Urban Studies, Vol.

38, Nos 5– 6, 807 – 813, 2001

Introduction: Fear and the City

Jon Bannister and Nick Fyfe

[Paper received in Ž nal form, February 2001]

The urban studies literature is infused with
the image of the city as a celebration of
difference, as a medium through which the
totality of modern living is co-joined and
given meaning. However, this vision of the
city, of its public places and streets providing
an arena in which to experience and learn
from diversity (Sennett, 1996), is under
threat. Alternative images which depict the
city as an unruly, unsettling and disorderly
place are increasingly dominant. Difference
is now seen as overwhelming and dangerous,
to be excluded or segregated where poss-
ible—indeed, something to be afraid of.
Crime and the fear of crime appear to have
been integral to this change. The latter half of
the 20th century witnessed crime rates soar
in many urban centres. Further, the fear of
crime, which received scant attention until
the 1980s, is now recognised as a more
widespread problem than crime itself (Hale,
1996). Together, crime and the fear of crime
have been seen to blight urban life, attacking
the economic, social and political fabric of
cities. Seemingly, crime and the fear of crime
have drained cities of their vital essence: the
celebration of difference.
These observations raise numerous ques-
tions. What is the nature of fear? Is fear a
product of the criminogenic conditions which
appear to have  ourished in urban environ-
ments? Or, is fear more broadly allied to
city-dwelling, a metaphor for the quality of
Jon Bannister is in the Department of Social Policy and Social Work, University of Glasgow, Lilybank House, Bute Gardens, Glasgow,
G12 8RT, UK. Fax: 0141 330 3543. E-mail: j.bannister@socsci.gla.ac.uk. Nick Fyfe is in the Department of Geography, University
of Dundee, Dundee, DD1 4HN, UK. Fax: 01382 34434. E-mail: n.r.fyfe@ dundee.ac.uk.
urban life? In what ways has fear impacted
upon the economic, social and political envi-
ronments of the city? How has the city re-
sponded to the challenge posed by
widespread anxiety and urban disorder? Ulti-
mately, is it possible to reconcile the
con icting images of the city as a celebration
of difference and as an arena in which differ-
ence is to be feared?
The Emergence of Fear (from the Shadow
of Crime)
There is a long tradition of research explor-
ing the interface between crime and the city.
Consideration of the relationship between
crime and the urban form, for example, can
be traced back from the Crime Prevention
Through Urban Design movement of the late
20th century (see, for example, Coleman,
1985; and Newman, 1972) to the carto-
graphic criminologists of the mid 19th cen-
tury (Smith, 1986). This comparatively rich
history can be contrasted with that of the
investigation of the fear of crime and its
relationship to the urban arena. Arising out
of an interest to plot the scale and distri-
bution of criminal victimisation, national
crime surveys in the US (Biderman et al.,
1967; Reiss, 1967; Ennis, 1967) were the
Ž rst to discern that the fear of crime was a
signiŽ cant social problem. National crime
surveys undertaken in Britain (see, for exam-

0042-0980 Print/1360-063X On-line/01/05/60807-07 Ó 2001 The Editors of Urban Studies

Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on April 1, 2015
DOI: 10.1080/ 00420980120046536
808 JON BANNISTER AND NICK FYFE
ple, Hough, 1995; and Anderson and Leitch,
1994) and elsewhere appear to conŽ rm that
fear impinges upon the well-being of a
signiŽ cant proportion of the population.
From these recent beginnings, there has been
an explosion of interest in the fear of crime.
Hale (1996, p. 79), in his comprehensive re-
view of the literature, identiŽ ed that “over
two hundred articles, conference papers,
monographs and books have been written on
some aspect or other of the fear of crime”.
By the turn of the century, Ditton and Farrall
(2000, p. xxi), following an on-line search,
calculated this Ž gure to have risen to 837.
This wealth of research has begun to plot
the social and spatial distribution of fear,
monitor its impact upon individuals and
communities alike, and consider strategies
for its reduction. Moreover, fear has been
evidenced to exacerbate personal vulnerabili-
ties and to act as a divisive presence where
people live and congregate, reducing the de-
sire and willingness to participate in social
encounters. Fear, just like crime, can be por-
trayed as having damaged the fabric of cities,
to have adversely affected the quality of
urban life. However, despite (or perhaps be-
cause of) the attention that this phenomenon
has captured, ‘fear of crime’ has become a
jaded term and its current ultility is regarded
by some as negligible (Ferraro and La-
Grange, 1987, p. 71). Put simply, interest in
the fear of crime has outstripped its concep-
tual development and the sophistication of
the techniques commonly employed for its
empirical measurement (see Farrall et al.,
1997).
The Root(s) of Fear
Given the purpose of this Review Issue, it is
appropriate to provide a brief sketch of the
nature or meaning of the fear of crime and
outline the predominant hypotheses sur-
rounding its causation, an extensive and ex-
cellent review of which can be found in Hale
(1996). The Shorter Oxford English Diction-
ary deŽ nes fear as
the emotion of pain or uneasiness caused
Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on April 1, 2015
by the sense of impending danger, and as
a state of anxiety derived from the concern
for the safety of a person or thing.
Such feelings are manifest as a state of con-
stant or intermittent anxiety (Smith, 1989).
The dynamic nature of fear is further high-
lighted by van der Wurff and Stringer (1988,
p. 137) who state that fear is, “the perception
of a threat to some aspect of well-being,
concurrent with the feeling of inability to
meet the challenge”. In essence, people can
experience a range of ‘emotions’ about crime
(and other threats to their well-being)—emo-
tions which vary in nature, intensity and
duration, and from one situation to another.
These complex feelings about crime tend
to get buried in the responses to the usual
‘fear’ survey questions. Farrall et al. (1997,
p. 659) outline in some detail the methodo-
logical concerns surrounding the measure-
ment of the fear of crime, which lead them to
suggest that there is a “possibility that the
incidence of the fear of crime has been
signiŽ cantly misrepresented”, and that the
“reported incidence of the fear of crime is
partly dependent upon the nature of the
measurement instrument rather than a true
re ection of ‘social reality’ ”. It is conceiv-
able, therefore, that emotions such as terror,
panic, unease and annoyance may all be sub-
sumed under the banner of fear. Indeed, re-
cent research has uncovered ‘anger about
crime’ and has suggested that it is potentially
more widespread than ‘fear of crime’ itself
(Ditton et al., 1999). Moreover, whilst crime
victimisation surveys set out to measure anx-
ieties about crime, it is possible that they also
tap into a set of broader concerns held about
the quality of urban life. It is worthwhile,
therefore, to consider the hypothesised roots
of fear.
In general terms, three (overlapping)
theoretical positions have been advanced to
elucidate the fear of crime (reviewed in some
detail by Bennett, 1990, and by Hale, 1996).
It is fair to say that no one approach predom-
inates. These approaches can be character-
ised as being concerned with explaining fear
as the product of victimisation, as the con-
 INTRODUCTION TO REVIEW ISSUE
sequence of a breakdown in social control or
as being mediated by the urban environment.
Building upon this classiŽ cation here, it is
possible to discern that an understanding of
the city, of its people and their interactions
and of its public spaces and private resi-
dences, has much to offer the investigation of
fear.
If fear is the product of victimisation, then
actual victimisation experiences (directly or
vicariously encountered), or the more likely
such victimisation experiences are perceived
to be, will bear a strong relationship with
fear. Research evidence to support this
hypothesis is equivocal. For example, young
men are most at risk of victimisation, yet
they appear relatively fearless in comparison
to older women who are far less likely to
be victimised. It is, of course, possible that
such Ž ndings are more a product of the
survey tools employed rather than the
re ection of a true social reality (see, inter
alia, Stanko, 1985 and 1988). Bearing these
qualiŽ cations in mind, if fear is (at least in
part) the product of victimisation, then its
roots may be uncovered in the differential
criminal risks present within the city—
risks which may in uence the way in which
different social groups negotiate their usage
of urban space.
Alternatively, the social control thesis
posits that fear is determined in relation to an
individual’s ability to exercise control over
their own life and the behaviours and activi-
ties of others. People are fearful because of
their inability (on their own or with the as-
sistance of others) to prevent or to cope with
the consequences of victimisation. This pos-
ition, as Bennett (1990, p. 16) notes, is
premised on the assumption that “fear of
crime is correlated with, or caused by, some
kind of community deterioration”. Thus,
and in line with Taylor et al. (1986), rela-
tively fearful populations may be so as a
consequence of weak ‘community’ organis-
ation and poor neighbourhood amenities
rather than as a result of disproportionately
high criminal risks. It is evident, therefore,
that if this hypothesis carries any explanatory
potency, there is a clear association between
Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on April 1, 2015
809
the conditions of urban living and the inci-
dence of the fear of crime.
The third approach to explaining fear is
commonly known as the environmental the-
sis. In this approach, the key to understand-
ing fear of crime lies not in direct
experiences of crime, or with control per se,
but rather in how people experience and
interpret urban space. Fear is embedded in
the physical and social characteristics of
place and the familiarity of that space to the
individual. People effectively read the en-
vironment as a barometer of risk and protec-
tive factors. In other words, the environment
provides an individual with visual evidence
(when other knowledge is limited) of the
likelihood of criminal risk and the likelihood
that others will intervene on their behalf (see,
for example, Merry, 1981). Clearly, if this
hypothesis carries worth, then fear is allied to
urban form and the ways in which urban
spaces are utilised and given meaning.
Fear and the City: Interventions in Urban
Space
The preceding (although brief) discussion
lends itself to certain conclusions. First, and
given the vagaries which permeate our con-
ceptual understanding and empirical
measurement of the fear of crime, can we be
sure that we are investigating a singular en-
tity? Indeed, is it not more probable as Hale
(1996, p. 84) observes that we are not merely
measuring the fear of crime, but rather
some other attribute which might be better
characterised as ‘insecurity with modern
living’, ‘quality of life’, ‘perception of
disorder’ or ‘urban unease’?
Does a signiŽ cant part of what we take to be
the fear of crime actually represent a ‘dis-
placed’ urban anxiety.
Secondly, each of the theoretical ap-
proaches advanced to explain the fear of
crime are (to differing extents) rooted in the
urban, as much as they are in crime itself.
Whether fear arises as a product of victimis-
ation, is derived from the prospect or poten-
tial for victimisation, or whether it acts as a
810 JON BANNISTER AND NICK FYFE
commentary on the uncertainties surrounding
modern living, we can only begin fully to
appreciate this complex phenomenon if we
are prepared to situate our investigation and
interpretation in the urban. Investigating the
urban sphere affords the opportunity to ex-
plore the realisation of fear and the character
of our responses to it in a more fulsome
manner. As several commentators have
shown, for example, the history and geogra-
phy of the city can be read as a series of
interventions in urban space designed to ad-
dress a range of fears and anxieties.
In the pre-modern city, walls and gates
played a vital role in generating feelings of
safety and security for those within the city,
while at the same time embodying processes
of inclusion and exclusion (McLaughlin and
Muncie, 2000, p. 110). With the emergence
of the modern city in the late 18th and early
19th centuries, fears about those within
rather than those outside the city were of
principal concern. Haussmann’s rebuilding
of Paris is routinely cited as the prime exam-
ple of the radical restructuring of the city in
order to dislocate and displace those
“epicentres of a revolutionary threat to the
dominant social order” to be found in the
narrow streets and tenements around the city
centre (McLaughlin and Muncie, 2000,
p. 113; Ellin, 1997). Most recently, the post-
modern city has been characterised as an
environment in which form increasingly fol-
lows fear (Ellin, 1996). Those seemingly
playful spaces of shopping malls and gen-
triŽ ed enclaves are also “fortiŽ ed cells”,
where citizens encounter the “hard reality of
administered space” (Christopherson, 1994,
p. 409), via a panoply of human, physical
and technological methods monitoring and
regulating behaviour.
Connecting Fear and the City: Conditions
and Consequences
The connections between fear and the built
environment, outlined above, are of course
mediated by a variety of economic and politi-
cal conditions. The construction of walls
around the pre-modern city, for example,
Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on April 1, 2015
was partly motivated by fears for the physi-
cal safety of the inhabitants, but it was also
about protecting the proŽ tability of economic
activity within the city. As Marcuse (1997,
p. 106) observes, such walls “permitted the
dominant guilds to control entry, to regulate
commerce, and to set rules for business ac-
tivity within their precincts”. That economic
logic is still of crucial signiŽ cance today. In
her essay, ‘Fortress city: privatised spaces,
consumer citizenship’, Christopherson
(1994) highlights the ways in which the abil-
ity to maintain property values in gentriŽ ed
enclaves of inner cities and proŽ ts in the
malls, restaurants and cultural centres of
downtown, is inevitably bound up with ques-
tions of security. Why fear matters in these
environments has less to do with the social
and psychological impact on individual citi-
zens and more to do with the way it has a
negative impact on patterns of investment in
the city. A critical impetus behind the intro-
duction of CCTV surveillance systems into
the public spaces of British towns and cities
in the 1990s, for example, has been an at-
tempt to halt the erosion of the economic role
of these areas in the face of competition from
the relatively safe and secure out-of-town
retail parks (Fyfe and Bannister, 1998). Sim-
ilarly, Flusty, writing about the tightly man-
aged, security-conscious corporate plazas,
notes that the conŽ guration of these spaces
re ects less a concern about fears for the
safety of the occupants and more a fear that
the presence of social difference will have a
negative Ž nancial impact.
A plaza’s white-collar user mix adulter-
ated by vagrants or a janitor’s family on a
picnic [means] a loss of prestige before the
‘business community’ and a resulting loss
of clientele’ (Flusty, 1997, p. 58).
The connections between fear and interven-
tions in urban space are not just economic
but are also deeply political. Haussmann’s
rebuilding of Paris in the mid 19th century
was an unequivocally political project de-
signed to reduce the threat posed by
“dangerous classes” (Ellin, 1997, p. 18). To-
day, the politics of fear are played out in the
 INTRODUCTION TO REVIEW ISSUE
urban landscape in perhaps less overt but no
less signiŽ cant ways. City streets, those sites
and symbols of democratic protest and poli-
tics, continue to be a source of anxiety to
those in authority fearful of challenges to the
social order. In the UK, successive govern-
ments since the 1970s have played upon the
public’s fear of crime and their intolerance
towards difference to generate an ‘authori-
tarian populism’ (Hall, 1980) which in turn
has provided the political legitimation for
“intensiŽ ed circuits of policing and surveil-
lance” (McLaughlin and Muncie, 2000,
p. 126). The consequences of these efforts
are of increasing concern. Back in 1992,
Davis gave a stark warning that
The universal crusade to secure the city is
the destruction of any truly democratic
space (Davis, 1992, p. 156).
Others too have stressed the political import-
ance of preserving spaces in the city which
encourage “encounters between people of
different classes, races, ages, religions, ide-
ologies, cultures and stances towards life”
(Berman, 1986, p. 484). Without such
spaces, as Young (1990, p. 240) has argued,
“the critical activity of raising issues and
deciding how institutional and social rela-
tions should be organised” is crucially under-
mined.
In social terms, too, attempts to secure the
city are a source of concern. Despite an
apparent optimism among policy-makers and
practitioners that changes in the built en-
vironment can “de-intensify and regulate the
tensions and disorders that inevitably play
themselves out in urban spaces”, in reality
we are confronted with “a series of uneasy
paradoxes” (McLaughlin and Muncie, 2000,
p. 135). Ellin in her book Postmodern Ur-
banism captures this nicely when she ob-
serves that
Certainly, the gates, policing and other
surveillance systems, defensive architec-
ture, and neo-traditional urbanism do con-
tribute to giving people a greater sense of
security. But such settings no doubt also
contribute to accentuating fear by increas-
Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on April 1, 2015
811
ing paranoia and distrust among people
(Ellin, 1996, p. 153).
Similarly, Marcuse in his essay on the
signiŽ cance of walls in urban history asks the
simple but highly pertinent question
Do walls in the city provide security—
or do they create fear? (Marcuse, 1997,
p. 101).
These uneasy paradoxes and ambiguities sur-
rounding interventions in urban space in re-
sponse to fear are likely to become more
marked in the future. As several of the papers
in this Review Issue indicate, many of the
current ways of tackling fear in the city seem
to rely on intensiŽ ed forms of surveillance of
potentially unruly people and places. Given
that attempts to create the ‘fortress city’ may
only succeed in ‘building paranoia’ (Flusty,
1997), perhaps we need to take a step back
and think again about the nature of fear in
urban life. Sennett (1996) writing about ‘the
uses of disorder’, emphasised that ‘disorderly
and painful events’ in the city are worth
encountering because they force us to engage
with ‘others’. This is a view echoed by
Robins (1995, p. 48) who suggests that pain-
ful events are worth encountering because:
“Fear and anxiety are the other side of the
stimulation and challenge associated with
cosmopolitanism”. The desire to purify space
of any behaviour likely to provoke anxiety
and to insulate ourselves from the
“complexities of the city” may therefore
deny “the emotional stimulus and provo-
cation necessary for us if we are to avoid,
both individually and socially, stagnation and
stasis” (Robins, 1995, p. 60). For Robins,
then, one of the challenges of urban regener-
ation is to make a readiness to be out of
control, combined with a maturity to handle
the consequences, the basis of an urban pub-
lic and political culture.
Against this background, the contributions
to this Review provide an international set of
re ections on the interplay between fear and
the city. Writing from a range of disciplinary
perspectives (including criminology, soci-
ology, social policy and human geography)
812 JON BANNISTER AND NICK FYFE
and drawing on evidence from cities across
Europe and North America, the authors pro-
vide a rich set of theoretical and substantive
insights into the various ways in which fear
impacts on the design, governance and ex-
perience of the city. Given the ways in which
the construction of ‘fear’ as an urban prob-
lem is shaped by economic, social and politi-
cal agendas, we have focused the
contributions around these three themes. In
the Ž rst section, ‘Fear and urban fortunes’,
the papers attempt in different ways to estab-
lish the importance of fear to the economic
management and life of cities. In the second
section, ‘Fear and sociability’, attention turns
to peoples’ experiences of fear and how these
experiences impact on everyday urban life
and intersect with issues of urban design.
The third section, ‘Fear and governance’,
reveals the ways in which different local and
national contexts are characterised by very
different political responses to the problem
of fear, involving a complex interplay be-
tween individual citizens, local communities
and the state.
As this review issue went to press the
editors and contributors learned of the
untimely death of Professor Ian Taylor,
following a prolonged illness. Ian was
originally commissioned to contribute
to this volume, yet became too unwell
to complete his paper. Ian made an
enormous contribution to the explor-
ation of the themes that animate
this collection. On behalf of all the
contributors, we would like to express
our sense of sadness and loss.
References
ANDERSON, S. and L EITCH , S. (1994) The Scottish
Crime Survey 1993: First Results. Crime
and Criminal Justice Findings No. 1, April.
Edinburgh: Scottish OfŽ ce Central Research
Unit.
BENNETT , T. (1990) Tackling fear of crime. Home
OfŽ ce Research Bulletin, 28, pp. 14– 19.
Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on April 1, 2015
BERMAN , M. (1986) All That Is Solid Melts Into
Air. London: Verso.
BIDERMAN , A., JOHNSON , L., M CINTYRE, J. and
W EIR , A. (1967) Report on a Pilot Study in
the District of Columbia on Victimization and
Attitudes Toward Law Enforcement. Presi-
dent’s Commission on Law Enforcement and
Administration of Justice. Field Surveys I.
Washington, DC: US Government Printing
OfŽ ce.
CHRISTOPHERSON, S. (1994) Fortress city: priva-
tised spaces, consumer citizenship, in: A. AMIN
(Ed.) Post-Fordism: A Reader, pp. 409 – 427.
Oxford: Blackwell.
COLEMAN, A. (1985) Utopia On Trial. London:
Hilary Shipman.
DAVIS, M. (1992) Fortress Los Angeles: the mili-
tarization of urban space, in: M. SORKIN (Ed.)
Variations on a Theme Park: The New Ameri-
can City and the End of Public Space, pp. 154 –
180. New York: Hill and Wang.
DITTON , J. and FARRALL, S. (Eds) (2000). The
Fear of Crime. Aldershot: Ashgate Dartmouth.
DITTON , J., BANNISTER , J., GILCHRIST, E. and FAR-
RALL, S. (1999) Afraid or angry? Recalibrating
the ‘fear of crime’, International Review of
Victimology, 6(2), pp. 83– 99.
ELLIN, N. (1996) Postmodern Urbanism. Oxford:
Blackwell.
ELLIN, N. (1997) Shelter from the storm or form
follows fear and vice versa, in: N. ELLIN (Ed.)
Architecture of Fear, pp. 15– 45. New York:
Princeton Architectural Press.
ENNIS , P. (1967) Criminal Victimization in the
United States: A Report of a National Study.
President’s Commission on Law Enforcement
and Administration of Justice. Field Surveys II.
Washington, DC: US Government Printing
OfŽ ce.
FARRALL, S., BANNISTER , J., DITTON , J. and
GILCHRIST, E. (1997) Questioning the measure-
ment of the ‘Fear of Crime’, British Journal of
Criminology, 37, pp. 658 – 679.
FERRARO, K. F. and L AGRANGE, R. (1987) The
measurement of fear of crime, Sociological
Review, 57, pp. 70– 101.
FLUSTY , S. (1997) Building paranoia, in: N. ELLIN
(Ed.) Architecture of Fear, pp. 47– 59. New
York: Princeton Architectural Press.
FYFE, N. R. and BANNISTER , J. (1998) The eyes
upon the street: close-circuit television surveil-
lance and the city, in: N. R. FYFE (Ed.) Images
of the Street: Planning, Identity and Control in
Public Space, pp. 254 – 267. London: Rout-
ledge.
HALE, C. (1996) Fear of crime: a review of the
literature, International Review of Victimology,
4, pp. 79– 150.
HALL, S. (1980) Drifting into a Law and Order
Society. London: Cobden Trust.
 INTRODUCTION TO REVIEW ISSUE
HOUGH, M. (1995) Anxiety About Crime: Find-
ings From the 1994 British Crime Survey.
Home OfŽ ce Research Study No. 147. London:
HMSO.
MARCUSE, P. (1997) Walls of fear and walls of
support, in: N. ELLIN (Ed.) Architecture of
Fear, pp. 101– 114. New York: Princeton
Architectural Press.
MCLAUGHLIN, E. and MUNCIE, J. (2000) Walled
cities: surveillance, regulation and segregation,
in: S. PILE , C. BROOK and G. MOONEY (Eds)
Unruly Cities?, pp. 103– 148. London: Rout-
ledge.
MERRY, S. (1981) Defensible space undefended:
social factors in crime control through environ-
mental design, Urban Affairs Quarterly, 16,
pp. 397– 422.
NEWMAN, O. (1972) Defensible Space: Crime
Prevention Through Urban Design. New York:
Macmillan (published by Architectural Press,
London, in 1973).
REISS , A. (1967) Studies in Crime and Law En-
forcement in Major Metropolitan Areas. Presi-
dent’s Commission on Law Enforcement and
Administration of Justice. Field Surveys III.
Washington, DC: US Government Printing
OfŽ ce.
ROBINS, K. (1995) Collective emotion and urban
culture, in: P. HEALEY ET AL. (Eds) Managing
Cities: The New Urban Context, pp. 45– 62.
Chichester: John Wiley.
Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on April 1, 2015
813
SENNETT , R. (1996) The Uses of Disorder: Per-
sonal Identity and City Life. London: Faber and
Faber.
SMITH , S. J. (1986) Crime, Space and Society.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
SMITH , S. J. (1989) Social relations, spatial
structures, and the fear of crime in Britain, in:
D. EVANS and T. HERBERT (Eds) The Geogra-
phy of Crime, pp. 193– 227. London: Rout-
ledge.
STANKO , E. (1985) Intimate Intrusions: Women’s
Experiences of Male Violence. London: RKP.
STANKO , E. (1988) Hidden violence against
women, in: M. MAGUIRE and J. PONTING (Eds)
Victims of Crime: A New Deal?, Milton Key-
nes: Open University Press.
TAYLOR, D. G., TAUB, R. P. and PETERSON , B. L.
(1986) Crime, community organization and
causes of neighborhood decline, in: R. M.
FIGLIO, S. HAKIM, and G. F. RENGERT (Eds)
Metropolitan Crime Patterns, pp. 161– 177.
New York: Criminal Justice Press.
WURFF, A. VAN DER, STRINGER, P. and T IMMER , F.
(1988) Feelings of unsafety in residential sur-
roundings, in: D. CANTER , C. JESUINO , L.
SOCZKA, and G. STEPHENSON (Eds) Environ-
mental Social Pyschology, pp. 135 – 148. The
Hague: Kluwer.
YOUNG, I. (1990) Justice and the Politics of Dif-
ference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.