TMOP4 2 2 A111KONV2012 0069 The relationship between

TÁMOP-4. 2. 2. A-11/1/KONV-2012 -0069 The relationship between urban socio-spatial structure, (in)security and residential well-being Márton Berki Research assistant, Kodolányi János University of Applied Sciences berkimarton@yahoo. com

Hungarian agglomerations surveyed • • • Budapest Debrecen Szeged Miskolc Pécs Győr Nyíregyháza Kecskemét Székesfehérvár • Questionnaire survey, carried out in January-February 2014 • Total sample size (cities + agglomerations): N = 5. 000

Types of residential areas surveyed • • • • Historical inner city (city centre) Inner residential belt (high status) Inner residential belt (low status) Housing estates (high status) Housing estates (low status) Detached houses (high status) Detached houses (low status) Rural character (high status) Rural character (low status) Villas (the highest status) Gated communities Recreation areas Slum housing, blighted areas

Types of residential areas surveyed • • • • Historical inner city (city centre) Inner residential belt (high status) Inner residential belt (low status) Housing estates (high status) Housing estates (low status) Detached houses (high status) Detached houses (low status) Rural character (high status) Rural character (low status) Villas (the highest status) Gated communities Recreation areas Slum housing, blighted areas Size of the subsample (with the cities only): n = 3. 000

Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi Report (2009) • According to Stiglitz et al. (2009), well-being is multi-dimensional: • • Material living standards (income, consumption and wealth) Health Education Personal activities including work Political voice and governance Social connections and relationships Environment (present and future conditions) Insecurity, of an economic as well as a physical nature

Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi Report (2009) • According to Stiglitz et al. (2009), well-being is multi-dimensional: • • Material living standards (income, consumption and wealth) Health Education Personal activities including work Political voice and governance Social connections and relationships Environment (present and future conditions) Insecurity, of an economic as well as a physical nature ↓ THE CONNECTION(S) BETWEEN URBAN STRUCTURE AND (IN)SECURITY

Main theories of criminology • • • Classical theory of criminology (Beccaria) Positivist theory of criminology (Lombroso, Guerry, Quetelet) Individual trait theory (Glueck–Glueck, Mednick, Caspi, Moffitt) Social disorganization theory (Shaw–Mc. Kay, Sampson, Bursik–Grasmick) Differential association & social learning & subcultural theory (Sutherland–Cressey, Sykes–Matza, Akers, Wolfgang–Ferracuti, Anderson) Anomie & institutional-anomie theory (Merton, Messner–Rosenfeld) Strain & general strain theory (Cohen, Cloward–Ohlin, Agnew) Rational choice theory (Stafford–Warr, Patternoster, Cornish–Clarke, Matsueda) Routine activities theory (Cohen–Felson) Developmental life course theory (Moffitt, Sampson–Laub) Critical theory of criminology (Bonger, Quinney, Greenberg, Currie, Colvin) Broken windows theory (Wilson–Kelling) (…)

Questions related to (in)security • Is there a security alarm system in your household? (yes / no) • Have you, or any other member of your household ever been the victim of a home burglary or physical assault? (yes / no) • How safe do you think it is to walk in your neighbourhood after dark? (4 = very safe / 3 = rather safe / 2 = rather unsafe / 1 = unsafe) • How serious do you perceive the following problems around your home? (burglaries, theft / physical assaults / organised crime / financial crimes) (5 = very serious / 1 = not serious)

Questions related to (in)security • Is there a security alarm system in your household? (yes / no) • Have you, or any other member of your household ever been the victim of a home burglary or physical assault? (yes / no) • How safe do you think it is to walk in your neighbourhood after dark? (4 = very safe / 3 = rather safe / 2 = rather unsafe / 1 = unsafe) • How serious do you perceive the following problems around your home? (burglaries, theft / physical assaults / organised crime / financial crimes) (5 = very serious / 1 = not serious) Hard (objective) data vs. soft (subjective) perceptions

There is a security alarm system installed within the household of the respondent Villas (the highest status) 39. 6% 29. 4% Gated communities 26. 5% Detached houses (high status) Recreation areas 21. 6% Inner residential belt (high status) 20. 4% Housing estates (high status) 18. 1% 17. 2% Rural character (high status) Inner residential belt (low status) 12. 3% Historical inner city (city centre) 10. 6% Detached houses (low status) 8. 3% Rural character (low status) 6. 1% Housing estates (low status) 4. 3% 2. 8% Slum housing, blighted areas 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% (Only ‘yes’ answers are shown. ) 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Any member of the respondent’s household has already been the victim of a home burglary or physical assault Housing estates (high status) 4. 3% 4. 9% Inner residential belt (high status) 6. 3% Historical inner city (city centre) Rural character (low status) 6. 9% Villas (the highest status) 7. 2% Inner residential belt (low status) 7. 5% 9. 0% Recreation areas Gated communities 11. 1% Housing estates (low status) 14. 8% Detached houses (low status) 16. 3% Rural character (high status) 21. 2% Detached houses (high status) 22. 7% 25. 6% Slum housing, blighted areas 0% 5% 10% (Only ‘yes’ answers are shown. ) 15% 20% 25% 30%

How safe do you think it is to walk in your neighbourhood after dark? Housing estates (high status) 3. 14 Recreation areas 3. 07 Detached houses (low status) 3. 04 Gated communities 3. 01 Detached houses (high status) 2. 88 Historical inner city (city centre) 2. 83 Inner residential belt (high status) 2. 82 Rural character (high status) 2. 71 Villas (the highest status) 2. 59 Housing estates (low status) 2. 44 Rural character (low status) 2. 34 Inner residential belt (low status) 2. 34 2. 21 Slum housing, blighted areas 1. 00 1. 50 2. 00 1 = unsafe, 2 = rather unsafe, 3 = rather safe, 4 = very safe 2. 50 3. 00 3. 50 4. 00

Burglaries, theft Inner residential belt (high status) Physical assaults Inner residential belt (low status) 3. 79 3. 49 Slum housing, blighted areas 3. 63 Slum housing, blighted areas 3. 36 Rural character (high status) 3. 56 Inner residential belt (high status) Inner residential belt (low status) 3. 55 Rural character (low status) 3. 06 3. 16 Detached houses (low status) 3. 28 Housing estates (low status) 3. 03 Rural character (low status) 3. 27 Detached houses (low status) 3. 03 Housing estates (low status) 3. 08 Detached houses (high status) Rural character (high status) 2. 89 2. 57 Detached houses (high status) Gated communities 2. 54 Villas (the highest status) 2. 24 Recreation areas 2. 53 Recreation areas 2. 19 Housing estates (high status) 2. 33 Villas (the highest status) Housing estates (high status) 2. 23 1 2 2. 04 Historical inner city (city centre) 2. 15 Historical inner city (city centre) 2. 25 1. 85 1. 74 Gated communities 3 4 5 1 Organised crime Detached houses (low status) 3 4 3. 45 Inner residential belt (low status) 3. 52 Detached houses (low status) 3. 51 Inner residential belt (low status) 3. 16 Rural character (high status) Rural character (low status) 3. 15 Housing estates (low status) 3. 13 Housing estates (low status) 3. 09 3. 24 Villas (the highest status) 2. 97 Villas (the highest status) 3. 02 Inner residential belt (high status) 2. 95 Inner residential belt (high status) 2. 98 Slum housing, blighted areas 2. 95 Slum housing, blighted areas 2. 81 Detached houses (high status) 2. 27 Detached houses (high status) 2. 54 Recreation areas 2. 23 Gated communities 2. 52 Housing estates (high status) 2. 14 Historical inner city (city centre) Recreation areas 1. 84 Gated communities 2 2. 35 Housing estates (high status) 1. 73 1 2. 15 Historical inner city (city centre) 3 5 Financial crimes 3. 54 Rural character (high status) 2 4 5 1. 88 1 2 3 4 5

How serious do you perceive the following problems around your home? Inner residential belt (low status) Detached houses (low status) Rural character (high status) Inner residential belt (high status) Slum housing, blighted areas Rural character (low status) Burglaries, theft Physical assaults Housing estates (low status) Organised crime Villas (the highest status) Financial crimes Detached houses (high status) Recreation areas Housing estates (high status) Gated communities 1 = not serious 5 = very serious Historical inner city (city centre) 1 2 3 4 5

Summary, conclusions • Obviously, Hungarian cities can not be conceptualised as homogeneous areas, nor in terms of (in)security, neither concerning their residents’ perceptions of (in)security • As for ‘hard’ (yes/no) questions, a more or less ‘expected’ spatial hierarchy has been revealed: higher status areas ↔ lower rates of criminality lower status areas ↔ higher rates of criminality • On the other hand, ‘softer’ questions aimed at personal perceptions shed light on a more unusual spatial hierarchy of urban (in)security

Summary, conclusions Source: Sýkora (2009)

Summary, conclusions • Obviously, Hungarian cities can not be conceptualised as homogeneous areas, nor in terms of (in)security, neither concerning their residents’ perceptions of (in)security • As for ‘hard’ (yes/no) questions, a more or less ‘expected’ spatial hierarchy has been revealed: higher status areas ↔ lower rates of criminality lower status areas ↔ higher rates of criminality • On the other hand, ‘softer’ questions aimed at personal perceptions shed light on a more unusual spatial hierarchy of urban (in)security

Thank you for your attention! • Text

TÁMOP-4. 2. 2. A-11/1/KONV-2012 -0069 The relationship between urban socio-spatial structure, (in)security and residential well-being Márton Berki Research assistant, Kodolányi János University of Applied Sciences berkimarton@yahoo. com