Young women’s site-specific fear of crime within urban public spaces in Seoul

Figures & data

Table 1. Site comparison

Characteristics	Site A	Site B
Physical setting	Enclosed woody setting	Open lawn setting
Spatial composition of the sites on screen	Building area (23.3%) Building adjacent area^1 (30.7%) Vehicular road (24.9%) Sidewalk (56.0%) Seating (6.0%) Lighting low^2 (5.8%) Lighting high^3 (23.7%) Sculpture (0%) CCTV^4 (6.0%) Tree (22.5%) Shrub/lawn (32.6%)	Building area (16.7%) Building adjacent area (31.8%) Vehicular road (33.6%) Sidewalk (58.7%) Seating (2.4%) Lighting low (3.3%) Lighting high (22.4%) Sculpture (0.9%) CCTV (6.9%) Tree (16.4%) Shrub/lawn (30.7%)
Affiliated building	Office tower (B6F–33F); Year built 2004	Mixed use (B6F–23F), retail (B1F–3F), office (4–23F); Year built 2011
Surrounding environment	Office towers without commercial facilities	Obsolete commercial buildings across the street, 24-hour convenience store, pubs, and restaurants on the ground floor
Lighting at nighttime environment	- Dark and uneven lighting - Horizontal illuminance^5: 1.2–1.9 lux, Vertical illuminance^6 1.6–1.9 lux	- Bright and even illumination - Additional light from retail stores - Horizontal illuminance 12.1–36.8 lux, Vertical illuminance 12.3–29.3 lux

¹Includes +2 m outer area of building border line; ²Lighting installed at low height under 1 m, e.g., bollards, in-ground recessed, footlights; ³Lighting installed above eye level, higher than 2 m, e.g., streetlight poles, covers +2 m of extensive radius from installation points; ⁴Covers +4 m of extensive radius from installation points; ⁵Measured at the point of seating, at a height of 0.75 m; ⁶Measured at a height of 1.5 m (eye level).

Table 2. Demographic characteristics of participants (N = 30)

Demographic variable	n (%)
Age (Mean = 25.73, SD = 2.53) 20–24 years 25–29 years 30–35 years	13 (43.3) 13 (43.3) 4 (13.3)
Job Full-time employee Student Others (homemaker, unemployed, part-time employed)	14 (46.7) 12 (40.0) 4 (13.3)

Figure 1. Site A views: (a, b), daytime view; (c, d), nighttime view.

Figure 2. Site B views: (a, b), daytime view; (c, d), nighttime view.

Table 3. Mean fear intensity of grid cells at the two sites

Time	Site	N	Min-Max	Mean (SD)	t
Day	A	414	0–36	4.44 (6.33)	−3.03**
	B	450	0–28	5.62 (5.02)
Night	A	414	0–50	9.07 (12.12)	5.32***
	B	450	0–25	5.62 (5.37)
Day + Night	A	414	0–50	6.75 (9.01)	2.26*
	B	450	0–28	5.62 (4.92)

N = number of analyzed grid cells; SD = standard deviation; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001

Figure 3. Hotspots of fear intensity: (a) Site A map; (b) Site A – day; (c) Site A – night; (d) Site B map; (e) Site B – day; (f) Site B – night.

Table 4. Type of crime feared at the two sites

Site A				Site B
Day		Night		Day		Night
Crime	f (%)	Crime	f (%)	Crime	f (%)	Crime	f (%)
1. Violence	25 (83.3)	1. Violence	27 (90.0)	1. Violence	22 (73.3)	1. Violence	23 (76.7)
2. Sex crime	15 (50.0)	2. Sex crime	23 (76.7)	2. Sex crime	15 (50.0)	2. Theft	46 (53.3)
3. Theft	10 (33.3)	3. Robbery	14 (46.7)	3. Theft	12 (40.0)	3. Sex crime	11 (36.7)
4. Robbery	4 (13.3)	4. Theft	12 (40.0)	4. Robbery	6 (20.0)	4. Robbery	7 (23.3)

Figure 4. Hotspots of fear intensity by crime type: (a–d) Site A – day: (a) Violence; (b) Theft; (c) Sex crime; (d) Robbery; (e–h) Site A – night: (e) Violence; (f) Theft; (g) Sex crime; (h) Robbery; (i–l) Site B – day: (i) Violence; (j) Theft; (k) Sex crime; (l) Robbery; (m–p) Site B – night: (m) Violence; (n) Theft; (o) Sex crime; (p) Robbery.

Table 5. Reasons for fear

	Day		Night
	Why worried	f (%)	Why worried	f (%)
Site A	1. Darkness and obscure spots	23 (76.7)	1. Darkness and obscure spots	30 (100.0)
	2. No security facilities	15 (50.0)	2. Absence of people	26 (86.7)
	3. Absence of people	9 (30.0)	3. No security facilities	21 (70.0)
	4. Suspicious visitors and acts	7 (23.3)	4. Suspicious visitors and acts	10 (33.3)
	5. Dirty	2 (6.7)	5. Poorly managed	5 (16.7)
	6. Poorly managed	1 (3.3)	6. Dirty	4 (13.3)
Site B	1. Poorly managed	19 (63.3)	1. Dark and obscure spots	16 (53.3)
	2. Absence of people	15 (50.0)	2. Suspicious visitors and acts	15 (50.0)
	3. Dark and obscure spots	14 (46.7)	3. No security facilities	12 (40.0)
	4. Dirty	12 (40.0)	4. Poorly managed	11 (36.7)
	5. No security facilities	11 (36.7)	5. Absence of people	11 (36.7)
	6. Suspicious visitors and acts	8 (26.7)	6. Dirty	10 (33.3)

Table 6. Predictors of fear of crime

	Predictors	Day			Night
Site		B	SE	Wald Chi-square	B	SE	Wald Chi-square
Site A	Adjacent building	−1.19	0.65	3.37	0.12	1.14	0.01
	Vehicular road	−0.42	0.78	0.29	−1.15	1.35	0.72
	Pedestrian path	0.51	0.68	0.56	1.45	1.18	1.49
	Bench	6.88	1.19	33.63***	20.12	2.07	94.38***
	Lighting low	6.80	1.18	33.24***	10.60	2.06	26.52***
	Lighting high	−3.90	0.70	31.41***	−6.74	1.22	30.74***
	CCTV	−3.56	1.17	9.31**	−4.50	2.04	4.89*
	Tree	1.00	0.85	1.36	1.17	1.49	0.61
	Shrub/Lawn	0.39	0.81	0.24	4.04	1.41	8.24**
Site B	Adjacent building	−0.02	0.56	0.00	1.33	0.58	5.34 *
	Vehicular road	−0.50	0.63	0.64	−0.55	0.64	0.75
	Pedestrian path	2.21	0.56	15.77 ***	3.27	0.57	33.13 ***
	Bench	−1.42	1.47	0.92	−1.71	1.50	1.30
	Lighting low	−0.52	1.29	0.16	0.67	1.31	0.26
	Lighting high	−0.69	0.54	1.61	0.73	0.55	1.77
	Sculpture	−2.31	2.39	0.94	−1.95	2.44	0.64
	CCTV	4.76	0.94	25.62 ***	4.38	0.96	20.80 ***
	Tree	0.00	0.82	0.00	0.33	0.83	0.16
	Shrub/Lawn	0.47	0.65	0.53	−1.67	0.66	6.43 *

B = unstandardized coefficient; SE = standard error; ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05.