نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار، گروه معماری، واحد بروجرد، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، بروجرد، ایران.

2 استاد، دانشکده معماری، پردیس هنرهای زیبا، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.

3 دانشیار، دانشکده معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه هنر اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران.

4 دانشکده هنر، طراحی و معماری، دانشگاه نیوساوت ولز، سیدنی، استرالیا.

چکیده

پژوهش حاضر به بررسی تأثیر محدوده کالبدی مجموعه‌های مسکونی بر ادراک ترس از جرم ساکنان آن‌ها می‌پردازد. مجموعه‌های مسکونی را بر اساس نوع محدوده آن‌ها، می‌توان به سه نوع مجموعه‌های مسکونی محصور، محصور نمادین و غیرمحصور دسته‌بندی کرد. در ادبیات مسکن‌سازی، به یک طرح مسکونی که در آن سعی می‌شود از طریق ایجاد حصار و دورازه، یک محدوده کالبدی سخت شکل بگیرد، مجموعهِ مسکونی محصور گفته می‌شود. علی‌رغم گسترش مجموعه‌های مسکونی محصور محصور، توافقی در مورد عملکرد آن‌ها بر کاهش ترس از جرم وجود ندارد. در این پژوهش، به روش پس‌رویدادی و نمونه‌گیری هدفمند، مجموعه‌های مسکونی شهرک اکباتان تهران به سه دسته مجموعه‌های مسکونی محصور، محصور نمادین و غیرمحصور تقسیم شدند و در هر دسته، دو مجموعه مسکونی برای مطالعه انتخاب شدند. این نوع نمونه‌گیری سبب شد که اثر متغیرهای تعدیل‌کننده اجتماعی و کالبدی کنترل شوند. تجزیه و تحلیل 192 پاسخنامه دریافتی از ساکنان نشان داد که حصارکشی و استخدام نگهبانان در اکباتان کارآیی لازم را برای کاهش ترس از جرم نداشته است و میزان ترس از جرم ساکنان مجموعه‌های مسکونی محصور و غیرمحصور تفاوت معناداری با یکدیگر ندارند؛ اما وضعیت در مجموعه‌های مسکونی محصور نمادین متفاوت است و ترس از جرم کمتری در آن‌ها وجود دارد. مجموعه‌های مسکونی محصور نمادین از طریق ایجاد حس محدوده، همراه با مشارکت فعالانه ساکنان در حفاظت از قلمرو، اساسی‌ترین راه مقابله با جرم و جنایت هستند.

چکیده تصویری

تأثیر محدوده‌ی کالبدی مجموعه‌های مسکونی بر ترس از جرم ساکنان مطالعه موردی: مقایسه‌ی مجموعه‌های مسکونی محصور، محصور نمادین و غیرمحصور در شهرک اکباتان

تازه های تحقیق

- اکباتان یک اجتماع محلی است که در آن سه سطح از محصورسازی دیده می‌شود.
- محصورسازی در اکباتان، به واسطه‏‌ی این حس که ساکنان دیگر قادر به کنترل محله خود نیستند، به وجود آمده است.
- حصارکشی و استخدام نگهبانان در اکباتان کارآیی لازم را برای کاهش ترس از جرم در مجموعه‌های مسکونی محصور نداشته است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

The Effects of Residential Communities’ Physical Boundaries on Residents’ Perception of Fear of Crime: A Comparison Between Gated, Perceived Gated, and Non-Gated Communities in Ekbatan Neighborhood, Tehran

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mohammad Jalili 1
  • Alireza Einifar 2
  • Ramin Madani 3
  • Bruce Judd 4

1 Assistant Professor, Architecture Department, Borujerd Branch, Islamic Azad University, Borujerd, Iran.

2 Professor, Department of Architecture, School of Architecture, College of Fine Arts, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

3 Associate Professor, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Design, Art University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran.

4 City Futures Research Centre, Faculty of Arts, Design & Architecture, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.

چکیده [English]

Extended Abstract
Background and Objectives: This study examined the effects of the physical boundaries of residential communities on residents’ perception of fear of crime. The physical boundary of a community is the dividing line that officially delineates the limits of the land or premises of that community and separates it from the surrounding urban fabric. In the housing literature, communities around which a physical boundary is created through gates and fences/walls are called gated communities. Gated communities include both new developments and older areas retrofitted for reasons of security and are found in both urban and suburban areas. In the literature, there is no consensus on the quality of perceived security in gated communities. Despite the claim that gated communities provide their residents with higher levels of security, some studies have indicated no significant difference between the residents of gated communities and the residents of non-gated communities in terms of perceived fear of crime. The disagreements might have resulted from the different research methods used in previous studies. How gated communities are studied is important. Apparently, three general methodological approaches have been employed in previous studies to study the effects of gated communities. First, in the easiest and least rigorous research design, one or two variables have been investigated in a case study on gated communities. Second, in slightly more rigorous research designs, gated communities have been compared with non-gated communities, but possible moderating factors have not been considered. Third, more sophisticated research designs have compared gated communities with non-gated communities and considered at least some possible moderators, usually demographic variables, in a more sophisticated correlational research design. We employed a research design that compared numerous gated communities with numerous non-gated communities and involved investigator control over key variables. Meeting the requirements of a truly experimental research design is highly improbable in housing studies as meeting the conditions under which the researcher is able to manipulate the independent variables and eliminate or control moderating variables is almost impossible. Even if this were possible, the conditions of an experiment are so artificial and unreal that it is impossible to generalise the results to other contexts. However, through a causal comparative research design which is a type of correlational research that stakes out an intermediate position between correlational and experimental research and a purposefully selected sample, it is possible to control for the effects of key moderating variables. This requires the existence of appropriate cases for study. The present study aimed to take a closer look at the effects of the physical boundaries of residential communities on residents’ fear of crime through a causal comparative design and a purposefully selected sample.
Method: Employing a causal comparative design approach of a purposive sample of gated, perceived gated, and non-gated communities in Tehran, two communities were selected from each category. Ekbatan, one of the biggest and the most populated neighbourhoods in the Middle East, is a community where three levels of gating can be observed. In some of the communities located in Ekbatan, the residents have enclosed their communities through restricting access points and recruiting guards. In fact, in Ekbatan, gating has been encouraged by residents’ feeling that they have no longer any control over their communities.
Findings: The results show that the residents of the gated communities did not perceive fear of crime significantly less frequently compared to the residents of non-gated communities. However, the situation is different in perceived gated communities. The results indicated that the residents of perceived gated communities in Ekbatan perceived significantly less fear of crime compared to the residents of gated and non-gated communities. Lower levels of fear of crime were observed in all four components of fear of crime including worry about fear of crime, perceived likelihood of crime, perceived control over personal crime, and perceived consequences of crime. The residents of perceived gated communities are less worried about becoming a victim of crime, feel that there is less likelihood of crime in their communities, feel that they have more control over crime if one happened, and, finally, feel that a crime would lead to fewer consequences in their lives, if one happened.
Conclusion: The residents of Ekbatan are increasingly worried about the future of their neighbourhood due to physical, social, and demographic changes in the context of their neighbourhood. Many of them feel threatened and are unsure of their place of residence. This is reflected in the increasing use of fencing as a strategy to control the physical environment. From the point of view of Ekbatan’s managing committee and residents, gating might seem to be a reasonable solution for protecting the neighbourhood. However, the results of this study suggest that gating does not appear to address the sources of the problem. The results demonstrate that there was no significant difference between gated and non-gated communities’ residents’ perception of fear of crime and sense of community in Ekbatan. Protection against violence and criminal activities largely depends on residents’ active surveillance and gated communities do little to foster this. Since the living environment is enclosed and guarded, residents are not encouraged to participate in protecting their neighbourhood and as a result feel no responsibility for taking care of their place of residence. It seems that gating is at best a temporary solution to the problem of crime since if someone intended to get into a gated community, they would find a way to do so. Gating and fencing lead to social segregation and, contrary to what residents believe, do little to help protect their neighbourhoods. This process will likely lead to insularity and weaken the social and physical structure of Ekbatan. The residents of gated communities no longer care about what happens outside walls or even within the walls. Passive solutions to reducing crime seem ineffective in reducing residents’ fear.  However, perceived gated communities, through creating a sense of territoriality and triggering residents’ active participation in community protection, seem to provide an effective solution to the problem of crime.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Gated Communities
  • Physical Boundaries
  • fear of crime
  • Sense of Community
  1. Abu-Ghazzeh, T. M. (1999). Housing layout, social interaction, and the place of contact in Abu-Nuseir, Jordan. Journal of environmental psychology19(1), 41-73.
  2. Atkinson, R., & Blandy, S. (2013). Gated communities: International perspectives. Routledge.
  3. Banks, M. (2005). Spaces of (in) security: Media and fear of crime in a local context. Crime, Media, Culture1(2), 169-187.
  4. Beall J, Crankshaw O & Parnell S. (2002). The people behind the walls: insecurity, identity and gated communities. In Uniting a Divided City (Beall J et al. (eds)). Earthscan, London, pp. 175–195.
  5. Breetzke, G. D., Landman, K., & Cohn, E. G. (2014). Is it safer behind the gates? Crime and gated communities in South Africa. Journal of housing and the built environment29(1), 123-139.
  6. British Crime Survey. (2008). Crime in England and Wales. England and Wales: Research, Development and Statistics.
  7. Blakely, E. J., & Snyder, M. G. (1997). Fortress America: gated communities in the United States. Brookings Institution Press.
  8. Caldeira, T. P. (2000). City of walls: crime, segregation, and citizenship in São Paulo. University of California Press.
  9. Central Managing Committee. (2019, March 28). Retrieved from shahrak-e-Ekbatan: http://www.shahrakekbatan.ir/
  10. Coy, M., & Pöhler, M. (2002). Gated communities in Latin American megacities: case studies in Brazil and Argentina. Environment and Planning B: Planning and design29(3), 355-370.
  11. Davis, M. (1998). Ecology of fear: Los Angeles and the imagination of disaster. Macmillan.
  12. Ellin, N. (2001). Thresholds of fear: embracing the urban shadow. Urban studies38(5-6), 869-883.
  13. Fowler, F. J., & Mangione, T. W. (1986). A three-pronged effort to reduce crime and fear of crime: The Hartford experiment. Community crime prevention: Does it work, 87-108.
  14. Garofalo, J. (1981). The fear of crime: Causes and consequences. J. Crim. L. & Criminology72, 839.
  15. Gibson, C. L., Zhao, J., Lovrich, N. P., & Gaffney, M. J. (2002). Social integration, individual perceptions of collective efficacy, and fear of crime in three cities. Justice quarterly19(3), 537-564.
  16. Gifford, R. (2007). The consequences of living in high-rise buildings. Architectural science review50(1), 2-17.
  17. Gifford, R. (Ed.). (2016). Research methods for environmental psychology. John Wiley & Sons.
  18. Glasze, G. (2005). Some reflections on the economic and political organisation of private neighbourhoods. Housing studies20(2), 221-233.
  19. Groat, L. N., & Wang, D. (2013). Architectural research methods. John Wiley & Sons.
  20. Harang, M. (2003). The improvement of the quality of life in residential areas. The Policy Tree.
  21. Hough, M. (1985). The impact of victimization: Findings from the British Crime Survey. Victimology10(4), 488-497.
  22. Jackson, J. (2005). Validating new measures of the fear of crime. International Journal of Social Research Methodology8(4), 297-315.
  23. Jackson, J. (2006). Introducing fear of crime to risk research. Risk Analysis: An International Journal26(1), 253-264.
  24. Jackson, J. (2009). A psychological perspective on vulnerability in the fear of crime. Psychology, Crime & Law15(4), 365-390.
  25. Kim, S. K. (2006). The gated community: Residents' crime experience and perception of safety behind gates and fences in the urban area (Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University).
  26. Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research. Activities, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607-610.
  27. LaGrange, R. L., Ferraro, K. F., & Supancic, M. (1992). Perceived risk and fear of crime: Role of social and physical incivilities. Journal of research in crime and delinquency29(3), 311-334.
  28. Landman, K. (2000). Gated Communities and Urban Sustainability: Taking a closer look at the future. In 2nd Southern African Conference on Sustainable Development in the Built Environment Strategies for Sustainable Built Environment, Pretoria, South Africa, 23-25 August 2000.
  29. Landman, K., & Schönteich, M. (2002). Urban fortresses: gated communities as a reaction to crime. African Security Review11(4), 71-85.
  30. Le Goix, R. (2005). Gated communities: Sprawl and social segregation in Southern California. Housing studies20(2), 323-343.
  31. Low, S. M. (1997). Urban fear: building the fortress city. City & Society9(1), 53-71.
  32. Low, S. M. (2001). The edge and the center: Gated communities and the discourse of urban fear. American anthropologist103(1), 45-58.
  33. Low, S. (2003). Behind the gates. New York and London: Routledge.
  34. Lynch, K. (1984). Good city form. MIT press.
  35. Mantey, D. (2017). Social consequences of gated communities: The case of suburban Warsaw. The Professional Geographer69(1), 151-161.
  36. Merbaghi, B., Tavakoli F., Hatamnejadian, N., Khosravi, E., Rahimi, F., & Kavousian, K. (2018). Ekbatan Town: Contemporary Civilization of Iranian Architecture. Tehran: Payam.
  37. McCrea, R., Shyy, T. K., Western, J., & Stimson, R. J. (2005). Fear of crime in Brisbane: Individual, social and neighbourhood factors in perspective. Journal of Sociology41(1), 7-27.
  38. Nasar, J. L., & Fisher, B. (1993). ‘Hot spots’ of fear and crime: A multi-method investigation. Journal of environmental psychology13(3), 187-206.
  39. Newman, O. (1972). Defensible space (p. 264). New York: Macmillan.
  40. Quintal, D. A. N. A. (2006). Gated communities in Sydney: A search for security. New South Wales: The University of New South Wales, Faculty of the built environment.
  41. Reyes-Sosa, H., & Molina-Coloma, V. (2018). Psychometric analysis of a scale to measure fear of crime in Ecuadorian youths. Acta Colombiana de Psicología21(1), 290-309.
  42. Rogers, G. O., & Sukolratanametee, S. (2009). Neighborhood design and sense of community: Comparing suburban neighborhoods in Houston Texas. Landscape and urban Planning92(3-4), 325-334.
  43. Roitman, S. (2010). Gated communities: definitions, causes and consequences. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Urban Design and Planning163(1), 31-38.
  44. Ross, C. E., & Jang, S. J. (2000). Neighborhood disorder, fear, and mistrust: The buffering role of social ties with neighbors. American journal of community psychology28(4), 401-420.
  45. Ruiu, M. L. (2014). Differences between cohousing and gated communities. A literature review. Sociological Inquiry84(2), 316-335.
  46. Salamati, A. A. (2001). Urban housing design in Iran in response to socio-cultural and environmental conditions (Doctoral dissertation, University of Strathclyde).
  47. Soleimani, B. (2014). Urban Boundaries and Alternative Spaces: Case Study of Tehran (Architecture Thesis, The Pennsylvania State University).
  48. Talen, E. (2019). Neighborhood. Oxford University Press.
  49. Thiis-Evensen, T., & Kolbjøn, N. N. (1999). Archetypes of Urbanism a Method for the Esthetic Design of Cities. Universitetsforl. Oslo.
  50. Wilson-Doenges, G. (2000). An exploration of sense of community and fear of crime in gated communities. Environment and behavior32(5), 597-611.
  51. Xu, M., & Yang, Z. (2008). Theoretical debate on gated communities: genesis, controversies, and the way forward. Urban Design International13(4), 213-226.