Geoforum 31 (2000) 269±280www.elsevier.com/locate/geoforum Revisiting fear and place: women's fear of attack and the built environment Hille Koskela a, Rachel Pain b b a Department of Geography, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 4, 00014 Helsinki, Finland Division of Geography and Environmental Management, University of Northumbria at Newcastle, Lipman Building, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 8ST, UK Received 16 September 1998; in revised form 28 April 1999 Abstract The eort to `design out fear' through altering built environments has been popular amongst academics and planners. Success is limited, as simplistic notions of the fear of crime ± its experience by individuals and its constitution as a social reality ± tend to be employed. This paper examines the relationship between the built environment and women's fear of crime, based on qualitative studies in two European cities. While particular environments are often identi®ed when women talk about the threat of attack, this re¯ects much broader processes operating to create fear. Fear in¯uences our experience of places, as much as places in¯uence our experiences of fear. Ó 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Fear of violence; Gender; Design out fear; Urban spaces; Built environment 1. Introduction We are left with a central problem. If massive improvements to domestic safety measures coupled with enhanced local street lighting, path widening, and so on fail to make a signi®cant impact on residents' fear of crime, what is there left to try? (Nair et al., 1993, p. 560) 1.1. Fear of crime and the built environment The relationship between community safety and built environments has been a popular focus in studies of crime in the environmental disciplines (Coleman, 1990; Fyfe and Bannister, 1996; Herbert and Davidson, 1994; Smith, 1987; Van der Wur et al., 1989). The notion that fear of crime can be `designed out', or at least its worst eects moderated by changing built environments, has underpinned many policy recommendations and initiatives (Nassar and Fisher, 1992; Oc and Tiesdell, 1997; Rowe, 1996; Vrij and Winkel, 1991). However, as the quote above (the conclusion to a review of UK streetlighting research) suggests, studies of the eects of strengthening housing defences, altering E-mail address: hille.koskela@helsinki.® (H. Koskela). street lighting and aspects of environmental design have often failed to come up with consistent ®ndings about the long term bene®ts to feelings of safety (Atkins et al., 1991; Nair et al., 1993; Ramsey and Newton, 1991). Part of the problem is methodological: tending to rely on before and after attitudinal surveys, research has often failed to capture the complex and dynamic relationships which people have, both with the built environments they use and in their emotional responses to crime. However, the problem is also one of how `fear of crime' is conceptualised. Much of the environmental design literature takes a fairly crude and mechanistic approach to the causal relationships involved; and so, in the face of the apparent failure of environmental modi®cations, Nair et al. (1993) seem at a loss to suggest alternatives to `try'. This statement is symptomatic of an approach in which social processes and physical space tend to be treated as separate. Elsewhere, research suggests that they are interconnected. It is impossible to speak of reactions to the threat of crime in particular environments without taking into account the social and political relations which structure both the physical spaces, and the daily lives, of the individuals involved (Koskela, 1997; Pain, 1997a,b; Painter, 1992; Smith, 1989; Stanko, 1987; Valentine, 1989; Van der Wur et al., 1989). 0016-7185/00/$ - see front matter Ó 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 0 1 6 - 7 1 8 5 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 3 3 - 0 at the expense of the social causes of fear. living arrangements and so on ± can be expected to be re¯ected in women's attitudes to and use of particular environments (Boys. 1984. support some transferable principles which might inform the wider debate. a feminist reading of women's safety must critique the particular ways in which discourses around women's safety have been spatialised in urban safety planning. pregnancy and motherhood. Oc and Tiesdell. Women's safety and the built environment Among the strongest critiques of mainstream fear of crime theory have been those of feminist criminologists. 1997. 1990a. Wekerle and Whitzman.2. therefore they react like this to that environment'). Walklate. Such an argument cannot simply be rejected as deterministic. Second. 1992. Women's Design Service. 1990a. originating from Newman's (1972) ideas about crime and defensible space. 1996. Whitzman.. vandalism and sexual assault may be as disparate as the crimes themselves). age. race and age which cut across space (Stanko. at least in the UK and North America where women's safety has been on political agendas for some time. who has highlighted the socio-political constitution of fear of crime. relating fear to tangible risks and to women's broader social vulnerability as well as highlighting the man-made nature of particular designed environments (Matrix. Authors such as Stanko (1987. Stanko. Elsewhere those feminists concerned with women's safety in relation to practical planning issues were amongst the earliest and strongest supporters of `designing out fear'. 1997). 1985. Mirrlees-Black et al.270 H. Rose et al. disorder and fear are located within the public realm rather than socio-political structures such as gender. 1990. The paradox arises from the feminist standpoint of listening . some of the earlier literature on women's relationships with built environments had a tendency to be unintentionally essentialist (`they are women. but it is women's fear of violence which has emerged as the most pressing issue from crime surveys and feminist work alike. in particular its gendered nature. 1997) have developed understanding of the social relations which underlie gendered fear. Postmodern feminist approaches cast doubt on making generalised statements about all women. 1986. 1972). we hope. It is not environmental alterations per se which it is hoped will reduce fear. 1988). Elsewhere in Western Europe and in North America. 1992). 1990a. Newman. there seems a contradiction between theorising fear in place in terms of patriarchal power relations. income. There is a need for such inquiry to situate individuals in particular social and geographical contexts. Men may also be concerned about particular built environments (Hay 1993). 1990. the `designing out fear' approach is premised on the idea that physical design can lead to fear reduction through altering the social world. Women's fear of attack within built environments has received specialist attention both from geographers (Valentine. and to focus on reactions to very particular crimes (the generic `fear of [all] crime' has limited meaning here. Dierence and diversity amongst women ± race. with patriarchal power relations being reproduced in both settings (Hall. generating problems for identifying policy initiatives on crime (Walklate. Koskela. many city authorities have integrated women's concerns into measures aimed at reducing fear in particular environments (Kelly. and the likelihood of greater social interaction. rather it is the increased sense of ownership and informal surveillance of space. particularly Stanko (1987.b. and which we suggested above. 1. 1995) and architects and town planners (Metrac. Greed. 1982. 1995).. where crime. sexuality. The studies we report concentrated on women's fear of violent attack in Helsinki and Edinburgh. which may result from environmental change (Oc and Tiesdell. However. they are unlikely to have signi®cant eects on fear of crime. and fear of crimes other than assault may be experienced there (both areas which might bene®t from further in depth research). discussed later in this paper. First are the important contributions made by feminist criminologists to the new directions which fear of crime theory is taking. 1987. Trench et al. While the emphasis of planners on the public realm is to be expected. Third. as reactions to burglary. Longhurst.. Pain / Geoforum 31 (2000) 269±280 In fact. it con¯icts with much research showing that violence against women takes place in both private and public space. In Finland safety has not been a signi®cant goal planning until recently and the objective of taking better account of women's concerns is just emerging. Four. 1997. 1989). Russell. and advocating positivistic change at the micro-scale. Both qualitative methods and spatial comparisons at this scale have rarely featured in research investigating this relationship. undermine the idea that fear can be `designed out'. We explore the relationship between the built environment and fear of crime with reference to qualitative research in two European cities. R. 1997). Given recent developments in feminist geographical and criminological theories. The feminist perspective on environmental design sets women's unsafety ®rmly in a socio-political framework of patriarchal relations. while improvements to built environments may bene®t some aspects of quality of life. our challenge in this paper is that fear of crime is so closely embedded in broader aspects of social life that. The ®ndings are speci®c to this crime and to these cities but also. 1994). 1990. class. 1996). We suggest that the built environment has received far more attention from academics and policy makers concerned with fear of crime than it warrants. this strength of support can be questioned on a number of grounds. Method Amidst recent debates about the nature and meaning of fear of crime lies growing recognition that methodologies frequently employed have sometimes concealed more than they have revealed (Farrall et al. and on challenging male dominance in all spheres (Hanmer and Saunders. and sensitive to spatial. 1997). and that the male dominated planning profession is `marginalising women and their needs within the built environment' (Greed. Walklate. but rather `transitory and situational' (Fattah and Sacco. 3). Stanko. Meanwhile. 1988). criminology and related disciplines most commonly take a positivist approach to knowledge production (Walklate. p. 1997). Finland is based on the Safety of Finns survey which included 666 households in Helsinki. One of the bene®ts of a qualitative approach is that it facilitates exploration of fear of crime as multi-faceted and dynamic. 211). The interview sessions lasted for between one and a half and two and a half hours and most of them were conducted at the interviewers oce. the substantive ®ndings of which have been published elsewhere (Koskela. Scotland involved a mail questionnaire survey of 389 women followed up by 45 in depth interviews with a subsample who volunteered to participate further. which had collected a `panel' of citizens representing dierent ages and social classes willing to take part in research projects. that `our cities are patriarchy written in stone. p. Pain. 1997b). 1995. Most interviews were conducted in respondents own homes and lasted between one and three hours. including dierences in the de®nition and measurement of `fear of crime' which do not facilitate easy comparison between studies (Hale. but women who came did not come speci®cally because they were fearful. Wekerle and Whitzman. 1997) with a commitment to quantifying human behaviour. transcribed. can also be considered to fall into the quantitative category. there are at least two dierent `levels' of discussion within the feminist tradition.. 1997. a challenge again ®rst responded to by feminists such as Valentine (1989) and Stanko (1990a). Rather. 1997. Hollway and Jeerson. we examine the nature of the relationship between women's fear and built environments in more depth. 1997a. 1995). Yet the strategy of tackling fear through design seems to con¯ict with the feminist goals of reducing violence. 1993. They were tape recorded. writing from the architectural and planning disciplines and professions. but a growing awareness that it is not a ®xed trait that some people have and some do not (and hence something easily and accurately measured by survey questions). The women interviewed in Helsinki were recruited with help of the National Consumer Research Centre. Using women's fear as an illustration.H. 1989. have proposed the idea (seemingly naive in comparison) that the built environment is a product of gender relations. To recap. Our arguments are supported with data from two large studies of women's fear of violence. brick. The latter goals focus on perpetrators rather than victims. Koskela. 1985. amongst which concern about built environments is commonly articulated (Hall. coded and analysed (see Strauss and Corbin (1990) principles). the voices heard are of those whose focus has been more practical but not necessarily so critically informed. The research in Edinburgh.. Further epistemological and operational problems of the traditional crime survey have been raised which belie the continuing popularity of the approach (Farrall et al. some in the working places of the . in terms of its experience by individuals within built environments and its constitution as a social reality. Hollway and Jeerson. Another group of feminists. practical and political issues involved in `designing out fear'. as well as those of experiencing and fearing crime. From these notions arises the premise that changes in the built environment can make a dierence. Scholars who have the basis of their thought in the critical tradition of social science have emphasised the social and political nature of fear and pointed out that fear is inevitably embedded in gendered power relations. an emotion which is situated in the local details of individuals' circumstances and life courses (Pain. Much feminist criminological work. we argue that the `designing out fear' approach is premised on simplistic notions of the fear of crime. 1996). though critical. 1990b). the former `academic' group has had less in¯uence than the latter `policy-oriented' group in the debate over practical solutions. A signi®cant factor was that women did not participate in the research because of their levels of fear: taking part was voluntary. There is no common agreement on what `fear of crime' is. Young. and a separate study which included 18 in depth interviews with women. The research in Helsinki. temporal and social contexts. 1996: 88). R. and more recently taken up more widely (Burgess. and consider some of the conceptual. 1997).. qualitative research has been suggested as a way in which the plurality of meanings and nuances in experience of `fear' can be explored. Pain / Geoforum 31 (2000) 269±280 271 and responding to women's everyday experiences and concerns. Inevitably. 1996. It is not without problems. 1994. Evans et al. Despite the psycho-social complexities of the human act of committing crime. 2. The aim of this paper is not to explore all of the questions raised for `designing out fear' by developments in the feminist literature and current debates on fear of crime. glass and concrete' (Darke. 1996. Walklate (1997) relates this to the modernist project with which she believes criminology to be engaged: the imperative of feeding crime prevention policy with useful information. 1990). The dierences in location. especially at night. 56% of women in the mail survey reported that `poor street lighting' had increased their anxiety about sexual attack. in the Scottish research. like Davidson Mains [nearby village]. for example. things like that. Wekerle and Whitzman. by sustaining changes of active and passive voice. class. secretary. no children. no children. and where appropriate by indicating their diversity. Pilton. (Barbara. In both cases the aim in analysis was to minimise this problem through awareness. we're okay where we are but if the houses are spaced out. It's very dark and there's no houses. The association of risk with particular environments High rates of fear of violent crime in public space are evident in the Edinburgh survey: over two thirds of women reported being `very worried' or Ôfairly worried' 1 Both studies were carried out from a feminist standpoint. which means `double-translation': interpreting the feelings women expressed in interviews and re-translating them in English. the use of critical friends. with [. but gave particular emphasis to its geographical aspects ± the importance of place and space. researcher. dierences of age. 1990. Haymarket. unemployed. just big walls. Women's experiences of fear within the built environment 3. We draw most material used in this paper from the qualitative interview data. I don't feel happy about it. (Christine. local government ocer.272 H. and later transcribed and analysed. Interviews revealed not only more detail about the places which women experienced as fearful. darkness. interview material is presented verbatim. representing women's views and experiences as honestly as possible. the former set out to measure women's fear of attack. Anywhere on my own.1. either by myself or even with my husband. Koskela. The aim has been to sustain the original expressions and tones as honestly as possible. The quotes from women in Helsinki are translated from Finnish. However. if there's not much lighting there I feel very nervous. Especially with Edinburgh having so many little nooks and crannies as well. research strategy and aspects of operationalisation mean that the two studies are not directly comparable. Anywhere a bit isolated. thirties. (Danielle. And down at the shops here. 1986. 63% of women who participated the Safety of Finns survey reported that they found certain areas of the city unpleasant or frightening. and 44% said there were certain places in their daily environment they ®nd unpleasant or frightening to walk in. for example. . You feel that if anybody stopped a car and went for you there's nothing you could do. Haymarket. The most frightening places were identi®ed 3. Pain / Geoforum 31 (2000) 269±280 participants. and we do not present them as such. (Paula. As several other studies have found. . therefore useful contexts in which to evaluate the importance of physical environments. In order to retain original sense. nationality between the researchers and interviewees may lead to problems in interpreting language and meaning. Q: Are there any places round here which would worry you? If I was out at night and walking down the Braes [main streets locally]. Scotland and Finland also provide contrasts in terms of street crime rates. Edinburgh) Well quite a lot of it actually. The park. that's never safe. Valentine. especially in the evenings. but something of the nature of the relationship between the built environment and fear of attack. There are places you sortae feel safe. 1990). no children. isolation and desertion are important cues of danger (Kelly. I don't go up near Corstorphine Hill [woods and parkland] because there's nobody about whatsoever. All quotes from interviews in the Finnish research have been translated from tapes transcribed in Finnish. We have chosen to compare the two cities for this purpose as they contain a wide range of dierent built environments. which is widely considered to be ethically desirable in researching violence against women (Hanmer and Saunders. Edinburgh) In Helsinki. In both studies the interviewers were women. 1984) as well as operationally advantageous in encouraging women to disclose their experiences (albeit fostering an intimacy which may be open to exploitation ± see Kelly. Edinburgh) I used to come in from Haymarket [train] Station up Morrison Street at night and it was horrid. 1995. re¯ecting a broader shift in the literature in the 1990s. The interviews were tape-recorded with the permission of the participants (except for the background information which was entered on a form). on the dimensions of women's fear which have a bearing on the built environment.] indicating where material has been removed. nurse. twenties. and levels of fear of crime (insofar as surveys are able to indicate). twenties. Our focus in this paper is narrower still. Corstorphine. R.1 Both projects aimed to examine the constitution of fear of crime in the broad sense outlined above. However. 1997b). Edinburgh) We have a lane right next to us which I avoid when it's getting dark. And The Gunner [pub] ± that should be closed down completely. while the Helsinki research also had an explicit focus on boldness and con®dence. . about being attacked by a stranger outside (Pain. the Edinburgh study was carried out earlier than the Helsinki research and. race and. twenties. Warr. and 36% and 37% respectively implicated `badly designed buildings/estates' and `badly placed bushes and shrubbery'. but then you've got to get a taxi there and back if you can aord to. two children. And yet almost all of the women interviewed . between poor street lighting in some places making women fearful of what they cannot see.. no children. all the women who had experienced violence. Below. twenties. one child.. printing worker.H. no children. In the Helsinki study. rather than accepting this relationship at face value we want to investigate it more closely: it does not necessarily invite the conclusion that altering built environments will have much impact on these or other women's fear of attack. motherhood. that the physical situation of fear in particular built environments is mentioned frequently in women's accounts. and thirdly we note the importance of the reputation of places in contributing to fearfulness. We argue. we explore women's contrasting responses to the idea of `designing out fear' in the two cities. 1999). that there are practical imperatives for casting some doubt on the `designing out fear' approach. class. or whether its eect is underlain by processes which originate elsewhere.2. Kannelm aki. Equally there were no significant dierences by age. (Paula. Studies in both cities con®rm. 3. versus the claustrophobic nature of dense buildings and narrow alleys and closes in Edinburgh city centre and the peripheral housing schemes. in the Edinburgh study (carried out in three sharply contrasting social areas). The interviews verify this: Q: What do you think makes the dierence. ability. Four. and the salience of age. we present evidence to support this argument in four sections. between the lack of surveillance and privacy engendered by gaps between houses. Few commentators have suggested anything other than the latter ± that public places are only the most visible location in which certain concerns are expressed. Ageing and having children seemed to make women somewhat more concerned about their environments. bridges and cellars (Koskela and Tuominen. either in public or private space. However. and brightness in others blamed for allowing potential attackers to see their victims. Haaga. thirties. although poorer women were signi®cantly more likely to worry about domestic violence (Pain. there were contrasts between the quietness of some areas versus the number of people and noisiness of others. (Elisa. R. thirties. Second. Koskela. Helsinki) Women were not treated as a single category in either study. student. and appears on ®rst sight to act as an important `cue' to fear of attack. and their area of residence within each city. (Hanna. all women highlighted certain local residential and public spaces where they feared attack. Fears about attack may be transferred onto speci®c environments which become markers of unsafety. Pain / Geoforum 31 (2000) 269±280 273 as forests. tunnels. but this does not mean that they cause or produce fear. 1995). 1997b). (Petra. and underpasses. Helsinki) I hate Vihdintie [main street locally] in Haaga. First. were more fearful than those who only had experiences of minor harassment (Koskela. disability and sexuality to women's concerns about attack provided important dimensions of the research (Pain. women's life histories and experiences seemed to have more impact on their levels of fear than their social background. thirties. There's nothing human about the street. or whether women had children or not. we include details about their social background including age. sales secretary. then. 1997. why some places are more unpleasant? I think the streets where there are only apartments and no display windows or other well-lit places are the most frightening ones. no children. In Edinburgh. social class did not in¯uence how likely women were to express fear of being attacked in public space. In presenting quotes from women who took part in the research. that fear is spatially pervasive and there are many contrasts in the environments in which women fear attack. 1999). 3. There's heavy trac and the street lights are so far from each other that there are dark spots in between. Contrasts in the environments in which women fear attack Both cities contain striking contrasts in the environments with which women associate fear. However. nursery teacher. [.1. large gardens and open spaces in auent suburbs. occupation.] It's like no-man's land. Helsinki) I've sometimes taken a bus from Merihaka [two level concrete housing area]. When you walk down the stairs the place is oppressive. Social class had no apparent eect on how likely women were to perceive built environments as unsafe. Ruoholahti.2. Koskela. we examine the relationships between social and physical space more closely. recreation areas and paths. Tapaninvainio. Helsinki) I think that tunnels and such like are always nasty because they are so deserted that if something happens you cannot get help unless someone else just happens to be there. ®rstly. 1997b. It is so massive and there is an echo and the cars make a terrible noise. It's so wide and the blocks of ¯ats are so far from the street and there are no balconies. whether they have children. followed by stations and shopping centres. For example. parks. Practical barriers to `designing out fear' A key question here is whether the built environment has a fundamental role in in¯uencing women's fear. there are many squares and boulevards. and most streets are wide and open. as fear is attached to these properties. (Veera. anywhere ± we return to the social construction of fear in the second half of the paper. Categories of space which women associate with fear of attack in Helsinki and Edinburgh. I wouldn't even consider doing that. In both Helsinki and Edinburgh women also associate fear of violence with these non-built semi-natural environments: I wouldn't like to walk through St. forties. technician. which are not mentioned by at least some women. feminist geographers and architects have argued that man-made built environments tend to reproduce women's fear (Matrix. such as Merihaka and It aPasila. showing that fear may be attached to spaces which appear to contrast: both empty and crowded spaces. 1984. . This tends to con®rm that it is fear of attack which comes ®rst and becomes expressed in particular settings. Helsinki has a very dierent built environment. (Rosalind. waitress. Corstorphine. Pikku-Huopalahti. I think it would be like asking for trouble. no children. Edinburgh) I wouldn't go for hill walks and things like that on my own. Helsinki is a much greener city. (Myra. On the whole. just that. and that women are simply afraid of anything. it provides a good site in which to have some practical impact upon it (Oc and Tiesdell. 1996. forties. Siltam aki. or particular features. Fig. Valentine. you know. adult children. no children.274 H. And things like walking along the canal bank. (Viivi. One exception is the concrete post-war housing areas with tunnels and bridges. The relationship between social and physical space It is evident from many women's accounts that it is the social connotations attached to places which make them fearful. Koskela. And again it's because it's dark along that bit and then you go up the side of the Forestry Commission [woodland] onto the main road. (Irene. Pain / Geoforum 31 (2000) 269±280 who live in and use these diverse built environments identify them as places in which they feel at risk. Madge. Most parts of Helsinki date from the twentieth century. But I don't do it. it sounds very nice. Edinburgh) There is a bit along that railway line there.2. Despite the dierent physical environments within and between Edinburgh and Helsinki. which provide some similar environmental features to Edinburgh's council schemes. Green urban spaces and woodlands are commonly perceived as dangerous places and feelings of insecurity often have a deterrent eect on women's use of them (Burgess. 1989. So I just. The argument for preventing fear through environmental design does not rest on the suggestion that it is unique properties of built spaces which create fear. Corstorphine. twenties. I can walk along Mannerheimintie [main street] but not into the woods. Helsinki) no children. In a similar vein. Helsinki) I wouldn't go to Kaisaniemi park [in the city centre] at night. two children. 1997). Corstorphine. 3. translator. This is not to imply that fear is an essential quality of being female. I wouldn't even do it during the day if it was very quiet. administrator. 1988). To The fact that women were living in various neighbourhoods within the two cities with very dierent built environments made no dierence to the likelihood of their reporting fear of attack. Edinburgh) I say I wouldn't go to the Central Park [large woodland] at night without my dog. Such `social cues' have been recognised as more important Fig. Helsinki) If I need to walk through a park I prefer to use the completely dark paths because it makes me less vis- ible for potential attackers. and both open and closed spaces. Margaret's Park. We would argue that this still overstates the in¯uence of the built environment on fear of crime. student. (Riikka. twenties. R. 1997). but you are very isolated. dental nurse.2. twenties. o lo . I don't put myself into the position if I can avoid it. 1. preferably not even during day-time. and hence intervention may reduce it. Women's Design Service. as the examples below illustrate. with urban parks in the centre and forest parks around the suburbs and outskirts. 1 illustrates this point. that is the way I would have to walk if I walked home from my work. no children. 1998. There are few types of built environment. more uniform and open than the varying and often much older styles of architecture in Edinburgh. or identifying certain aspects of the built environment which frightened them. At night I wouldn't go to any park. ®fties. most women in both cities mention fearful places in all these categories. Smith. Aspects of their design simply reinforce their (sometimes unfounded) reputation as locations where women are more likely to be attacked. waitress. teacher. (Ann.H. Particular places tend to become labelled by individuals. that someone might hide there looking at you. and again. whereas during the winter darkness comes early in the afternoon. In fact. (Minna. but in the middle of a forest you start thinking that there might be some maniac coming from behind a tree. I've seen so many ¯ashers in Laajasalo [suburb in Eastern Helsinki] that I really don't feel like going. . when passing this park with bushes your imagination starts to run wild. 1989. Valentine. Haymarket. In big cities where there's quite a hubbub and terrible murders and assaults happen you just go around cool-headed. Helsinki) Space is not viewed in a social vacuum. but it's mainly because I've read about it. because of the tunnels. for example. (Petra. Koskela. one child. (Moira. Helsinki) And maybe you're afraid of the wrong things. (Elaine. is socially mediated. 1992). summer nights only become slightly dusky. Likewise. For some places. thirties. especially as the streets are quite dark ± there's an alleyway to the delicatessen and I use a shortcut which I really shouldn't but I do. but because they hold a certain reputation amongst women. not necessarily because you would be afraid but because you've got an unpleasant image of them. Haymarket. twenties. and in summer. you see them having their ®ghts. forties. You think that someone might come. because of fears of attackers hiding in the darkness. I mean I don't think `gosh that's a place I'd never go. Ruoholahti. 1990). (Nadja. it may be well publicised attacks on women which label them as unsafe for some time afterwards. Such images of place are central in decisions about which areas are best avoided (Gardner. suggesting that it is well ordered and controlled. no children. You subconsciously avoid certain places. it is the social aspects of place which contribute to these images. Edinburgh) Q: Are there any areas you avoid? Subconsciously. no children. twenties. and indeed it is meaningless to consider the social and physical properties of space as dichotomous.. Nevertheless. Olari. R. What makes women cautious is Ôthe social night': what is going on and how others behave in particular places. You see them if you go across the street to the shops. between groups of women. women rarely mention one (physical) without the other (social). street lighting alters the social as well as physical character of the space. lives with parents. Helsinki [Metropolitan Area]) I try to avoid the surroundings of the [main] railway station. and the social often oers the explanation as to why some physical places are especially frightening.] Walking along the street. making potential victims visible to others and increasing the number of onlookers (Painter. a `natural' element of environmental difference frequently implicated in the fear of crime.3. [. Even the darkness of the night itself. but at the same time I am aware that. bank manager. There's drug addicts. weird drug addicts and everything. A subway provokes fear because it provides places for attackers to hide unseen. (Jenni. no children. secretary. For example. In Helsinki. 1985. 3. Someone could be hiding in a niche there. nurse. women tend to perceive summer and winter nights as equally dangerous: in winter. Edinburgh) Er. and there's the carpark where I got ¯ashed at ± so I am aware that something might happen cos it's not as well lit as it could be. often because of incidents actually having happened there. Alppila. Helsinki) I wouldn't even think about it [going jogging alone]. no children. for others simply a general consensus that they are `bad' or `rough' areas. low income housing estates in both Helsinki and Edinburgh are cited by several women in each city as unsafe.' but I would tend to plan my routes around better lit areas rather than anything else. Warr. because the warmer temperatures mean there are more people around and make it easier to lurk in parks and forests. A quiet and deserted town centre might provoke fear because of another essentially social quality (the absence of people). sixties. I don't walk around feeling nervous. twenties.2. Edinburgh) When I walk through an archway to our yard it's a rather unpleasant alley and I don't know what's at the other end. The post-war. nursery teacher. And areas where there's not likely to be about twenty yobs who've failed to score coming out at one time. 1989. I think Muirhouse.. Pilton. Pain / Geoforum 31 (2000) 269±280 275 than the design itself (Painter. 1992). forties. The reputation of places Some places are feared not because of their built fabric. if you're by yourself. unemployed. 1990. Laajasalo. no children. West Granton [local council estates]. yes. or more often. women's routine avoidance of particular places is largely underpinned not by fear of concrete structures but by fear of unknown men. no children. [. Edinburgh) Q: Where do you get information about rape from? Um women's magazines. Meilahti. Q: Would that make you feel safer? Not really because I think it's going to happen anyway. no children. Then generally you know discussing it with yourselves and that. Q: What do you think would make cities less frightening? That other cities would be as well lit as Helsinki. I think about the child murders and other crimes.. but only the women who lived there had to negotiate this social danger daily. I mean a good example is `oh how do you get to such and such' and it's `well don't go that way but if you go this way. (Danielle. Haymarket. nursery assistant. Until such changes are actually made in one's local area. you ken. Tapaninvainio. (Deborah. Corstorphine. Pilton. Helsinki) To build them open and not closed in. Um or areas of the high rise ¯ats like Wester Hailes [council estate]. Edinburgh) In Helsinki. R. But it's very much based on things I've heard. 1995). two children.276 H.] And places with lots of green are not frightening. local goverment ocer. factory worker. nurse. secretary. Alleyways where there's no housing. However. The two projects reported here provided the opportunity to explore women's feelings and beliefs about the potential of changes to the built environment to reduce their fear of attack. newspapers. the majority of the women interviewed in both cities discussed particular built environments in which they felt unsafe. that. although the `topography of fear' seems to be sharper than that of crime (Koskela and Tuominen. revolting. it is dicult to predict their eect. no children. the dangerous reputations which some places acquire clearly aects some women more directly than others (Valentine 1990). forties. no children. student. as stressed earlier. While they disliked dark places. de®nitely I wouldn't want to walk down. largely through the use of questionnaire surveys and inferences about the links with fear of crime. thirties. Edinburgh) Well roundabout here obviously it's the Meadows [open space].. no children. Helsinki) Myllypuro [suburb in Eastern Helsinki] ± the name makes my hair curl. (Manta. two children. twenties. Helsinki) I think it's clear that if there were more pedestrian streets in Helsinki you wouldn't be so much afraid.2. the places that aren't properly lit are really places where I wouldn't consider walking anyway. (Elisa. twenties. there's no way I would cross the Meadows either early in the morning or late at night. twenties. Roihuvuori. Edinburgh) Although. no children. (Nadja.' you know. thirties. Edinburgh) In some areas we do need more lighting.4. In Helsinki the Eastern suburbs. But I'm no too happy walking anywhere to be honest. pregnant. (Susanna. no children. midwife. no children. I think there should be better lighting in some places but that said. twenties. The archways. (Maria. secretary. Helsinki) It would generally be at night time. And even if the street wouldn't be wider it would feel more open without cars. Helsinki) . dierences between the two cities stand out. Corstorphine. most feeling that the threat of attack was more pervasive than could be tackled by altering the built environment alone. if not always less worrying. In the Edinburgh research. clearly had a bad reputation. twenties. part of which are low-income housing areas with a high amount of refugees living there. twenties. Women's reactions to the idea of `designing out fear' Much research has aimed to evaluate the eect of particular initiatives. 3. The lighting's really bad on the stairs as well. the women interviewed were more likely to feel that alterations to the environment of frightening places would at least make them more pleasant. thirties. women in Edinburgh responded very negatively to the idea of designing out fear. low-income housing schemes such as Pilton and Wester Hailes were widely referred to as dangerous neighbourhoods. (Olivia. Alppila. the tunnels is terrible. student. Hakaniemi. (Yvonne. even with lights. student. several women interviewed were particularly doubtful about the eect of schemes to improve street lighting. Generally. things like that. Pain / Geoforum 31 (2000) 269±280 that it's the most dangerous area. anywhere. Pilton. Koskela. Edinburgh) The stair's revolting. Haymarket. (Christine. There would always be people around. engineer. twenties. This also re¯ects the picture that crime statistics give quite well. (Shirley. `Risk' in this context is not a place-speci®c calculation of possible harm. thirties. 1992). Pain / Geoforum 31 (2000) 269±280 277 I think it was nice that the shopping centre was renovated. the ®ndings emphasise the point that while environmental design is implicated in feelings of safety. as some of the interview material used here has suggested. an assumption which has recently been challenged (Sparks. 1997c). 1987). Women's Design Service. especially the home. The grounding of fear in risk Many fear reduction strategies have treated fear not as directly connected to or informed by experience of crime. left realist criminologists such as Crawford et al. but as a separate problem (Home Oce. 1997). Rape. How is women's fear constituted at the broader level of social and political relations? What relevance do these arguments have generally to women's experiences of fear in dierent environments and to eorts to `design out fear' in particular? 4. fear will be altered through environmental design only where improvements tackle these actual risks of violence and abuse to women. it is doubtful how far environmental changes can reduce attacks on women. the majority of these violent incidents take place not in the public realm but in private and semi-private spaces. 1987: 131). However. However. Laajasalo. 1987. However. Both positions are variants on the `risk management' approach to fear of crime. While even the highest estimates of the extent of violence against women are unlikely to be `enough' to explain women's fear alone (Pain. Despite these caveats. Walklate. their `tacit understanding of the likelihood of experiencing male violence and the lack of protection they receive from those around them' (Stanko. 1995. Both popular discussions about women's fear and academic discourses commonly constitute it as a problem of public space and strangers.1. Pain. children's nurse. The constitution of fear as a social reality So far we have discussed practical issues which limit the eectiveness of `designing out fear' in the case of women's fear of violence. It matters that it is better lit and more open. given that the risks of attack appear low from most victimisation surveys (Stanko. while only a violent criminal is generally considered worthy of being afraid of. the spatial and social dimensions of sexual violence ± the `where' and `why' criticisms ± do not preclude planning for safety in public spaces. Painter. For some feminists. risk. feminists have also argued that hidden violence has a part in explaining why women appear paradoxically fearful. For Walk- late (1997). from a feminist standpoint and drawing on the broader literature. 1984. for example. Whichever explanation is accepted. Women's and men's relations to violence can be directly compared only if it is assumed that they experience violence equally and react similarly. in which risk and behaviour are assumed to be directly and unproblematically related. In Helsinki. but a deep-rooted constituent of individual identity (Stanko. while women in Edinburgh have ®rst hand experience of at least some improvement schemes. Second. Valentine. 1990. for some. 1992). as described earlier (see Koskela and Tuominen.H. 1997). 1995. Helsinki) The dierences in reactions between the cities is perhaps partly explained by fear of attack being less of a problem generally for the women in Helsinki than those in the Edinburgh study. the relationships between crime. 1985) and is feared far more by women than men. as well as their fearfulness (Valentine. perception and fear are being problematised (Ferraro. 1992). one child. sexual harassment and other non-criminal street violence provide an important example of social processes forging fear in particular contexts (Junger. 1997). but most incidents take place within the domestic sphere (Hanmer and Saunders. 1989). Pain. women's knowledge from ®rst and second hand experiences of sexual attack as well as. (1990) have argued that high levels of fear can be justi®ed by actual crime rates when the `dark ®gure' of unreported crime is taken into account. women were more likely to regard male violence as an unpleasant accident rather than an inevitable risk in everyday life. all play a role in the constitution of fear. Koskela. In addition. so long as anti-domestic attacks programmes are given greater publicity and ®nance simultaneously. 1997c). gender blindness lies at the heart of previously assumed relationships between risk and victimisation. First. R. we next focus brie¯y on some of the political and theoretical issues involved. 1997b). I think it feels much more pleasant. systematic and based on deep-rooted social inequalities (Dobash and Dobash. 1988). To support these arguments. some research has shown that it is possible to create safer . (Helena. 1992. is perceived to be both extremely serious and relatively likely (Warr. in contrast to which violence against women is often regular. it is not the only nor the most important element. It is also worth noting that crime prevention initiatives to alter built environments have scarcely been attempted anywhere in Finland. Rape and sexual assault are amongst the most under reported of crimes. partly owing to lower rates of violence in the city (and Finland generally compared with the UK). and partly to the more pleasant built environments in Helsinki. 4. By contrast. which is often not the case (Tiby. `designing out fear' is underpinned by the assumption that most crime is opportunistic and that oenders respond in a mechanistic way to environmental stimuli (Walklate. Increasingly. 1995. It may also relate to dierences in gender equality and independent mobility of women (Koskela. 1989). 1991). The long term development of fear As we discussed earlier. and as many architects and planners are beginning to take on board. Importantly. as much as places in¯uence fear. (Valentine. Pain. such important life changes were likely to have in¯uenced the respondents' feelings of security. suggesting that crime prevention policy tends to capitalise on and reinforce this notion of normalisation (Stanko. including the reputation of places as dangerous or safe. Conclusions Q: What would make you feel safer? All the rogues being shot. fear can hardly be conceptualised as `opportunistic'. As Garland (1996) asserts. that there are wide contrasts in the environments feared. In other words. 1992. what is being `solved' by `designing out fear' strategies (at least. four children. in the studies which show positive results) is only one immediate and visible dimension of the problem of urban fear. Valentine. objective space and its social and psychological dimensions is very complex and constantly changing (Madanipour. Painter. fear is a cumulative process developing over a long time period. Women in Edinburgh respond negatively to the idea of designing out fear. 1990. 1997). 1990a. within and between the two cities. already with strong ideas about our risks of criminal attack: fear of crime in¯uences the meaning of place.278 H. 1995. thirties. No you can't do that because there would be nobody left would there. Rather. 149). Edinburgh) In our comparison of Helsinki and Edinburgh we have shown that the physical situation of fear of attack is mentioned frequently in women's accounts in both cities. Pain / Geoforum 31 (2000) 269±280 spaces for women in particular public places (Wekerle and Whitzman.2.. yet similar mechanistic connections are made. Valentine. I don't know. 1997. Feminist accounts have long drawn parallel arguments centring on the routinisation of women's fear (Stanko. Feminists have argued strongly that women's fear of crime is both a product of and reinforces their social position. 1992). 1996). There is no conscious or subconscious decision to be fearful in particular environments based on rational assessments of risk. then for the latter women another place will become locally associated with fear. the notion of normalisation supports the criticism that `designing out fear' presents a particular conceptualisation of fear. 1997) ± such as moving house. 1997b. attaching fear to particular places is one way of coping: Woman cannot be fearful of all men all the time. ``it is the very structure of women's lives that continually places them at risk of danger'' (Stanko. 1990b. I don't think there is anything that would be kind of any safer. In both the Helsinki and Edinburgh studies. 4. 1987. perhaps because of higher levels of violence in Scotland. motherhood. not as deep-seated and ingrained. but as situational and thus at least partially resolvable by environmental change. 1995). Stanko. Koskela. Pilton. which is aected by and responds to a whole range of social and personal experiences (Goodey. 1990b. crime and its avoidance are now an accepted part of everyday life. 1992). 1992). as runs the argument for criminals' behaviour. and women who are lesbian. threatening incidents ± are social and subjective experiences which are not restricted to certain spaces. members of ethnic minority groups or who have disabilities may also report higher levels of fear (Crawford et al. material factors such as lower incomes and lack of private transport put them at additional risk from violence and from fear (Painter. For poorer women. and that in both cities it is the social nature of these dierent places which provokes fear. therefore in order to maintain an illusion of control over their safety they need to know where and when they may encounter `dangerous men' in order to avoid them. As our research suggests. Apart from maybe being in a wee fortress kind of thing. The fear of crime of potential victims works in a very dierent way. if one type of place in which some women feel fearful (a dark subway) is not encountered by other women. Proponents of strategies to `design out crime' justify them by asserting that the outcome stage of oenders' decision-making being highly in¯uenced by situational factors (Clarke. 1989. 1990a). At the very least. the relationship between physical. nah. Hollway and Jeerson. bereavement. 1989). 5. Although making direct comparisons of the ®ndings of two separately conducted qualitative studies is not without its pitfalls. p. 1996). p. machinist. Stanko. the results discussed here from two cities which are contrasting in physical and social . The complex construction of fear of crime predestines how we come to particular places. The many `breakings' which contribute to con®dence and fear (Koskela. and greater familiarity with such initiatives compared with women in Helsinki to whom the idea is fairly new. ageing. Gendered power relations and gendered fear Many commentators have viewed fear of crime as linked to broader concerns and insecurities (Hale. Nah.3. women's fear of violence is normalised. 171) 4. R. As a result. like [laughs]. (Jeanette. . K. Walklate. D. Changing perspectives on crime prevention: the role of information and structure. SUNY Press. Focusing on fear: the use of focus groups in a project for the Community Forest Unit.). Avebury. 1989. Hale. Area 28 (2).H. 1993. Jones. Harrow and Heston. This is not to vilify all such schemes.E. Fyfe. 1995.. Environmental solutions to fear of crime are attractive. L. . Routledge. 1993. Home Oce... N. 1997). 1996. 339±350. Crawford. R. Goodey. Violence and Social Change.. Jeerson. 1996. R. (Eds. in the UK this popular crime prevention strategy derives from 1980s political ideology which sought to shift focus away from social and political causes of crime (Gilling. But is it worth taking the risk? How women negotiate access to urban woodland: a case study. J. A. N. E. C. Clarke. In Finland the whole issue of safety on the streets has emerged much more recently. R. In the UK.... Social Problems 37. T. 1997. J. D.. Routledge.. Fear of Crime. Fattah.. 1998. Saunders. P. rather than theory informing policy. Gardner. Hollway.T.B. perception and use of space and place. As part of a broader planning approach to revitalise town and city centres and make them friendlier. Yet the example of women's fear shows clearly some of the practical and conceptual con¯icts and dif®culties of amelioration through environmental improvements. The Second Islington Crime Survey. London. Evans. The man-shaped city.).. Koskela... consumers and residents (Oc and Tiesdell. 1990. Places may have some in¯uence on fear... 1990. Gilchrist. Pain / Geoforum 31 (2000) 269±280 279 environments for women (and each of which contains much physical and social diversity). Tilley. Many women empower themselves through their own negotiation of danger. 1992. Boys. Burgess. 1996. 1997.M. Davidson. K. 249±256. London. International Review of Victimology 4.H. Crime Prevention. R. C. Yeandle.V. Paul Chapman. T. Bodies and Gender.. Fraser. Gilling. 1985... Crime and Victimization of the Elderly.. and there has been little discussion of `designing out fear' as yet.. Woodhouse.).. London. Some of our arguments here are not new.. London. 1996. Dobash. British Journal of Criminology 36 (4). Ferraro. Women and the designed environment: dealing with dierence. British Journal of Sociology 48 (2).. though their proponents have never naively suggested that amelioration can be more than local or partial (Herbert and Davidson. Bannister. D. 1996.. Hilary Shipman. 1995. S.. it is important for other countries to learn from the mistakes as well as the successes. J.. A. Changing Places. Bristol. Springer. a prominence which is paradoxical given the complexity of fear of crime. 359±380. We have sought to restate them in light of the continuing prominence of this paradigm in this area. Fear of crime: children and gendered socialization. W.F. J. In: Booth..A. London. Area 28 (1). D. P. S. Women. E. C. 255±266. Built Environment 16 (4). 1991. Herbert. Crime Prevention Unit Paper 29. Walklate. on this issue as many others social and physical space cannot be separated. (Ed. have rarely done so. References Atkins. The limits of the sovereign state: strategies of crime control in contemporary society. R. 1997. Darke. S. Ditton. Burgess. The politics of `grassing' on an inner city housing estate. J. Storey.. 1984. Hanmer. Saunders. or redesigned streets. J. more attractive places for business. Husain. lend support to the main argument of this paper. Herbert... Sacco. New York. A. City watching: closed circuit television surveillance in public spaces. Farrall. J. Safe conduct: women. Heal. Routledge. 1992. N. Instead of following a UK/North American trend which developed from certain political beginnings. London. what might be expected of such changes needs to be kept in more perspective. In: Ainley. Sociological Review 44 (3). Greed. Women's Lives in the City. as is increasingly bring drawn out in the geographical and criminological literatures and recent developments in feminist theory. Dobash. Violence and Crime Prevention... C. New Frontiers of Space. Cardi. rape alarms. Policy imperatives have tended to lead theory and research. Gender and Crime. Creating Gendered Realities. In: Evans. (Ed. Well Founded Fear: A Community Study of Violence to Women. Falling Wall Press. Hay. J. Women. D.R.. Whom can you trust. Utopia on Trial.. Fear of violence and the use of urban space in the City of Unley... New York. 1992.E. 658± 679. Crime.. J. to whom `faults' in the built environment lend otherwise unavailable opportunities to attack. UCL Press. The in¯uence of street lighting on crime and the fear of crime.. Geographers and planners should take greater account of the complexity of fear. but crime prevention policies. Flinders University. Dobash. Policing and Place.. Young. Hall.. Middlesex Polytechnic. Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies. I. 1992. 130±135.). 311±328. J.. Heal. crime and self in public places. Noaks.). 79±150. London. Modifying the built environment: the impact of improved street lighting. T. (Eds. Discipline of Geography. Fear of crime: a review of the literature. 1996.. British Journal of Criminology 37 (4). New York.. London. 1989).. 1993. there have been strong political imperatives for linking community safety so closely to the built environment. Geoforum 25 (3). 1997.E. Coleman. Bannister. V. Questioning the measurement of the `fear of crime': ®ndings from a major methodological study. The risk society in an age of anxiety: situating fear of crime. R. 445±471. S. Women and Planning.. S. Garland.. London. University of Wales Press. K. Hutchinson. Darke. R. rather than developing women's safety strategies based on myths of stranger rapists in public space. be they in the form of behavioural advice. Routlegde. Changes do appear to have reduced fear of crime in certain contexts. 1994. In: Dobash. Fyfe. Ask Any Woman: A London Enquiry into Rape and Sexual Assault.J. Countryside Commission. Feminist politics inform us that gendered power relations are key to women's fear. J.. attempts to design out fear may have a whole range of other bene®cial effects.. Centre for Criminology.P. Aldershot. 1994). However. S. S. 1990.R. Adelaide. 1990. Hanmer. J. but perhaps of equal or greater signi®cance is the ways in which fear shapes our understanding. 1994. greener. (Eds. Town Planning Review 63 (2). Safer City Centres: Reviving the Public Realm. Safer cities for women: perceived risks and planning measures. S.. Pain. Design against crime.. Tiesdell. Environmental improvements and the fear of crime. 1995.. Maynard.. London. Geography. Routledge. Mirrlees-Black. 29. Social geographies of women's fear of crime. 1985. S. `Old age' and ageism in urban research: the case of fear of crime. Yo (Night-city-the city of fear?). London. E.. London. (Eds..). In: L ahteenmaa..). Policing and Place. Metrac 1990... (Eds. Straus. 1991.). G. New York. London. Journal of Social Psychology 129 (2) 141±60. nature and landscape. Pandora. L. S. Longhurst...). Reason and unreason in `left realism': some problems in the constitution of the fear of crime.. Young. London.. Stanko. British Journal of Criminology 33 (4). 1992. 1996.. Sociology and Social Research 76 (2)... Open University Press.. R. L. The City of Helsinki Helsingin Yo Information Management Centre. Sage. M. 1987. 1989.. C. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 22 (2). 231±244. J. Phillips. D.. 143±149. 1992.. G. Crime Prevention Unit Paper no.J. Rape in Marriage. P. Macmillan. K. 1997.). (Eds. Pain.. The eect of better street lighting on crime and fear: a review. Smith. Area 24. 1997. The geography of women's fear. A. London.. J. 40±57. Theoretical Criminology 1 (4). Nair. Safety talk: conceptualising women's risk assessment as a `technology of the soul'.. Fisher. Sage. Croom Helm.W. Pluto Press. Ditton. Macmillan. T. Home Oce. V. F.... Kelly. Whither women's fear.. Perceptions of sexual violence in public and private space. S. R. 1995.R. Macmillan.). Madge. 1988. Dierent worlds: the spatial. Kvinna och r add? (Women and fear?). G. Koskela. Design and Management. G. Milton Keynes. Gendered exclusions: women's fear of violence and changing relations to space. (Eds. International Review of Victimology 4 (4). Harlow.. British Journal of Criminology 27 (4). In: Evans. G. Landscape and Urban Planning 35 (2/3) 75±201. Tilley.R. R. The Geography of Crime. Vrij. Stockholm.. London. 1990. Gender and Crime: An Introduction. 1989.. Smith... S.). Oc. series B (forthcoming)... Young. L. Women. D. Middlesex Polytechnic. Crime prevention and the safer cities story.. 1985.A. M. L. 1987. 1990b.H. C. L. Editorial (special issue). Social Problems 32. (Eds. Koskela.H. 1987. r brott (Fear of crime). Home Oce 1989. M. Women's Safety on Housing Estates.T. H. Fyfe... Issues in Realist Criminology. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 9 (2). Junger. Pointing. Wales. Rowe. (Ed. Report of the Working Group on Fear of Crime.. Centre for Criminology. Pain. Beyond the rhetoric of residential crime prevention. J.. London. Van Nostrand-Reinhold. Herbert.. Safer Cities: Guidelines for Planning. Smith. S. Wekerle. Morris. In: Maguire.. Gold. neighbourhood structure. S. C. Nassar. (Eds. Dangerous situations: social context and fear of victimisation.. pp.J. Journeying in reverse: possibilities and problems in feminist research on sexual violence. Nash. 1997. E. Risk and criminal victimisation: a modernist dilemma?. Kinnaird.A. J.. Geogra®ska Annaler.280 H. Urban design and dilemmas of space.. 1997c. D. C... J. Koskela. R. 1972.. P. (Eds. 1997. Feminist Perspectives in Criminology. 1997. When precaution is normal: a feminist critique of crime prevention. Herbert. 117±128. H. 1992. Percy. S. the Media and Popular Culture. R. London. Newman. London. (Eds. 1997a. M. Rose. (The Night of Helsinki). N. Open University Press. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 14. Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention. Milton Keynes. 479±499. B. BRA-rapport. R. A.. women and interpersonal violence in England. 265± 278.. H. R. 1990. Typical violence.). R. O. Refocusing groups: pregnant women's geographical experiences of Hamilton. New York. 1982. What makes women safe? Housing Review 35 (6).. In: Gelsthorpe. Valentine. . Fear of crime in residential environments. 1992. Feminist geographies of environment. Van Stallduinen. In: Hanmer.J. Warr. 203±215. British Journal of Criminology 37 (1).. Walklate. 1990a. Trench. Stanko. Prentice-Hall. Whitzman. J. Making Space: Women and the Man-made Environment. Feminist Geographies: Explorations in Diversity and Dierence.. Matrix 1984. 1989. E. London. In: Gelsthorpe. Longman. Special issue on women's safety in urban environments. Scotland and the USA. Stanko. Area 28. Corbin. Defensible Space. The 1996 British crime survey. Deviant Behaviour 12. Tuominen. A. (Eds. M. Risk of crime and fear of crime: a realist critique of survey-based assumptions. J. Mayhew. 301±319. Walklate.. 358±383.. Tiesdell. Painter. Crime Prevention and Public Lighting with Special Focus on Elderly People. Madanipour.... Unwin Hyman. Valentine. In: Women and Geography Study Group (Eds. E. S. E. 238±250. News and the dissemination of fear. Public parks and the geography of fear.. Design for vulnerability: cues and reactions to fear of crime.). New Zealand/Aotearoa. Area 21 (4).. Victimology.H. Kelly. Taking back planning: promoting women's safety in public places: the Toronto experience. M. Everyday Violence: Women's and Men's Experience of Personal Danger. 107±114. Gender.. 1989. 237±250.. Oc. 22± 29.. Victims of Crime: A New Deal? Milton Keynes. 1989.. R adslan fo 1991:2. Tiby. Chapman & Hall. 1990. Fear of rape amongst urban women. In: Wiklund. A. Feminist Perspectives in Criminology. Sparks. England and Wales. D. Helsinki. In: Evans. J. 1996. (Eds. Painter.. Open University Press. Winkel. 146±150. HMSO. Women's Design Service. T. A.L. A. N. C. 1990. Stringer. London. Walklate. Whitzman. Women's experiences of sexual harassment: some implications for their fear of crime. J.. and the fear of crime in Britain. 1997. Women and Environments 12 (1). Routledge. Social relations. Social Forces 68 (3). Morris. 1991. S. Stanko. J. K. temporal and social dimensions of female victimisation. normal precaution: men. kaupunki-pelon kaupunki? Koskela.. In: Burgess. 1991. M. D. Characteristics of the built environment and fear of crime: a research note on interventions in unsafe locations. G. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 21 (1). 1996. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geogra®e 88. 1992. Images of danger: women's sources of information about the spatial distribution of male violence. Ramsey. 1996. 1992. E. Property Management 5 (2).. 1993.). Violence and Social Control. Women's Design Service 1998.. 1995. Basic of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Pain / Geoforum 31 (2000) 269±280 Russell. M.). 555±561. Place and Culture 4 (3).. 331±355. `Bold walk and breakings': women's spatial con®dence versus fear of violence. New York. Home Oce Statistical Bulletin..J. 1986. The Howard Journal 32 (1). 48±58.. In: Matthews.. Newton. 1999. Warr. Standing Conference on Crime Prevention. J. A.). 1993. 1997b. Morris. Built Environment 16 (4). London. 19/96. G. Crime. Women's fear and the design of public space... Valentine. Van der Wur. 297±312. M akel a. London.
Report "Rachel Pain Hille Koskela Revisiting Fear and Place Women's Fear of Attack and the Built Environment"