socio-spatial characteristics of the environment, few of these studies have focused on the intra-urban differentials of fear of crime and its correlates, most especially in a developing country context. Therefore, drawing on a sample population of 544 respondents across three different socio-economic neighbourhoods and with the use of multivariate statistical techniques, the study examines the geography of fear of crime in Sekondi-Takoradi, an emerging city in Ghana. The findings reveal a spatial variation of neighbourhood effect on fear of crime across the three socioeconomic neighbourhoods selected. On this basis, we propose a context-specific solution to address fear of crime and also recommend stronger social cohesion, community effort in crime prevention, and building of confidence in the police as measures for reducing crime and fear of crime.
Keywords: fear of crime; collective efficacy; social cohesion; property victimization; Sekondi-Takoradi
Introduction
The need to promote adequate security and safety through the reduction of fear of crime in an increasingly urbanizing society has become a major issue to grapple with among city authorities and security agencies in most countries (UN-HABITAT, 2007; Owusu et al., 2015). While studies have indicated the increased prevalence of property and violent crimes across cities (Muggah, 2012), the impact of this on neighbourhood safety and fear of crime has also become a subject that has gained significant attention within the fear of crime discourse (UN- HABITAT, 2007). In addition to the link between crime, especially violent crime, and fear of crime, studies have also revealed that the persistence of fear of crime is unequally distributed among populations and among neighbourhoods of various levels of (dis)advantage, thus suggesting the situated nature of fear of crime (Mellgren, 2011). Therefore, fear of crime has significant impact on, and is also impacted by, the urban environment through ecological influences and spatial reconfiguration (Smith, 1987). There is much evidence to suggest that there is a geographical dimension to the fear of crime in terms of ecology, which includes the influence of the socio-spatial environment (Foster et al., 2010) and its variation across space (Adigun, 2013; Swatt et al., 2013).
Regarding the ecology of the fear of crime, some studies have shown a strong relationship with the built environment (Newman, 1972, 1996; Schweitzer et al., 1999; Loukaitou-Sideris, 2012), while other studies have also established such linkages between individual- and community-level socio-demographic characteristics and the fear of crime (Will & McGrath 1995; Ferraro, 1996; Adu-Mireku, 2002). Yet other studies have also shown that community social organization, particularly social cohesion, significantly reduces fear of crime (Gibson et al., 2002; Swatt et al., 2013). Despite the enormous number of studies on the fear of crime and its geography, most of these studies reflect the experiences of developed countries, particularly Europe and North America, and only recently has there been renewed interest in research into the fear of crime in Africa. Even for Africa, most fear of crime studies have been conducted in Nigeria (see Agbola, 1997; Alemika & Chukwuma, 2005; Adigun, 2013) and South Africa (see Spinks, 2001; Lemanski, 2004). Moreover, even though some of these studies have looked at fear of crime in residential areas in African cities (Adu-Mireku, 2002; Adigun, 2013), these residential areas were not distinguished based on socio-economic status so as to ascertain the influence of differential ecological factors on fear of crime. Therefore, the current study seeks to complement the literature on fear of crime in Africa—and in Ghana in particular. More specifically, the study intends to advance our understanding of ecological influences on fear of crime in different socio-economic urban residential areas, using the Sekondi-Takoradi metropolis as a case study.
In addition to its contribution to the literature, especially through the testing of ecological theories and concepts within the Ghanaian context, the current study also has significant policy implications. For instance, despite significant physical expansion and demographic increase in urban areas in Ghana, planning has failed to factor in conditions that will reduce fear of crime and concerns for safety. Therefore, by examining the relationship between ecological factors and fear of crime, the study provides an opportunity to examine the appropriateness of place- based crime prevention theories and strategies in the Ghanaian context. Again, the non-linear relationship between crime and fear of crime, as studies have shown (Cordner, 2010), makes a compelling case for policies and strategies that may be somewhat different from normative crime prevention measures.
The paper is structured as follows: after this introduction, the next section discusses the theoretical and empirical literature regarding the operational definition and correlates of fear of crime. This is followed by details of the study site and the methods adopted. Results and discussion of univariate, bivariate, and multivariate analysis are next discussed, and the last section contains the conclusion and policy implications of the study.
Theoretical and conceptual overview
Two main issues are discussed in this section. The first is a brief discussion of how fear of crime is conceptualized and measured. The second part deals with the correlates of the fear of crime, which fall within the larger ecological perspective of fear of crime. From this perspective, fear of crime is viewed as a direct result of the influence of socio-spatial characteristics of the environment (Foster et al., 2010; Swatt et al., 2013). The second part of this review is structured in accordance with broader areas where fear of crime has received both theoretical and empirical attention. These include the victimization perspective, physical environmental perspective, and neighbourhood social organization.
Conceptualizing and operationalizing fear of crime
Fear of crime in urban neighbourhoods has been a subject of academic enquiry for the past 40 years, especially in developed countries, most notably North America (Lee, 2007; Henson, 2011). However, an important issue, and one which has confounded most researchers in this area of enquiry, has been how to conceptualize and operationalize fear of crime. In defining fear of crime, Henson (2011) indicates that fear of crime can be viewed in terms of any initial aversive stimulus that produces fear or reaction to a criminal event. Despite this definition, conceptualization of fear of crime has been diverse and thus so has its operationalization. However, to ensure standardization and consistency, Skogan (1999) notes that most studies have conceptualized fear of crime in four ways, falling under two main categories. The first involves cognitive assessment and includes concerns about crime, assessment of risk of victimization, and perceived safety. The second category involves behavioural responses and includes how people respond to crime. These measures resonate with views expressed by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). According to the UNODC, fear of crime can be measured through the use of proxies, such as feelings of safety, likelihood of victimization, and fear of specific crimes (UNODC, 2010).
Fear of crime and victimization
At the individual level, variations in fear of crime are explained using the direct and indirect victimization models. The direct victimization model posits that fear of crime is a derivative of past experiences of victimization (Skogan & Maxfield, 1981). Moreover, it is ‘an indicator of the effects of victimization on the individual and is seen as a direct consequence of crime exposure’ (Lewis, 1996: 102). While there has been some empirical support for this claim (see Skogan & Maxfield, 1981; Adu-Mireku, 2002; Austin et al., 2002), other studies have also found some inconsistencies with the victimization perspective. Thus, in some cases, studies have revealed that fear may not be related in any way to experiences of victimization (Bennett & Flavin, 1994; Delone, 2008); or even if it is, the relationship is rather weak (Baumer, 1985; McGarrell et al., 1997).
The indirect victimization model posits that perceived vulnerability is strongly linked to fear of crime. Relatedly, the model incorporates dimensions of social and physical vulnerability of would-be victims, which is believed to be a very important factor influencing fear of crime (Crank et al., 2003). In this regard, we concur with Gibson et al. (2002) and Covington and Taylor (1991), and we therefore include socio-demographic variables as indicators of indirect victimization, since they reflect the risk of victimization. In addition, there has been empirical support for the relationship between socio-demographic variables, such as age, sex, level of income, level of education, and fear of crime (Ramos & Andrade-Palos, 1993; Schafer et al., 2006).
Fear of crime and the built environment
Falling within the larger ecological perspective of fear of crime, the link between the built environment and fear of crime has been well researched (Newman, 1996; Schweitzer et al., 1999). However, despite falling within the purview of geographical studies, geography’s contribution to this debate has been small (Pain, 2000), with most of the theoretical development coming from environmental criminology, planning, and architecture. More importantly, earlier studies of fear of crime and the urban built environment can be traced from the work of Jane Jacobs. According to Jacobs (1961), urban land use diversification into different functions was critical for enhancing natural surveillance in urban public spaces. She was of the opinion that such planning measures encouraged the continual flow of people within these spaces and thus kept eyes watching such spaces at all times. Moreover, recent discussions of the built environment and fear of crime have focused on two important theoretical developments: Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED), originally developed by Jeffery (1971); and Defensible Space Theory (DST), developed by Newman (1972).
Despite originating from two different authors, the theory of CPTED has now come to represent all other similar ideas, including DST, since both theories share common assumptions (Geason & Wilson, 1989). Critical to these theories and also reflecting their key principles is the fact that communities should be restructured in ways that allow residents to have control over their homes, while also restricting movement of intruders and strangers. Thus, the issues of territoriality and access control come into play (Newman, 1996; Owusu et al., 2015). From this perspective, Newman (1996) asserts that communities with building types that do not allow residents to have greater control of the spaces around them will experience higher crime levels and therefore increased fear of crime. The theory also lays stress on natural surveillance, which includes the use of mechanical lighting, closed-circuit television (CCTV), natural windows, windows closer to streets, and even police patrols as a means of reducing crime opportunities (Shaftoe & Read, 2005). Lastly, the theory emphasizes target hardening, which aims at improving building security standards. Target hardening involves measures such as the use of quality exterior doors and door frames and burglar-proofs (Owusu et al., 2015). This implies, therefore, that fear of crime will vary across neighbourhoods, since built environment manifestations also vary in this way (ibid.).
Despite its emphasis on reducing opportunities for crime and fear of crime, empirical studies of DST and CPTED show mixed results. While Newman’s studies in New York indicate high crime and fear of crime levels in low-income public housing units (Newman, 1996), other studies have also shown that such a relationship between the built environment and fear of crime is low (Bottoms & Wiles, 1986; Weatherburn et al., 1999). Moreover, it has been found that a combination of social and physical factors facilitates fear of crime, and in most cases social factors account for a greater share of the influence on fear of crime (Newman, 1996; Schweitzer et al., 1999). An emerging issue with regard to the use of DST and CPTED as crime prevention measures in both developed and developing countries has been the development of fortified enclaves and social segregation, thus reducing social cohesion (Spinks, 2001; Owusu et al., 2015).
Fear of crime and neighbourhood social organization
Community social organization plays an important role in community safety and crime prevalence. In view of this, recent discussions have focused on collective efficacy and social cohesion as important factors in reducing fear of crime. According to Sampson et al. (1997), collective efficacy, defined as social cohesion found within a community, combined with the willingness to intervene for the common good, is contingent on the conditions of trust, solidarity, and bonding that exist in a community. Therefore, Sampson et al. (ibid.) suggest that neighbourhoods with high collective efficacy have a greater capacity to wield informal social control over the youth and delinquent behaviours. This point about informal social control has been the thrust of argument of earlier socio-ecological theories of crime, including social disorganization theory.
Taking the social disorganization theory in perspective, the theory states that crime rates are not evenly distributed across space and time; instead, crime tends to concentrate in areas characterized by high residential mobility, low socio-economic status, and ethnic heterogeneity (Shaw & McKay, 1942). More importantly, Kubrin (2009) has emphasized that the theory does not necessarily explicate a direct connection between a socially disorganized society and crime; rather, the emphasis is on the breakdown in community structure that ensures informal social control, community solidarity in fighting against crime, and also a community’s ability to maintain social norms. The broken windows theory, with its key emphasis on disorder as a facilitator of fear of crime, also posits that social incivilities such as drunkards, addicts, and panhandlers are signals that there is an absence of informal social control and community cohesion (Wilson & Kelling, 1982).
Therefore, while the link between fear of crime and collective efficacy is apparent and also supported by empirical studies (Gibson et al., 2002; Swatt et al., 2013), contextual differences in neighbourhood characteristics influence the extent of collective efficacy and thus the level of fear of crime (Swatt et al., 2013). According to Sampson et al. (1997), concentrated disadvantage inhibits high levels of collective efficacy since, notwithstanding levels of acquaintanceships, community members may lack the capacity to mobilize resources for a common goal. Nonetheless, other studies have also shown that poor neighbourhoods exhibit strong social cohesion, which is critical for addressing crime and other neighbourhood problems (JRF, 1999). An important point to also note is that while collective efficacy may not require much formal arrangement in addressing crime in a particular neighbourhood, it is suggested by others that such efficacy improves formal arrangements in crime and fear of crime control (Sampson & Graif, 2009).
Study site
Sekondi-Takoradi is the administrative capital of the Western Region, located in the south- western portion of Ghana. Currently, the city has a population of about 559,548 and is the thirdlargest city in Ghana after Accra and Kumasi (GSS, 2012). With its historical experience as a port city since 1928 (Mendelson et al., 2003) and its present status as an oil city following the discovery of offshore crude oil in its deep waters (Obeng-Odoom, 2012), there have been a number of physical and demographic changes in the city. The city has residential neighbourhoods differentiated on the basis of socio-economic status. While this may be contingent on historical factors, recent social and economic transformations have deepened such residential differentiations.
Based on reconnaissance visits and consultations with the city authorities and police, as well as on previous knowledge of the city of Sekondi-Takoradi by the authors, the study selected New Takoradi, Anaji, and Chapel Hill as low-, middle- and high-income neighbourhoods, in tandem with the official residential classification. Demographically, New Takoradi, Anaji, and Chapel Hill have populations of roughly 18,668, 12,771, and 8,368, respectively (STMA, 2010). New Takoradi is located close to the Takoradi harbour and is an old seafront residential neighbourhood which developed informally as a residential quarter for the lowly-paid workers of the harbour. However, the decline of the harbour as well as the lack of planning and investments in basic infrastructure and services by city authorities has resulted in its present status as a poor and heavily congested neighbourhood. On the other hand, Chapel Hill is located not far from the central business district and serves as the residential neighbourhood for most civil servants and formal sector employees, while Anaji is a relatively mixed-income neighbourhood developing into peri-urban areas (STMA, 2010).
Sekondi-Takoradi is one of the four major cities in Ghana. The other three are Accra, Kumasi, and Tamale. These four cities account for about 40% of the total urban population and about 80% of major crimes recorded in the country (Owusu et al., 2015). By way of detail, according to records from the Ghana police, of about 1,172 armed robbery cases recorded in the country in 2010, 938 were in these four cities, with 25 of the cases in Sekondi-Takoradi. Of the 1,772 reported cases of defilement recorded in 2010, 676 were in these four cities, with Sekondi- Takoradi recording about 259 cases. Lastly, of the 225 murder cases recorded in these four cities in the year 2010, 42 were in Sekondi-Takoradi. While crime rates recorded in Sekondi- Takoradi may seem low relative to the aggregate crime rates of the four main cities, it is suggested that recent social changes and economic transformation will have a significant impact on routine activities and opportunities for crime, all of which has implications for neighbourhood security, social cohesion, crime, and fear of crime.
Download this PDF file
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق