Perceived insecurity in affluent vs marginalized communities across five eu countries

1. Perceived insecurity in affluent vs marginalized
communities across five EU countries
Sonia Stefanizzi, University of Milan-Bicocca
Valeria Verdolini, University of Milan-Bicocca
MARGIN PROJECT
Tackle Insecurity in Marginalized Areas
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Programme.
Grant agreement no 653004
@marginproject
www.marginproject.eu
Universitat de Barcelona (UB) - National Institute of Criminology (OKRI) – Institut national des hautes études de la sécurité et de la justice (INHESJ) –
Università degli Studi di Milano Bicocca (UNIMIB) – University College London (UCL) – EuroCrime Research Training and Consultancy srl (ECR) –
Departament d’Interior, Generalitat de Catalunya (INT)

2. WP5-Antropological dimension of insecurity
• Qualitative data collection in 10 selected neighbourhoods (50 in-
depth interviews, 6 months of participant observation and 10 focus
groups.
• By directly involving citizens in the project, the objective of the
fieldwork was to analyse the social construction of crime-related
issues, so as to offer a deeper understanding of fear of crime and the
perception of insecurity in five European cities (Barcelona, Budapest,
London, Milan, Paris).

3. MARGIN Triangulation Procedures
Step Topics Objectives Expected outcomes
1. In-depth
interviews
Key informants’
understandings of
security issues in the
neighbourhood.
Preliminary definition of
security issues according
to the three different
profiles of key
informants.
1. Identify main factors affecting
insecurity;
2. Select smaller areas within the
neighbourhood for participant
observation;
3. Gather information about potential
gatekeepers in the field;
2. Participant
observation
Relationship
between people and
space.
Analyse the cultural
dimension of the
phenomenon of
insecurity.
1. Explore lifestyles and their relation to
insecurity;
2. Identify main problems in the
neighbourhood;
3. Inform the design of focus groups
(i.e., identify the needs and
expectations of residents regarding
public and personal insecurity);
3. Focus groups
Possible
intervention with a
view to reducing
insecurity.
Provide an external
validation.
1. Discuss and (where possible) agree
on solutions allowing for the
reduction of insecurity;
2. Transfer results of the project.

4. Taxonomy of neighbourhoods
Three domains were used to selected 10 neighbourhoods across the
five cities:
1. Crime and victimization dimension
2. Social insecurity-fear of crime dimension
3. Socio-geographic insecurity dimension

5. Neighbourhoods
AFFLUENT MARGINALIZED
BARCELONA Vila Olimpica La Marina del
Pratt Vermell
BUDAPEST Orszàgùt Laposdűlő
LONDON Primrose Hill Harlesden
MILAN Rogoredo-Santa
Giulia
Gratosoglio-
Ticinello
PARIS Europe Danube-
Solidarité

6. Barcelona: Vila Olimpica (A)
Objective
dimension
Subjective
dimension
Socio-economic
dimension
Socio-Geographic
dimension
Scamming
A few violent
crimes
Home burglary
Gender violence
the mobility of the
pedestrians
Indirect
victimization
Civility and
coexistence issues
Incurable levels of
alcoholism
Empty spaces and
the problem of
social occupation
Homeless
misuse of services
for
overcrowding/touris
m
-shelters for
homeless
-feeling of
“invasion”(tourists,
homeless

7. Barcelona: La Marina del Pratt Vermell (M)
Objective dimension Subjective
dimension
Socio-economic
dimension
Socio-Geographic
dimension
Domestic violence
Grabbing women
Home burglary
Gender violence
Intensive use of the
squares (drug dealing,
prostitution)
Visibility and occupation
of public spaces by
homeless people
Visibility of “criminality
without victims” (drug
dealing, consumption and
prostitution)
Ex slummers,
Difficulty to find jobs.
Uncertainty about the
future, possibility of falling
into poverty
Isolated neighbourhood
Feeling of being a kind of
“dumpster”
Hotchpotch where
everything Barcelona
does not want is thrown
there.

8. Budapest: Orszàgùt (A)
Objective
dimension
Subjective
dimension
Socio-economic
dimension
Socio-Geographic
dimension
House burglary
Car theft
Vandalism
Fight and assaults
Scamming of old
people
bagging
Tense situations
Absence of the
police
Fear of
victimization
Increasing
presence of
homelessness
Vulnerable position
of elderlies.
Local slumification

9. Budapest: Laposdűlő (M)
Objective
dimension
Subjective
dimension
Socio-economic
dimension
Socio-Geographic
dimension
- High criminal rate
-High Substance
abuse
- prostitution
-property crimes
Fear of staying in
the neighbourhood
(Hos street)
Avoidance of the
streets
Conflict betweeen
groups in the block
Insecurity of living
day to day
Low social position
Segregated Hos
street
Half closed
Pongràc settlement

10. London: Primrose Hill (A)
Objective
dimension
Subjective
dimension
Socio-economic
dimension
Socio-Geographic
dimension
Small burglaries
Cannabis
consumption
Fear of thiefts Socio-economic
security
Drunk people in the
park
Turistic area

11. London: Harlesden (M)
Objective
dimension
Subjective
dimension
Socio-economic
dimension
Socio-Geographic
dimension
Gangs and
violence (linking to
crime)
Litter and fly tipping
(general
appearance of the
neighbourhood)
Fear of the gangs
Fear of violence
Uncertain
changing within the
neighbourhood i.e.
rising house prices-
the effect of this on
current residents
Littering and fly
tipping
Abandoned
buildings

12. Milan: Rogoredo-Santa Giulia (A)
Objective
dimension
Subjective
dimension
Socio-economic
dimension
Socio-Geographic
dimension
bulglars
drug dealing
drug trafficking
micro criminality
Unsafety
Fear of
victimization
Coexistence issues
Presence of lower
classes in
Rogoredo
migration and
poverty
closeness to the
station and to the
wood of via
Sant’Arialdo
(geographical
isolation of an
empty area

13. Milan: Gratosoglio (M)
Objective
dimension
Subjective
dimension
Socio-economic
dimension
Socio-Geographic
dimension
Bulglars
criminality
(organized crimes)
house squat
Drug trafficking
Fear of
victimization
unsafe during the
night
Coexistence issues
Housing condition
Social housing
Poverty
deprivation
Closeness to
Roma camp
Presence of
retention center
Isolated area

14. Paris: Europe (A)
Objective
dimension
Subjective
dimension
Socio-economic
dimension
Socio-Geographic
dimension
Property crime
Trafficking issues
Fear of
victimisation
Restricted
behaviours
Socio-economic
insecurity
Gathering of
people generating
insecurity

15. Paris: Danube-Solidarité (M)
Objective
dimension
Subjective
dimension
Socio-economic
dimension
Socio-
Geographic
dimension
Property crime
Violent crime
Drug Trafficking
issues
Fear of
victimisation
Restricted
behaviours
Socio-economic
insecurity
Gathering of
people generating
insecurity
Neighbourhood
isolation and decay

16. Interpretative framework
Despite from the conceptual division (affluent vs marginalized)
empirical results evidenced some recurrent issues in all
neighbourhoods
1) Socio-economic divisions and subjective insecurity
2) Perceived insecurity and social cohesion
3) Socio-geographic determinants of perceived insecurity

17. Socio-economic divisions and subjective insecurity
• Inequalities of economic capital (Bourdieu, 1986)
• Inequalities of social capital
• Inequalities of cultural capital
• Identities inequalities and construction of otherness
• The margin: exclusion and lumpen exploitation (Bourgois, 2002)

18. Perceived insecurity and social cohesion
• Rediscovery of ”the subject”
• Communities of fear (Bauman, 2005)
• Communities of danger (Beck, 2000)
• Fear and danger became the new ties of social cohesion