Journal of Environmental Psychology 32 (2012) 260e276

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Psychology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jep

Effects of signals of disorder on fear of crime in real and virtual environments

Alexander Toet*, Martin G. van Schaik 1
TNO, Kampweg 5, 3769 DE Soesterberg, The Netherlands

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Despite the fact that virtual environments are increasingly deployed to study the relation between urban
Available online 23 April 2012 planning, physical and social disorder, and fear of crime, their ecological validity for this type of research
has not been established. This study compares the effects of similar signs of public disorder (litter,
Keywords: warning signs, cameras, signs of vandalism and car burglary) in an urban neighborhood and in its virtual
Public disorder counterpart on the subjective perception of safety and livability of the neighborhood. Participants made
Fear of crime
a walking tour through either the real or the virtual neighborhood, which was either in an orderly
Virtual environment
(baseline) state or adorned with numerous signs of public disorder. During their tour they reported the
Ecological validity
Simulation
signs of disorder they noticed and the degree to which each of these affected their emotional state and
Public safety feelings of personal safety. After finishing their tour they appraised the perceived safety and livability of
the environment. Both in the real and in the simulated urban neighborhood, signs of disorder evoked
associations with social disorder. In all conditions, neglected greenery was spontaneously reported as
a sign of disorder. Disorder did not inspire concern for personal safety in reality and in the virtual
environment with a realistic soundscape. However, in the absence of sound disorder compromised
perceived personal safety in the virtual environment. Signs of disorder were associated with negative
emotions more frequently in the virtual environment than in its real-world counterpart, particularly in
the absence of sound. Also, signs of disorder degraded the perceived livability of the virtual, but not of
the real neighborhood. Hence, it appears that people focus more on details in a virtual environment than
in reality. We conclude that both a correction for this focusing effect and realistic soundscapes are
required to make virtual environments an appropriate medium for both etiological (e.g. the effects of
signs of disorder on fear of crime) and intervention (e.g. CPTED) research.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Computer simulations have become indispensable tools to
communicate design and planning impacts and to investigate
human perception of built environments. Virtual environments are
also increasingly deployed to study the effects of environmental
qualities and interventions like CPTED (“Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design": Cozens, Neal, Hillier & Whitaker, 2004;
Cozens, Neal, Whitaker & Hillier, 2003; Cozens, Waters & Neale,
2002; Kavakli, Kavakli & Gao, 2004) on human behavior and feel-
ings of safety in built environments (Cozens et al., 2004; Cozens,
Neal, et al., 2003; Cozens, Neale, & Hillier, 2003; Cozens et al.,
2002; Park, Calvert, Brantingham, & Brantingham, 2008; Park,
Spicer, Guterres, Brantingham, & Jenion, 2010; Smith & Carter,
2010). However, the ecological validity of virtual environments
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ31 8886 65838; fax: þ31 346 353977.
E-mail addresses: lex.toet@tno.nl, lextoet@gmail.com (A.
martin.vanschaik@tno.nl (M.G. van Schaik).
1
Tel.: þ31 8886 65990.
for this type of studies has not yet been established. A simulated
environment can be considered ecologically valid when it evokes
cognitive, emotional and affective user responses that are similar to
those that would be evoked by a real equivalent. In practice, most
simulations are still shown on desktop systems in uncontrolled
conditions, where full ecological validity is seldom achieved
(Bishop & Rohrmann, 2003). However, full ecological validity is not
strictly required to study the effects of physical or social interven-
tions in a built environment on human behavior. For most purposes
it suffices if the virtual interventions affect relevant human
emotions and behavior in a similar way as their real-world equiv-
alents (van Hagen, 2011). Moreover, too much realism may even
work counterproductive when small deficiencies in the simulation
distract the users (an effect which is similar to the Uncanny Valley
effect for simulated human characters: Mori, 1970).
The affective appraisal of built environments has previously
been investigated through drawings, photographs and slides,
interactive panoramas, and (static or dynamic) virtual environ-
Toet),
ments (Nasar, 2008). Studies indicate that responses to color slides
or photos reflect on-site experience more accurately than responses

0272-4944/$ e see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.04.001
 A. Toet, M.G. van Schaik / Journal of Environmental Psychology 32 (2012) 260e276
to drawings or black-and-white photos (Nasar, 2008; Stamps III,
1993). Photographs and slides have been used to assess for
instance the impact of urban design (e.g. Stamps & Smith, 2002),
darkness (Hanyu, 1997, 2000; Herzog & Flynn-Smith, 2001) and
graffiti (Austin & Sanders, 2007) on feelings of safety. Although the
responses to photographs correlate with on-site evaluations
(Stamps, 2010), they are highly viewpoint dependent (Palmer &
Hoffman, 2001). Also, photographs fail to capture the dynamics of
a real environment and its context (Austin & Sanders, 2007). The
context and viewpoint dependency issues can partly be resolved by
the use of Quick Time Virtual Reality (QTVR) technology, in which
various 360 panorama photographs, taken at different locations
can be stitched together to create a virtual representation of an
environment. QTVR technology has been used to probe passengers’
feelings of personal safety in railway station environments (Cozens
et al., 2004, 2003; Cozens, Neale, et al., 2003; Cozens, Neale,
Whitaker, et al., 2003; Cozens, Neale, Hillier, et al., 2003).
However, these simulations do not allow continuous walkthroughs,
do not include ambient sounds, and have not been validated against
data obtained in corresponding real environments. Smith & Carter,
2010 used a desktop virtual environment to train awareness of anti-
social behavior prior to real-world exposure. Their simulation
represents an urban area with added indicators of anti-social
behavior like graffiti, damaged bus shelters and buildings, litter
and rubbish, escort cards in phone boxes, and abandoned cars.
However, the rendering of the environment is not fully photo-
realistic and the simulation includes no sound. Also, the simulation
has not been validated against a similar real-world environment. A
recent series of studies used virtual environments to investigate the
effects of environmental cues signaling high risk of victimization on
personal feelings of safety (Park, 2008; Park et al., 2011, 2012, 2008,
2010; Park & Calvert, 2008). One of these studies addressed the
ecological validity of a virtual environment for this type of research
(Park et al., 2010). It was found that the effects of graffiti, murals, and
boarded-up broken windows on feelings of personal safety of local
residents were similar in reality and in a virtual model of the area.
The degree of impact of the signs of disorder differed between the
real and simulated environments, since people paid more attention
to their surroundings in the virtual than in the real environment.
However, the simulation does not include ambient sound.
Few studies actually compared human response to environ-
mental interventions in both simulations and their real-world
counterparts (Bishop & Rohrmann, 2003; Houtkamp & Junger, 2010;
de Kort, IJsselsteijn, Kooijman, & Schuurmans, 2003; Schwebel,
Gaines, & Severson, 2008; Wergles & Muhar, 2009; Zacharias,
2006). It was found that simulated lighting levels (Bishop &
Rohrmann, 2003; Rohrmann & Bishop, 2002), path choices
(Zacharias, 2006), and road crossing opportunities (Schwebel et al.,
2008) evoke similar responses as their real-world equivalents.
Hence, in many respects virtual interventions appear to affect
relevant human behavior in a similar way as their real-world
equivalents, even though human reactions to simulations and to
corresponding real environments need not be identical in all aspects
(van Hagen, 2011).
This study investigates how signs of disorder affect the subjec-
tive perception of the safety and livability of both real and simu-
lated urban neighborhoods. The main hypotheses tested were that
signs of disorder (H1) evoke associations with social disorder, (H2)
inspire concern for personal safety, and (H3) degrade the perceived
livability, in both real and simulated urban neighborhoods. In
addition, the subjective experience of (orderly and disorderly)
simulated urban environments was measured both with and
without a soundscape. The hypothesis was that (H4) realistic
ambient sounds increase the convincingness of the simulation,
thereby amplifying the effects of physical disorder.
261
1.1. Disorder and perceived neighborhood quality
Public disorder reflects erosion of social control and is typically
associated with crime (Wilson & Kelling, 1982). Perceived disorder
typically increases with observed disorder (Sampson & Raudenbush,
1999). As a result, signs of public disorder compromise the perceived
livability of an area, and inspire fear of crime (Perkins, Meeks, &
Taylor, 1992; Perkins & Taylor, 1996; Skogan, 1990; Taylor, 1997,
1999). Fear of crime is conceptualized here as an affective (mental)
state reflecting safety related concerns about possible street
victimization (Ferraro, 1994). Public disorder in urban environments
is a robust ecological construct that can be reliably measured
(Sampson & Raudenbush, 1999).
Public disorder encompasses both physical and social disorder.
Physical disorder includes items like dilapidated housing,
vandalism, litter and vacant lots, while social disorder includes
phenomena like loitering youths, rowdy behavior, public drunk-
enness, drug sales and prostitution. This study investigates the
effects of signs of public disorder (i.e. physical disorder and cues of
social disorder such as warning signs and CCTV cameras) on the
subjective appraisal of respectively a real and a simulated urban
neighborhood. Both neighborhoods are appraised on dimensions
like perceived livability, social disorder, and personal safety, both
before and after the introduction of signs of disorder. If these
interventions affect the appraisal of the virtual neighborhood
similarly as the appraisal of its real counterpart, virtual environ-
ments may be ecologically valid instruments for studying the effects
of different attributes on the affective appraisal of built environ-
ments. This would for instance enable the use of virtual environ-
ments to identify the relative importance of different incivilities,
and to study the effects of litter and graffiti reduction measures, or
the installment of decorations, benches or plantings, on fear of
crime, avoidance behavior, and quality of life (Dunstan et al., 2005).
1.2. Sound and perceived simulation quality
Auditory perception determines to a large extent the way we
experience and emotionally respond to our environment (Irwin,
Hall, Peters, & Plack, 2011), and may therefore be essential to
provide a simulation that is ecologically valid. Auditory background
noises and sound events are essential to establish a feeling of
contact with and presence in an environment (Murray, Arnold, &
Thornton, 2000). Presenting a virtual world with an improperly
designed auditory interface is equivalent to creating a “virtual”
hearing impairment for the user (Gilkey & Weisenberger, 1995). The
absence of sound in physical environments induces irritation,
aggression, stress, fear, anxiety, and feelings of isolation (discon-
nectedness with the world: Murray et al., 2000). Computer-
mediated environments that lack sound may induce similar
effects, since users expect that the visual events they perceive are
accompanied by sounds, just like they are in reality. The absence of
sounds is experienced as unnatural (i.e. it is a distracting factor).
When inspecting soundless models of urban environments people
spontaneously remark that they miss the common ambient sounds
which typically make an environment ‘realistic’ or ‘lively’, like
traffic noise or people talking (Houtkamp & Junger, 2010). Sound-
scapes that provide a faithful spatial representation of common
real-world sounds may therefore enhance the user’s experience of
a mediated environment by increasing its naturalness, realism, and
richness (Serafin & Serafin, 2004). Studies on virtual environments
have indeed shown that the provision of sound enhances the
acceptance and perceived realism of simulated environments,
while the absence of sound is frequently perceived as a deficiency
in the simulation (Rohrmann & Bishop, 2002; Rohrmann, Palmer, &
Bishop, 2000).
262 A. Toet, M.G. van Schaik / Journal of Environmental Psychology 32 (2012) 260e276

In the present study a characteristic stereophonic soundscape
was recorded in a real urban environment, and was presented
through headphones when showing its virtual counterpart. Head-
phones were used since these provide more immersion than
speakers (Pettey, Campanella Bracken, Rubenking, Bunche, & Gress,
2010). The soundscape contained the sounds of wind, birdsong,
people talking, children playing, traffic noise, and an occasional
plane overhead. The hypothesis (H4) is that a realistic soundscape
enhances the convincingness of the simulation, which leads in turn
to a more pronounced effect of signs of disorder on the appraisal of
the virtual environment.
corresponded to the locations in reality. The items signal different
types of social incivilities (Caughy, O’Campo, & Patterson, 2001;
Perkins et al., 1992), ranging from indifference (e.g. litter, trash, dog
droppings) and loitering (e.g. empty beer cans, cigarette butts, fast-
food wrappers) to vandalism (broken bus shelter windows) and
predatory crime (smashed car windows, crime watch signs, CCTV
cameras, and camera surveillance signs). Additional trash and junk

2. Methods

2.1. Environment and route

The experiments concerned a small area in the town of Soes-

terberg, The Netherlands. The experimental area (Google Earth
coordinates 52 70 N, 5 170 3400 E: see Fig. 1) has a rectangular shape
and a total extent of about 200  200 m2. It is enclosed by roads on
four sides. The area contains blocks of houses, two squares with
parking places, benches, and statues, two playgrounds with
benches, and a network of pathways connecting the squares and
playgrounds (Fig. 2). All houses have a garden in the back, typically
enclosed with a wooden fence, with an exit door to a pathway. The
pathways are typically covered with tarmac, and bordered on both
sides with trees and shrubs. The houses are generally well main-
tained and quite uniform. The pathways and parks are reasonably
well kept. The experiments were deliberately performed in
a moderate socio-economic neighborhood, since there are indica-
tions that signs of disorder most effectively inspire fear of crime in
higher socio-economic neighborhoods (Begall, Kiewiet, Sapulete, &
Veldhuis, 2006; Steenbeek & Hipp, 2011).
The walking route that was designed had no intersections and
covered most of this area (Fig. 1a and c). The route included three
short segments of sidewalks along three different roads, several
footpaths, two squares, and two playgrounds. The route also
included one vacant house. The length of the entire walk was about
800 m (typically about 1200 steps). At a normal walking speed
(5e6 km/h) the entire route could be done in about 10 min.
Participants typically needed about 30e45 min, since their
inspection task required additional time.
A virtual counterpart of this environment was simulated in 3D
using the Unreal Tournament 2004 game-engine v2.5 (Epic Games
Inc.). The simulation was performed on Dell Precision 490 PC
computers, equipped with Dell 1900 monitors. Logitech Rumblepad
2 Gamepads were used for navigation. User movement in the
virtual environment was from a first-person viewing perspective
with walking motion supporting forward and backwards move-
ments and left and right rotation movements. User movement
speed was fixed and collision detection enabled to prevent users
from walking through objects. Typical sounds of the real environ-
ment (birds singing, cars passing by, children shouting, hammering
and drilling, and dogs barking) were recorded at several locations
in the area and at different times. These sounds were used to
generate a non-repeating virtual soundscape that was character-
istic for the environment. The soundscape was presented through
Sennheiser eH 150 headphones.
Fig. 1. (a) Aerial view of the modeled area of the town of Soesterberg, showing the
walking route (yellow line) and walking direction (small black arrows). (b) Corre-
2.2. Experimental items sponding top-view of the virtual environment. (c) Map with directions (white arrows)
used by the participants to find their way. Wide purple bars represents streets, narrow
A total of 42 experimental items (Table 1) were deployed at 34 orange lines represent pathways. The two light green squares with darker borders
represent small squares with benches and statues. The two light green squares with
locations (Table 2, Figs. 3e5) in both the real and virtual environ- darker borders and a dark green disc inside represent playgrounds with benches,
ments. Fig. 6 shows how these items were physically distributed over climbing tools, swings etc. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure
the environment. The locations in the virtual environment legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
 A. Toet, M.G. van Schaik / Journal of Environmental Psychology 32 (2012) 260e276 263

were deployed near a vacant house to enhance the impression of
neglect. The items that are typically associated with neglect, indif-
ference, street youth and loitering, were previously collected at lit-
tered public sites, and therefore had a realistic and weathered
appearance. Broken car glass and old car tires were obtained from
a local used car dealer. Rusted bicycle frames and wheels were
obtained at a local junkyard. Mockup CCTV cameras and fake dog
droppings were bought from a commercial supplier. Warning signs
were printed on cardboard, plasticized and nailed to trees and fences
or wrapped around lampposts. For scoring purposes, five classes of
experimental items are distinguished: Litter, Vandalism, Car burglary,
Warning signs, and Cameras. In total, 16 experimental items repre-
sented Litter (4 of which were dog droppings), one item represented
Vandalism (broken glass in bus shelter), 3 represented Car burglary
(broken safety glass), 14 were Warning signs, and 4 were Cameras.
In the disorderly real-world condition, the experimenters
distributed the experimental items over the test neighborhood at
the start of each test day. Each item was placed at a fixed location.
After the last trial on a test day the physical incivilities were
removed. The (mockup) CCTC cameras and the different signs
remained in place during the entire period of the experiments.
After every 4 trials an experimenter inspected the complete walk-
about to ensure that all physical incivilities that were part of this
experiment were still in their correct position, and that no addi-
tional incivilities were inadvertently introduced. This procedure
ensured that the evidence of physical disorder was constant for the
duration of the experiment.
Before the start of the real-world experiments, city officials were
informed of the overall purpose and procedure of the study, and
written permission was obtained to distribute litter, signs and
mockup CCTV cameras over the experimental area during the
period of the experiments. Citizens living in the neighborhood were
mailed a letter with information about the nature of the experi-
ment, the period during which it would be performed, and the
contact details of the experimenters. They were also kindly
requested not to remove or displace any items that were placed in
their neighborhood for the purpose of the experiment, and not to
approach the participants or to discuss the nature of the experi-
ment with them.
For the simulation experiments, the experimental items were
either photographed (e.g. litter, warning signs) or modeled as 3D
virtual objects (e.g. CCTV cameras, dog droppings) and placed at

Fig. 2. Characteristic scenes from the real (left column) and virtual (right column) environment. (aed) Pathways between fences enclosing the backgardens of the houses in the
neighborhood. Notice the arrows marked on the ground with white chalk to indicate the walking route (a, b). (e, f) Entrance to a small square with parking. (g, h) A square with
benches and artwork, and surrounded by houses. (i, j) A playground.
264 A. Toet, M.G. van Schaik / Journal of Environmental Psychology 32 (2012) 260e276
Fig. 2. (continued).
their corresponding locations in the virtual environment using the
Unreal game editor.
2.3. Questionnaires
2.3.1. General information
A General Questionnaire was used to gather information about
the age and sex of the participants.
2.3.2. Personal safety and mental state
To investigate whether the experimental items (signs of
disorder) inspired fear of crime we measured how concerned the
participants were for their personal safety and to what extent these
items affected their mental state. Hence, these measurements tap
the affective or emotional dimensions of fear (Ferraro, 1994).
Each time the participants noticed signs of disorder during their
walk they indicated their momentary concern for their personal
safety by answering 7 questions related to the perceived personal
safety at their current location (on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging
from 1 ¼ completely disagree to 5 ¼ completely agree: Table 3,
adapted from Begall et al., 2006; Blöbaum & Hunecke, 2005).
Also, they also reported their momentary mental state by
selecting one of 7 negative (agitated, angry, anxious, distressed),
neutral (calm, relaxed) and positive (cheerful) affective terms
(adapted from Spielberger, 1983).
2.3.3. Neighborhood safety
To test if the experimental items affected the perceived safety of
the experimental neighborhood we asked the participants to rate
its livability and the prevalence of social incivilities. Hence, these
measurements tap the cognitive appraisal of perceived risk
(LaGrange & Ferraro, 1989).
After completing their tour through the neighborhood the
participants gave their impression of its livability (by answering 4
questions on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 ¼ completely
disagree to 5 ¼ completely agree; Table 4, adapted from Bureau
Veiligheidsmonitor, 2009; Parsons et al., 2010).
Participants were also asked to estimate the prevalence of 12
different crimes and social incivilities that may be associated with
any signs of disorder they had noticed during their walk, on a 4-point
Likert scale (often, sometimes, almost never, don’t know; see Table 5,
adapted from Bureau Veiligheidsmonitor, 2009; see also Sampson &
Raudenbush, 1999). In addition, they were asked to indicate which
two of the potential problems should be resolved with priority.
People tend to be more susceptible to signs of crimes and social
incivilities when they have personal victimization experiences
(Austin, Furr, & Spine, 2002). We therefore measured personal
victimization by asking the participants to indicate which of the 12
listed crimes and social incivilities they had experienced themselves,
and when this had occurred (this year, last year, longer ago, never).
2.4. Experimental procedure
2.4.1. Real environment
The field study was performed during August and September
2010, between the hours of 9 AM and 5 PM on weekdays. Weather
conditions were mild and stable during the entire experimental
period (temperature ¼ 18  3  C; relative humidity ¼ 70  18%;
wind speed ¼ 4.5  1.7 m/s; no rain; partly overcast).
After their arrival at the laboratory, the participants first read
and signed an informed consent form. Next, they filled out the
General Questionnaire. Then they read the following instructions:
“The experiment will take place in an area of Soesterberg near the
TNO lab, and will take about 45 minutes. Citizens living in this area
are concerned about the increasing physical disorder in their
neighborhood. They intend to draft a plan of action to confront this
problem. After making an inventory of the different types of
physical incivilities occurring in their neighborhood, the citizens
will prioritize the order in which these should be addressed.
It is your task to make a tour through the neighborhood and assess
the physical disorder in this area. You will receive a map of the area
and a questionnaire. Your route is marked by arrows on the map.
There are also arrows drawn with chalk on the ground. Each time
 A. Toet, M.G. van Schaik / Journal of Environmental Psychology 32 (2012) 260e276 265

Table 1 Table 2
Experimental items, their connotations of physical and social disorder, and the Physical incivilities and signals of social disorder applied in the experiments. The
experimental classification. location numbers correspond to the sites were the items were deployed, as indicated
on the map in Fig. 6.
Experimental items Social Class
connotations Location nr Description of physical incivilities
Garbage bags Neglect, Litter 1 Sign on fence: “Attention! Neighborhood watch”
Cardboard boxes indifference 2 Garbage bag in shrubs.
Newspapers, flyers 3 Bicycle wreck in shrubs.
Plastic shopping bags 4 Empty beer cans in undergrowth.
Dog droppings 5 Empty beer cans in undergrowth.
Bicycle frame 6 CCTV camera and sign “Camera surveillance” on lamppost.
Bicycle wheels 7 Empty beer cans in undergrowth.
Cigarette butts Street youth, 8 Sign on fence: “Nothing in . Nothing out!”, broken
Empty beer cans loitering car side window glass near cars in parking lot.
Fast-food wrappers, boxes, paper cups 9 Empty cigarette boxes and empty beer cans near
Broken bus shelter windows Vandalism Vandalism bench, 3 mockup dog droppings near tree, plastic
Smashed car windows Predatory Car burglary bag wrapped in statue.
Neighborhood crime watch signs crime Warning signs 10 Garbage bags and two bicycle wheels outside
Signs that homes are garden entrance.
protected by private security services 11 Dog watch sign on fence: “I make it to the door
Signs that homes are protected by dogs in 4 s e how long do you need?”.
CCTV security cameras Cameras 12 CCTV camera and sign: “Camera surveillance” on
lamppost, fake dog droppings on pathway.
13 Car tire in undergrowth.
14 Fake dog droppings on pathway, plastic bags,
you notice a physical incivility (e.g. litter, dog droppings, broken car old newspapers and commercial flyers in undergrowth.
windows, etc.) during your inspection tour, you are requested to: 15 Old wet cardboard box in undergrowth.
16 Sign on fence: “Electronic security e 24 Home Care”.
17 Sign on lamppost: “Nothing in . Nothing out!”,
1. Make a photograph of the physical incivility you notice.
broken car side window glass near cars in parking lot.
2. Mark its location on your map. 18 Cigarette stubs, empty beer cans, and mockup dog
3. Enter a brief description of the incivility on your questionnaire. droppings around bench on small square.
4. Rate any momentary concerns for your personal safety inspired by 19 Mockup dog droppings on pathway.
the perceived incivility using the Concern for Personal Safety 20 Sign on tree trunk: “Nothing in . Nothing out!”,
broken car side window glass near cars in parking lot.
Questionnaire. 21 Empty beer cans around bench in playground.
5. Describe your current mental state by choosing one 7 affective 22 CCTV camera and sign: “Camera surveillance”
terms on the Affective State Questionnaire (agitated, angry, on lamppost, broken car side window glass on ground.
anxious, distressed, calm, relaxed, cheerful). 23 Mockup dog droppings on pathway next to
“No dog poop zone” sign.
Also, please register on your questionnaire each time you hear the 24 Sign on fence around playground: “Attention!
sound of cars, motorcycles, building activities, garbage trucks, dogs, Neighborhood watch”.
25 Empty beer cans in playground.
music, screaming or shouting, children playing.“
26 Garbage bag in undergrowth.
The brief introduction served to focus the participants’ attention, 27 Paper litter in undergrowth (old newspapers,
commercial flyers).
to increase their involvement, and to instill a serious attitude toward 28 CCTV camera and sign “Camera surveillance”
the experiment. Next, the experimenter verified if the participants on lamppost.
had understood their instructions, and accompanied them from the 29 Bicycle wheel in undergrowth.
laboratory to the start of the walkabout (about a 5 min walk). Then 30 Dog watch sign on fence: “Beware of the
dog e enter at your own risk”.
the participants received a digital photo camera and the printed
31 Empty beer cans in undergrowth.
questionnaires and started their walkabout, which they performed 32 Sign on fence: “Electronic security e 24 Home Care”.
at their own pace and unaccompanied. A minimum of 15 min was 33 Sign on fence: “Attention! Neighborhood watch”.
maintained between two successive walkabouts to ensure that 34 Broken safety glass near bus shelter.
participants would not meet with each other. At the start of each
trial the experimenter registered the outdoor temperature, relative
humidity, wind speed, cloudiness, and amount of precipitation.
“The experiment concerns an area of Soesterberg near the TNO lab,
After returning from their walkabout the experimenter accom-
and will take about 45 minutes. Citizens living in this area are
panied the participants back to the laboratory, where they filled out
concerned about the increasing physical disorder in their neigh-
the Neighborhood Livability Questionnaire (Table 4) and the Social
borhood. They intend to draft a plan of action to confront this
Incivilities and Personal Victimization Questionnaires (Table 5). On
problem. After making an inventory of the different types of
the Social Incivilities Questionnaire they also indicated which two
physical incivilities occurring in their neighborhood, the citizens
items should be confronted with priority. In addition, they indi-
will prioritize the order in which these should be addressed. To
cated how many times they had heard the sound of cars, motor-
enable a large number of people to give their opinion on the
cycles, building activities, garbage trucks, dogs, music, screaming or
physical disorder in this area, the concerned citizens have
shouting, children playing (frequently, occasionally, not at all).
commissioned a realistic and highly detailed computer model of
Finally, they were asked to report any particular features they had
their neighborhood.
noticed during their walkthrough.
It is your task to make a tour through this virtual model and assess
2.4.2. Virtual environment the physical disorder in this neighborhood. Your route is marked by
After their arrival at the laboratory, the participants first read arrows drawn on the ground. Each time you notice a physical
and signed an informed consent form. Next, they filled out the incivility (e.g. litter, dog droppings, broken car windows, etc.)
General Questionnaire. Then they read the following instructions: during your inspection tour, you are requested to:
266 A. Toet, M.G. van Schaik / Journal of Environmental Psychology 32 (2012) 260e276

Fig. 3. Warning signs (in Dutch) used in the experiment. (a) “Attention! Neighborhood watch”. (b) “Nothing in . Nothing out!”. (c) “Electronic security e 24 Home Care”. (d) “Camera
surveillance”. (e) “I make it to the door in 4 sec e how long do you need?”. (f) “Beware of the dog e enter at your own risk”.

1. Make a snapshot of the physical incivility you notice (by pressing
key F12).
2. Enter a brief description of the incivility on your questionnaire.
3. Rate any momentary concerns for your personal safety inspired by
the perceived incivility using the Concern for Personal Safety
Questionnaire.
4. Describe your current mental state by choosing one 7 affective
terms on the Affective State Questionnaire (agitated, angry,
anxious, distressed, calm, relaxed, cheerful).”
Next, the experimenter verified if the participants had under-
stood their instructions, and started the simulation. The experi-
menter then explained the function of the gamepad, and gave the
participant the opportunity to practice maneuvering through the
virtual environment for a few minutes. Then, the experimenter
gave the participants the printed questionnaires and positioned the
point-of-view in the virtual environment at the starting location,
facing the direction of the route. The participants then put on their
headphones (both in the sound and no-sound conditions) and
started their walkthrough, which they performed at their own pace.
After finishing their walkthrough, the participants filled out the
Neighborhood Livability Questionnaire (Table 4) and the Social
Incivilities and Personal Victimization Questionnaires (Table 5). For
the Social Incivilities Questionnaire they also indicated which two
items should be confronted with priority in their opinion. Finally,
they were asked to report any particular features they had noticed
during their walkthrough.
2.5. Participants
Before starting the actual experiments, we performed two pilot
trials in the real environment and two in the virtual environment,
with 4 different participants. These trials served to test if the
instructions were clear, if the participants could easily find their
way through the environment, whether the signs of disorder were
salient enough to be noticed, and how much time they required to
perform their task.
The experimental sample consisted of 120 participants (6
groups of 20 each; 66 males and 54 females, average age 39
years, range18e69). The participants were not familiar with the
urban area that was used in the experiments. Also, they were
unaware that the experimental items had been applied for the
purpose of the experiment in the real-world condition.
 A. Toet, M.G. van Schaik / Journal of Environmental Psychology 32 (2012) 260e276 267

The experimental protocol was reviewed and approved by TNO 3. Results

internal review board on experiments with human participants,
and was in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as
revised in 2000 World Medical Association, 2000. The partici-
pants gave their informed consent prior to testing. The partici-
pants received a modest financial compensation for their
participation.
2.6. Statistical methods
Statistical analyses were performed with SPSS 18.0 for Windows
(SPSS, Chicago, Ill., USA). Variance analysis techniques, correlations,
(M)ANOVA’s and chi-square tests were used to assess the statistical
significance of our experimental results. For all analyses a proba-
bility level of p < .05 was considered to be statistically significant.
Items were recoded such that higher scores represented lower
levels of perceived safety or livability.
3.1. General findings
Table 6 lists the total number of reports for the different classes of
incivilities in each experimental condition, together with the
percentage of the maximum possible number of reports. The
maximum number of possible reports for a given item equals the
number of specimens of that particular item times the number of
participants in each condition (20). As expected, participants
noticed significantly more signs of disorder in the disorderly
conditions than in the corresponding baseline (orderly) conditions.
In the real-world baseline condition participants were predomi-
nantly concerned with minor irregularities like neglected pave-
ment, dark pathways with lack of prospect due to overgrown shrubs
and trees or insufficient public lighting in combination with high
fences, cigarette butts, scratches on benches and lantern posts, and

Fig. 4. Warning signs from Fig. 3 and cameras in the real (left column) and virtual (right column) environment.
268 A. Toet, M.G. van Schaik / Journal of Environmental Psychology 32 (2012) 260e276
Fig. 4. (continued).
low hanging or dead and broken braches. They also reported graffiti
on the walls of a small transformer house (Fig. 7). The baseline
virtual environment contained absolutely no signs of disorder. In
this condition, participants were mainly concerned with (a) path-
ways that were either dark or lacked prospect (due to dense bushes
or insufficient public lighting and high fences) and (b) low hanging
or dead and broken braches as signs of neglect and disorder. Table 6
also lists the percentage of experimental items that were actually
reported by the participants in the disorderly conditions. Litter and
car burglary were most frequently reported, both in reality and in
the virtual environment. Vandalism was also frequently reported in
the virtual environment. Except for surveillance cameras, most
experimental items were more frequently reported in the virtual
environment than in reality. Warning signs and cameras were
frequently not noticed, both in reality and in the virtual environ-
ment. In the real environment, participants occasionally noticed the
sounds of cars during their walk.
3.2. Social incivilities
After correction for personal victimization, participants judged
the prevalence of social incivilities higher in disorderly (real and
virtual) conditions than in the corresponding baseline conditions.
However, this trend was not statistically significant. Thus, hypothesis
H1 (signs of disorder evoke associations with social disorder, in both real
and simulated urban neighborhoods) is not proven by this study.
In all disorderly conditions, Littering (Item 8 from Table 5) was
the most frequently associated social incivility, followed by Loiter-
ing youth (Item 6 from Table 5) in the disorderly real-world
condition, and Car burglaries and Car destruction (Items 2 and 3
from Table 5) in the disorderly virtual conditions. Car burglaries and
Car destruction were reported thirdly in the real environment. Thus,
perceived social incivilities were directly related to their
corresponding physical evidence. Cues (e.g. warning signs,
cameras) hinting at predatory crime (e.g. burglary, public drunk-
enness, harassment) did not appear to effectively induce associa-
tions with social incivilities.
In response to the open-ended question if they had noticed
any particular features during their walk through a disorderly
environment, only few participants (4 out of 20 in the real
environment, 6 out of 20 in the virtual environment without
sound, and 3 out of 20 in the virtual environment with sound)
reported that the presence of cameras and warning signs inspired
fear of crime.
The question which two items should be confronted with
priority yielded no consistent result.
3.3. Personal safety
In the soundless virtual environment, participants felt signifi-
cantly more concern for personal safety in the disorderly condition
than in the baseline condition (F(1,52) ¼ 7.41, p < .01). However, for
both the real environment and the virtual environment with sound,
there was no significant overall difference between concern for
personal safety in the baseline and in the disorderly conditions.
Thus, hypothesis H2 (signs of disorder inspire concern for personal
safety, in both real and simulated urban neighborhoods) is not sup-
ported by this study.
Exceptions to the emerging conclusion that disorder had no
effect on perceived personal safety in the real environment and in
the virtual environment with sound, are Items 1 and 6 of the
Personal Safety Questionnaire (Table 3). Item 6 (“I have an
unpleasant feeling in this place”) scored significantly higher in the
disorderly real environment. Item 1 (“I would not mind to walk alone
here at night-time”) scored significantly lower in the disorderly
virtual environment with sound.
 A. Toet, M.G. van Schaik / Journal of Environmental Psychology 32 (2012) 260e276 269

Summarizing, signs of disorder appear to compromise perceived
personal safety in the soundless virtual environment.
3.4. Mental state
Table 7 lists the percentage of reports of disorder that were
associated with respectively a negative (agitated, angry, anxious,
distressed), neutral (calm, relaxed) and positive (cheerful) mental
state. In all conditions, reports of disorder are frequently associated
with neutral feelings, and only sporadically with positive feelings.
In the disorderly virtual environment, reports on disorder are
significantly more frequently associated with negative feelings than
in the disorderly real environment, both with (c2 ¼ 44.99; df ¼ 2;
p < .01) and without sound (c2 ¼ 100.48; df ¼ 2; p < .01). The

Fig. 5. Examples of physical incivilities introduced in the real (left column) and virtual (right column) environment: (aed) empty beer cans, (e, f) broken glass, (gej) bicycle parts, (k,
l) broken car window glass, (m, n) garbage bags and bicycle parts, (o, p) paper litter, (q, r) dog droppings, (s, t) garbage bag, (u, v) car tire.
270 A. Toet, M.G. van Schaik / Journal of Environmental Psychology 32 (2012) 260e276

Fig. 5. (continued).

disorderly soundless virtual condition induced the highest
percentage of negative feelings.
Table 8 lists the percentage (number) of reports that were
associated with a negative mental state (agitated, angry, anxious,
distressed), for all types of incivilities. Neglected pavement induced
no negative feelings in the real-world condition. In the real envi-
ronment, graffiti induced negative feelings in a few instances in the
baseline condition, but was not noticed in the disorderly condition.
In the disorderly virtual environment with sound lack of prospect
was not reported. In all other conditions, lack of prospect was most
frequently associated with negative emotions.
Overall, signs of disorder in the virtual environment appear to
be associated with negative emotions more frequently than their
real-world counterparts.
 A. Toet, M.G. van Schaik / Journal of Environmental Psychology 32 (2012) 260e276 271

Fig. 5. (continued).

3.5. Livability a virtual neighborhood, which was either in an orderly (baseline)

state or adorned with numerous signs of disorder. Also, the virtual
There is no significant difference between the perceived environment was either presented with or without a realistic
livability of the real environment in its baseline and disorderly soundscape. During their tour the participants reported all the
states. In contrast, the perceived livability of the virtual environ-
ment is significantly lower in its disorderly state than in its baseline
state, both in conditions with (F(1,39) ¼ 16.58, p < .01) and without
(F(1,39) ¼ 8.78, p < .01) sound.
This effect is mainly due to the fact that signs of disorder
compromise the perceived quality of the pathways (Item 1 from
Table 4: “The roads, pathways, and squares are in good condition”,
F(1,38) ¼ 19.44, p < .01 in the condition with sound, and
F(1,38) ¼ 12.16, p < .01 in the soundless condition). Thus, hypoth-
esis H3 (signs of disorder degrade the perceived livability of both real
and simulated urban neighborhoods) is not supported by this study.
It appears that signs of disorder only degrade the perceived
livability of the virtual, but not of the real neighborhood.

4. Discussion

This study explored the ecological validity of a virtual environ- Fig. 6. Map of the experimental area. The white arrows indicate the route taken by the
ment for studying the effects of signs of public disorder on fear of participants. The start and finish of the route coincide. The numbers indicate the
crime. Participants made a walking tour through either a real or locations where the physical incivilities (listed in Table 1) were applied.
272 A. Toet, M.G. van Schaik / Journal of Environmental Psychology 32 (2012) 260e276

Table 3
Concern for Personal Safety Questionnaire. The questions were answered on
a 5-point scale (ranging from 1 ¼ completely disagree to 5 ¼ completely agree).
Nr. Concern for personal safety items
1 I would not mind to walk alone here at night-time.
2 I would go a long way around to avoid this place.
3 I feel uneasy at this place.
4 I would leave my bicycle at this place without concern.
5 I would make haste to get away from this place.
6 I have an unpleasant feeling in this place.
7 I feel safe at this place.
signs of public disorder they noticed, and the degree to which each
of these signs affected their emotional state and feelings of personal
safety. After finishing their tour they appraised the perceived safety
and livability of the environment.
Both in the real and in the virtual environment, observers
reported significantly more incivilities in the disorderly states. The
data show a trend that participants judge the prevalence of social
incivilities higher in disorderly (real and virtual) conditions than in
the corresponding baseline conditions. However, since this result
was not statistically significant, hypothesis H1 (signs of disorder
evoke associations with social disorder, in both real and simulated
urban neighborhoods) is not proven by this study. Also, physical
incivilities did not affect perceived personal safety in the real
environment, and in the virtual environment with sound. Thus,
hypothesis H2 (signs of disorder inspire concern for personal safety,
in both real and simulated urban neighborhoods) is not supported
by this study. This result is consistent with previous reports that
people appear able to distinguish between perceptions of physical
incivilities and perceptions of criminal activities (Armstrong & Katz,
2010; Worrall, 2006). Hypothesis H3 (signs of disorder degrade the
perceived livability of both real and simulated urban neighborhoods)
is only proven for the virtual environment, but does not hold for the
real environment. Hypothesis H4 (realistic ambient sounds
increase the convincingness of the simulation, thereby amplifying
the effects of physical disorder) is also not supported by the present
results. In contrast, both in the virtual environment with sound and
in reality, sounds signaling social presence appeared to mute the
potentially distressing effects of the signs of disorder. The simula-
tion used in this study showed no visual evidence of social presence
(avatars). However, the soundscape contained segments with
people talking and children playing. In the real environment,
participants also sporadically heard other people talking. These
people (local residents, children or delivery persons) typically
sounded harmless. Thus, both in the virtual environment with
sound and in reality, evidence of harmless social presence may have
had a reassuring effect on the participants. The absence of sound is
known to induce stress, fear, anxiety, and feelings of isolation
(Murray et al., 2000). Hence, the disorderly virtual environment
may have inspired fear of crime and induced a higher percentage of
negative feelings by the mere absence of sound, in combination
with a total lack of evidence of social presence.
The experimental area contained several locations of entrap-
ment (blocked escape) and concealment (blocked prospect),
factors that are well known to induce fear (Fisher & Nasar, 1992;
Table 4
Neighborhood Livability Questionnaire. The questions were answered on a 5-point
scale (ranging from 1 ¼ completely disagree to 5 ¼ completely agree).
Nr. Neighborhood livability items
1 The roads, pathways, and squares are in good condition.
2 The patches and parks are well maintained.
3 There are nice playgrounds for small children.
4 There are good recreational opportunities for the youth.
Table 5
Social Incivilities and Personal Victimization Questionnaires. In the Social Incivilities
Questionnaire these items are used to test which social incivilities or predatory
crimes are inspired by the perceived physical incivilities by indicating how
frequently these item are thought to occur in this neighborhood (often, seldom,
never, don’t know). In the Personal Victimization Questionnaire the same items are
used to test which social incivilities or predatory crimes participants have experi-
enced themselves and when this occurred (this year, last year, longer ago, never).
Nr. Social incivility items
1 Bicycle theft
2 Car burglaries
3 Car destruction
4 Harassment
5 Defacing buildings
6 Loitering youth
7 Public drunkenness
8 Littering
9 Dog littering
10 Destruction of phone booths and bus shelters
11 Burglaries
12 Criminal youth
Nasar & Fisher, 1993; Nasar & Jones, 1997). Participants indeed
consistently reported lack of prospect as an incivility in all
conditions. Also, in response to the open-ended question if they
had noticed any particular features during their walkthrough, in all
conditions several (4 on average) participants reported that the
pathways were scary due their narrowness, darkness and lack of
prospect. This is consistent with reports that narrow alleys and
shadows are perceived as more dangerous (Herzog & Flynn-Smith,
2001).
In all conditions neglected greenery was reported as a sign of
disorder. This results agrees with previous studies in which lack of
garden maintenance was conceptualized as an ‘suburban incivility’
and associated with crime and perceived safety (Brown, Perkins, &
Brown, 2004). In the baseline conditions, when no obvious signs of
disorder were present, participants were predominantly concerned
with overgrown shrubs and trees and lack of prospect, both in
reality and in the virtual environment.
The warning signs and cameras were frequently not reported as
signs of public disorder. Either the participants did not notice these
items because they focused on other items, or they did not
consistently associate them with disorder. In response to the open
questions, only a few participants reported that the presence of
cameras and warning signs inspired fear of crime. It has been
observed that the presence of CCTV in an area may increase fear of
crime, possibly because the assumed need for CCTV to be installed
makes the area seem more problematic (Gill & Spriggs, 2005).
Previous studies also found a significant correlation between
neighborhood crime watch signs and fear of crime (Schweitzer,
Kim, & Macklin, 1999). However, the causal direction of these
relationships has not been established. The presence of CCTV may
therefore also have a reassuring effect, since it signals social control.
Also, although fear of crime may lead residents to form neighbor-
hood watch groups, neighborhood watch signs by themselves need
not inspire fear of crime.
Participants reported more experimental items in the virtual
environment than in reality. This may reflect a focusing effect due
to the restricted field of view on the virtual world (with an extent of
about 40 ), which was small compared to the unrestricted human
visual field (200 horizontal by 135 vertical: Werner, 1991). This
focusing effect may be the reason why signs of disorder degraded
the perceived livability of the virtual, but not of the real neigh-
borhood. This finding is consistent with earlier observations that
people pay more attention to details in a virtual environment
compared to a similar real environment (Mahmoud, 2011; Park
et al., 2010). The many reports of neglected greenery in the
 A. Toet, M.G. van Schaik / Journal of Environmental Psychology 32 (2012) 260e276 273

Table 6
Total number of reports for the different classes of incivilities. The experimental items were in the classes Litter, Vandalism, Car burglary, Warning signs, and Cameras. The
numbers in brackets represent the percentage of the maximum possible number of experimental items that could be reported. Participants also considered overgrown shrubs
and trees and lack of prospect as incivilities, both in the real and virtual environments. In the real environment, they also reported neglected pavement and graffiti as
incivilities.

Items Conditions

Real Virtual

Baseline Disorder Baseline Disorder

Soundless With Soundless With

sound sound
Litter 85 304 (76.0%) e e 358 (89.5%) 336 (84.0%)
Vandalism e 5 (25.0%) e e 12 (60.0%) 15 (75.0%)
Car burglary e 37 (61.7%) e e 55 (91.7) 53 (88.3%)
Warning signs e 10 (3.6%) e e 26 (9.3%) 10 (3.6%)
Cameras e 15 (18.8%) e e 11 (13.8%) 5 (6.3%)
Overgrown 14 10 20 8 4 3
shrubs/trees
Prospect 16 2 3 9 4 2
Pavement 30 17 e e e e
Graffiti 15 17 e e e e

virtual environment are consistent with the observation of Smith
and Carter (2010) that participants frequently identify items that
were not intentionally introduced by the developers as indicators
of disorder, and may be indicative of increased engagement.
Summarizing, the virtual environment used in this study
appears ecologically valid to the extent that both in reality and in
the simulations:
 most experimental items inspired their corresponding social
incivilities,
 lack of prospect and neglected greenery were consistently and
spontaneously reported as incivilities, and
 warning signs and cameras did not effectively induce associa-
tions with social incivilities.
However, disorder compromised perceived personal safety only
in the soundless virtual environment. Signs of disorder were
associated with negative emotions more frequently in the virtual
environment than in its real-world counterpart, particularly in the
absence of sound. Also, signs of disorder degraded the perceived
livability of the virtual, but not of the real neighborhood. Hence, it
appears that people focus more on details in a virtual environment
than in reality. After compensating for this effect (e.g. by reducing
the relative amount of disorder or its perceptual saliency), virtual
environments may become an appropriate medium for both etio-
logical (e.g. the effects of signs of disorder on fear of crime) and
intervention (e.g. CPTED) research.
4.1. Implications of the present study
The present finding that signs of disorder in the virtual envi-
ronment only compromised perceived personal safety in the
absence of sound questions the validity of results from previous
studies performed with soundless virtual environments. Ambient
sounds contribute to the ecological validity and convincingness of
a simulation by increasing the naturalness of the experience and by
providing ambient information. As a result, the addition of sound to
a virtual environment can significantly affect sense of presence,
engagement and emotions of the users (Darken, Bernatovich,
Lawson, & Peterson, 1999; Dekker & Champion, 2007; Dinh,
Walker, Hodges, Song, & Kobayashi, 1999; Hendrix & Barfield,
1996; Larsson, Väljamäe, Västfjäll, & Kleiner, 2008; Larsson &
Västfjäll, 2001; Larsson, Västfjäll, & Kleiner, 2001; Larsson,
Västfjäll, Olsson, & Kleiner, 2007; Lessiter & Freeman, 2001). The
absence of sounds however makes an environment appear ‘unreal’
or ‘dead’, and induces feelings of stress, anxiety or fear (Murray
et al., 2000). Since people tend to misattribute their feelings to
the environment they perceive (Schwarz, 1990) the absence of
sound may result in a negatively biased perception of the virtual
environment.
The present results are also relevant for courtroom applications
of virtual environments, where it is essential that the simulation
induces a similar affective appraisal as the unmediated reality, to
avoid the risk of manipulation (Bailenson, Blascovich, Beall, &
Noveck, 2006; Dunn, Salovey, & Feigenson, 2006; Feigenson,
2006; Feigenson, 2010; Feigenson & Dunn, 2003; Feigenson &
Speisel, 2011). Even where it is not necessarily the focal point of
the case, visual information may influence decision makers’
thoughts and feelings and thereby indirectly their verdicts

Table 7
Percentage of reports that corresponded to respectively a negative (agitated, angry,
anxious, distressed), neutral (calm, relaxed) and positive (cheerful) mental state.

Items Conditions

Real Virtual

Baseline Disorder Baseline Disorder

Soundless With Soundless With

sound sound
Negative 17.5% 25.5% 18.0% 44.4% 54.8% 43.4%
Neutral 76.3% 66.1% 82.1% 55.6% 44.8% 55.2%
Positive 6.0% 8.4% 0% 0% 0.4% 1.4%
Fig. 7. Small transformer house with graffiti.
274 A. Toet, M.G. van Schaik / Journal of Environmental Psychology 32 (2012) 260e276
Table 8
Percentage (number) of reported incivilities associated with a negative mental state.
Items Conditions
Real
Baseline Disorder
Litter 7.1% (6) 26.0% (79)
Vandalism e 40.0% (2)
Car burglary e 40.5% (15)
Warning signs e 20.0% (2)
Cameras e 40.0%
Overgrown shrubs/trees 35.7% (5) 10.0% (1)
Prospect 93.8% (15) 100% (2)
Pavement 0% (0) 0% (0)
Graffiti 13.3% (2) 0% (0)
(Feigenson, 2010). This is particularly true for virtual environments
which present information in a vivid, attention grabbing manner
(Dunn et al., 2006). The risk of manipulation increases with the
degree of realism of a simulation (Bailenson et al., 2006). By
including peripheral subtle mood changing (visual or auditory)
elements in their simulations lawyers would be able to create
positive or negative associations toward a plaintiff or defendant
(Bailenson et al., 2006; Feigenson, 2010; Feigenson & Dunn, 2003).
4.2. Limitations of the present study and suggestions for future
research
This study has several limitations.
Although participants indeed associated several experimental
items with social incivilities, only few individual items achieved
statistical significance. Maybe the items induced different associa-
tions with anti-social behavior as expected. For instance, litter and
graffiti may simply reflect bored teenagers. Also, for practical
reasons the number of participants was limited to 20 per condition
in this experiment. A larger number of observations may yield more
reliable results.
Except for the broken car glass, the experimental items used in
this study represent minor offenses and have no obvious conno-
tations of violence or predatory crimes that may inspire fear of
personal victimization. Indicators of serious (prostitution, drug
selling, harassment) or even less serious (public drunkenness)
social disorder may inspire fear more effectively, but these are
typically not present in daylight hours (Sampson & Raudenbush,
1999) and are not easily implemented in experimental conditions.
In simulation studies social incivilities inspire safety related
concerns far more effectively than physical incivilities (Park et al.,
2010), just like in reality (LaGrange, Ferraro, & Supancic, 1992). In
the current simulation social presence was merely implied through
the occasional sound of voices, traffic, birds, music and hammering
in the ambient soundtrack. There was no visual evidence of human
or animal activity. The soundtrack played independently of the
actions of the user. In future experiments the realism of the
simulation can be enhanced by adding dynamic visual, auditory,
olfactory and haptic features that interact with the user. Dynamic
audio cues could include voices that shout or dogs that bark when
participants walk by. Dynamic visual cues could be passing traffic
(cars, motorbikes), virtual humans that drop litter, create graffiti,
shout insults or make obscene gestures when approached, or dogs
that growl at people passing by. In everyday life ambient smells are
important and essential environmental cues that trigger a wide
range of different emotions and associations. The potential of
olfactory stimulation to enhance virtual experiences has only
recently been integrated in simulations (Baus & Bouchard, 2010). In
Virtual
Baseline Disorder
Soundless With sound Soundless With sound
e e 53.1% (190) 38.8% (130)
e e 58.3% (7) 66.7% (10)
e e 67.3% (37) 58.5% (31)
e e 38.5% (10) 60.0% (6)
e e 25.0% (5) 60.0% (3)
10% (2) 12.5 (1) 25.0% (1) 33.3% (1)
100% (3) 88.9 (8) 75.0% (3) 0% (0)
e e e e
e e e e
the context of this study relevant olfactory cues could include urine,
sewage or garbage smells in alleys, or gasoline smells near cars
(Baus & Bouchard, 2010). Finally, dynamic haptic cues could include
sudden gusts of air when moving around a corner or constant
breezes when walking through open spaces (Noel et al., 2004). Each
of these modifications may induce a higher sense of presence (i.e.
the sense of “being there” in an environment: Lee, 2004) and
arousal in the users, and thereby make the virtual environment
more effectively elicit cognitive and emotional responses similar to
those that users would have to corresponding real environments
(Freeman, Lessiter, Pugh, & Keogh, 2005; Riva et al., 2007).
The (physical and demographic) characteristics of lower socio-
economic neighborhoods can mute the effects of disorder (e.g.
Foster, Giles-Corti, & Knuiman, 2011; Perkins et al., 1992;
Schweitzer et al., 1999). A higher socio-economic neighborhood
was therefore selected as the test site, in the expectation that this
type of environment would be more susceptible to the effects of
disorder, resulting in larger differences between fear of crime levels
in respectively the orderly and disorderly states (Begall et al., 2006).
However, the esthetic appeal of the experimental neighborhood
used in this study may also have muted the effects of disorder, e.g.
by evoking associations with bored instead of criminal youth for
some of the experimental items. While the exclusive suburban
setting of this study may limit the generalizability of the current
finding, the overall results remain of interest since they indicate
that virtual environments may become useful tools for the study of
the effects of physical interventions on the affective appraisal of
built environments.
In this study we found that signs of disorder did not compromise
perceived personal safety, both in reality and in the virtual envi-
ronment with ambient sound. An earlier study observed that graf-
fiti, murals, and boarded-up broken windows inspired some
concern for personal safety both in reality and in a virtual model
(Park et al., 2010). The participants in that study were familiar with
the area, which was known for its high crime rates. As a result, they
were probably more susceptible to signs of disorder (Austin et al.,
2002). The participants in the current study were not familiar
with the experimental area. The written introduction used in the
present study may not have succeeded to sufficiently engage them
with the environment and their task, so that they remained
somewhat detached and did not experience any emotional
involvement. This is not a major concern, since a lack of engagement
would have had a similar effect on the results for the real and virtual
environment, and may merely have reduced the experienced
emotions. Although the CCTV cameras and signs, neighborhood
crime watch signs, home protection, and car burglary prevention
signs (that were used as cues of social disorder in this study) are
obvious indicators of predatory or ‘serious’ crime, known to be
 A. Toet, M.G. van Schaik / Journal of Environmental Psychology 32 (2012) 260e276
associated with fear of crime (Schweitzer et al., 1999), they were
probably not associated with imminent danger for personal safety.
Acknowledgment
This research has been supported by the GATE project, funded
by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) and
the Netherlands ICT Research and Innovation Authority (ICT Regie).
References
Armstrong, T., & Katz, C. (2010). Further evidence on the discriminant validity of
perceptual incivilities measures. Justice Quarterly, 27, 280e304.
Austin, D. M., Furr, L. A., & Spine, M. (2002). The effects of neighborhood conditions
on perceptions of safety. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 417e427.
Austin, D. M., & Sanders, C. (2007). Graffiti and perceptions of safety: A pilot study
using photographs and survey data. Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular
Culture, 14, 292e316.
Bailenson, J. N., Blascovich, J., Beall, A. C., & Noveck, B. (2006). Courtroom applica-
tions of virtual environments, immersive virtual environments, and collabo-
rative virtual environments. Law & Policy, 28, 249e270.
Baus, O., & Bouchard, S. (2010). The sense of olfaction: Its characteristics and its
possible applications in virtual environments. Journal of Cybertherapy & Reha-
bilitation, 3, 31e50.
Begall, K., Kiewiet, J., Sapulete, S., & Veldhuis, T. (2006). Broken windows: The effect of
disorder on fear. M.Sc. Groningen, The Netherlands: University of Groningen.
Bishop, I. D., & Rohrmann, B. (2003). Subjective responses to simulated and real
environments: A comparison. Landscape and Urban Planning, 65, 261e277.
Blöbaum, A., & Hunecke, M. (2005). Perceived danger in urban public space. The
impact of physical features and personal factors. Environment and Behavior, 37,
465e486.
Brown, B. B., Perkins, D. D., & Brown, G. (2004). Crime, new housing, and housing
incivilities in a first-ring suburb: Multilevel relationships across time. Housing
Policy Debate, 15, 301e345.
Bureau Veiligheidsmonitor. (2009). Integrale Veiligheidsmonitor 2009 (Integral Safety
Monitor 2009; in Dutch). Den Haag: Nicis Institute.
Caughy, M. O., O’Campo, P. J., & Patterson, J. (2001). A brief observational measure
for urban neighborhoods. Health & Place, 7, 225e236.
Cozens, P., Neal, R., Hillier, D., & Whitaker, J. (2004). Tackling crime and fear of crime
while waiting at Britain’s railway stations. Journal of Public Transportation, 7,
23e42.
Cozens, P., Neal, R., Whitaker, J., & Hillier, D. (2003). Investigating personal safety at
railway stations using “virtual reality” technology. Facilties, 21, 188e194.
Cozens, P., Neale, R., & Hillier, D. (2003). Managing crime and the fear of crime at
railway stations e A case study in South Wales (UK). International Journal of
Transport Management, 1, 121e132.
Cozens, P., Waters, J., & Neale, R. (2002). A virtual reality approach to personal safety
and the design of built environment facilties. In Proceedings of the 18th ARCOM
annual conference (Association of Researchers in Construction Management) (pp.
461e473).
Darken, R. P., Bernatovich, D., Lawson, J., & Peterson, B. (1999). Quantitative
measures of presence in virtual environments: The role of attention and spatial
comprehension. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 2, 337e347.
Dekker, A., & Champion, E. (2007). Please biofeed the zombies: Enhancing the
gameplay and display of a horror game using biofeedback. In Situated play e
proceedings of the third international conference of the Digital Games Research
Association (DiGRA) (pp. 550e558). Digital Games Research Association (DiGRA).
Dinh, H. Q., Walker, N., Hodges, L. F., Song, C., & Kobayashi, A. (1999). Evaluating the
importance of multi-sensory input on memory and the sense of presence in
virtual environments. In Proceedings of the virtual reality Annual International
Symposium (pp. 222e228). Washington, USA: IEEE Press.
Dunn, M. A., Salovey, P., & Feigenson, N. (2006). The jury persuaded (and not):
Computer animation in the courtroom. Law & Policy, 28, 228e248.
Dunstan, F., Weaver, N., Arava, R., Bell, T., Lannon, S., Lewis, G., et al. (2005). An
observation tool to assist with the assessment of urban residential environ-
ments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 293e305.
Feigenson, N. (2006). Too real? The future of virtual reality evidence. Law & Policy,
28, 271e293.
Feigenson, N. (2010). Visual evidence. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 149e154.
Feigenson, N., & Dunn, M. A. (2003). New visual technologies in court: Directions for
research. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 109e126.
Feigenson, N., & Speisel, C. (2011). Law on display. The digital transformation of legal
persuasion and judgment. New York, USA: NYU Press.
Ferraro, K. F. (1994). Fear of crime: Interpreting victimization risk. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Fisher, B. S., & Nasar, J. L. (1992). Fear of crime in relation to three exterior site
features: prospect, refuge, and escape. Environment and Behavior, 24, 35e65.
Foster, S., Giles-Corti, B., & Knuiman, M. (2011). Creating safe walkable streetscapes:
Does house design and upkeep discourage incivilities in suburban neighbour-
hoods? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31, 79e88.
Freeman, J., Lessiter, J., Pugh, K., & Keogh, E. (2005). When presence and emotion are
related, and when they are not. In Proceedings of the 8th annual international
275
workshop on presence (PRESENCE 2005) (pp. 213e219). International Society for
Presence Research.
Gilkey, R. H., & Weisenberger, J. M. (1995). The sense of presence for the suddenly
deafened adult - Implications for virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators
and Virtual Environments, 4, 357e363.
Gill, M., & Spriggs, A. (2005). Assessing the impact of CCTV (Rep. No. Home Office
Research Study 292). London, United Kingdom: Great Britain Home Office
Research Development and Statistics Directorate.
van Hagen, M. (2011). Waiting experience at train stations. Delft, The Netherlands:
Eburon.
Hanyu, K. (1997). Visual properties and affective appraisals in residential areas after
dark. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17, 301e315.
Hanyu, K. (2000). Visual properties and affective appraisals in residential areas in
daylight. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20, 273e284.
Hendrix, C., & Barfield, W. (1996). The sense of presence within auditory virtual
environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 5, 290e301.
Herzog, T. R., & Flynn-Smith, J. A. (2001). Preference and perceived danger as
a function of the perceived curvature, length, and width of urban alleys. Envi-
ronment and Behavior, 33, 653e666.
Houtkamp, J. M., & Junger, M. L. A. (2010). Affective qualities of an urban environ-
ment on a desktop computer. In E. Banissi (Ed.), Proceedings of the 14th Inter-
national Conference information Visualisation (IV 2010) (pp. 597e603). Los
Alamitos, CA, USA: IEEE Computer Society.
Irwin, A., Hall, D. A., Peters, A., & Plack, C. J. (2011). Listening to urban sound-
scapes: Physiological validity of perceptual dimensions. Psychophysiology, 48,
258e268.
Kavakli, M, Kavakli, K, & Gao, Y. (2004). Crime prevention through environmental
design in virtual reality. In Proceedings of the 9th Annual International CPTED
Conference (pp. 1e11). Brisbane, Australia: International Security Management
& Crime Prevention Institute.
de Kort, Y. A. W., IJsselsteijn, W. A., Kooijman, J., & Schuurmans, Y. (2003).
Virtual laboratories: Comparability of real and virtual environments for envi-
ronmental psychology. Presence: Tele-operators and Virtual Environments, 12,
360e373.
LaGrange, R. L., & Ferraro, K. F. (1989). Assessing age and gender differences in
perceived risk and fear of crime. Criminology, 27, 697e719.
LaGrange, R., Ferraro, K., & Supancic, M. (1992). Perceived risk and fear of crime:
Role of social and physical incivilities. Journal of Research in Crime and Delin-
quency, 29, 311e334.
Larsson, P., Väljamäe, A., Västfjäll, D., & Kleiner, M. (2008). Auditory induced
presence in mediated environments and related technology. In Immersed in
media experiences: Presence psychology and design (Handbook of presence).
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Larsson, P., & Västfjäll, D. (2001). Ecological acoustics and the multi-modal
perception of rooms: Real and unreal experiences of auditory-visual virtual
environments. In Proceedings of the 2001 International Conference on Auditory
Display (pp. 245e259), Espoo, Finland.
Larsson, P., Västfjäll, D., & Kleiner, M. (2001). Do we really live in a silent world? The
(mis-) use of audio in virtual environments. In AVR II and CONVR 2001
conference on applied virtual reality (pp. 182e189), Göteborg, Sweden.
Larsson, P., Västfjäll, D., Olsson, P., & Kleiner, M. (2007). When what you hear is what
you see: Presence and auditory-visual integration in virtual environments. In
Proceedings of Presence 2007 (pp. 11e18). The International Society for Presence
Research (ISPR).
Lee, K. M. (2004). Presence, explicated. Communication Theory, 14, 27e50.
Lessiter, J., & Freeman, J. (2001). Really hear? The effects of audio quality on
presence. In Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on presence. Phila-
delphia, USA: Temple University.
Mahmoud, A. H. A. (2011). Assessment of visual perception of web-based virtual
environments simulations of urban context. International Journal of Architectural
Research, 5, 14e126.
Mori, M. (1970). Bukimi no tani (the uncanny valley). Energy, 7, 33e35.
Murray, C. D., Arnold, P., & Thornton, B. (2000). Presence accompanying induced
hearing loss: Implications for immersive virtual environments. Presence:
Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 9, 137e148.
Nasar, J. L. (2008). Assessing perceptions of environments for active living. American
Journal of Preventive Medicine, 34, 357e363.
Nasar, J. L., & Fisher, B. (1993). ‘Hot spots’ of fear and crime: A multi-method
investigation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13, 187e206.
Nasar, J. L., & Jones, K. M. (1997). Landscapes of fear and stress. Environment and
Behavior, 29, 291e323.
Noel, S., Dumoulin, S., Whalen, T., Ward, M., Stewart, J. A., & Lee, E. (2004). A breeze
enhances presence in a virtual environment. In Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE
International Workshop on Haptic, Audio and Visual Environments and their
applications (HAVE 2004) (pp. 63e68). Piscataway, NJ, USA: IEEE Press.
Palmer, J. F., & Hoffman, R. E. (2001). Rating reliability and representation validity in scenic
landscape assessments. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54, 149e161.
Park, A. J. (2008). Modeling the role of fear of crime in pedestrian navigation. Ph.D.
Thesis School of Interactive Arts and Technology, Simon Fraser University,
Burnaby, BC, Canada.
Park, A. J., & Calvert, T. W. (2008). A social agent pedestrian model. Computer
Animation and Virtual Worlds, 19, 331e340.
Park, A. J., Calvert, T., Brantingham, P. L., & Brantingham, P. J. (2008). The use of
virtual and mixed reality environments for urban behavioural studies.
PsychNology Journal, 6, 119e130.
276 A. Toet, M.G. van Schaik / Journal of Environmental Psychology 32 (2012) 260e276
Park, A. J., Clare, J., Spicer, V., Brantingham, P. L., Calvert, T., & Jenion, G. (2012).
Examining context-specific perceptions of risk: Exploring the utility of “human-
in-the-loop” simulation models for criminology. Journal of Experimental
Criminology, 8, 29e47.
Park, A. J., Hwang, E., Spicer, V., Cheng, C., Brantingham, P. L., & Sixsmith, A. (2011).
Testing elderly people’s fear of crime using a virtual environment. In
Proceedings of the 2011 European Conference on Intelligence and Security
Informatics (EISIC) (pp. 63e69). IEEE.
Park, A. J., Spicer, V., Guterres, M., Brantingham, P. L., & Jenion, G. (2010). Testing
perception of crime in a virtual environment. In Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE
International Conference on Intelligence and Security Informatics (ISI) (pp. 7e12).
Washington, USA: IEEE Press.
Parsons, J. A., Singh, G., Scott, A. N., Nisenbaum, R., Balasubramaniam, P., Jabbar, A.,
et al. (2010). Standardized observation of neighbourhood disorder: Does it work
in Canada? International Journal of Health Geographics, 9.
Perkins, D. D., Meeks, J. W., & Taylor, R. B. (1992). The physical environment of street
blocks and resident perceptions of crime and disorder: Implications for theory
and measurement. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 21e34.
Perkins, D. D., & Taylor, R. B. (1996). Ecological assessments of community disorder:
Their relationship to fear of crime and theoretical implications. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 63e107.
Pettey, G., Campanella Bracken, C., Rubenking, B., Bunche, M., & Gress, E. (2010).
Telepresence, soundscapes and technological expectation: Putting the observer
into the equation. Virtual Reality, 14, 15e25.
Riva, G., Mantovani, F., Capideville, C. S., Preziosa, A., Morganti, F., Villani, D., et al.
(2007). Affective interactions using virtual reality: The link between presence
and emotions. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 10, 45e56.
Rohrmann, B., & Bishop, I. D. (2002). Subjective responses to computer simulations
of urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22, 319e331.
Rohrmann, B., Palmer, S., & Bishop, I. (2000). Perceived quality of
computer-simulated environments. In G. Moore, J. Hunt, & L. Trevillon (Eds.),
Proceedings of the environment-behavior research on the Pacific Rim (pp.
341e352). Sydney, Australia: University of Sydney.
Sampson, R. J., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1999). Systematic social observation of public
spaces: A new look at disorder in urban neighborhoods. American Journal of
Sociology, 105, 603e651.
Schwarz, N. (1990). Feelings as information: Informative and motivational functions
of affective states. In R. M. Sorrentino, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of
motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (pp. 527e561). New
York, USA: Guilford Press.
Schwebel, D. C., Gaines, J., & Severson, J. (2008). Validation of virtual reality as a tool
to understand and prevent child pedestrian injury. Accident Analysis &
Prevention, 40, 1394e1400.
Schweitzer, J. H., Kim, J. W., & Macklin, J. R. (1999). The impact of the built
environment of crime and fear of crime in urban neighborhoods. Journal of
Urban Technology, 6, 59e73.
Serafin, S., & Serafin, G. (2004). Sound design to enhance presence in photorealistic
virtual reality. In S. Barrass, & P. Vickers (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2004
International Conference on Auditory Display (ICAD 2004) (pp. 1e4). Sidney,
Australia: International Community for Auditory Display.
Skogan, W. (1990). Disorder and decline: Crime and the spiral of decay in American
cities. Berkeley, CA, USA: University of California Press.
Smith, S. P., & Carter, T. (2010). A virtual environment to test police and public
awareness of anti-social behaviour indicators. International Journal of Police
Science and Management, 12, 548e566.
Spielberger, C. D. (1983). State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for adults mountain view.
California: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.
Stamps, A. E., III (1993). Simulation effects on environmental preference. Journal of
Environmental Management, 38, 115e132.
Stamps, A. E. (2010). Use of static and dynamic media to simulate environments: A
meta-analysis. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 111, 355e364.
Stamps, A. E., & Smith, S. (2002). Environmental enclosure in urban settings.
Environment and Behavior, 34, 781e794.
Steenbeek, W., & Hipp, J. R. (2011). A longitudinal test of social disorganization
theory: Feedback effects among cohesion, social control, and disorder. Crimi-
nology, 49, 833e871.
Taylor, R. B. (1997). Social order and disorder of street blocks and neighborhoods:
Ecology, microecology, and the systemic model of social disorganization.
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34, 113e155.
Taylor, R. B. (1999). The incivilities thesis: Theory, measurement, and policy. In
R. H. Langworthy (Ed.), Measuring what matters: Proceedings from the policing
research institute meetings (pp. 65e88). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
Wergles, N., & Muhar, A. (2009). The role of computer visualization in the
communication of urban design e A comparison of viewer responses to visu-
alizations versus on-site visits. Landscape and Urban Planning, 91, 171e182.
Werner, E. B. (1991). Manual of visual fields. New York, USA: Churchill Livingstone.
Wilson, J. Q., & Kelling, G. (1982). The police and neighborhood safety: Broken
windows. Atlantic Monthly, 127, 29e38.
World Medical Association. (2000). World Medical Association Declaration of
Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. The
Journal of the American Medical Association, 284, 3043e3045.
Worrall, J. L. (2006). The discriminant validity of perceptual incivility measures.
Justice Quarterly, 23, 360e383.
Zacharias, J. (2006). Exploratory spatial behaviour in real and virtual environments.
Landscape and Urban Planning, 78, 1e13.