犯罪恐惧感与犯罪活动空间分布的匹配关系及其影响因素

doi:10.13249/j.cnki.sgs.2022.06.008

地理科学 ›› 2022, Vol. 42 ›› Issue (6): 1024-1033.doi: 10.13249/j.cnki.sgs.2022.06.008

犯罪恐惧感与犯罪活动空间分布的匹配关系及其影响因素

张延吉¹(), 游永熠², 朱春武³, 郭华贵²^,^*()

1.福州大学人文社会科学学院，福建福州 350116
2.福州大学建筑与城乡规划学院，福建福州 350116
3.得州农工大学景观建筑与城市规划系，美国得克萨斯卡城 77840

收稿日期:2021-10-11 修回日期:2021-12-15 接受日期:2022-06-06 出版日期:2022-06-25 发布日期:2022-08-23
通讯作者: 郭华贵 E-mail:chairman7up@126.com;huaguiguo@gmail.com
作者简介:张延吉（1989−），男，上海人，副教授，博士，主要从事社会地理学和环境犯罪学研究。E-mail: chairman7up@126.com
基金资助:
国家社会科学基金青年项目(21CSH006)资助

Spatial Matching Relationship Between Criminal Activities and Fear of Crime and Its Influential Factors: A Case of Beijing

Zhang Yanji¹(), You Yongyi², Zhu Chunwu³, Guo Huagui²^,^*()

1. School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou 350116, Fujian, China
2. School of Architecture and Urban-rural Planning, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou 350116, Fujian, China
3. Department of Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning, Texas A&M University, College Station, 77840, Texas, USA

Received:2021-10-11 Revised:2021-12-15 Accepted:2022-06-06 Online:2022-06-25 Published:2022-08-23
Contact: Guo Huagui E-mail:chairman7up@126.com;huaguiguo@gmail.com
Supported by:
Youth Program of National Social Science Foundation of China (21CSH006)

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

利用北京社会调查、法律文书、兴趣点、路网、定位数据，发现盗窃及暴力犯罪密度对犯罪恐惧感并无显著关联或影响偏弱，犯罪活动与犯罪恐惧感存在“匹配且具高安全性”“匹配且具高危险性”“不匹配且比主观感知更危险”“不匹配且比主观感知更安全”等类型。脆弱人群更易高估安全风险；防卫空间及街道眼理论分别适用于解释客观犯罪和主观感知，高密度、混合型、密路网的可渗透环境容易产生比主观感知更危险的情形；物理与社会失序、居住不稳定性会产生比主观感知更安全的情形；高人员流动性及高地位社区的居民则易低估安全风险；出入管控和环境维护能起到减犯罪、降恐惧的双重作用。

关键词: 犯罪恐惧感, 防卫空间, 街道眼, 失序, 社会解组

Abstract:

By using social survey, court records, Points of Interest, road networks, and Baidu Location-based Service population dataset in Beijing, this research finds that the densities of theft and violent crime cases have no significant or weak-to-moderate correlation with fear of crime. Furthermore, according to the security situation and level of mismatch between perceived fear and actual crime, we classify each sample into four types: ‘matching and high security’, ‘matching and high danger’, ‘mismatching and more dangerous than it looks’, ‘mismatching and safer than it looks’. It indicates that fear of crime and actual criminal activities are two distinct social phenomenon whose spatial patterns, forming mechanisms, and policy recommendations need to be separately analyzed. The vulnerable features including female, low-income, non-managerial level, and victimization experience make people inclining to overestimate the risk of crime. The female, low-income, immigrant, and married person are also more exposed to actual crime, suggesting some specific prevention measures should be taken for these vulnerable individuals. The permeable environment with densely population, mixed function and compact road networks would result in more dangerous situation than subjective perception, since defensible space theory and street eyes theory are appropriate to explaining crime and fear of crime at the macro spatial scale, respectively. Meanwhile, the stricter access control at the micro spatial scale is beneficial to both the reduction of criminal activities and the relief of fear of crime. In addition, residential instability, physical disorder, and social disorder would lead to the relative safer situation than human perception. But in general, environmental maintenance can simultaneously suppress actual crime and mitigate fear of crime. Rather, the residents dwelling in high-mobility and high-status communities tend to underestimate the risk of crime.

Key words: fear of crime, defensible space, street eyes, disorder, social disorganization

中图分类号:

K901

张延吉, 游永熠, 朱春武, 郭华贵. 犯罪恐惧感与犯罪活动空间分布的匹配关系及其影响因素[J]. 地理科学, 2022, 42(6): 1024-1033.

Zhang Yanji, You Yongyi, Zhu Chunwu, Guo Huagui. Spatial Matching Relationship Between Criminal Activities and Fear of Crime and Its Influential Factors: A Case of Beijing[J]. SCIENTIA GEOGRAPHICA SINICA, 2022, 42(6): 1024-1033.

图/表 5

Table 1

Table 2

Measurement and descriptive statistics of variables

变量	释义	均值	标准差
注：北京法院审判信息网（ https://www.bjcourt.gov.cn/）；链家网（ https://bj.lianjia.com/ershoufang/）；百度地图慧眼LBS大数据（ https://huiyan.baidu.com/）；未注明数据来源者来自调查问卷。
被解释变量
盗窃犯罪恐惧感	Q1-1、Q1-3、Q1-4的主因子得分	0	1.00
暴力犯罪恐惧感	Q1-2、Q1-3、Q1-4的主因子得分	0	1.00
盗窃犯罪与其恐惧感的匹配类型	匹配且具高安全性=4，匹配且具高危险性=3，不匹配且比主观感知更危险=2，不匹配且比主观感知更安全=1	2.45	1.20
暴力犯罪与其恐惧感的匹配类型	同上	2.47	1.20
解释变量1：客观犯罪状况
盗窃犯罪密度	2016—2020年住所1 km半径内盗窃犯罪量，数据来自北京法院审判信息网	26.37	22.90
暴力犯罪密度	2016—2020年住所1 km半径内暴力犯罪量，数据来自北京法院审判信息网	18.89	15.46
解释变量2：个体经济社会特征
性别	男=1，女=0	0.47	0.50
年龄	单位：岁	34.66	10.90
收入水平	10点量表：最高=10到最低=1	5.61	1.99
受教育年限	单位：a	14.78	2.37
工作地位	管理他人=1，其他=0	0.30	0.46
户口类型	非农户口=1，农业户口=0	0.75	0.43
出生地	北京=1，其他=0	0.63	0.48
婚姻状况	同居或已婚=1，未婚、离婚或丧偶=0	0.64	0.48
房屋产权	租房或无产权=1，有产权=0	0.28	0.45
受害经历	2 a内自己或家人遭遇入室盗窃、公共场所偷盗、抢劫、攻击、接触性诈骗等犯罪活动的类型数	0.23	0.45
解释变量3：社区建成环境特征
土地利用密度	住所1 km半径内的POI数量的对数，数据来自百度地图	6.79	1.08
功能混合度	$ \mathrm{P}\mathrm{O}\mathrm{I}\mathrm{熵}\mathrm{指}\mathrm{数}=-{\displaystyle\sum }_{i=1}^{n}{p}_{i}\times \mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}{p}_{i} $ ，p_i为住所1 km半径内i类POI占POI总数之比，数据来源百度地图	1.48	1.11
路网密度	住所1 km半径内的道路长度的对数，数据来自北京路网数据库	10.73	0.53
社区出入控制	Q2-1~Q2-3的主因子得分	0	1.00
设有派出所	住所1 km半径内有派出所=1，无=0	0.36	0.48
解释变量4：社区社会环境特征
物理环境失序	Q3-1~Q3-7的主因子得分	0	1.00
社会环境失序	Q4-1~Q4-3的主因子得分	0	1.00
集体效能	Q5-1~Q5-6的主因子得分	0	1.00
居住不稳定性	外地人口租房比例：很高(>75%)=4，较高(50%~75%)=3，较低(25%~50%)=2，很低(<25%)=1	2.49	0.80
人员流动性	途经人口占定位人口比例，数据来自百度地图慧眼LBS数据	0.37	0.32
社区经济社会水平	平均房屋单价的对数，数据来自链家网	10.95	0.43

Table 2

图1

图2

Table 3

Regression analysis results

	盗窃犯罪恐惧感	暴力犯罪恐惧感	盗窃犯罪与其恐惧感的匹配类型			暴力犯罪与其恐惧感的匹配类型
	模型1	模型2	模型3-1	模型3-2	模型3-3	模型4-1	模型4-2	模型4-3
注：模型3-1、4-1的被解释变量是成为“匹配且具高危险性”与成为“匹配且具高安全性”类型概率比的自然对数；模型3-2、4-2的被解释变量是成为“不匹配且比主观感知更危险”与成为“匹配且具高安全性”类型概率比的自然对数；模型3-3、4-3的被解释变量是成为“不匹配且比主观感知更安全”与成为“匹配且具高安全性”类型概率比的自然对数；^*、^、^*、⁺表示在0.001、0.01、0.05、0.1的统计水平上显著；空白表示该变量未纳入相应模型。
盗窃犯罪密度	0.038
暴力犯罪密度		0.074^**
性别	−0.151^***	−0.150^***	−0.471^***	−0.151⁺	−0.341^***	−0.487^***	−0.065	−0.275^***
年龄	−0.016	−0.016	−0.026	−0.129	0.021	0.101	0.106	0.092
收入水平	−0.052^*	−0.050^*	−0.074	−0.036	−0.213^**	−0.225^**	−0.155⁺	−0.188^**
受教育年限	−0.007	−0.005	0.154	0.009	0.022	0.003	−0.113	0.043
工作地位	−0.049^*	−0.049^*	−0.051	−0.016	−0.184^**	−0.066	−0.026	−0.179^*
户口类型	−0.056^*	−0.055^*	−0.145	0.048	−0.068	−0.100	0.072	−0.082
出生地	−0.004	−0.002	0.041	0.245⁺	−0.025	−0.210^*	−0.002	−0.023
婚姻状况	0.045⁺	0.044⁺	0.087	0.043	0.150⁺	0.215^*	0.086	0.100
房屋产权	−0.004	−0.004	−0.054	−0.188⁺	−0.069	0.008	−0.113	−0.048
受害经历	0.135^***	0.134^***	0.241^**	−0.117	0.136^*	0.229^**	−0.073	0.190^*
土地利用密度	−0.034	−0.054	1.620^***	1.607^***	0.004	1.958^***	1.806^***	−0.039
功能混合度	−0.017	−0.022	0.198^*	0.242^**	0.044	0.459^***	0.457^***	0.004
路网密度	−0.017	−0.007	0.957^***	0.801^**	0.083	0.943^***	0.855^***	0.125
社区出入控制	−0.075^**	−0.076^**	−0.217^**	0.097	−0.027	−0.216^**	0.012	−0.074
设有派出所	−0.106^***	−0.106^***	−0.185^*	0.044	−0.163^*	−0.207^*	0.002	−0.191^**
物理环境失序	0.226^***	0.225^***	0.482^***	0.058	0.518^***	0.517^***	0.157	0.560^***
社会环境失序	0.134^***	0.134^***	0.130^*	0.016	0.251^**	0.281^**	0.165⁺	0.253^**
集体效能	−0.005	−0.005	0.121	0.107	0.017	−0.038	0.032	0.067
居住不稳定性	0.170^***	0.168^***	0.473^***	0.056	0.363^***	0.506^***	0.038	0.334^***
人员流动性	0.001	−0.006	0.416^***	0.385^***	0.027	0.599^***	0.559^***	0.004
社区经济社会水平	−0.013	−0.005	0.520^***	0.659^***	−0.033	−0.194⁺	−0.093	−0.067
常数	−0.024	−0.025	−0.763^***	−1.049^***	0.273	−0.679^***	−0.882^***	0.272^***
adj R² / PseudoR²	0.253	0.256	0.248			0.219
F值 / Chi²	27.51	27.90	1221.64			1079.41

Table 3

参考文献 27

[1]	Snyders E, Landman K. Perceptions of crime hot-spots and real locations of crime incidents in two South African neighbourhoods[J]. Security Journal, 2018, 31 (1): 265-284 doi: 10.1057/s41284-017-0099-9
[2]	Johansson S, Haandrikman K. Gendered fear of crime in the urban context: A comparative multilevel study of women’s and men’s fear of crime[J/OL]. Journal of Urban Affairs, 2021. DOI: 10.1080/07352166.2021. 1923372 .https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2021.1923372.
[3]	Nadai M D, Xu Y, Letouze E et al. Socio-economic, built environment, and mobility conditions associated with crime: A study of multiple cities[J]. Scientific Reports, 2020, 10: 13871 doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-70808-2
[4]	Gibson C L, Zhao J, Lovrich N P et al. Social integration, individual perceptions of collective efficacy, and fear of crime in three cities[J]. Justice Quarterly, 2002, 19 (3): 537-564 doi: 10.1080/07418820200095341
[5]	Karakus O, McGarrell E F, Basibuyuk O. Fear of crime among citizens of Turkey[J]. Journal of Criminal Justice, 2010, 38 (2): 174-184 doi: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.02.006
[6]	Han S. Compositional and contextual associations of social capital and fear of crime[J]. Deviant Behavior, 2021, 42 (6): 718-732 doi: 10.1080/01639625.2020.1789295
[7]	Collins R E. Addressing the inconsistencies in fear of crime research: A meta-analytic review[J]. Journal of Criminal Justice, 2016, 47: 21-31 doi: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2016.06.004
[8]	Russo S, Roccato M, Vieno A. Criminal victimization and crime risk perception: A multilevel longitudinal study[J]. Social Indicators Research, 2013, 112 (3): 535-548 doi: 10.1007/s11205-012-0050-8
[9]	Lee H D, Reyns B W, Kim D et al. Fear of crime out west: Determinants of fear of property and violent crime in five states[J]. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 2020, 64 (12): 1299-1316 doi: 10.1177/0306624X20909238
[10]	Jacobs J. The death and life of great American cities[M]. New York: Vintage, 1961.
[11]	Newman O. Defensible space: Crime prevention through urban design[M]. New York: Macmillan, 1972.
[12]	Cozens P M. Urban planning and environmental criminology: Towards a new perspective for safer cities[J]. Planning Practice and Research, 2011, 26 (4): 481-508 doi: 10.1080/02697459.2011.582357
[13]	张延吉, 秦波, 朱春武. 北京城市建成环境对犯罪行为和居住安全感的影响[J]. 地理学报, 2019, 74 (2): 238-252
	Zhang Yanji, Qin Bo, Zhu Chunwu. The impact of urban built environment on criminal behavior and residential security in Beijing. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2019, 74 (2): 238-252
[14]	刘大千, 宋伟, 修春亮. 长春市“两抢两盗”犯罪的空间分析[J]. 地理科学, 2014, 34 (11): 1344-1352
	Liu Daqian, Song Wei, Xiu Chunliang. Spatial analysis on robbery, forcible seizure, vehicle theft and burglary in Changchun. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 2014, 34 (11): 1344-1352
[15]	戴邵勍, 江辉仙, 李佳佳, 等. H市城区步行环境对两抢一盗警情的影响[J]. 地理科学, 2018, 38 (8): 1235-1244
	Dai Shaoqing, Jiang Huixian, Li Jiajia et al. Influence of walking environment on robbery, snatch and theft crime in urban area, H City, China. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 2018, 38 (8): 1235-1244
[16]	Lorenc T, Petticrew M, Whitehead M et al. Fear of crime and the environment: Systematic review of UK qualitative evidence[J]. BMC Public Health, 2013, 13: 496 doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-496
[17]	Wilson J Q, Kelling G L. Broken windows[J]. The Atlantic Monthly, 1982, 249 (3): 29-38
[18]	Sampson R J, Raudenbush S W. Systematic social observation of public spaces: A new look at disorder in urban neighborhoods[J]. American Journal of Sociology, 1999, 105 (3): 603-651 doi: 10.1086/210356
[19]	Sampson R J. Great American city: Chicago and the enduring neighborhood effect[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012.
[20]	Sampson R J, Raudenbush S W, Earls F. Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy[J]. Science, 1997, 277 (5328): 918-924 doi: 10.1126/science.277.5328.918
[21]	Troy A, Nunery A, Grove J M. The relationship between residential yard management and neighborhood crime: An analysis from Baltimore City and County[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2016, 147: 78-87 doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.11.004
[22]	Fuhrmann S, Huynh N T, Scholz R. Comparing fear of crime and crime statistics on a university campus[M]//Leitner M. Crime modeling and mapping using geospatial technologies. New York: Springer, 2013: 319-337.
[23]	Panek J, Ivan I, Mackova L. Comparing residents’ fear of crime with recorded crime data—Case study of Ostrava, Czech Republic[J]. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 2019, 8 (9): 401 doi: 10.3390/ijgi8090401
[24]	Doran B J, Lees B G. Investigating the spatiotemporal links between disorder, crime, and the fear of crime[J]. The Professional Geographer, 2005, 57 (1): 1-12
[25]	Wilson S, Meagher G, Gibson R et al. Australian social attitudes: The first report[M]. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press, 2005.
[26]	Will J A, McGrath J H. Crime, neighborhood perceptions, and the underclass: The relationship between fear of crime and class position[J]. Journal of Criminal Justice, 1995, 23 (2): 163-176 doi: 10.1016/0047-2352(95)00004-A
[27]	Zhang F, Fan Z, Kang Y et al. “Perception bias”: Deciphering a mismatch between urban crime and perception of safety[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2021, 207: 104003 doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.104003

题项	测量方式	主因子1	主因子2	主因子3	主因子4	主因子5
注：空白项为因子载荷小于等于0.5。
Q1-1在社区是否担心受到人身伤害	4点量表：非常不担心=1至非常担心=4	0.82
Q1-2在社区是否担心受到财物侵害	同上	0.84
Q1-3是否害怕在社区夜晚独行	4点量表：非常放心=1至非常害怕=4	0.86
Q1-4会否阻止家中老幼在社区独行	4点量表：从不阻止=1至总是阻止=4	0.63
Q2-1小区是否有围墙	有=1，无=0		0.53
Q2-2访客进小区是否需登记或遭阻拦	4点量表：从来不会=1至总是会=4		0.79
Q2-3社区是否有摄像头、门禁系统或人脸识别设备	3点量表：无=0，有却不常用=1，有且常用=2		0.76
Q3-1社区卫生保洁状况	4点量表：非常干净=1至非常不干净=4			0.65
Q3-2社区私搭乱建	4点量表：从不存在=1至非常普遍=4			0.70
Q3-3社区建筑污损涂鸦	同上			0.72
Q3-4社区植物未打理、随意生长	同上			0.72
Q3-5社区垃圾随意丢弃	同上			0.72
Q3-6社区路面破损	同上			0.70
Q3-7街道小品破损	同上			0.66
Q4-1邻里争吵频率	4点量表：从不=1至总是=4				0.73
Q4-2邻里肢体冲突频率	同上				0.75
Q4-3社区发生黄赌毒的频率	同上				0.74
Q5-1认识楼内多数邻居	4点量表：完全不符合=1至完全符合=4					0.76
Q5-2可从邻居处借到工具	同上					0.73
Q5-3可与邻居分享心事	同上					0.81
Q5-4能向邻居借到钱	同上					0.76
Q5-5邻居值得信任	同上					0.73
Q5-6邻居热心参与公共事务	同上					0.65

犯罪恐惧感与犯罪活动空间分布的匹配关系及其影响因素

Spatial Matching Relationship Between Criminal Activities and Fear of Crime and Its Influential Factors: A Case of Beijing

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

赞

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 5

参考文献 27

相关文章 1

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 0