Justin Tang, 5640478

Gphy 352, Dr. Davidson

Final Paper
April 15, 2011
The manifestations of fear, mobility, and gender upon urban space are
intrinsically linked together and must be examined together. The university campus
setting provides a platform for examining these phenomena at once. I will argue that
while many components cause fear within the urban context, the socialized nature of fear
with relation to gender is primary. I will also critique the implementation of potential
solutions for reducing fear such as CCTV cameras.
Security is a major concern today. This is especially true within the urban
microcosms of universities where students spend their daily lives. Modern campuses have
grown substantially in both size and diversity. One major change has been in the
enrollment of female students on campus. By 1997, there were approximately eight
million female undergrads in the United States, up from five million in 1975. Early
research by Hall and Sandler (1984) revealed that a chilly campus climate existed in
American Universities (Kelly & Torres, 2006). The term was defined as a lack of equality
regarding educational opportunity for woman students. Kelly and Torres point out
although that most research related to this subject has been on classroom climate, feelings
of safety are more subtle but immense impact as well.
Much research has been conducted to investigate why certain areas create fear and
for whom. One topic that comes to the forefront relates to the built environment and
physical structures. Visual aspects of neighborhoods and buildings can contribute to
feelings of fear. Run-down environments, poor lighting, desolation, and a lack of people

promote negative feelings of safety. Desolation can also cause anxiety by instilling the
fear that no one will help if trouble occurs. (Loukaitou-Sideris & Fink, 2009). Hidden
lines of sight, a lack of escape routes, and claustrophobia make urban spaces feel
uncomfortable. Feelings of entrapment and concealment are physical cues that induce
fear (Nasar & Jones, 1997). The night environment is also source of fear as well and
another aspect that is divided by gender, with more women associating fear with the
night. Womens perception of fear during the day exceeded that of men for all types of
crimes (robbery, assault, rape, etc) except for theft; during the night, womens fear levels
were far greater than mens for every type of crime (Wilcox et al., 2007).
Although fear is typically cast in a negative light, Wilcox, Jordan, and Prichard
make the point of discussing the utilitarian nature of fear. They cite fear expert Mark
Warr, who suggests that fear is a paradox. It is natural, beneficial, and lifesaving yet can
also be debilitating, restricting freedom, behavior, and opportunity when experienced
under the wrong circumstances (Wilcox et al., 2007).
Understanding perceptions and their sources is important for understanding fear.
This is important because perceptions of fear were frequently incongruent with
experiences of violence that is, victimization. The trend of high levels of fear among
women despite low levels of victimization has been well documented (Wilcox et al.,
2007). Kelly and Torres found that three themes to analyze this phenomenon:
socialization of safety, safety concerns, and coping for safety.
The connecting notion of being a woman also means being worried about safety
and victimization was prevalent. These feelings were derived from messages from
parents, peers, media, and society. Indeed, some respondents felt that to feel safe on

campus was to be an anomaly. Female respondents noted that their male counterparts did
not take the precautions that they did, and that they did not view their bodies in the same
way (Kelly & Torres, 2006). That is, their bodies were not marked with fear in the same
way that females believed they were.
The way crimes are reported have impacts on perceptions of fear. In the United
States, the Campus Crime Disclosure Act (1998) and the Clery Act (2000) require
schools to report hate crimes and index offenses. Wiley and her colleagues critique the
outcome of the Clery act, which may inaccurately portray crime because of the
underreporting of some crimes. Since crimes reported to police (as opposed to all
victimization incidents) are catalogued, crime such as theft may go underreported. The
authors suggest has led to unbalanced risk assessment of crime (Wiley et al, 2006).
Additionally, crimes committed by strangers and acquaintances are not explicitly
differentiated. This is problematic since female students often believe that attackers are
most often strangers, while this is not the case: within the college setting, sexual assaults
victims and perpetrators often know each other (Day, 1994; Kelly & Torres, 2006).
Reception of reports of attacks may also have a factor as well: reactions towards reports
of violence by strangers are far stronger and make longer lasting impressions than reports
of acquaintance-perpetrated violence (Wiley et al, 2006).
Feelings of fear do not simply occur as an end to itself. Fear is translated onto
mobility, which affects the daily lives of affected individuals. Reports of altered mobility
patterns are common when considering safety in the university and urban setting.
Curries (as cited in Kelly & Torres, 2006) 1994 study at the University of British
Columbia revealed that many female students avoided areas of campus that were may

have been considered important to student life. For example, many students avoided
libraries at night, parking lots, and the Student Union Building because they felt an
inadequate level of safety (Kelly & Torres, 2006). Women made conscious efforts to
limit their activities on campus to certain times and places in order to feel safer.
Consistent findings suggest that involvement within the university setting is therefore
negatively impacted when fear becomes a part of the daily life experience (Day, 1994).
Social norms regarding victim blaming also have an affect on decisions women
make on campus. Victim blaming can range from blaming victims directly for being
responsible for their own abuse or making negative comments about the situation (Kelly
& Torres, 2006). The sources of victim blaming are manifold, but media and popular
culture have consistently reinforced the notion that it is the womans responsibility to
prevent attack and have ignoredthereby supportingthe perpetrators. By providing
strategies that focus only on how women should protect themselves from attack,
universities serve to reinforce damaging societal and patriarchal norms and further
campus climates of fear (Day, 1994).
A paradox exists between information dissemination and fear mongering.
Through efforts such as the aforementioned Clery Act, campuses have moved to
routinely broadcast reports on incidents. Day suggests that safety initiatives that seek to
reduce victimization by informing the incidence of attacks may have the reverse effect of
perpetuating the culture of fear on campus and continuing to limit the mobility of female
students (Day, 1994). Female students often felt heightened fear after hearing reports of
an attack, especially if the attack had occurred in close proximity to their homes or
residences. The repetitive suggestion of imminent crime against them in the form of

statistics, stories, hearsay, and myths make fears about safety no longer an imaginary
consideration and rather, a reality in the minds of female students (Kelly & Torres, 2006).
Security infrastructure is often heralded as a method for increasing perceptions of
safety, stopping crime, and apprehending those who perpetrate criminal behavior. The
use of closed-circuit television systems (CCTV) has been widespread in public areas,
with a variety of research conducted over the last several decades. Although the literature
does not provide many specific references to university campuses per say, it is likely that
findings procured from surveillance studies done in the public sphere can be generalized.
The roots of modern surveillance derive from ideas such as the panopticon,
proposed by English philosopher Jeremy Bentham, who suggested the possibility of
constant watch and intervention by authorities would promote self-control. With that in
mind, surveillance systems are not only designed to solve crime but deter its occurrence
as well (McCahill, 2002). CCTV cameras have been in existence for several decades but
have only been in use in the public sphere for the last twenty-five years (Deissman 2003).
The actually effectivity of CCTV systems is highly disputed due to the relative
recency of large scale, public implementation and a lack of an ability to conduct
systematic research (SCAN, 2009). While there have been several cases claiming
reductions in crime, most research has claimed that this is not the case. Norris and Wilson
cite a study that suggested that CCTV lent only a 4% decrease in crime rates in twentytwo communities in the UK and North America. This reduction occurred only over
crimes such as theft and vandalism (Norris & Wilson, 2006). Since the chief priority of
video surveillance is to reduce violent crimes, findings such as these negate the supposed
efficacy of CCTV (SCAN, 200).

The shifting of crimerather than its reductioncan be a major negative

byproduct of video surveillance implementation. In several instances, drug dealing
related crime was pushed into areas that were not monitored within the city, such as
residential areas. In another instance, crime had been reduced in areas immediately within
the gaze of the camera, but this was negated by a surge in crime in the area just out of the
cameras range (SCAN, 2009).
Public perceptions towards CCTV may be more positive than efficacy findings.
Despite inconclusive research to prove that video surveillance increases safety, public
perceptions of safety have been increasingly positive towards CCTV with significantly
reduced fear of being victimized (Deissman, 2003). In the UK, where video surveillance
has become commonplace, CCTVs role in the investigation of several high profile street
crimes and the London Bombings on July 7, 2005 have helped garner positive support for
implementation (SCAN, 2009). Days suggestions for campus implementation are
somewhat uncertain. She claims that macroscale physical strategies should not be
implemented hastily, yet security technology may indeed help reduce feelings of fear felt
by women and increase safety as well. Attacking myths, other forms of crime, and
increasing levels of activity on campus (to dispel fears stemming from apparent
desolation) should likely be prioritized (Day, 1994).
Fear is a daily reality for many students on college and university campuses,
especially women. The urban realm can embody fear through experience, socialization,
and the built environment. The literature suggests that there is a discord between actual
victimization and perceptions of fear for women. The reasons stem from a variety of
sources, yet the impacts on women are significant: reduced mobility, increased worry and

anxiety, and a decrease in opportunities. Proactive measures such as CCTV may help
reduce crime and provide increased feelings of safety yet should be coupled with
measures to reduce victim blaming, target the actions of perpetrators, and other positive
changes to physical environments.

References
Day, K. (1994). Conceptualizing womens fear of sexual assault on campus: a review of
causes and recommendations for change. Encironment and Behavior, 26(6), 742-765.
Deisman, W. (2003). CCTV: Literature Review and Bibliography. Royal Canadian
Mounted Police. From: http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/JS62-108-2003E.pdf. (10
April 2011).
Kelly, B. & Torres, A. (2006). Campus safety: perceptions and experiences of women
students. Journal of College Student Development, 47(1), 20-36.
Loukaitou-Sideris, A. & Fink, C. (2009). Addressing womens fear of victimization in
transportation settings. Urban Affairs Review, 44(4), 554-587.
McCahill, M. (2002). The surveillance web: the rise of visual surveillance in an English city.
Portland, Oregon: William Publishing.
Nasar, J. & Jones, K. (1997). Landscapes of fear and stress. Environment and Behavior,
29(3), 291-323.
Norris, C., & Armstrong, G. (1999). CCTV and the social structuring of surveillance. In C.
Norris & D. Wilson (Eds.), Surveillance, crime and social control. Burlington, VT:
Ashgate Publishing Company.
Surveillance Camera Awareness Network (SCAN). (2009). A report on surveillance in
Canada, part one. Queens University Surveillance Studies Centre. From:
http://www.sscqueens.org/projects/scan_resources. (10 April 2011).
Wilcox, P., Jordan, C., & Pritchard, A. (2007). A multidimensional examination of campus
safety. Crime & Delinquency, 53(2), 219-254.