Journal of Sociology

http://jos.sagepub.com/

Fear of crime in Brisbane: Individual, social and neighbourhood factors in

perspective
Rod McCrea, Tung-Kai Shyy, John Western and Robert J. Stimson
Journal of Sociology 2005 41: 7
DOI: 10.1177/1440783305048381
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://jos.sagepub.com/content/41/1/7

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

The Australian Sociological Association

Additional services and information for Journal of Sociology can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://jos.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://jos.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://jos.sagepub.com/content/41/1/7.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Mar 30, 2005

What is This?

Downloaded from jos.sagepub.com at UNTREF on October 31, 2014

Fear of crime in Brisbane

Individual, social and neighbourhood
factors in perspective
Rod McCrea1, Tung-Kai Shyy1, John Western2 and
Robert J. Stimson1
1. Centre for Research into Sustainable Urban and Regional Futures, School of
Geography, Planning and Architecture, University of Queensland
2. School of Social Science, University of Queensland

Abstract
Numerous theories apply to fear of crime and each are associated with different kinds of variables. Most studies use only one theory, though this study
examines the relative importance of different kinds of variables across a number of theories. The study uses data from a survey of residents in Brisbane,
Australia to examine the relative importance of individual attributes, neighbourhood disorder, social processes and neighbourhood structure in predicting
fear of crime. Individual attributes and neighbourhood disorder were found to
be important predictors of fear of crime, while social processes and neighbourhood structure were found to be far less important. The theoretical implications are that the vulnerability hypothesis and the incivilities thesis are most
appropriate for investigating fear of crime, though social disorganization theory
does provide conceptual support for the incivilities thesis. Although social processes are less important in predicting fear of crime than neighbourhood incivilities, they are still integrally related to fear of crime: they explain how
incivilities arise, they buffer against fear of crime, and they are affected by fear
of crime.
Keywords: fear of crime, incivilities, neighbourhood disorder, neighbourhood
structure, social disorganization, vulnerability

Fear of crime is important, not only for individuals, but also for neighbourhoods and the wider society. At the individual level, fear of crime has
detrimental psychological effects (White et al., 1987), it restricts personal
freedoms by limiting how freely people move about their neighbourhoods
Journal of Sociology 2005 The Australian Sociological Association, Volume 41(1): 727
DOI:10.1177/1440783305048381 www.sagepublications.com

Downloaded from jos.sagepub.com at UNTREF on October 31, 2014

8 Journal of Sociology 41(1)

(Liska et al., 1988), and contributes to dissatisfaction with the neighbourhood, the community and overall life (Sirgy and Cornwell, 2002). At the
neighbourhood level, fear of crime decreases neighbourhood cohesion, participation in neighbourhood associations and community ties (Riger et al.,
1981; Perkins et al., 1990; Markowitz et al., 2001). At the societal level, the
fear of crime burden may be unfairly placed on those already socially and
economically disadvantaged, and without sufficient resources to protect
themselves and their possessions or to move from the high crime areas
(Hale, 1996).
This article uses a sample of Brisbane residents to examine the relative
importance of various factors in predicting fear of crime: individual
attributes, neighbourhood disorder, social processes and neighbourhood
structure. Individual attributes such as age and sex predict fear of crime via
perceptions of vulnerability. Signs of neighbourhood disorder such as
drunken behaviour and vandalism lead to fear of crime via increased perceptions of risk. Social processes such as those involving trust, reciprocity
and a sense of community are seen as mediating the relationship between
neighbourhood structure and both neighbourhood disorder and actual
crime rates. However, neighbourhood structural variables such as neighbourhood socio-economic status and urbanization are rarely empirically
related to fear of crime. This is despite neighbourhood structure being associated with neighbourhood disorder, and disorder being associated with
fear of crime. Thus an aim in this article is to examine the relative importance of neighbourhood structural variables in predicting fear of crime as
compared to other factors.

Fear of crime
The fear of crime construct and its measurement have both been subject
to debate. Regarding the construct, some researchers argue that it best
relates to, and should be limited to, feelings of fear directed at crime objects
(e.g. Hale, 1996). In contrast, others argue that the fear of crime construct
necessarily includes, not only feelings, but also cognitive judgements, such
as the likelihood of victimization, and even behavioural aspects, such as
avoiding walking alone at night (e.g. Gabriel and Greve, 2003). Such debate
results in different interpretations of research findings, as well as different
views about the best ways to measure fear of crime.
There are many issues associated with measuring fear of crime (for a
review, see Hale, 1996). One of the most basic issues is whether to use
global measures or more specific measures. Global measures are single item
indicators that do not refer to any particular crime (Hale, 1996); for example, feelings of safety when walking in the neighbourhood alone at night.
The underlying problems with global measures are vagueness and overestimating the prevalence of fear of crime (Farrall et al., 1997). On the other

Downloaded from jos.sagepub.com at UNTREF on October 31, 2014

McCrea et al.: Fear of crime in Brisbane 9

hand, specific measures can distinguish between different dimensions of fear

of crime (such as emotional or cognitive judgements; crimes against property or person; and hypothetical or real situations) as well as exploring
important time, space and social contexts when measuring fear of crime
(Farrall et al., 1997). While specific measures are likely to be better when
used for particular purposes or when combined to form composite measures, most researchers have used global measures (Hale, 1996) presumably
because of lower collection times and costs.

Theories relating to fear of crime

Vulnerability hypothesis

Individual factors are often related to the vulnerability hypothesis where

those perceiving themselves as vulnerable are likely to fear crime. In 1981,
Skogan and Maxfield made salient the concept of vulnerability in crime
research. Shortly after, Warr and Stafford (1983) tested the idea of fear of
crime as an interaction between sensitivity to risk and seriousness of consequences. Their rationale was that fear of crime related to more than just the
seriousness of consequences, otherwise people would be most afraid of serious crimes. Fear is also related to perceptions of risk. They found that sensitivity to risk and seriousness of consequences operate in a multiplicative
way in predicting fear of crime, and were of about equal weight. They also
showed that fear is not necessarily highest for the most serious crimes.
Later, Killias (1990) developed the idea of vulnerability further by incorporating Banduras thesis of lack of control over both exposure to risks and
seriousness of consequences (Bandura, 1986). Thus, the vulnerability
hypothesis incorporates individual characteristics that relate to perceived
risk, seriousness of consequences and lack of control (see Figure 1).
Sex is consistently the best predictor of fear of crime (Hale, 1996), and
is closely linked with vulnerability. The concept of vulnerability helps to
explain why women are more fearful of crime, even when they are less
likely to be victims of crime than men. For example, although women may
be less likely to walk alone around their neighbourhood at night (i.e. lower
risk exposure), they may feel more vulnerable because of more serious consequences (such as being raped) and less control (such as being physically
weaker). An alternative explanation is that male bravado results in males
reporting lower fear of crime (Stanko and Hobdell, 1993). However, more
evidence exists to support the hypothesis that women feel more vulnerable
because the risk of sexual assault heightens their fear of victimization (e.g.
Ferraro, 1996; Fisher and Sloan, 2003).
Age is a common predictor of fear of crime and is also linked to vulnerability (Hale, 1996). Like women, older people have lower victimization
rates but tend to have higher fear of crime, which may be from perceptions

Downloaded from jos.sagepub.com at UNTREF on October 31, 2014

10 Journal of Sociology 41(1)

of more serious consequences and less situational control. The lower victimization rates in older persons (and women) could also be a consequence
of fear of crime as more vulnerable persons take additional precautions
against victimization (Hale, 1996).
Despite age and fear of crime being commonly associated, age is not as
powerful in predicting fear of crime as sex, and was insignificant in some
studies (e.g. Ferraro and Lagrange, 1992; Mawby, 2004). However, both
age and sex are included as individual attributes predicting fear of crime in
this study.
Many other individual attributes may be associated with vulnerability.
These include weight, physical handicaps, physical shape and self-confidence, which Killias and Clerici (2000) use as measures of vulnerability.
Housing factors such as living alone or renting accommodation can also
influence levels of perceived control and vulnerability. Despite the importance of these factors, the main individual attributes predicting fear of crime
found in the literature are sex and age.
Incivilities thesis

Neighbourhood characteristics that predict fear of crime usually relate to the

incivilities thesis. The incivilities thesis arose from a need to explain the pervasiveness of fear of crime despite relatively low chances of victimization,
especially in urban settings (Lagrange et al., 1992). Incivilities include both
social and physical disorder. Social disorder includes things such as gang
activities, loud parties, homelessness, drunkenness and loitering; while physical disorder includes things such as vandalism, littering, vacant housing,
abandoned cars and buildings, and untidy allotments. These incivilities act as
signs of the breaking down of both norms of behaviour and social control in
the local area (Skogan and Maxfield, 1981; Perkins and Taylor, 1996).
People associate such signs with increased risk of crime (Skogan, 1990) and
in turn experience increased fear of crime (Lagrange et al., 1992), see Figure 1.
Although the incivilities thesis involves social processes via perceptions
of social norms and behaviours, it does not require the relationship between
incivilities and fear of crime to be mediated by social processes. According
to the incivilities thesis, people can experience fear of crime simply by
observing incivilities and perceiving a relationship between incivilities and
an increased risk of crime. The dotted curved arrow in Figure 1 represents
this perceived relationship. There is evidence for this relatively direct effect
of incivilities on fear of crime, mediated by increased perceptions of risk
(Lagrange et al., 1992), while there is less support for the relationship being
mediated by social processes. For example, Gibson et al. (2002) found that
the effect of neighbourhood disorder on fear of crime is not mediated by
collective efficacy, and Kanan and Pruitt (2002) found that neighbourhood
integration was a relatively unimportant indicator of fear of crime compared to incivilities.

Downloaded from jos.sagepub.com at UNTREF on October 31, 2014

McCrea et al.: Fear of crime in Brisbane 11

Figure 1: Relationships between theories and fear of crime

However, while social processes do not mediate the relationship between

incivilities and fear of crime, they can predict fear of crime directly. Gibson
et al. (2002) found that both social integration and collective efficacy predicted fear of crime when controlling disorder. Further, Ross and Jang
(2000) found that social integration can not only predict fear of crime
directly, but can moderate the relationship between disorder and fear of
crime such that the relationship is weaker for those more socially integrated.
Social disorganization theory

Little research has been conducted on the possible influence of neighbourhood structure on fear of crime. This is surprising given that structural
characteristics such as neighbourhood socio-economic status and neighbourhood residential turnover have been consistently associated with actual
crime rates and incivilities in studies investigating social disorganization
theory. Thus, neighbourhood structure can be associated with fear of crime
by linking social disorganization theory and the incivilities hypothesis (see
Figure 1).
Social disorganization theory focuses on predicting crime rates rather
than fear of crime, and tries to account for the relationship between neighbourhood structure and crime. As such, it focuses on the mediating influence of social processes such as neighbourhood reciprocity, sense of
community, neighbourhood efficacy, and informal social control.
The theory was first developed by researchers at the University of
Chicago. During the mid- to late 19th century, Chicago experienced rapid

Downloaded from jos.sagepub.com at UNTREF on October 31, 2014

12 Journal of Sociology 41(1)

population growth from an influx of foreign migrants and African

Americans from the south. In search of work, these newcomers often settled near the city centre, close to factories. Inner city neighbourhoods
became social melting pots and were dirty from industrial pollution, with
many residents moving from the neighbourhood when possible. Thus these
neighbourhoods were termed zones in transition by Burgess (1967 [1925]),
who theorized that cities expanded from their inner core.
Later, Shaw and McKay (1942) used zones in transition to explain juvenile delinquency. They theorized that poverty, rapid population growth,
ethnic diversity and population turnover associated with transitional zones
disrupted core social institutions like the family, church and schools so that
they were less able to exert informal social control on youths and their
activities. Youths were thus more likely to roam the streets and to come into
contact with older juveniles and criminal elements, thereby linking disorganized neighbourhoods with incivilities and higher crime rates.
Despite losing favour in the 1970s, social disorganization theory reemerged in the 1980s partly due to renewed interest in ecological perspectives, and also due to Sampson and Groves (1989), who found support for
social disorganization theory. This study confirmed that neighbourhood
delinquency and crime rates were related to neighbourhood structure such
as ethnic heterogeneity, residential mobility and family disruption.
However, it went beyond previous studies by showing that this relationship
was largely mediated by social processes involving local friendship networks, control of street corner teenage peer groups and organizational participation. These findings have since been replicated (e.g. Lowenkamp et al.,
2003).
While social disorganization theory was formulated to explain juvenile
delinquency and crime rates, as mentioned the theory can be linked to fear
of crime by incorporating the incivilities thesis. An essential part of social
disorganization theory discourse includes lack of social control over youth
activities resulting in incivilities such as loitering, gang behaviour and vandalism. This conceptual overlap between social disorganization theory and
the incivilities thesis means that their discourses are intertwined (e.g. Taylor,
1996; Kanan and Pruitt, 2002). Thus social disorganization theory can be
extended to predict fear of crime by first predicting incivilities or disorder
(e.g. Markowitz et al., 2001). However, little research exists relating neighbourhood structural characteristics to fear of crime.

Empirical evidence
Individual characteristics

Individual attributes are generally more important in predicting fear of

crime than neighbourhood disorder or other neighbourhood characteristics.
Killias and Clerici (2000) found that sex, age and self-assessed vulnerabil-

Downloaded from jos.sagepub.com at UNTREF on October 31, 2014

McCrea et al.: Fear of crime in Brisbane 13

ity were more important in predicting fear of walking after 10pm in the
neighbourhood than were neighbourhood characteristics such as graffiti or
dark parks, although they acknowledged that some neighbourhood characteristics like street lighting and environmental improvements were not
included in their study. However, using hierarchical modelling, Robinson et
al. (2003) found that individual differences explain more variation in fear
of crime than neighbourhood effects.
As mentioned previously, sex is the most important individual attribute
in predicting fear of crime. Lagrange et al. (1992) found that sex is more
important than either physical or social disorder, or whether the respondent
lives in urban or rural areas. However, in Perkins and Taylor (1996), sex
had approximately the same correlation with fear of crime as perceptions
of social disorder and physical disorder. Age is also an important predictor
of fear of crime, though less important than sex, and also as mentioned, age
may not always be a significant predictor of fear of crime (e.g. Liska et al.,
1988; Perkins and Taylor, 1996).
Neighbourhood structural characteristics, social processes and
disorder

As mentioned previously, little research has been undertaken linking neighbourhood structure with fear of crime. However, much research has been
undertaken linking it with actual crime. Using social disorganization theory, many social processes have been suggested as mediators between
neighbourhood structure and crime (e.g. sense of community, neighbourhood cohesion and neighbourhood efficacy). However, the general finding
is that social processes only partially mediate this relationship. Cantillon et
al. (2003) used sense of community as a mediator, which consisted of connectedness, trust, exchange, vigilance, participation and interaction.
However, only one path between various neighbourhood socio-economic
variables and youth outcome measures was fully mediated by a sense of
community. Markowitz et al. (2001) used neighbourhood cohesion consisting of club/committee attendance, helpful neighbours and neighbourhood satisfaction. Even after controlling for neighbourhood cohesion,
neighbourhood disorder was still predicted by median income, ethnic heterogeneity and urbanization, while neighbourhood burglary was still predicted by ethnic heterogeneity and urbanization. Sampson and
Raudenbush (1999) used neighbourhood efficacy, which combined trust
among residents and willingness to intervene (Sampson et al., 1997).
Again, neighbourhood efficacy only partially mediated neighbourhood
structure, despite neighbourhood efficacy being a useful predictor of crime
and disorder.
Findings of partial mediation by social processes occur in a number of
other studies (e.g. Sampson and Groves, 1989; Veysey and Messner, 1999;
Lowenkamp et al., 2003). This implies that while social processes predict

Downloaded from jos.sagepub.com at UNTREF on October 31, 2014

14 Journal of Sociology 41(1)

crime and disorder, the relationship between neighbourhood structure and

crime/disorder is not totally accounted for by social processes.

Hypotheses
This article aims to examine the relative importance of individual
attributes, neighbourhood disorder, social processes and neighbourhood
structure in predicting fear of crime. Most often studied are individual
attributes relating to vulnerability and neighbourhood disorder. Social processes are often used in the discourse of explaining the relationship between
neighbourhood disorder and fear of crime but are less often empirically
tested. Neighbourhood disorder (or incivilities) is often used to directly predict fear of crime. Finally, the relative importance of neighbourhood structure in predicting fear of crime is rarely examined, even though it is
commonly used to predict incivilities and crime rates.
The hypotheses in this article are based on Figure 1. Those factors most
proximate to fear of crime are hypothesized to have greatest predictive
power. Thus, individual attributes relating to vulnerability such as sex and
age are hypothesized to explain most variation in fear of crime. Next most
important is expected to be neighbourhood disorder, which is connected to
fear of crime via perceived risk. Since social processes are theorized to cause
neighbourhood disorder, these are expected to be less important, and finally
neighbourhood structure is expected to be least important, being the most
distal factor from fear of crime in Figure 1.

Method
The sample

The sample of 140 consists of residents living in the Brisbane City Council
area aged 18 years and over, and was taken from a larger sample of residents in South East Queensland (SEQ) who participated in a quality of life
survey in 2003. The socio-economic and demographic characteristics of
participants in the survey closely matched those in SEQ as at the 2001 population census on age, sex, marital status, ethnicity and full-time employment, although survey participants were likely to have higher household
income, higher level of education and were more likely to be living in a
house.
The sample size for the SEQ survey was 1610. This sample was
reduced to 140 for this study for two reasons. First, in this study, only
residents in the Brisbane City Council area were selected because neighbourhoods in Brisbane align reasonably well with suburbs and Statistical
Local Areas (SLAs), which allows generation of neighbourhood structural variables as explained later. Second, each SLA often had more than

Downloaded from jos.sagepub.com at UNTREF on October 31, 2014

McCrea et al.: Fear of crime in Brisbane 15

one survey respondent (four on average), and to avoid violating the

assumption of independent prediction errors in the regression analysis that
follows, one respondent only was randomly selected from each SLA.
Measures

Fear of crime was measured by asking residents how much they agreed with
the statement I feel safe walking around this neighbourhood after dark on
a 5-point scale where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree. This was
reverse coded for ease of interpretation. Thus higher scores reflect higher
fear of crime.
The individual attribute variables were age and sex. Age was measured
on an interval scale, while sex was measured as 1 = male and 2 = female.The
neighbourhood disorder variables measured physical disorder only, due to
data availability. Two variables were used. Neighbourhood vandalism
asked how much residents agreed with the statement: vandalism is a problem in this neighbourhood, where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly
agree. Neighbourhood cleanliness asked residents to rate cleanliness of
streets and public areas, where 1 = not at all good and 5 = very good.
Six social process variables were used. The first three related to social
capital notions of trust and reciprocity. Neighbourhood trust asked how
much residents trusted their neighbours (who were not friends or family) to
act in their best interests, where 1 = not at all and 5 = to a great extent.
Neighbourhood goodwill asked how much residents agreed with the statement that people in this neighbourhood are willing to help each other out,
where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree. Neighbourhood
reciprocity asked residents how often they and their neighbours (who were
not friends and family) exchanged practical help or advice, where 1 = never
and 5 = very often.
The other three social process variables were neighbourhood involvement, neighbourhood friendliness, and sense of community. Neighbourhood
involvement for each resident was measured by scoring 1 point for each of
the following activities if they had been undertaken within the last year:
attending a meeting of a neighbourhood association or street committee;
serving on a committee or as an officer in a neighbourhood association
or street committee;
contacting government officials or city hall to deal with a neighbourhood
problem;
meeting informally with neighbours to discuss a neighbourhood problem.
Using a 5-point scale where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree,
neighbourhood friendliness asked how much residents agreed with my
neighbours are friendly people, and sense of community asked how much
they agreed with there is a strong sense of community here.

Downloaded from jos.sagepub.com at UNTREF on October 31, 2014

16 Journal of Sociology 41(1)

The social process and neighbourhood disorder variables are interpreted

as neighbourhood characteristics. However, for any one neighbourhood
these characteristics were based on the perceptions of only one individual.
As Raudenbush and Sampson (1999) have shown, there is substantial variation in individual perceptions of social cohesion, social control and disorder within any one neighbourhood. Thus, the implications of this
measurement error for interpreting the results are discussed later.
Neighbourhood structural variables used data for Statistical Local Areas
(SLAs) from the 2001 Census of Population and Housing, conducted by the
Australia Bureau of Statistics. They were neighbourhood socio-economic
status, neighbourhood urbanization, neighbourhood turnover, and neighbourhood heterogeneity. SLA boundaries were used as neighbourhood
areas because in Brisbane they closely align with suburbs, and residents in
Brisbane often describe their suburb as their neighbourhood (see Table 1).
However, neighbourhoods are also often perceived to be smaller than
suburbs.
Neighbourhood socio-economic status scores were derived from a principal components analysis of five variables relating to socio-economic status (see Table 2). These variables all loaded onto one factor, which
Table 1: Description of neighbourhood by Brisbane residents
Their neighbourhood

Percentage
of residents

The 5 to 6 houses nearest yours

Your street
The 2 to 5 streets around your address
The 6 to 10 streets around your address
The suburb you live in
An area larger than the suburb you live in
Other
Total

5.7
14.3
11.4
15.7
34.3
15.7
2.9
100.0

N=140

Table 2: Variable factor loadings on neighbourhood socio-economic status

Variable (%)

Factor
loading

One parent families in SLA

Dwelling in SLA rented from a public housing authority
Households in SLA with an income of less than $500 per week
Unemployed in SLA
Residents in SLA with an education level not beyond Year 10

.929
.836
.871
.768
.567

Downloaded from jos.sagepub.com at UNTREF on October 31, 2014

McCrea et al.: Fear of crime in Brisbane 17

explained 64.6 percent of the total variation in the variables and had an
eigenvalue of 3.2. Thus, neighbourhood socio-economic status was measured using the factor scores from this single factor. The signs of the factor
scores were reversed so that higher scores reflect higher neighbourhood
socio-economic status.
Neighbourhood heterogeneity was the percentage of SLA residents born
overseas; neighbourhood turnover was the percentage of SLA residents living at a different address five years ago; and neighbourhood urbanization
used a geographic information system (GIS) to measure the distance from
each residents home to the centre (centroid) of the closest area zoned as
commercial or industrial use.

Results
While this article focuses on fear of crime, most residents of Brisbane feel
relatively safe when walking around their neighbourhood at night. In Table
3, most residents agreed or strongly agreed that they felt safe. However, a
reasonable proportion (over 30 %) did not feel safe walking around their
neighbourhood at night.
The correlation table (Table 4) shows that individual attribute variables
(age and sex) are significantly correlated with fear of crime in the expected
directions, as are the disorder variables of neighbourhood vandalism and
cleanliness. Generally speaking, the social processes variables were not as
highly correlated to fear of crime as individual attribute and neighbourhood
disorder variables, with two social process variables not significantly
related to fear of crime neighbourhood reciprocity and neighbourhood
involvement. Three neighbourhood structural variables were significant,
although two were significant in an unanticipated direction neighbourhood turnover and neighbourhood heterogeneity were associated with less
fear of crime. However, these two variables become insignificant in later
regression analysis. Unexpectedly, neighbourhood urbanization was not significantly correlated with fear of crime.

Table 3: Responses to question: I feel safe walking around this neighbourhood

after dark
Response

Frequency

Percent

Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
Total

23
20
13
54
30
140

16.4
14.3
9.3
38.6
21.4
100.0

Downloaded from jos.sagepub.com at UNTREF on October 31, 2014

Downloaded from jos.sagepub.com at UNTREF on October 31, 2014

1. Fear of crime
Individual attribute
variables
2. Age
3. Sex
4. Household income
Neighbourhood disorder
variables
5. Neighbourhood vandalism
6. Neighbourhood cleanliness
Social process variables
7. Neighbourhood trust
8. Neighbourhood goodwill
9. Neighbourhood
reciprocity
10. Neighbourhood
involvement
11. Neighbourhood
friendliness
12. Sense of community
Neighbourhood structure
variables
13. Neighbourhood
socio-economic status
14. Neighbourhood
heterogeneity
15. Neighbourhood turnover
16. Neighbourhood
urbanization
* p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

.14
.02

.08
.02

.12

10

11

12

13

14

15

.28***
.36*** .16
.27** .44*** .18*

.33*** .07
.23** .01
.17*
.18*
.02

.07
.06
.19*

.02
.08
.06

.05
.08
.04

.06
.06
.01

.03
.18*
.05

.06

.03

.05

.05

.04

.21*

.01

.01

.07

.23**

.23**

.47*** .55*** .33*** .13

.27**

.04

.09

.12

.13

.17*

.20*

.48*** .15

.16

.37***

.30*** .12

.02

.36*** .23**

.09

.07

.15

.04

.11

.15

.06

.18*

.19*

.10

.11

.07

.03

.01

.08

.07

.01

.11

.09

.10

.22**
.08

.08
.01

.03
.14

.13
.05

.09
.16

.09
.03

.20*
.12

.13
.12

.06
.14

.03
.13
.27** .15

.06
.07

.33***
.26**

.13

.39***
.55*** .36***
.13

.14

.14

.51***
.07 .09

18 Journal of Sociology 41(1)

Table 4: Pearsons correlation coefficients of variables in the analysis

McCrea et al.: Fear of crime in Brisbane 19

Regression analysis

Using multiple regression analysis, the relative importance of each group of

variables (individual attributes, neighbourhood disorder, social processes
and neighbourhood structure) was established by entering each group of
variables at different steps in the analysis (variables that did not significantly correlate with fear of crime were not included). By entering the variables in groups, estimates of the importance of the variables as a group can
be established without excluding any shared variation between variables
within a group. This allows for better estimates of the relative importance
of each group of variables.
The regression model explained 42.1 percent of the total variation in fear
of crime, as measured by R squared. The results for steps 1 and 4 are most
meaningful (see Table 5). At step 1, the R squared change statistic for each
group is maximized by not controlling for variables in the other groups. In
contrast, at step 4 the R squared change statistic for each group is minimized by controlling for the variables in the other groups. Steps 2 and 3 are
not shown because only some variables are controlled.
In Table 5 the groups remain in the same order of importance regardless
of being at step 1 or step 4. Individual attribute variables are most important for predicting fear of crime, followed by neighbourhood disorder variables. Social processes and neighbourhood structural variables are less
important predictors of fear of crime. However, one social process variable
and one neighbourhood structural variable were significant at step 1 in the
analysis. They were sense of community ( = .20, p =.04) and neighbourhood socio-economic status ( =.28, p =.002), respectively.
Neighbourhood socio-economic status was also significant at step 4.
However, if individual socio-economic status is also controlled by entering
household income at step 1, neighbourhood socio-economic status is not
significant at step 4. This suggests that neighbourhood socio-economic status does not explain significantly more fear of crime than individual socioeconomic status.
Visually, the map in Figure 2 shows considerable individual variability in
fear of crime for Brisbane residents, supporting the vulnerability hypothesis. The map in Figure 3 illustrates the association between fear of crime
Table 5: Change in R squared when variable groups are entered at steps 1 and 4
Variable groupings

Step 1

Step 4

Individual attributes
Neighbourhood disorder
Social process
Neighbourhood structural

0.22**
0.15**
0.08*
0.13**

0.15**
0.06**
0.03
0.05*

* p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001

Downloaded from jos.sagepub.com at UNTREF on October 31, 2014

20 Journal of Sociology 41(1)

I feel safe walking around

this neighbourhood after dark

#S
#
#
#
#

Strongly agree

S#
# #
#
#
## #S# ###S#
# #S#
## # ##
#
S
#
# #
### #
S##
###S#
# #S##
S# #
# # ## #
S###
###
#
#
## S# ## ####S#
# #
#
#
#
S
#
## #
#
#S#
#
##
S#
# ## #
#
# ### # #S# S###
# ### ##
S#S#S#
#
##S#
# #S##
#
# # S## S# # S##S#
#
#
# # S# S###S####
S#######
## S#
#
#
##
#
S#
S# #S ## S### ## # #
#
# ####S## #S##### S## # #S#S##S#S# S# # #
## #S# S# S# # S#S#### # #S# #
#
#
S#
# ##
## #
# #######
#
#
#
S##S##S## ###S#S####S# # ###S# S### # S# ### ##S
#
#
S
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
S
#
#
S
#
S
#
#
###
## #
## ##
S# ### # # ##S#
## #
# S# # #S
# # ##
#
S#
#### # S#S#####S# # #
# S# S#
#
# #
### # ####
## ## ## # # # #
S# ###
#
#
#
# ##
#
# # S# # S# S# S## ###
#S#
S#
S#
#
##
##
S##
# S##
#
#
#
## ##
#
# S# ## # #
#
S###S#
#
# ##
# S#
S# S# S# #
#
## #S## #S# # #
##
# #
#
##
#
##S#
S#
#
#
# #
S#
S#
## S#S# ##
# S#
#
S
#
##
#
#
#
#
#
###
#S#
# ####
# S##
S#
S#

#
#
## S# #

#
####S#
### # #S#
# S# #
# ### # ##
S#

#
S#
#

# #

Agree
Neither agree nor disagree

Inner Brisbane

Disagree

Middle Brisbane

Strongly disagree

Outer Brisbane

N
0

10

20

Kilometers

Figure 2: Spatial distribution of fear of crime in Brisbane city in 2003

S#S#

10

Kilometers

S#
S#
S#

S#
S#

S#

S#
S#S#
S#S# S#
S#S#
S#
S# S# S#
S# S#
S# Spring S#Hill
S#
S# S#
S#S#
S
#
S#
S# S#S# S#
S#S#
S#
S#
S#
S#
S#
S#
S#
S#
S# S#
S# S#S#
Morningside
#S#
S#
Toowong S
West End
S
#
S#
S#
S#S# S# S#
S#
S# S#
S#
S# S#S#S# S#
S#
S# S#
S#
S#S#
S#S#
S#
S# S#
S#
S#
S#S#S# S#
S#S# S#
S# S#S#
S#
S
#
S#
S# S#
S#
S#
S#
S#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S#
S#
S#S#
S#
S# Camp Hill
S#
S#
St Lucia
S#
S#S#
Coorparoo
S#S#
S#
Indooroopilly
S#
S#
S#
S#
S#
S#S#
S# S#
S
#
Chapel HillS
S
#
#
S
#
S
#
S#
S#
S#
S#
S#
S#
S#
S#
S# S#
S#
S#S#
S#
Annerley
S#
S#
S#S#S#
S
#
Yeronga
S#S#
S#
S#
Kenmore
S#
Holland Park
S#
S# S#
S#
S#
S#
S#
S#
S# S#
S# S#
S#
S# S#
S#
Sherwood

Moorooka

S#

S#

S#

S# S#
S#

S# S#

S# S#

S#

S#

S#

S#

I feel safe walking around

S#

this neighbourhood after dark

#S
#S
#S
#S
#S

S#
Darra-Sumner

Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree

Neighbourhood socio-economic status

S#

High socio-economic status

0

Kilometers

Medium socio-economic status

Low socio-economic status

Figure 3: Neighbourhood socio-economic status and fear of crime in a segment of

Brisbane city in 2003

Downloaded from jos.sagepub.com at UNTREF on October 31, 2014

McCrea et al.: Fear of crime in Brisbane 21

Table 6: Regression statistics for predicting crime from individual attribute and
neighbourhood disorder variables

Sex
Age
Neighbourhood vandalism
Neighbourhood cleanliness

p value

sr2
(%)

0.31
0.22
0.24
0.20

0.000
0.003
0.001
0.006

9.1
4.7
5.7
4.0

and neighbourhood socio-economic status. For example, the darkest dots

reflecting high fear of crime can only be seen in neighbourhoods with
medium or low socio-economic status.
As mentioned, individual attributes and neighbourhood disorder variables are relatively good predictors of fear of crime, especially considering
that only two individual attributes (age and sex) and only two indicators of
physical disorder (vandalism and cleanliness) were used in the analysis. To
examine the relative importance of these four variables in more detail,
another regression analysis was conducted using them to predict fear of
crime.
The variation in fear of crime explained by these four variables alone
was 30.6 percent (compared with 42.1 % with all variables). Of this, 7 percent was from shared variation among these four variables. As Table 6
shows, sex uniquely explains 9.1 percent of the variation in fear of crime,
age uniquely explains 4.7 percent, neighbourhood vandalism uniquely
explains 5.7 percent and neighbourhood cleanliness uniquely explains 4.0
percent, as reflected in the squared semi-partial statistics (sr2). The table
also shows that the standardized beta coefficients () were all significant,
with p values below .05, and that sex, age and neighbourhood vandalism
were associated with more fear of crime while neighbourhood cleanliness
was associated with less.

Discussion
Summary of results

The hypotheses are generally supported with individual attributes being the
most important predictors of fear of crime followed by neighbourhood disorder. This supports the vulnerability hypothesis and incivilities thesis
respectively in explaining fear of crime. This study also found that social
process and neighbourhood structure variables are less important in
explaining fear of crime. These last two groups of variables are more distal
to fear of crime as conceptualized in Figure 1.

Downloaded from jos.sagepub.com at UNTREF on October 31, 2014

22 Journal of Sociology 41(1)

Of the individual attribute variables, sex predicted fear of crime better

than age, as expected from previous research. Neighbourhood disorder
variables did not explain as much variation as individual attribute variables, though only physical disorder was measured. Had social disorder
been included, the variation in fear explained would probably still have
been less than that for individual attributes because both social and physical disorder are highly correlated (Lagrange et al., 1992). Both have been
found to load onto a single factor (Ross and Jang, 2000; Ross and
Mirowsky, 2001), and both have previously been found to explain about
the same or less variation in fear of crime than sex alone (Lagrange et al.,
1992; Perkins and Taylor, 1996).
The social process variables are not important predictors of fear of crime
in this study. Neighbourhood interaction and neighbourhood reciprocity
are not significantly correlated with fear of crime. And while neighbourhood willingness, friendliness, trust and sense of community are correlated
with fear of crime, only sense of community is a unique predictor when all
the social process variables are used to predict fear of crime. However,
when controlling for any of the other factors (individual attributes, neighbourhood disorder or neighbourhood structure), sense of community is no
longer significant. Thus, the study found social process variables were not
robust predictors of fear of crime.
Regarding neighbourhood structure, only neighbourhood urbanization
is not significantly correlated with fear of crime. However, while neighbourhood turnover and neighbourhood heterogeneity are correlated with
fear of crime, they are not significant predictors when included with neighbourhood socio-economic status in predicting fear of crime. Only neighbourhood socio-economic status is a unique predictor of crime, and this
remains so even when the other factors such as individual attributes and
neighbourhood disorder are controlled. However, when household income
is also entered to control for individual socio-economic status, neighbourhood socio-economic status is no longer significant. This suggests that the
association between socio-economic status and fear of crime is an individual, rather than neighbourhood effect. Thus, the study found that neighbourhood structural variables were not robust predictors of fear of crime.
Implications for theory

The results suggest that the vulnerability hypothesis and the incivilities thesis are complementary explanations for fear of crime rather than competing
explanations. As Figure 1 shows, the two explanations overlap conceptually by both incorporating perceived risk. However, the regression analysis
shows that the overlap is not great, with only 7 percent of the variation in
fear of crime being shared between the individual attribute and neighbourhood disorder variables. This contrasts with 30.6 percent of total variation
explained by these variables. Thus both the vulnerability hypothesis and the

Downloaded from jos.sagepub.com at UNTREF on October 31, 2014

McCrea et al.: Fear of crime in Brisbane 23

incivilities thesis are important conceptual frameworks for predicting fear

of crime.
In contrast, the neighbourhood structural and social process variables
associated with social disorganization theory are not as important in predicting fear of crime as incivilities. However, this theory still provides an
explanation about how social processes give rise to incivilities, and also a
basis for the perceived association between incivilities and an increased risk
of crime, an association that underpins the incivilities thesis. Thus, social
disorganization theory is important for the discourse supporting the incivilities thesis, rather than predicting fear of crime per se.
While the incivilities thesis is better for predicting fear of crime than
social disorganization theory, it is important to further investigate the role
of social processes within the incivilities thesis. Two such roles warranting
further investigation are social buffering and feedback loops. Ross and Jang
(2000) found that social integration acts as a social buffer, such that those
who are more socially integrated are not as likely to experience as much
fear of crime from observing neighbourhood disorder. Markowitz et al.
(2001) found that fear of crime can also reduce neighbourhood cohesion
through a feedback loop, leading to more disorder and fear of crime. Future
work on social processes and incivilities would benefit from replicating
these findings.
Limitations

This study has some limitations. First, the measures of neighbourhood disorder and social processes for any one neighbourhood were based on the perceptions of only one individual. This means that these measures are not as
accurate as they would be if they were, say, based on a sample of individuals
in each neighbourhood, and this may result in some loss of predictive power.
However, any loss is offset by introducing a same source bias, which inflates
predictive power because the individual is the same source for estimating
both the neighbourhood variables and the fear of crime variable. For example, a number of studies have found that individual perceptions of neighbourhood disorder predict fear of crime as well as, if not better than,
aggregated measures of neighbourhood disorder (Covington and Taylor,
1991; Perkins and Taylor, 1996; Robinson et al., 2003). Given these compensating effects, the predictive power of the neighbourhood disorder and
social process variables in step 1 would be approximately the same as if they
had been based on an average of individuals in each neighbourhood.
However, the predictive power of these neighbourhood variables may have
been higher in step 4 using an average of individuals, because controlling for
the characteristics of any one individual in the neighbourhood may have had
less impact on measures averaged across a number of individuals.
Second, while neighbourhood structure was measured at the neighbourhood level, the effects of neighbourhood structure may be better tested

Downloaded from jos.sagepub.com at UNTREF on October 31, 2014

24 Journal of Sociology 41(1)

using hierarchical modelling (where possible) because all variables at the

individual unit of analysis can be controlled. However, the influence of
neighbourhood structure was weak in this analysis and became insignificant
when individual income was controlled. Thus it is unlikely that neighbourhood effects would have been significant in a hierarchical model where all
individual variables are controlled.
Third, many of the social process measures are based on single items.
This can mean that measures are less sensitive and thus the relative importance of any particular social process variable may be underestimated.
However, in estimating the relative importance of social processes as a
whole, a wide range of measures were relied upon which means that including any additional measures is not likely to increase the R squared significantly for this group. Further, the other groups also contained single item
measures. Thus, the order of importance of the different factors (individual
attributes, neighbourhood disorder, social processes and neighbourhood
structure) should remain the same.
Finally, fear of crime is also measured as a single item. This raises two
problems. First, the dependent variable is less sensitive, and while this
means that weaker associations are found with the independent variables,
the relative importance of the variables should remain unchanged. Second,
the fear of crime measure used in this study only asked about whether residents felt safe walking around their neighbourhood after dark. This relates
to a specific activity, and perhaps the relative importance of the different
factors changes for other activities such as for intruders in the home, or for
non-specific activities such as fear of crime generally.

Conclusion
This study examined the relative importance of individual attributes, neighbourhood disorder, social processes and neighbourhood structure in
explaining fear of crime. As expected, individual attributes and neighbourhood disorder were most important, supporting the vulnerability and incivilities thesis respectively. Additionally, this study found that social
processes and neighbourhood structure were less important predictors of
fear of crime, providing less support for social disorganization theory in
predicting fear of crime. However, social processes still play important roles
in the incivilities thesis and warrant further investigation.

Acknowledgement
Funding was provided by the Australian Research Council (ARC Discovery Grant
No. 20010000631) for this article, and for the survey from which the data came
(the 2003 Survey on Quality of Life in the BrisbaneSouth East Queensland
Region).

Downloaded from jos.sagepub.com at UNTREF on October 31, 2014

McCrea et al.: Fear of crime in Brisbane 25

References
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2001) Census of Population and Housing: Basic
Community Profiles. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.
Bandura, A. (1986) Fearful Expectations and Avoidant Actions as Coeffects of
Perceived Self-Inefficacy, American Psychologist 41(12): 138991.
Burgess, E. (1967[1925]) The Growth of the City: Metropolitan Structure and
Violent Crime, pp. 4762 in R.E. Park and E.W. Burgess (eds) The City.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Cantillon, D., W.S. Davidson and J.H. Schweitzer (2003) Measuring Community
Social Organization: Sense of Community as a Mediator in Social
Disorganization Theory, Journal of Criminal Justice 31(4): 32139.
Covington, J. and R.B. Taylor (1991) Fear of Crime in Urban Residential
Neighborhoods: Implications of Between- and Within-Neighborhood Sources for
Current Models, Sociological Quarterly 32(2): 23149.
Farrall, S., J. Bannister, J. Ditton and E. Gilchrist (1997) Questioning the
Measurement of the Fear of Crime, British Journal of Criminology 37(4):
65879.
Ferraro, K.F. (1996) Womens Fear of Victimization: Shadow of Sexual Assault?,
Social Forces 75(2): 66790.
Ferraro, K.F. and R.L. Lagrange (1992) Are Older People Most Afraid of Crime
Reconsidering Age-Differences in Fear of Victimization, Journals of
Gerontology 47(5): S233-44.
Fisher, B.S. and J.J. Sloan (2003) Unravelling the Fear of Victimization among
College Women: Is the Shadow of Sexual Assault Hypothesis Supported?,
Justice Quarterly 20(3): 63359.
Gabriel, U. and W. Greve (2003) The Psychology of Fear of Crime, British Journal
of Criminology 43(3): 60014.
Gibson, C.L., J.H. Zhao, N.P. Lovrich and M.J. Gaffney (2002) Social Integration,
Individual Perceptions of Collective Efficacy, and Fear of Crime in Three Cities,
Justice Quarterly 19(3): 53764.
Hale, C. (1996) Fear of Crime: A Review of the Literature, International Review
of Victimology 4(2): 79150.
Kanan, J.W. and M.V. Pruitt (2002) Modeling Fear of Crime and Perceived
Victimization Risk: The (In)significance of Neighborhood Integration,
Sociological Inquiry 72(4): 52748.
Killias, M. (1990) Vulnerability: Towards a Better Understanding of a Key Variable
in the Genesis of Fear of Crime, Violence and Victims 5(2): 97108.
Killias, M. and C. Clerici (2000) Different Measures of Vulnerability in their
Relation to Different Dimensions of Fear of Crime, British Journal of
Criminology 40(3): 43750.
Lagrange, R.L., K.F. Ferraro and M. Supancic (1992) Perceived Risk and Fear of
Crime Role of Social and Physical Incivilities, Journal of Research in Crime
and Delinquency 29(3): 31134.
Liska, A.E., A. Sanchirico and M.D. Reed (1988) Fear of Crime and Constrained
Behavior Specifying and Estimating a Reciprocal Effects Model, Social Forces
66(3): 82737.
Lowenkamp, C.T., F.T. Cullen and T.C. Pratt (2003) Replicating Sampson and
Grovess Test of Social Disorganization Theory: Revisiting a Criminological
Classic, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 40(4): 35173.
Markowitz, F.E., P.E. Bellair, A.E. Liska and J.H. Liu (2001) Extending Social
Disorganization Theory: Modeling the Relationships Between Cohesion,
Disorder, and Fear, Criminology 39(2): 293320.

Downloaded from jos.sagepub.com at UNTREF on October 31, 2014

26 Journal of Sociology 41(1)

Mawby, R. (2004) Reducing Burglary and Fear among Older People: An

Evaluation of a Help the Aged and Homesafe Initiative in Plymouth, Social
Policy and Administration 38(1): 120.
Perkins, D.D. and R.B. Taylor (1996) Ecological Assessments of Community
Disorder: Their Relationship to Fear of Crime and Theoretical Implications,
American Journal of Community Psychology 24(1): 63107.
Perkins, D.D., P. Florin, R.C. Rich, A. Wandersman and D.M. Chavis (1990)
Participation and the Social and Physical Environment of Residential Blocks
Crime and Community Context, American Journal of Community Psychology
18(1): 83115.
Raudenbush, S.W. and R.J. Sampson (1999) Ecometrics: Toward a Science of
Assessing Ecological Settings, with Application to the Systematic Social
Observation of Neighbourhoods, Sociological Methodology 29(1): 141.
Riger, S., R.K. Lebailly and M.T. Gordon (1981) Community Ties and Urbanites
Fear of Crime an Ecological Investigation, American Journal of Community
Psychology 9(6): 65365.
Robinson, J.B., B.A. Lawton, R.B. Taylor and D.D. Perkins (2003) Multilevel
Longitudinal Impacts of Incivilities: Fear of Crime, Expected Safety, and Block
Satisfaction, Journal of Quantitative Criminology 19(3): 23774.
Ross, C.E. and S.J. Jang (2000) Neighborhood Disorder, Fear, and Mistrust: The
Buffering Role of Social Ties with Neighbors, American Journal of Community
Psychology 28(4): 40120.
Ross, C.E. and J. Mirowsky (2001) Neighborhood Disadvantage, Disorder, and
Health, Journal of Health and Social Behavior 42(3): 25876.
Sampson, R.J. and W.B. Groves (1989) Community Structure and Crime: Testing
Social-Disorganization Theory, American Journal of Sociology 94(4): 774802.
Sampson, R.J. and S.W. Raudenbush (1999) Systematic Social Observation of
Public Spaces: A New Look at Disorder in Urban Neighborhoods, American
Journal of Sociology 105(3): 60351.
Sampson, R.J., S.W. Raudenbush and F. Earls (1997) Neighborhoods and Violent
Crime: A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy, Science 277(5328): 91824.
Shaw, C.R. and H.D. McKay (1942) Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Sirgy, M.J. and T. Cornwell (2002) How Neighborhood Features Affect Quality of
Life, Social Indicators Research 59(1): 79114.
Skogan, W. (1990) Disorder and Decline: Crime and the Spiral of Decay in
American Cities. New York: Free Press.
Skogan, W. and M. Maxfield (1981) Coping with Crime: Individual and
Neighborhood Reactions. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
Stanko, E.A. and K. Hobdell (1993) Assault on Men Masculinity and Male
Victimization, British Journal of Criminology 33(3): 40015.
Taylor, R.B. (1996) Neighborhood Responses to Disorder and Local Attachments:
The Systemic Model of Attachment, Social Disorganization, and Neighborhood
Use Value, Sociological Forum 11(1): 4174.
Veysey, B.M. and S.F. Messner (1999) Further Testing of Social Disorganization
Theory: An Elaboration of Sampson and Grovess Community Structure and
Crime, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 36(2): 15674.
Warr, M. and M. Stafford (1983) Fear of Victimization A Look at the Proximate
Causes, Social Forces 61(4): 103343.
White, M., S.V. Kasl, G.E.P. Zahner and J.C. Will (1987) Perceived Crime in the
Neighborhood and Mental Health of Women and Children, Environment and
Behavior 19(5): 588613.

Downloaded from jos.sagepub.com at UNTREF on October 31, 2014

McCrea et al.: Fear of crime in Brisbane 27

Biographical notes
Rod McCrea is a research officer in the Centre for Research into
Sustainable Urban and Regional Futures (CR-SURF) at the University of
Queensland, with research interests in urban quality of life and spatial
behaviour. Address: University of Queensland, Brisbane, 4072, Australia.
[email: r.mccrea@uq.edu.au]
Tung-Kai Shyy is a research associate in CR-SURF, University of
Queensland, and has research interests in GIS-based spatial modelling and
visualization, and Internet GIS applications. Address: University of
Queensland, Brisbane, 4072, Australia. [email: t.shyy@uq.edu.au]
John Western is an Emeritus professor with the School of Social Science,
University of Queensland. His research interests include juveniles in the
criminal justice system, urban growth in the comparative perspective and
social inequality in Australian society. Address: University of Queensland,
Brisbane, 4072, Australia. [email: j.western @uq.edu.au]
Robert J. Stimson is a professor with the School of Geography, Planning
and Architecture and Director of CR-SURF, University of Queensland. His
interests include urban, social, economic and behavioural geography.
Address: University of Queensland, Brisbane, 4072, Australia. [email:
r.stimson@uq.edu.au]

Downloaded from jos.sagepub.com at UNTREF on October 31, 2014