18th Conference of the International Association for 18th Conference of the International Association for People-Environment StudiesPeople-Environment Studies

(IAPS, (IAPS, Wien 7-10 JulyWien 7-10 July, 2004), 2004)

18th Conference of the International Association for 18th Conference of the International Association for People-Environment StudiesPeople-Environment Studies

(IAPS, (IAPS, Wien 7-10 JulyWien 7-10 July, 2004), 2004)

SENSE OF SAFETY AND PERCEPTION OF LIFE SENSE OF SAFETY AND PERCEPTION OF LIFE ENVIRONMENT: ENVIRONMENT:

THE PRE-ADOLESCENTS AND THEIR THE PRE-ADOLESCENTS AND THEIR PARENTS PARENTS PERCEPTIONPERCEPTION

Key words: sense of safety, urban environment, well-being

Laura Migliorini, University of Genoa, Department of Anthropological Sciences, Italy.

Antonella Piermari, University of Genoa, Department of Anthropological Sciences, Italy.

Anna Zunino, University of Genoa, Department of Anthropological Sciences, Italy.

IAPS 2004 2

SUMMARYSUMMARYSUMMARYSUMMARY

Introduction and literature review

Aims and method

Data and results

Discussion and conclusions

IAPS 2004 3

THEORETICAL BACKGROUNDTHEORETICAL BACKGROUNDTHEORETICAL BACKGROUNDTHEORETICAL BACKGROUND

IAPS 2004 4

SAFETY NEEDSSAFETY NEEDSSAFETY NEEDSSAFETY NEEDS

IAPS 2004 5

Importance to study people well-being related to social- physical environment

Quality environment perception as summarizing variable to measure the impact of relationship between person and environment

Moser’s model of unsafety: affective, cognitive and behavioral components

Missing of accurate definition of sense of safety/unsafety

Missing of theoretical modeling to understand the relationship among the sense of safety/unsafety construct and other relevant variables included in this research field

Adolescent life-time is not very investigated

LITERATURE REVIEWLITERATURE REVIEWLITERATURE REVIEWLITERATURE REVIEW

IAPS 2004 6

RESEARCHRESEARCH

AIM AND METHODAIM AND METHOD

RESEARCHRESEARCH

AIM AND METHODAIM AND METHOD

The present study explores the sense of safety and unsafety perceived in the life environment by pre-adolescents and their parents, and inquire adults subjective well-being and urban quality perception.

1° section: intervention carried out in the schools with pre-adolescents (11-14 years old). We’ve worked with 163 students, proposing them a group activity in order to inquire their relationships with urban environment, and to collect relevant data about their sense of safety.

2° section: collection of the same kind of data but coming from the pre-adolescents parents living in the same residential area. We asked parents to fill in a questionnaire about sense of safety, subjective well-being, urban quality perception.

IAPS 2004 7

PRE-ADOLESCENTS MEASUREPRE-ADOLESCENTS MEASUREPRE-ADOLESCENTS MEASUREPRE-ADOLESCENTS MEASURE

Demographic information

Questions about autonomy and sense of safety/unsafety in the residential area:

Complete sentences about sense of safety Complete sentences about sense of unsafety Tell about three safe place where you go around List the features of those places Which kind of people make you feel less safe? Which kind of urban elements make you feel more safe?

IAPS 2004 8

Demographic information

Questions about sense of safety/unsafety in the residential area (the same questions of adolescents for themselves and for their perception about their children)

Psychological Well-being Scale (Ryff and Keyes, 1995)

Perceived Quality of Residential Environment Scale (Bonaiuto, Aiello, Perugini, Bonnes, Ercolani, 1999)

PARENTS MEASUREPARENTS MEASUREPARENTS MEASUREPARENTS MEASURE

IAPS 2004 9

female47,2% male

52,8%

SUBJECTS - SUBJECTS - PRE-ADOLESCENTS (n.163)PRE-ADOLESCENTS (n.163)SUBJECTS - SUBJECTS - PRE-ADOLESCENTS (n.163)PRE-ADOLESCENTS (n.163)

3° year38,0%

2°year27,0%

1° year35,0%

IAPS 2004 10

3° year

2° year

1° year

Who do you go to school with? Can you go around the suburb alone?

100%--

97.7%2.3%

80.7%19.3%

YESNO

71.2%22.7%6.1%

50.0%40.0%10.0%

50.8%41.0%8.2 %

alonefriendsrelatives/adults

PRE-ADOLESCENTS AUTONOMYPRE-ADOLESCENTS AUTONOMYPRE-ADOLESCENTS AUTONOMYPRE-ADOLESCENTS AUTONOMY

IAPS 2004 11

primary school10,7%

degree5,0%

young sec.

school34,7%

3 y sec. school15,7%

5 y sec. school33,9%

mother76%

both3%

others3%

father18%

SUBJECTS - SUBJECTS - PARENTS (n.126)PARENTS (n.126)SUBJECTS - SUBJECTS - PARENTS (n.126)PARENTS (n.126)

IAPS 2004 12

PRE-ADOLESCENTS SENSE OF SAFETYPRE-ADOLESCENTS SENSE OF SAFETY

“I feel safe in my suburb if……”“I feel safe in my suburb if……”

PRE-ADOLESCENTS SENSE OF SAFETYPRE-ADOLESCENTS SENSE OF SAFETY

“I feel safe in my suburb if……”“I feel safe in my suburb if……”

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

3° answer

2° answer

1° answer

IAPS 2004 13

PARENTS SENSE OF SAFETY - PARENTS SENSE OF SAFETY - FOR THEMSELVESFOR THEMSELVES

“I feel safe in my suburb if……”“I feel safe in my suburb if……”

PARENTS SENSE OF SAFETY - PARENTS SENSE OF SAFETY - FOR THEMSELVESFOR THEMSELVES

“I feel safe in my suburb if……”“I feel safe in my suburb if……”

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

3° answer

2° answer

1° answer

IAPS 2004 14

PARENTS SENSE OF SAFETY - PARENTS SENSE OF SAFETY - FOR THEIR CHILDRENFOR THEIR CHILDREN

“My son/daughter feels safe in his/her suburb “My son/daughter feels safe in his/her suburb if……”if……”

PARENTS SENSE OF SAFETY - PARENTS SENSE OF SAFETY - FOR THEIR CHILDRENFOR THEIR CHILDREN

“My son/daughter feels safe in his/her suburb “My son/daughter feels safe in his/her suburb if……”if……”

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100 3° answer

2° answer

1° answer

IAPS 2004 15

0102030405060708090

100

prese

nce o

f con

trol a

nd vi

gilanc

e

frien

ds, p

eers

know

ed p

eople

gene

ric p

eople

rela

tives

stru

ctur

al fe

ature

s

crim

inal

s

drug

addic

ts

gang

s

imm

igra

nts

drunk

sdo

gs

posit

ive b

ehavio

urs

nega

tive b

ehav

iours

cont

ext kn

owledg

e

hour

of t

he d

ay

othe

rs

3° answer

2° answer

1° answer

PRE-ADOLESCENTS SENSE OF UNSAFETYPRE-ADOLESCENTS SENSE OF UNSAFETY

“I feel unsafe in my suburb if……”“I feel unsafe in my suburb if……”

PRE-ADOLESCENTS SENSE OF UNSAFETYPRE-ADOLESCENTS SENSE OF UNSAFETY

“I feel unsafe in my suburb if……”“I feel unsafe in my suburb if……”

IAPS 2004 16

PARENTS SENSE OF UNSAFETY - PARENTS SENSE OF UNSAFETY - FOR FOR THEMSELVESTHEMSELVES

“I feel unsafe in my suburb if……”“I feel unsafe in my suburb if……”

PARENTS SENSE OF UNSAFETY - PARENTS SENSE OF UNSAFETY - FOR FOR THEMSELVESTHEMSELVES

“I feel unsafe in my suburb if……”“I feel unsafe in my suburb if……”

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

3° answer

2° answer

1° answer

IAPS 2004 17

PARENTS SENSE OF UNSAFETY - PARENTS SENSE OF UNSAFETY - FOR THEIR FOR THEIR CHILDRENCHILDREN

“My son/daughter feels unsafe in his/her suburb “My son/daughter feels unsafe in his/her suburb if……”if……”

PARENTS SENSE OF UNSAFETY - PARENTS SENSE OF UNSAFETY - FOR THEIR FOR THEIR CHILDRENCHILDREN

“My son/daughter feels unsafe in his/her suburb “My son/daughter feels unsafe in his/her suburb if……”if……”

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

3° answer

2° answer

1° answer

IAPS 2004 18

PRE-ADOLESCENTS FEATURES OF SAFE PRE-ADOLESCENTS FEATURES OF SAFE PLACESPLACES

Which elements of three places you’ve Which elements of three places you’ve indicated do you make feel safe in?indicated do you make feel safe in?

PRE-ADOLESCENTS FEATURES OF SAFE PRE-ADOLESCENTS FEATURES OF SAFE PLACESPLACES

Which elements of three places you’ve Which elements of three places you’ve indicated do you make feel safe in?indicated do you make feel safe in?

structural features19%

friends16%

signif icative persons

16%

people35%

usability / familiarity of place

14%

social relations67%

IAPS 2004 19

FEATURES OF SAFE PLACES - FEATURES OF SAFE PLACES - PARENTS FOR PARENTS FOR THEMSELVESTHEMSELVES

Which elements of three places you’ve indicated Which elements of three places you’ve indicated do you make feel safe in?do you make feel safe in?

FEATURES OF SAFE PLACES - FEATURES OF SAFE PLACES - PARENTS FOR PARENTS FOR THEMSELVESTHEMSELVES

Which elements of three places you’ve indicated Which elements of three places you’ve indicated do you make feel safe in?do you make feel safe in?

structural features

36%

friends3%

significative persons

27%

people24%

social relations

54%

usability / familiarity of

place10%

IAPS 2004 20

FEATURES OF SAFE PLACES - FEATURES OF SAFE PLACES - PARENTS FOR THEIR PARENTS FOR THEIR CHILDRENCHILDREN

Which elements of three places you’ve indicated Which elements of three places you’ve indicated do your son/daughter make feel safe in?do your son/daughter make feel safe in?

FEATURES OF SAFE PLACES - FEATURES OF SAFE PLACES - PARENTS FOR THEIR PARENTS FOR THEIR CHILDRENCHILDREN

Which elements of three places you’ve indicated Which elements of three places you’ve indicated do your son/daughter make feel safe in?do your son/daughter make feel safe in?

structural features

23%

friends8%

significative persons

39%

people16%

usability / familiarity of

place14%

social relations55%

IAPS 2004 21

CONCLUSIONSCONCLUSIONSCONCLUSIONSCONCLUSIONS

Personal sense of safety: differences between pre-adolescents and parents (relations vs. structural elements)

Place safety: homogeneity of perception between pre-adolescents and parents (social relations)

Investigation on changes along life-span about sense of safety/unsafety

Analysis of very different kind of suburb in terms of structural features

FUTURE RESEARCHFUTURE RESEARCHFUTURE RESEARCHFUTURE RESEARCH

IAPS 2004 22

REFERENCESREFERENCESREFERENCESREFERENCES

BONAIUTO M., AIELLO A.., PERUGINI M., BONNES M., ERCOLANI A.P. (1999), Multidimensional perception of residential environment quality and neighbourhood attachment in the urban environment, “Journal of Environmental Psychology”, 19, 331-352.

BONNES M., BONAIUTO M. (1996), Multiplace analysis of the urban environment. A comparison between a large and small Italian city, “Environment and Behaviour”, 28, 6, 699-747.

CANTER, D. (1977), The psychology of place, Architectural Press, London.

MOSER, G. (1995), Gli stress urbani, LED, Milano.

OSTROM C., LERNER R., FREEL M. (1995), Building the capacity of youth and families through University-Community collaboration: the Development-In-Context Evaluation (DICE) Model, “Journal of Adolescent Research”, 10, 4, 427-448.

PERKINS D., FLORIN P., RICH R., CHAVIS D. (1990), Participation and the social and physical environment of residential blocks: Crime and community context, “American Journal of Community Psychology”, 18, 83-115.

PERKINS D., MEEKS J., TAYLOR R. (1992), The physical environment of street blocks and resident perception of crime and disorder: Implications for theory and measurement, “Journal of Environmental Psychology”, 12, 21-34.

RYFF C., KEYES C. (1995), The structure of psychological well-being revisited, “Journal of Personality and Social Psychology”, 69, 4, 719-727.

IAPS 2004 23

THEORY OF PLACE THEORY OF PLACE (CANTER)(CANTER)

THEORY OF PLACE THEORY OF PLACE (CANTER)(CANTER)

PLACES

IAPS 2004 24

DANGEROUS PEOPLEDANGEROUS PEOPLE

“Valuate from 1 to 7 the level of influence “Valuate from 1 to 7 the level of influence on your sense of unsafety”on your sense of unsafety”

DANGEROUS PEOPLEDANGEROUS PEOPLE

“Valuate from 1 to 7 the level of influence “Valuate from 1 to 7 the level of influence on your sense of unsafety”on your sense of unsafety”

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

drug

add

icts

stre

et tra

ders

imm

igran

ts

pros

titut

es

men

dicant

s

baby

gan

gs

hom

eless

pre-adolescentsparents for themselvesparents for their children

IAPS 2004 25

POSITIVE STRUCTURAL FEATURESPOSITIVE STRUCTURAL FEATURES

“Valuate from 1 to 7 the level of influence “Valuate from 1 to 7 the level of influence on your sense of safety”on your sense of safety”

POSITIVE STRUCTURAL FEATURESPOSITIVE STRUCTURAL FEATURES

“Valuate from 1 to 7 the level of influence “Valuate from 1 to 7 the level of influence on your sense of safety”on your sense of safety”

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

car a

bsen

ce

arca

des

gree

n ar

eas

good

light

ing

clean

ness

well-kep

t buil

dings

store

s, pu

blic s

ervic

es

pre-adolescentsparents for themselvesparents for their children

IAPS 2004 26

PERCEIVED QUALITY OF RESIDENTIAL

ENVIRONMENT SCALE

PERCEIVED QUALITY OF RESIDENTIAL

ENVIRONMENT SCALE

1.043.95

residential attacchment

.693.52context features

.663.81

social relations features

.633.63

architectural / town- planning features

D.SMP. Q. R. E

0.84.5personal growth

0.94.8autonomy

0.84.0environmental mastery

1.04.2self-acceptance

.94.3positive relations

1.063.9purpose in life

D.SMP. W-B

PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING

PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING