Migration, on top of the political agenda

Migration,  on  top  of  the  political  agenda  

[An  asylum  seekers  centre  and  the  fear  of  crime]  

Supervisor: T.J.M. Dekkers Second reader: P. Aarten Jesse van der Meer s1891235

Crisis and Security Management January 9, 2018

lies in front of you. My believe is that migration is, possibly due to framing by particular parties, causing fear of crime to a part of the people of welcoming countries. At the same time fear of crime is argued to have the potential to change the way people live their lives, how we act and even our conceptualization of others. With this in mind, the possible intertwinement of these concepts needs more attention and inspection. Especially given the fact that migration will be seemingly a major issue for the new generations to come. In the last couple of years migration has become a much-discussed topic with high emotions in the political, media and social debates. Due to the number of migrants, the media and politics refer to a refugee crisis. However, with the ecological changes that will arise in the coming years, due to our way of living, an actual ecological crisis will evidently become a fact. When this crisis will occur the West will face an enormous refugee crisis with millions of ecological refugees, which will make the current ‘refugee crisis’ become a minor one in history. I am concerned about this scenario and hope this research could add a little bit of attention and awareness for this topic.

This thesis would not have been this version without the help of others. I would like to thank a few people, without them it would have been a lot harder. I would like to thank my parents for all the spelling checks, encouraging words and critical questions. I would like to thank my supervisor Tim Dekkers for helping me with the fruitful feedback and constructive

conversations. These meetings helped me with the process of writing this thesis.

Hopefully, the reader will be enjoy reading this thesis and at the same time will be set thinking on the subject.

Kind regards, Jesse van der Meer

INTRODUCTION 4

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 7

Securitization of migration 9

RESEARCH METHOD 12

Basic research design: case study 12

Cases: Heerhugowaard & Nieuwegein 12

Structured interview 14 Poweranalyse 15 Collecting data 16 Limitations 17 Analysing 18 DATA 19 Background of respondents 19

Structured interview part 1 20

Affective way of measuring fear of crime 22

Behavioural way of measuring fear of crime 23

Cognitive way of measuring fear of crime 25

Conclusion 27

Contributing to fear of crime 27

Framework 27 Analyse 29 Category foreigners 31 CONCLUSION 33 DISCUSSION 34 Limitations 35 Recommendations 35 LITERATURE 36 APPENDIX 42

One of the core tasks of governments, ‘security’ is nowadays situated high on the political agenda throughout the world. Security is, according to Buzan and Hansen (2009), socially constructed and therefore it can be said that the concept security is applicable to all kinds of topics. Now at the top of the political international security agenda, international migration has become one of the main priorities (Adamson, 2006). High impact events, like the 9/11 attacks, made management of migration become a top security priority for the United States (Adamson, 2006). Nevertheless before this event, in the 1990s, migration was already high on Europeans security agenda (Adamson, 2006; van der Woude, van der Leun & Nijland, 2014; Huysmans, 2000). Nowadays an increasing number of policymakers in Europe, in the United States and around the globe, are starting to make links between migration policy and national security (Adamson, 2006; Stumpf, 2006; van der Woude, van der Leun & Nijland, 2014). At the same time European citizens value migration as one of the main issues Europe is dealing with (European Commission, 2017). Several examples can be found of European politicians making ‘use’ of this issue to benefit their own political agenda. The “Brexit-camp” used the issue of immigration to win the referendum (Visscher Dapper, 2016). This referendum was on the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union (EU), whether they remain or leave the EU. While Wilders, leader of the party (Partij van de Vrijheid), has a growing number of followers and his party a growing number of seats in parliament. His ‘unique selling point’ or main point on the agenda: immigration (PVV, 2017).

Migration, in this study used as a general category that includes immigrants, refugees and asylum-seekers, is “increasingly subjected to discourses of criminalization in government policy and legislation, in the media and in public and community discourses” (Bosworth & Guild, 2008, p. 703). A body of growing literature presents migration as a security problem on a

publically and political level, which is referred to as securitization of migration (Van der Woude et al., 2014). Securitization is the process of state actors transforming subjects into matters of ´security´ (Buzan, Wæver & de Wilde, 1998). In this specific situation, it focuses on the transformation of ‘migration’ into a matter of security. Since the 1990s, the social and political discourse on migration has become oppressive and stigmatizing. Whereby migrants, in

particular illegal migrants, are easily linked with crime (Van der Woude et al, 2014). When following this discourse, links between migration, crime and security are quickly made. As a consequence, migration can be seen as troublesome for Europe and the nation-states within. This could induce feelings of insecurity and hindrance. These feelings of insecurity and links to

5    

this phenomenon ‘crimmigration’. This conversion of what used to be separate laws can be interpreted as a practical implementation of securitization of migration and could substantiate that migration has turned into a security issue. The leading social and political discourse on migration, since the 1990s, could instigate a sense of insecurity or the fear of crime (Van der Woude et al., 2014).

A lot of studies have been executed and focused on migration, zooming in on the influence of migration on the economy, for example on labour, unemployment, the cost of human migration or market opportunities (Stark, 1991; Sjaastad, 1962; Greenwood, 2013). Other studies focus on the international movements in the modern world (Castles et al., 2014) or the volume and dynamics of international migration (Faist, 2000). With the public and the politicians valuing migration as one of the biggest concerns of the European Union, this matter, against the background of the securitization of migration on the European continent, is an interesting issue to explore further. In Anglo-Saxon literature the term ‘fear of crime’ is mostly used when studying feelings or experiences of insecurity, while in Dutch literature the fear of crime or the feeling of insecurity that concerns the personal experience of safety is often referred to as subjective safety (Pleysier, 2011). Next to subjective safety, objective safety refers to the situations, circumstances or events as external sources of threats that, perceived by the

individual, give reason to subjective insecurity (Pleysier, 2011). In order to see whether these links made between migration and crime, actually result into fear of crime among the people in the Netherlands a better understanding of the attitude of people towards migrants is necessary. There has been done little research on which factors play a role in forming the perception and feelings among Dutch citizens towards migrants in the Netherlands. To understand better why Dutch citizens respond to migrants in a certain manner, research can provide for clarification. Therefore it is needed to examine what people’s attitude towards migrants is, by those that have been in touch with migrants, as compared to citizens that do not get in touch with migrants. This study focuses on whether there is a difference and what aspects are determinant in forming Dutch citizens’ opinions on migrants. Either this is based on experience or by stories and the media. The concept ‘fear of crime’ can be explored and stretched by adding the ‘why’ question. This study will focus on whether an asylum seekers centre (ASC), with the presence of securitization of migration in mind, influences the level of fear of crime and will make use of a case study methodology. Two cities in the Netherlands will be studied. These

two cities have been chosen on the basis of their size, social economic status of inhabitants, urbanization and the presence of an asylum seekers centre. One of the cities, Heerhugowaard, is housing an asylum seekers centre, while the other, Nieuwegein, is not. By comparing these cities in this study, insight will be provided in how this distinct feature can play a role in forming Dutch citizens’ opinions about the fear of crime. This study will be using the following research question:

To what extent are asylum seekers, with the presence securitization of migration in mind, contributing to fear of crime for the people of a Dutch city with an ASC versus a Dutch city without an ASC?

This thesis is structured as follows: it starts with an introduction to explain the relevance of this subject. Secondly, the theoretical framework will elaborate on the main concepts and theories that are used within this study. This consists of the securitization theory, applied on migration, and the concept fear of crime, including the congregation of this theory and concept. Thirdly, the chapter ‘methodology’ discusses the choices being made in the process of this study. It will elaborate on how the cases are found, the way of gathering data and limitations of this study. Fourthly, the gathered data will be discussed and in the next chapter analysed. Fifthly, a conclusion will be drawn while this thesis will end with a discussion and recommendations.

Theoretical framework

Fear of crime, a concept that was created in the 1960s and ever since has become a profoundly engaging field of study (Lee, 2007; Lee, 1999). At the time it was called ‘widespread public anxiety about crime’ and has been empirically discovered in the United States during the first crime and victim surveys (Pleysier, 2011). Fear of crime refers to the fear of being a victim of crime and not to the actual probability of being a victim of crime (Hall, 1996). Fear of crime, is argued, to have the potential to change the way people live their lives (Stanko, 1990; Lee, 1999). It could change our mobility, conceptualization of others and our confidence. Moreover, how we think about ourselves, our conscious and unconscious actions in social space and subjectivity (Lee, 1999). Hale (1996) stated that between 1960 and 1996 at least two hundred books, conference papers and monographs were written on fear of crime. This capacity of literature kept growing ever since (Pleysier, 2011).

Two points are repeatedly discussed in the literature. The first point is, the rather weak conceptualization and measurement of the concept fear of crime (Van der Wurff, 1992). The concept is contained in an answer to the question ‘How safe do you feel or would you feel safe being alone in your neighbourhood at night?’ The core aspect of fear of crime is the range of emotions that is provoked by the possibility of victimization, which is also referred as the affective aspect of fear of crime. Besides the affective aspect, cognitive aspects of fear of crime are to be found. The concern about crime can be different from the perception of the risk of personal victimization, this concern about crime also includes the assessment of the public relative to the size of the crime problem. Some researchers have suggested that people tend to experience ‘fear’ beyond the objective risk of any victimization (Vanderveen, 2006). This is referred as the cognitive aspect of fear of crime. A third way of measuring fear of crime is by focusing on the behavioural aspect. For example, whether people avoid certain places. In contradiction to objective safety, this subjective and emotional component is hard to be measured in terms of hard data. Even when these three ways of measuring fear of crime are being used. Like Fattah and Sacco (1989) described “we cannot count fears of assault as readily as we can count assaults” (pg. 206). As these fears of assaults are not as visible as actual assaults and people will not mention every fear of assault they had. However, the crime and victim surveys do regularly find widespread fear of crime in Europe, North America and elsewhere (European Commission, 2017; van Kesteren et al., 2000; Vanderveen, 2006). Social surveys like the International Crime Victim Survey, European Social Survey and other variants all substantiate that across Europe fear of crime is common and a problem that is separated from the crime itself (van Kesteren et al., 2000).

Despite the empirical and theoretical relevance of fear of crime, actual frequency and intensity of these feelings of fear of crime have not been tried to examine in many studies. By looking at frequency, the affective aspects of fear of crime could be better examined. The old overall question is whether people are worried of becoming a victim of crime. According to Gray et al. (2008) these social surveys do not even question crime directly when measuring fear of crime, instead they consider how safe people feel when walking alone in their

neighbourhood in the dark. Therefore this question could be answered with the probability in mind, instead of fear, which makes this question not entirely suitable for measuring fear of crime. Also respondents are not asked how often they worry and whether this has effect on their lives. Gray et al. (2008) critics these surveys for their vague and global summaries of intensity of feelings of unsecurity. These vague summaries may diverge from the reality of everyday emotions that affect people’s lives. By asking about specific events and frequency, people are forced to think about their actual fears. A report towards the use of mobile phones in traffic showed, that the number of people that said to never use their phone in traffic was significant higher when a broad question was asked. A percentage of 65% of the respondents admitted to use their phone during traffic, when detailed questions towards several specific actions on their phone where asked (SWOV, 2017). This report could indicate that asking for specific events or actions will help people to remember. Warr (2000) suggests that these standard summaries represent future-oriented anxiety instead of any summary of past or current feelings of fear. This refers more to the probability of becoming a victim than the actual fear of crime.

The second point arises from the first point. The research towards explanations of fear of crime is relatively poor (Pleysier, 2011). Lately a shift can be found towards studies that focus on the frequency and intensity of events that made people felt worried, with the use of a filter question, should give a more detailed examination of everyday emotions about crime (Gray et al., 2008). This greater attention to detail could clarify the nature and impact of fear of crime in the life of people. Gray et al. (2008) state that old standard measures may imply a bigger prevalence of fear than frequency question commonly find. However, the answer to the question why somebody is afraid is hereby not given. These two points has led to the

conclusion by several authors that research to fear of crime has not given a lot of insight in this phenomenon right away (Jackson, 2006; Lee, 2007). The etiological research often remains limited to the boundaries of what classic crime and victim surveys can offer: a descriptive cohesion between fear of crime and several classic background variables of victimization like: age, sex and socio-economic status (Pleysier, 2011). This relative poor

amount of knowledge on explaining what fear of crime establishes, gives room for further speculation and exploration.

The research tradition to fear of crime was created by the politically driven question to get a ‘better’ vision of criminality and the scientific believe in crime and victim surveys as the ‘new answer’ (Lee, 2007). According to Lee (2007) this research tradition characterizes itself by certain conservatism. The uncertainty about the presence of criminality at the time, in the 1960s, and ambition and political agenda of President Lyndon Johnson to tackle crime by calling out a ‘war against crime’, made it possible to conduct pilot studies in order to try and find an accurate perspective of the crime problem and victimization (Pleysier, 2011; Lee, 1999). Eventually these pilot studies led in 1972 to the National Crime Survey (NCS) as we know it today (Pleysier, 2011). Gathering data with these surveys seemed at the time as a good alternative for the ‘dark number’ issues and flawed official crime rates (Pleysier, 2011). The concept ‘dark number’ is commonly used in the field of criminology to indicate the non-registered crime (Carrabine, Cox, Lee, Plummer & South, 2009). However, these surveys seemed to have a self-fulfilling character. The ‘war against crime’ became more of a political priority, since numerical material of the crime and victim surveys substantiated the feeling of insecurity (Pleysier, 2011). Fear of crime can be understood from a social constructionist perspective and provoked some authors to state, “the empirical ‘discovery’ of fear of crime was invoked to support a ‘tougher’ neo-conservative political agenda and policies,

exemplified by the vast increase in the funding of the criminal justice system” (Jackson, 2005, p. 6; Lee, 1999). It allows more politicians to use fear of crime as a political issue and tool (Lee 2007). This does not mean it denies the existence of fear of crime, but suggests that experiences have to be understood as being connected in a broader socio political context.

Securitization of migration

Lately crime is quickly linked with the presented security problem ‘migration’, with public perceptions and political rhetoric connecting them (Jiang & Erez, 2017; van der Woude et al., 2014). In several Western countries political parties against immigration are popping up, with serious number of voters supporting these parties. This indicates that the used political rhetoric by these parties seems to have found a breeding ground and created a public perception among voters. Since the social and political discourse towards migration became oppressive and stigmatizing, a negative social and political attitude becomes noticeable (van der Woude et al., 2014). When following this discourse, fear of crime caused by migrants seems like a logical continuation. As a result of this perception of danger and the security

discourses that came along with it, technologies and agreements penetrated the

Europeanization of migration policy (Huysmans, 2000). The negative political attitude can be found in changed governance towards migration in the European Union, including the

Netherlands. This changed governance becomes recognizable and can be distinct when Stumpf (2006) introduced the term ‘crimmigration’ as a description of “the intertwinement of crime control and migration control” (van der Woude, et al., 2014, p. 3). Two systems of exclusion and inclusion, which create insiders and outsiders or ‘legal’ versus ‘illegal’, can therefore be found (Jiang & Erez, 2017). This process of conversion shows the underlying social and political forces that are active and makes this changing governance possible. A sharp increase of migration-related issues in the last couple of decades of European policy is clearly observable. Last decades multiple border control agreements have been signed, domestic and international institutions have been created, deportation and extradition agreements between states have been authorized and protocols and conventions have been documented with the linkage of migration and security (Bourbeau, 2011). Several authors, like Huysmans (2000; 2006), have been focusing on this topic migration as a security issue or as also described: the securitization of migration. According to Buzan and Hansen (2009) security is socially constructed, therefore it can be said that the concept security is applicable to all kinds of topics. The concept securitization describes the process of state actors

transforming subjects into matters of ´security´ (Buzan et al., 1998). This can be seen as an extreme version of politicization that enables extraordinary manners to be used in the name of security. In this case it is the subject ‘migration’ that is transformed into a matter of security.

In the 1980s during policy debates about the preservation of domestic stability and protection of public order, migration became a recurring subject (Huysmans, 2000). During those debates, migration was represented as a challenge to the cultural composition of the nation and to the welfare state. The key theme during those debates was the idea that migration is a danger to the domestic society (den Boer, 1994). This idea of migration as a danger to the domestic society has become more visible and audible in the last decades (Minkenberg & Perrineau, 2007; Mayer, 2013). Along with these debates, far-right political parties, founded in the last several decades but all with anti-immigration as main point on their agenda, are on the rise throughout Europe (Mayer, 2013). With National Front in France, Party for Freedom in the Netherlands, Independence Party in the UK, as also parties in Italy, Austria, Switzerland, Greece, Austria, Poland and Hungary (Shuster, 2016). Some of these parties, for example in Hungary and Poland, even holding absolute majorities. In the last couple of years, in Western countries like France, Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, Belgium

and the Netherlands far right parties started to receive large(r) number of votes. With 13.1% in the Netherlands, 13.2% in France, 20.3% in Belgium and even 29.4% of the votes in

Switzerland in the last three years. These parties form a diverse group, with some having roots in Fascist and Nazi movements, like the French National Front or the Flemish Vlaams Belang, while others are radicalised parliamentary rights such as in Norwegian Progress party,

Denmark’s and Switzerland’s People’s Party (Mayer, 2013). But for all their main believe is “states should be inhabited exclusively by members of the native groups (“the nation”) and that non-native elements (persons and ideas) are fundamentally threatening to the nation-state’s homogeneity” (Mudde, 2007, p. 19). These voters see immigrants and foreigners, and since 2001 especially Muslims, as the main threat to Western values (Spruyt & Elchardus, 2012).

A central role in political and media debates in most western countries when discussing migration, is the discourse about the ‘deviant immigrant’: “the otherness of the stranger and the otherness of the deviant are collapsed in the social portrayal of the criminal immigrant” (Melossi, 2003, p. 376; Franko Aas, 2007). The immigrant represents the classic example of the stranger, accentuating the ‘us’ and ‘them’ within society (Melossi, 2003). The construction of immigrants as symbolic assailants, can be found in the operation and

contestation of crimmigration, and reflects the demographic changes and fear about their impact on the cultural identity (Wong, 2016). This is expressed in legal and political dynamics. The possibility of inclusion and exclusion whereby a distinction can be made between good and bad mobilities, with the help of permits, and the public and political

discourses and forces active, creates an opportunity of framing. These interactive processes of immigration politics and dividing people in categories makes it possible to present, mainly undocumented, immigrants as a threat to the public safety and/or cultural integrity. In this process of presenting immigrants as a threat to the cultural integrity, immigrants have been framed as criminal and dangerous (Jiang & Erez, 2017). When looking at the statistics it turns out that illegal immigrants do not increase local crime rates and are less likely to cause crime than natives, the same can be said about the number of incarcerated people per capita (Ousey & Kubrin, 2009). However, this frame of immigrants as criminal and dangerous created for undocumented immigrants, appears to be dominant (Jiang & Erez, 2017). This dominance of anti-immigration forces has legitimated policies that criminalize immigrants. In other words, this dominant discourse of ‘deviant immigrants’ could trigger fear of crime in all its aspects. Therefore, it could be said that securitization of migration, with this frame of immigrants as criminal and dangerous in mind, could evoke fear of crime to this ‘deviant immigrant’.

Research Method

Basic research design: case study

“Case study research is an in-depth examination of an extensive amount of information about very few units or cases for one period or across multiple periods of time” (Neuman, 2014, p. 42). These cases can vary from groups, organizations, individuals, events or

geographic units. A case study research will be intensively investigating one or a small set of cases by focusing on many details within the cases and the context. This will enable us to link micro level, to the macro level (Neuman, 2014). Or as Walton (1992) describes it: “The logic of the case study is to demonstrate a casual argument about how general social forces shape and produce results in particular settings” (p. 122). Case study research helps clarifying our thinking and links abstract ideas to concrete specifics of cases that have intensively been observed. Due to the intensive observation, intricate details of social processes and relations of cause-effect become more visible (Neuman, 2014). This increased visibility can be useful to develop richer and comprehensive explanations to capture the complexity of social life. Intensive observation in order to develop more comprehensive explanations seems to be the most appealing and profound way to find an answer to the research question of this study. Therefore, this type of research, a case study, will be used.

Cases: Heerhugowaard & Nieuwegein

In order to conduct an in-depth examination of an extensive amount of information about a case or a small set of cases, a selection of cases is needed. In this study, two cases will be examined. The two following cities will function as the cases that will be examined:

Heerhugowaard and Nieuwegein. These cities are chosen based on a number of features. The first feature concerns the most important aspect: the presence of an asylum seekers center. In order to find data that can help answering the research question, two cases must be found that differ when it comes to the residence of an ASC. While at the same time other variables within the cities are most similar as possible. The city Heerhugowaard, which is housing an ASC, and the city Nieuwegein, which is not, came forward.

On the basis of data provided by the CBS and several features that have been looked into, these cities were found (CBS, 2017a). The features that have been looked into were a) number of inhabitants; b) urbanization of the cities and; c) registered criminality per capita in the city.

A) The first set step was to find a city with an ASC. The search started by the number of inhabitants of the cities with an ASC. Cities like Utrecht or Nijmegen with more than

100.000 inhabitants were not interesting, due to the fact that these cities house a significant amount of non-western immigrants (CBS, 2017a). This makes it hard to measure the impact an ASC could have. Therefore, the focus will be on cities with an ASC and less than 100.000 inhabitants became the focus. Heerhugowaard, with 53.305 inhabitants, and Den Helder, with 56.016 inhabitants, were two cities of interest (CBS, 2017a). Due to the size of these cities, is it possible for the researcher to conduct interviews in order to get a clear overview of the city in the given time.

B) An unique aspect of Heerhugowaard is the proximity of a large city: Alkmaar. Nieuwegein, with 61.035 inhabitants, has the same unique feature as Heerhugowaard with the proximity of Utrecht. Furthermore, both cities, Utrecht and Alkmaar, are housing an ASC. Which makes the circumstances quite similar: with both Heerhugowaard and Nieuwegein closely situated to a big city that is housing an ASC. Nieuwegein and Heerhugowaard are both coded by CBS by the label ‘strong urbanized’. Urbanization refers to an area with an urban way of live (Bertinelli & Black, 2004).

C) The registered criminality per city was compared with cities around the same number of citizens as Heerhugowaard in urbanized areas without an ASC, like Pijnacker, Nieuwegein, Veenendaal, Woerden, Zeist, Doetinchem and Katwijk, and the average in West-Netherlands. In 2014, Heerhugowaard and Nieuwegein had respectively 60.1 and 62.2

registered crimes per 1000 inhabitants, while the average was 67.7 in West-Netherlands. In the following years the average number dropped to 61.4. Heerhugowaard followed this trend of lower registered crimes per 1000 habitants and dropped to 52.1. Nieuwegein on the other hand increased their rate to 69.5. However, both these numbers were still closest to the average number of West-Netherlands in comparison with the other cities. Furthermore, the numbers of these cities also most closely matched when comparing the different cities. Lastly the social economic status which can roughly be described by employment rate, capital, income of the inhabitants and the education level, have been compared (Kunst, Dalstra, Bos & Mackenbach, 2005). The income of inhabitants was quite similar within the cities, with both 21% of the household having a high income. Furthermore, 6% in Nieuwegein and 5% in Heerhugowaard of the population live under the social minimum. While the

average income for income recipients is around €30.000, with €30.400 in Nieuwegein and €29.300 in Heerhugowaard. A rough sketch of the capital of inhabitants is made on the basis of the average value of the houses in both cities, with €203.000 in Heerhugowaard and €206.000 in Nieuwegein. A note must be made, in Heerhugowaard 32% of the people live in rental housing while 43% in Nieuwegein. Lastly, the educational level has been compared as

well, as can be seen in table 1 and where found to be quite similar. The units of analysis, based on what is written above, are the cities of Heerhugowaard and Nieuwegein. With the unit of observation: the inhabitants of the cities Heerhugowaard and Nieuwegein.

Table 1. Education level

Low educated Middle educated High educated

Nieuwegein 32% 45% 23%

Heerhugowaard 31% 49% 20%

Bron: CBS, 2017

Structured interview

The data useful for this study, will be gathered by making use of a structured interview. The first part will be in the form of a survey and consists of twelve closed questions. These question combine all three ways of measuring of fear of crime, by making use of three aspects of fear of crime: the affective; the cognitive; and behavioural. These questions are drawing upon the yearly research to the fear of crime of citizens in the Netherlands by the CBS, but also on research done by Gray, Jackson & Farrall (2008), Jackson (2009), Vanderveen (2006) Gray, Jackson & Farrall (2011). Some of these questions can be answered with increased, the same or decreased, some with a number, yes or no and others with a five-point scale. The second part consists of one open question, which is focusing on what fear of crime triggers. By doing so, we might give an indication whether asylum seekers have an impact on this level of fear.

This structured interview starts with some standard questions like age, gender and city. Age and gender are showed to be variables that could influence the fear of crime. Elderly and woman have in general a higher level of fear of crime than others in the population (Hale, 1996). This interview continues with the broadest question, to what extent are you worried to become a victim of crime? When looking at the old literature of fear of crime, this kind of questions is often asked. However, more recent literature suggests that: “greater attention to detail may clarify the nature and impact of fear of crime in people’s everyday lives” (Gray et al., 2008, p. 4). Farall (2004) and Farrall & Gadd (2004) state that the old standard measures may imply a different prevalence of fear than when focusing on specific measures. When focusing on how often people feel worried, anxious or fearful, the answer could be different from what we think. Old measures stuck to the question how worried people where overall, while rarely asked how frequently people worry. Farall & Gadd (2004) and Gray et al. (2008) developed and tested a new set of measures that included the use of a filter question followed

by a question of the intensity and frequency of events and how they felt at that moment. By asking how they felt, the impact and nature of fear of crime can be caught. The frequency question provided smaller estimates of fear of crime than the old questions did (Farall & Gadd, 2004). Furthermore, the discrepancy in the levels of fear of crime that was identified by the old and new measures suggests, that some people reported to be worried without actually having worried recently (Jackson et al., 2006). Therefore this interview continues with a frequency question and how worried they were, in order to examine the affective aspects of fear of crime. The following frequency and intensity questions are narrowed down to their own city/neighbourhood, as people could feel worried during a vacation, at work (which can be in another city) or somewhere else. This gives extra depth into measuring the affective aspects of fear of crime. The following four questions are focused on the behavioural aspect that comes with the fear of crime, which could be seen as a greater attention to detail. This way of measuring fear of crime is focused on whether people avoid certain places, or takes preventive measures. These questions are also used by the CBS in their yearly survey and give an idea about how people behave. The last three questions focuses on the cognitive aspects of fear of crime, this cognitive side of fear of crime includes the public perceptions of the likelihood of becoming a victim. These questions make it possible to indicate how worried people feel in their neighbourhood, while at the same time they indicate how they think about the amount of crime in their neighbourhood. The final question is made by the author and is focused on the knowledge gap concerning fear of crime. This question focuses on what could induce the fear of crime for the people of Nieuwegein and Heerhugowaard.

Poweranalyse

The goal of this study is to figure out what causes the fear of crime in these two cities. In order to reach this goal, a large number of respondents is needed. A poweranalyse is used to track down the number of respondents that are needed. In order to plot a poweranalyses, a few things are needed. The first thing is, the kind of test that suits this kind of study. This research is focused on a comparison between the means of two groups, Heerhugowaard and Nieuwegein, with one clear difference: the presence of an ASC. The F-test ANOVA, with the focus on main effects is therefore the most obvious one. As can be seen in image 1, five parameters are necessary to find the required sample size. The effect size f, a error prob, the power, the numerator df and the number of groups. The effect size is set on the medium level of 0.25 (Cohen, 1988). The ‘a error prob’ has been set on the 0.05 which is recommended and most often used. The power is recommended from at least 0.8 and can range till 0.95. Due to limited time for this thesis and the kind of research a power of 0.8 is accepted. The Numerator

df has been set on 1, as this study has two levels: one with a ASC and one without a ASC. The numerator df function as follows: X-1, whereby X is the number of levels. As been said before, this study is focused on a comparison between two groups, therefore the numbers of groups is 2. With this parameters in place, the output parameter states the total sample size is 128 as can be seen in image 1. A number of 64 interviews per group (city) will therefore be conducted. Lastly, besides the respondents, the non-respondents will be tracked as well.

Image 1. Bron: G*Power 3.1

Collecting data

The interviews are held during the weekends at the shopping malls in the cities, both situated in the centre of the cities. As most people, and therefore possible respondents for this study, are free of work during the weekends, it makes this timeframe the most suitable to conduct interviews. Visitors of shopping malls during the weekends could be from outside the city. Therefore a control question about the resident of the respondent was asked. The fact that people from all over the city are visiting the shopping mall during weekends makes it possible to give an overview of the city. When multiple area’s within the city need to be covered by conducting interviews at various places, it would result in a significant higher amount of respondents than 128, which is needed to maintain the power of 0.8. As more levels will mean

a higher numerator df. Due to the relative short period of time that is given to gather data, this specific place for conducting interviews is chosen.

Limitations

This thesis, with the choice of methodology, contains a couple of limitations that need to be taken into account. All limitations could have an influence on the outcome of this study. Four limitations will be discussed. The possibility of missing a limitation will however remain.

The first limitation is, the willingness of the respondent. This study relies on

respondents that are willing to participate with the structured interviewer conducted on the street. What stood out during the interviews was that a lot of people were in a hurry and wanted to get rid of it as soon as possible. This could be prevented by gathering the data with the help of mailing lists of the inhabitants of Nieuwegein and Heerhugowaard. Unfortunately, this is not possible for the author of this thesis. Furthermore, the time of the year, in this case the winter which means cold weather, early darkness and rain, could influence the willingness of the respondent.

The second limitation is the interviewers’ bias, which also involves the first limitation. As these interviews are conducted on the street, the appearance of the interviewer could influence the willingness of respondents to participate.. Furthermore, the interviewer could unconsciously, for instance because of appearance or clothing, have a preference for respondents.

Third limitation can be found in the chosen location to conduct the interviews. The idea is that this location will give a varied audience. However, these particular shopping malls could still attract a certain strata of the population. Therefore the shopping malls could

possibly give a broad audience but not everybody. For example, people who have difficulty walking, those who do not like shopping malls or those who are unable to afford products being sold there.

The fourth limitations, is the number of respondents. This number of 128 respondents is based on a poweranalysis. However, due to the fact that these respondents can be divided into categories of age and sex, this could result in very small number of respondents per category.

Analysing

The first 12 question of the structured interview will be analysed with Excel and will mostly be descriptive and focusing on cohesion between fear of crime and several classic background variables of victimization like age, sex and per city. The last, qualitative,

question, which is the main focus of this study will be analysed with Nvivo. With the help of Nvivo a couple of categories are made, in order to build a framework. This framework could function as the first of its kind, as this is an explorative part of this comparative explanatory study.

Data

This chapter will elaborate on the data gathered with the help of a structured interview, whereby inhabitants of the cities Heerhugowaard and Nieuwegein were asked to participate. At first the respondents, with the help of Excel, will be summarized with the focus on male/female ratio, age and city and non-respondent rate. This chapter will continue to

elaborate briefly on the answers given by the respondents to the following twelve quantitative questions in the structured interview. For the last qualitative question, central in answering the research question of this thesis, a framework will be made. This framework will be used to analyse the data.

Background of respondents

Within both cities 64 interviews were gathered at the shopping malls, centrally situated in both cities. In Heerhugowaard, 34 men and 30 women and in Nieuwegein, 28 men and 36 women were willing to participate as can be seen in figure 1. Next to the respondents that were willing to participate, 61 people in Heerhugowaard and 77 people in Nieuwegein did not want to participate when approached. At all-time during this thesis, must be kept in mind that this results are bound to this 64 respondents per city and a total of 62 men and 66 women. This should be taken in to account when later on in this chapter some notable percentages are being discussed, especially when multiple categories are present.

Tabel 1. Number of respondents per city, gender and age category

16-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 Total Heerhugowaard 1 5 16 15 13 9 5 64 Man 0 4 9 10 6 4 1 34 Vrouw 1 1 7 5 7 5 4 30 Nieuwegein 2 12 7 13 11 13 6 64 Man 1 3 3 7 4 5 5 28 Vrouw 1 9 4 6 7 8 1 36 Total 3 17 23 28 24 22 11 128

Some numbers need to be discussed, before conclusions can be drawn. As table 2 shows, the age categories of 31-40, 41-50, 51-60 and 61-70 are most represented. Whereby the accent in Heerhugowaard was on 31-40, 41-50 and 51-60 and in Nieuwegein on 21-30, 41-50, 51-60

and 61-70. In both Heerhugowaard and Nieuwegein, the age category of 41-50 is most represented and therefore in the whole study. Furthermore, it can be said that, mainly, teenagers and elderly are relatively underrepresented.

Table 2. Table 1 in percentage

16-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 Total Heerhugowaard 0% 8% 25% 23% 20% 14% 8% 100% Man 0% 12% 26% 29% 18% 12% 3% 100% Vrouw 3% 3% 23% 17% 23% 17% 13% 100% Nieuwegein 3% 19% 11% 20% 17% 20% 9% 100% Man 4% 11% 11% 25% 14% 18% 18% 100% Vrouw 3% 25% 11% 17% 19% 22% 3% 100% Total 2% 13% 18% 22% 19% 17% 9% 100%

Structured interview part 1

The first twelve questions are intended as an introduction and mainly function as a background towards the final question of the structured interview. However, the results will be analysed on the basis of the three ways of measuring fear of crime by looking at the affective, behavioural and cognitive aspects.

The first question of the structured interview is a rather broad question. This question is asked for two reasons: first, to get an overall view of the first reaction of people when asked about how worried they are in general; and second, to see whether there is a difference

between the overall feeling and specific moments (question two) by asking how many times they felt worried to become a victim of crime. In other words, the affective aspects of fear of crime are measured here.

A few things are notable, first, that 61% of the people do not feel worried in

Heerhugowaard, while this number is significant lower in Nieuwegein with 50%. Second, is the decent difference between the percentages of men and women that are not worried. In both of the city’s 71% percentage of the men is not worried to become a victim, while the number of women is 50% in Heerhugowaard and 33% in Nieuwegein. Especially women are worried in Nieuwegein, 2 out of 3 women are feeling worried to become a victim of crime in some extent.

Tabel 3. Question 1: How worried are you to ever become a victim of crime?

Not A bit Middling Very Weet ik niet Total

Heerhugowaard 61% 27% 8% 5% 0% 100% Men 71% 18% 9% 3% 0% 100% Women 50% 37% 7% 7% 0% 100% Nieuwegein 50% 36% 13% 2% 0% 100% Man 71% 25% 4% 0% 0% 100% Female 33% 44% 19% 3% 0% 100% Total 55% 31% 10% 3% 0% 100%

Thirdly, a total of 57 respondents answered to be worried till a certain extent, varies from a bit to very worried. At the same time, only 41 respondents said to have felt worried in the last year. This means 16 (12.5% of total) respondents, 12 women and 4 men, said to feel worried, but could not think of a specific moment in the past year that they felt worried. Table 4 gives an overview of how people responded to question one and two in percentages.

Table 4. Question 1: How worried are you to ever become a victim of crime? vs Question 2: How often did you

feel worried to become a victim of crime in the past year?

0 1 2 4 12 25 52 365 Total Heerhugowaard 72% 6% 13% 2% 8% 0% 0% 0% 100% Not 95% 3% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% A bit 41% 12% 35% 6% 6% 0% 0% 0% 100% Middling 20% 0% 20% 0% 60% 0% 0% 0% 100% Very 33% 33% 0% 0% 33% 0% 0% 0% 100% Nieuwegein 64% 9% 6% 13% 2% 2% 3% 2% 100% Not 97% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% A bit 30% 22% 22% 13% 4% 0% 9% 0% 100% Middling 38% 0% 0% 13% 0% 13% 0% 13% 100% Very 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Total 68% 8% 8% 9% 5% 1% 2% 1% 100%

Affective way of measuring fear of crime

The first five questions of the structured interview are focused on the affective way of measuring fear of crime. In order to see whether there is a difference of frequency between people feeling worried in their own neighbourhood/city or in general, questions two and four can be compared. It turns out that 41 (32% of total) respondents said they felt worried a number of times in the past year. The distribution of these 41 respondents is 18 respondents in Heerhugowaard and 23 respondents in Nieuwegein. Meaning that 28.1% of the respondents in Heerhugowaard could think of a fearful event in the past year, while 35.9% of the respondents in Nieuwegein could. Among these 41 respondents, only 16 respondents responded that they feel worried in the past year in their own neighbourhood. This indicates that 12.5% of the respondents could think of an experience that made them feel worried to become a victim of a crime in their own neighbourhood. This argues that a significant lower, approximately 20%, number of the respondents feels worried in their own neighbourhood. This seems to indicate that people feel safer in their own neighbourhood than in general. One remarkable case, a respondent said she had been worried in her own neighbourhood, while she had not felt worried the past year.

The first interesting result appeared in the affective way of measuring fear of crime, when comparing the old standard question and the new frequency question. It turned out that the data of this study matched with the results of Gray et al. (2006), when it comes to the prevalence of fear by using old standard measurements and new measurements. Fewer

respondents indicated to be worried when answering the frequency questions, compared to the old standard question. In other words, their worry is not based on experience in the past year, but seems to be on the actual probability of being a victim of crime. However, this could indicate what Gray et al. (2006) stated: old standard measures, like question one, may imply a bigger prevalence of fear than frequency questions commonly find. Furthermore, interesting is that the three respondents that responded not to feel worried, however did respond they felt worried in the past year. Two of them responded they felt a bit worried during this fearful event, while the third said she felt very worried. This indicates that these people did not feel worried when asked in general, but at the same time appeared to have had fearful events in the past year. These three cases contradict the statement of Gray et al. (2006). A possible answer could be, that specific events help these respondents to remind their fear of crime. However, overall the statement of Gray et al. (2006) has been confirmed rather than rejected when looking at the numbers.

‘affective’ questions, comparing the old standard and frequency question per city. It turned out the inhabitants of Heerhugowaard, when the old standard and frequency questions were asked, felt less worried than the inhabitants of Nieuwegein, In other words, this study, when we look at the affective way of measuring fear of crime, indicates that the inhabitants in Heerhugowaard feel safer than the inhabitants of Nieuwegein.

Behavioural way of measuring fear of crime

The behavioural way of measuring fear of crime is housed in the questions six till nine. These questions focus on how people behave in specific situations. These four questions can be seen as two sets of questions. Question six and nine can be seen as a set and seven and eight. Question six focusing on whether one is worried about walking down the street, while question nine is focusing on whether one avoids certain places. The answers given can be analysed to see whether the worry could influence their behaviour in public space. The same can be done with the second set: question seven and eight. Where question seven elaborates on whether respondents feel worried to become a victim of crime at home, question eight asks whether they will open the door, which could indicate their behaviour. In other words,

questions six and seven are focused on the worry of this specific situation, while question eight and nine are focused on the action, behaviour, taken in adjacent situations.

Table 5 gives an overview of the answers given by the respondents towards question six which is focusing on whether people feel unsafe when walking down the street in the evening. The biggest difference can be found within category ‘sometimes’, with 32.8% of the respondents of Nieuwegein and only 18.8% of Heerhugowaard, who gave this answer.

Overall, the results indicate that, with 29 respondents in Nieuwegein and 24 respondents in Heerhugowaard, more people in Nieuwegein feel worried to a certain extent to become a victim of crime when walking down the street at night.

Table 5. Question 6: Do you feel worried to become a victim of crime when walking down the street at in the

evening?

Never Sometimes Often Don’t know Total

Heerhugowaard 39 12 12 1 64

Nieuwegein 33 21 8 2 64

Total 72 33 20 3 128

When looking at part two of the set, question nine, it turned out that similar results can be found with 51 respondents in Heerhugowaard and 52 respondents in Nieuwegein who said

to never avoid certain areas. In both cities, most respondents never feel worried in this specific situation. This indicates that the inhabitants in both cities change their behaviour to the same extent when it comes to fear of crime.

Question seven, is focusing on a more intimate level: their own home. Question seven focused on whether respondents are worried to become a victim of crime when alone at home during the evening. The results concerning this question appeared to be quite similar, eleven respondents in Heerhugowaard and ten respondents in Nieuwegein said to feel afraid to some extent, the rest is never worried at home.

Question eight outlines whether people will open the door when the bell rings

unexpectedly in the evening. A big difference can be found, when looking at table 6, between both cities. Significantly more respondents in Nieuwegein said to never open the door in this specific situation. These results indicate that the inhabitants of Nieuwegein behave otherwise than those of Heerhugowaard, when it comes to this specific situation.

Table 6. Question 8: Do you open the door when the bell rings unexpectedly in the evening?

Never Sometimes Often Always Don’t know Total

Heerhugowaard 9 9 16 23 7 64

Nieuwegein 26 10 6 21 1 64

Total 35 19 22 44 8 128

Overall, it turns out that respondents in both cities felt the same way about being alone in the evening (worry question) and about avoiding certain places (action question). Two things are interesting: first that a ‘worry’ question of one set and ‘action’ question of the other set gave similar results when compared between both cities; second, when it comes to being worried on the street in the evening and opening the door, respondents from Nieuwegein indicated to be more worried.

These results indicate that the inhabitants of Nieuwegein are, besides the affective way of measuring fear of crime, also score higher when measuring the behavioural aspect of fear of crime. On the one hand, in Nieuwegein they feel more worried (question six) than in Heerhugowaard while their behaviour is quite the same (question nine). On the other hand the behaviour of inhabitants of Heerhugowaard indicates (question eight) that they are more worried, while the results indicate the same level of worry (question seven). Overall, can be stated that when measuring the behavioural aspect of fear of crime, Nieuwegein seems to be more worried than Heerhugowaard.

Cognitive way of measuring fear of crime

Question ten till twelve will be elaborated on the cognitive aspect of fear of crime, this refers to the concern about crime, which can be different from the perception of the risk of personal victimization. This concern about crime also includes the assessment of the public relative to the size of the crime problem. Question ten, focused on the perception of crime in the neighbourhood of the respondents.

Table 7. Question 10: Do you think there is a lot of crime in the neighbourhood?

Yes No A bit Don’t know Total

Heerhugowaard 17 28 17 2 64

Nieuwegein 30 29 3 2 64

Total 20 47 20 4 128

A few interesting things appeared, the first thing is the quantity of people that answered ‘a bit’ in Heerhugowaard in comparison to Nieuwegein, considering the fact that this question was open; second, the difference between the number of people that responded ‘yes’ in both cities. These results indicate that the perception of the public (respondents of Nieuwegein) notes a higher-level op fear of crime in Nieuwegein, given the high amount of ‘yes’ answers. When looking at the numbers of CBS (2017a), it turns out that 52.1 crimes per 1000 inhabitants are registered in Heerhugowaard, while there are 69.5 registered crimes in Nieuwegein. With the average number of 61.4 registered crimes in West-Netherland, this means that Heerhugowaard scores above and Nieuwegein below average. On the one hand it can be said, these results could state that the people of Nieuwegein that responded ‘yes’ are right. On the other hand, a significant number, 45.3%, of the respondents of Nieuwegein, said that there is not a lot of crime in their neighbourhood.

Two possible explanations can be given, First, it is possible that Nieuwegein’s score, which is a bit above the average score of registered crime in a relative safe country like the Netherlands, could indicate that there is not a lot of crime. This would explain the high percentage of respondents in Nieuwegein responded with no. Second, in a situation where the difference between the numbers of the CBS is taken as negligible, a higher level of fear of crime seems to be present in Nieuwegein with more inhabitants responding yes. These several explanations make it hard to give one clear statement. When these numbers of the CBS are interpreted as relatively similar, these results indicate a higher level of fear in Nieuwegein. However, if these numbers of the CBS are interpreted as an explanatory difference, it will not be possible to assign a higher level of fear of crime to one of the cities.

Question eleven of the interview was focused on the experience of people whether they feel crime had increased, stayed the same or decreased in their neighbourhood in the past year. When looking at table 8 a few things are interesting, the small number of respondents who said crime decreased in the past year and the large number of respondents in

Heerhugowaard that said it stayed the same.

Table 8. Question 11: Do you think that the crime rates in your neighbourhood increased, stayed the same of

decreased?

Decreased Same Increased Don’t know Total

Heerhugowaard 4 40 17 3 64

Nieuwegein 4 30 25 5 64

Total 8 70 42 8 128

In the last year, the amount of registered crime per 1000 inhabitants stayed the same in Nieuwegein with 69.5 registered crimes, while in Heerhugowaard a small decreased was found from 56.6 to 52.1 registered crimes. The number of respondents who said the crime rates have increased in the last year seems to be striking when looking at the statistics. When only looking at table 8, in both cities a significant number of respondents said crime has increased in the past year. These results confirm the suggestion of Vanderveen (2006) that people tend to experience ‘fear’ beyond the objective risk of any victimization. However, it also turns out that a large number, 54.7%, of the respondents is right. The decrease amount of registered crimes in Heerhugowaard can be interpreted as ‘stayed the same’, due to the relative small change. Given these results it could be said that Nieuwegein has a higher level of fear of crime when measuring in a cognitive way.

Question twelve asks the respondent to mark how safe they feel in their own

neighbourhood, with crime in mind. The total average number in Nieuwegein was a 7.47 and a 7.64 in Heerhugowaard. The average number indicates that the inhabitants of both cities feel relatively safe. Overall, men score higher with an average of 7.85 in Heerhugowaard and 7.95 in Nieuwegein, while the averages that were found among women were 7.4 in

Heerhugowaard and 7.1 in Nieuwegein. These numbers match with results of other questions, whereby overall most women felt more worried than most men. Interesting is the significant bigger difference of the average number between men and women in Nieuwegein, than in Heerhugowaard. These numbers indicate, that women from Nieuwegein feel least safe. Overall, the cognitive way of measuring fear of crime, shows again that Nieuwegein scores higher.

Conclusion

When examining the three ways of measuring fear of crime, it can be said that the inhabitants of Nieuwegein indicated to feel more worried than the inhabitants of

Heerhugowaard. At all three ways of measuring fear of crime, the respondents in Nieuwegein indicated a higher level of fear of crime. However a note must be made, the data made it clear that the average woman felt less safe than the average man. With six more female respondents in Nieuwegein, this could influence the results to a certain extent.

Contributing to fear of crime

The questions discussed above have two functions towards answering the research question: firstly, they give background information and secondly, they form a foundation for this last question. Due to these questions, respondents are already ‘in’ the subject when answering this final question and are encouraged to think about the topic of fear of crime. This final question focuses on answering the research question of this thesis. This question gives respondents room to think of things that could contribute to their fear of crime. A palate of answers was given, varying from ‘no idea’ to ‘groups of youth adults’. However, it became clear, when looking at the data that a lot of similarities can be found within the given answers. Two overarching themes can be discovered: the public perception of the

neighbourhood and the stability within; and mass media and interpersonal communication. The public perception theme refers to the public concern of social cohesion and

neighbourhood disorder caused by for example young people hanging in groups. The mass media and interpersonal communication refers to people hearing from fearful events. Within the given answers and these two overarching themes in mind, a number of categories were found. These categories form a framework, which will be used to analyse the results. This framework is displayed in a relatively basic manner in table 9 and indicates the different categories. This framework will be used to give an answer to the research question. Framework

With the help of Excel and Atlas.ti, a number of categories emerged. The categories are visualized in the following table 9. These categories are based upon answers given by the respondents. Naturally not all respondents used the same words in their answers that form the categories. However, these categories are formed as an overarching term to fit in the similar answers.

Table 9. Categories contributing to fear of crime.

Categories contributing to fear of crime 1. Nothing

2. Foreigner

3. Offenses in the neighborhoods 4. Drugs-related activities

5. Shady people

6. Decay of the public space 7. Stories by acquaintances 8. Media

Categories three to six can be placed under the theme public perception and seven and eight under mass media and interpersonal communication. Two categories do not fit entirely within one of the theme: ‘nothing’ and ‘foreigners’1. All categories consist of a variety of answers, therefore a short elaboration is needed to clarify the categories:

1. ‘Nothing’, includes answers like ‘I am feeling pretty safe’, ‘I can’t think of anything’ or ‘actually nothing’.

2. Category ‘foreigners’ includes answers like ‘asylum seekers’, ‘foreigners’ or ‘groups of Moroccans’.

3. The category ‘offenses in the neighbourhood’ refers to answers like ‘burglaries in the neighbourhood’, ‘violence in the neighbourhood’ or ‘things happening in neighbourhood’ and ‘if something would happen to me’. In other words, anything that happens close by. 4 & 7. The names of categories like ‘drugs-related activities’ and ‘stories by

acquaintances’ are a solid description of the given answers. All answers that involve drugs, are categorized within this category ‘drugs-related activities’. While answers like ‘sometimes you hear things..’ or ‘a friend of mine told me that..’ falls under ‘stories by acquaintances’. 5. The category ‘shady people’ is mostly formed by the answer ‘hangjongeren’, which refers to groups of youths, mainly males, hanging around. Furthermore, answers like ‘trash’, ‘people wearing hoodies’ or ‘ a weird type of people on the streets’ are part of this category. This category focuses on the presence of certain people on the streets that causes fear of crime.

6. ‘Decay of the public space’ refers to ‘decay in the streets’, ‘vandalism’ or ‘a lack of social control in the neighbourhood’, but also to ‘a lack of lighting in the streets’. A lack of

lighting was mentioned quite some times in Heerhugowaard.

8. The category ‘media’ refers to any answers like ‘due to things being said on

television’ or ‘because of things I read in the newspapers’. Several responses were to be fitted into one category.

Analyse

In order to give an answer to the research question, the answers to the question what is contributing to the fear of crime for the inhabitants of both cities will be analysed with the help of the presented framework. Per city the answers given by the inhabitants have been analysed and categorized. All the categories that were named in the answers were added up and resulted into an overview. This overview presents the number of times a category has been named. Some respondents came up with an answer that fitted just one category, while other respondents with extensive answers touched multiple categories. Therefore the total of the presented numbers per category will be higher than the amount of respondents. Table 10 presents the number of times one of the categories is named by respondents.

Table 10. Number of times the categories have been named.

Nieuwegein Heerhugowaard Total

Nothing 6 8 14

Foreigner 13 5 18

Offenses in the neighbourhood 20 16 36

Drugs-related activities 5 5 10

Shady people 25 21 46

Decay of the public space 6 16 22

Stories by acquaintances 4 4 8

Media 5 7 12

Two categories within the overarching theme public perception have been found the most within the answers given by the respondents. The category ‘shady people’ has been named the most and second ‘offenses in the neighbourhood’. Within ‘shady people’ sixteen times in Nieuwegein and ten times in Heerhugowaard the term ‘hangjongeren’ has been used. When analysing the interviews, it appears that a number of respondents refer to

‘hangjongeren’ and continue to say something as ‘the trash, you know what I mean:

foreigners’, while others continue with ‘ with hoodies’. However, due to uncertainty whether other respondents where referring towards foreigners as well when mentioning

‘hangjongeren’, the author chose to categorize these ‘hangjongeren’ with ‘shady people’ and not within ‘foreigners’. Answers in category ‘foreigners’ are only assigned to this category, when the respondent literally mentioned foreigners. Furthermore the category ‘offenses in the neighbourhood’ is often mentioned. When analysing these answers, it turned out that a lot of respondents refer to burglaries in the neighbourhood or said to be afraid something will

happen personally. It is the perception of risk of personal victimization that turns out to be one of the main reasons for fear of crime. This aspect refers to the cognitive aspect of fear of crime. Although both ‘shady people’ and ‘offenses in the neighbourhood’ are named most by both cities, Nieuwegein scored higher at both of them.

Another interesting result within the public perception theme is the difference between the number of times the category physical decay is named by respondents per city. The results indicate that significantly more people in Heerhugowaard see the decay of the public space as a contributor to fear of crime than in Nieuwegein. Striking is, when more attentive examining the results, the number of times respondents said ‘lighting’ in Heerhugowaard to contribute to their fear of crime in comparison to Nieuwegein, with eight versus one.

Table 11 shows the respondents in both cities who said to feel worried to some extent when answering question one and indicates what categories are contributing to this

respondents fear or crime.

Table 11. Worried respondents categorized.

Very Middling A bit Total

Nothing 2 2

Foreigner 3 6 9

Offenses in the neighbourhood 1 4 11 16

Drugs-related activities 1 4 5

Shady people 1 7 15 24

Decay of the public space 2 1 8 11

Stories by acquaintances 4 2 6

Media 2 6 8

It turns out that for most categories, 50% of the times these categories were mentioned by worried people. Interesting, 66% of the times the categories ‘stories by acquaintances’ and ‘media’ of the overarching theme ‘the mass media and interpersonal communication’ are mentioned by worried respondents. This could indicate that people who responded to see

‘mass media and interpersonal communication’ as a contributor to fear of crime are more worried to become a victim of crime than the respondents who mentioned the other theme ‘the public perception of the neighbourhood and the stability within’.

Category foreigners

Because of the subject of this thesis, the interesting category is the category

‘foreigners’. Two points can be made based on the results of this study regarding the category ‘foreigners’. Firstly, it has been named often enough to form a category, which can even be listed as number four on the list of most mentioned categories with 14.1% of the respondents mentioning this category. Secondly, a big difference can be found between the number of times this category has been mentioned by respondents of the cities. This category has been named twelve times in Nieuwegein and only four times in Heerhugowaard, which means that 20.3% of the respondents of Nieuwegein named this category while only 7.8% in

Heerhugowaard did.

The existence of this category is a fact, but a pallet of explanations can be given to this reality. The fact that this category has been named by 14.1% of the respondents indicates that this category is one of the bigger contributors to fear of crime. With the presence of far-right political parties all over Europe, as also in the Netherlands and the dominant anti-immigration forces that legitimated policies that make it possible to criminalize immigrants, created the discourse of the deviant immigrant. The ‘stranger’ that is framed to be criminal and

dangerous, could be an explanation for the existence of this category and the perception of viewing ‘foreigners’ as a contributor to fear of crime.

A deeper examination of the results, made it clear that the presence of an ASC appears not to be a contributor to the fear of crime of the inhabitants of Heerhugowaard. Not a single time has the ASC been named as a contributor to fear of crime by the respondents of

Heerhugowaard. The fact that the ASC has not been named, can be seen as an indicator that for the inhabitants of Heerhugowaard the ASC is not a contributor to fear of crime. In this particular situation these results indicates that an ASC does not have an influence on the fear of crime. When examining the results it becomes clear that significant more inhabitants of Nieuwegein named the category ‘foreigner’ as a contributor to fear of crime, than the

inhabitants of Heerhugowaard did. A difference would not been expected, given the fact that both cities are quite the same, apart from the ASC, when it comes to social economic status of the inhabitants, the size of the population and the urbanization of the cities. Even the voting behaviour during last election was altogether quite similar with PVV and VVD as the big

winners in both cities (NOS, 2017). Two differences can be found between both cities; the difference within the registered crimes per 1000 inhabitants and among the number of inhabitants with a non-western background, 15% in Nieuwegein against 11% in

Heerhugowaard. However, these differences seem not to be of such proportion to clarify the contrast that is found in the category ‘foreigner’ between both cities. Besides the fact that more respondents mentioned the category ‘foreigner’ in Nieuwegein than in Heerhugowaard, it can be said that the presence of an ASC is not a contributor to the fear of crime and

therefore not the explanation of the difference between both cities. These numbers even seem to proclaim the opposite, as the inhabitants of the city with an ASC mentioned this category significantly fewer than in a similar city without an ASC. However, to make this statement, more research is needed.