Cognition constitutes a very important theme in psychology. Psychologists perceive it as ‘the mental process or faculty by which knowledge is acquired through perception, reasoning or intuition’ (Department of Criminology, 2006/07: 9-7). In principle, cognitive theorists questioned the notion of human rationality. After research that they have conducted, they came to the conclusion that individuals have a tendency to make irrational decisions on a regular basis and that some people actually seek risky situations (Department of Criminology, 2006/07).
The problem with cognitive approach involves the difference between the decisions made in a laboratory and the decisions that one indulges in real life (Department of Civil Safety and Security, 2005/06). Measuring risk in a laboratory deviates from the socially construction of reality. In essence, the way one reacts against a hazard in the laboratory can differ from one’s reaction in a real life situation. Therefore, the results concerning risk perception in the laboratory may not be valid. Moreover, cognitive perspective does not consider the range of risks and the weight which people attach to them (Department of Criminology, 2006/07). The psychometric approach has tried to make up for this missing information.
Psychometric approach relies on the principle that ‘risk’ means different things to different people who simply use a multidimensional way to define risk (Langford and McDonald, 1997). Psychometric perspective attempted to identify the qualitative characteristics of hazards. The surveys that have been conducted in this field involve both experts and lay population and they show that lay population tend to underestimate high frequency hazards and overestimate low frequency hazards which according to Fischoff (1990) ‘such work demonstrates people’s confusion in assessing risk’ (cited in Department of Criminology, 2006/07: 9-9). However, these studies revealed not only the confusion in rationalising risk but also the existence of a number of ‘negative hazard attributes’ that might mediate people’s risk perception (Department of Civil Safety and Security, 2005/06). The most interesting study in this field is Otway and von Winfeldt’s (1982) who encountered some ‘negative hazard attributes’ that influence public’s perception of risk. More specifically, they found that individuals assess as particularly terrifying involuntary exposure to risk and lack of personal control over outcomes. In addition, they are less likely to accept a hazard when the consequences of the exposure are uncertain and unknown and when the benefits are not highly visible or they go to others (Royal Society, 1992 as cited in Department of Criminology, 2006/07).
One of the most useful points of the psychometric approach is that it pinpoints the complexity of the factors that affect the risk perception among the general population (Department of Criminology, 2006/07). Nevertheless, the psychometric approach cannot measure all risks in all contexts.
Consequently, the relationship amongst unquestioned risks and the other questioned factors would never be known (Department of Civil Safety and Security, 2005/06). What is more, the effects of economic, social and political dimensions of risk can make the data sets unmanageable (Department of Criminology, 2006/07). The mental models approach attempted to exceed these obstacles.
The mental models approach relied on both cognitive and psychometric approaches and tried to consider the more qualitative dimensions of risk. Nevertheless, this approach deviates from the classic risk perception paradigm (Department of Civil Safety and Security 2005/06). Mental models use a detailed investigation process of small samples of individuals in establishing how specific hazards are perceived by both experts and lay populations (Department of Criminology, 2006/07). As a result of this detailed investigation process, mental models constitute a very important and helpful approach in the study of risk perception. ‘Mental models technique can be useful in improving lay people’s conceptions of risk’ (Bostrom, 1992 as cited in Department of Civil Safety and Security, 2005/06: 2-14).
However, mental models and the methodology that they use are often being disputed. By the concept of comparing ‘lay’ with ‘expert’ perceptions, it is presumed that the expert view is undoubtedly correct, though it is generally accepted that experts do not always agree (Langford and McDonald, 1997). It is important not to overlook that even the most definitive expert risk calculations can be wrong and that expert view is not absolute and infallible.
Due to the problems mentioned above, some researchers have resorted to social and cultural approaches as they offer an alternative approach to risk perception study. More accurately, the social risk theory proposed that risk is a social process rather than a physical entity, which exists independently of the people who assess and experience it (Lampropoulou, 2001). This theory notes that cultural frameworks apprehended by people influences their willingness to take or avoid risks.
One advantage of the social risk theory is that it is emphasised more on the structure and functioning of groups rather than the individual within societies (Department of Civil Safety and Security, 2005/06).
However, the problem that rises with this approach is that it is impracticable to extract meaningful relationships on individuals or populations without perceiving the contextual and cultural structures of individuals within social groups (Langford and McDonald, 1997).
Moving on cultural approaches it is important to note that culture has proved a difficult and indefinable concept to understand since it reveals different features of itself depending on the aspect from one is looking to it (Department f Civil Safety and Security, 2005/06). Over the centuries many definitions of culture have emerged. The earliest and most famous was offered by Edwin B. Tylor in 1871: ‘Culture or civilisation, taken in its wide ethnographic sense is that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society’ (Department of Criminology, 2006/07: 9-14). The basis of this line of thinking is that risk is socially constructed and risk perception between groups within society differs due to the different social characteristics and patterns of social relations (Langford and McDonald, 1997). The most prominent cultural approach which has studied risk in regard to social contexts is cultural theory.
Cultural theory presents a typology of four archetypes, ‘hierarchical’, ‘individualist’, ‘egalitarian’ and ‘fatalist’, each reflecting the nature of individual response to risk (Department of Civil Safety and Security, 2005/06). More accurately, hierarchists accept levels of risk and they claim that the decisions are made by appropriately trained decision-makers. Individualists accept a high level of risk arguing that the presence of risk indicates opportunities for economic and technological development. On the other hand, egalitarians do not accept a high level of risk. They argue that others take risks in violating their own liberties. Lastly, fatalists, although they refuse to take personal risks themselves, accept the risks that the others impose on them in the belief that they can do nothing to prevent it (Department of Criminology, 2006/07). Due to the suggestion of these four types cultural theory was criticised as being too reductionist. In essence, by suggesting that social life can be reduced to only four personality types, they oversimplified the complexity of the real world and thus the way that risk is actually managed (Department of Civil Safety and Security, 2005/06).
It is important at this point to note that within cultural theory, the ‘safety culture’ approach emerged which, in comparison to cultural theory, represents a radical aspect for the perception of risk as it proposes that risk operates at an organisational level (Pidgeon, 1991b; Dake, 1991 as cited in Department of Criminology, 2006/07). Safety culture composes a set of administrative procedures that include training, emergency plans and attitudes to safety which cannot be regulated. Notwithstanding safety culture has similar deficiencies to cultural theory, it constitutes an innovative and interesting view to the study of risk as it offers the opportunity to study actual situations instead of situations in a laboratory (Department of Criminology, 2006/07).
Risk theories, despite their inadequacies, can offer complementary information on how people construct their risk perception, which can contribute to the development of community safety strategies. In the following paragraphs, a detailed description of the relevance and influence of these theories upon community safety strategies is provided.
As it is already mentioned above, the concept of risk has become a central characteristic of contemporary society. Hence, the local government had to take some measures to protect the public and to make them feel secure within community. Risk theories constitute the theoretical context upon which local authorities act upon for that purpose. According to the theory that they adopt, they transfer ideas into action and workable programs with the aim of effective community safety (Hughes, 2008).
More specifically, risk theories which argued that people rationally calculate their choices, offer plans which are focused on the potential offender and his assessment of risk as a key factor in the decision of committing a crime or not (Alexiadis, 2004). Local authorities are based on the assumption that people will rationally calculate the benefits and the costs of breaking the law and when the benefits do not outweigh the perceived risk then is less likely a crime to occur (Bowers and Johnson, 2005). Consequently, responsibility of the local government is to increase perceived risk, namely the probability of arrest and consequent prosecution and conviction.
One way to achieve this probability is by providing responsive and accountable policing in a specific geographic area on a 24-hour basis (Bowers and Johnson, 2005). ‘A high visible, uniformed police presence that is designed…to make potential offenders think twice about attempting to commit a crime’ (Fyfe, Greene, Walsh, Wilson & McLaren, 1997: 590). By police officers being constantly on the street supervising the community and especially places where crimes occur or is more likely to occur (e.g. parks, places where are ATM and areas of low pedestrian traffic) offenders will be deterred of breaking the law and safety within community will be accomplished (Bowers and Johnson, 2005). It is also worthy of note at this point that for that purpose, community and police officers should work closely together. Through community-oriented policing ‘police will become more connected with and integrated into their communities, which means that police will interact with citizens on a personal level, will be familiar with community sentiments and concerns and will work with the community to address those concerns’ (Weisheit, Wells and Falcome, 1994: 551 as cited in Oliver, 2004:35).
Another way to manipulate criminals’ risk perception is by territorial reinforcement as offenders are often deterred from exhibiting criminal behaviour in places which are well supervised and the access control is difficult. More accurately, natural surveillance can be reached with the creation of effective sightlines among public and private space (Alexiadis, 2004). For instance, parklands with balanced landscaping and open sightlines and car parking facilities with light painted walls and ceilings. Furthermore, physical and symbolic barriers can restrict pedestrian and vehicle movement. As a consequence, the effort that one should use in order to commit a crime increases and minimises the opportunities for crime (Alexiadis, 2004). In addition, places where there is high pedestrian traffic make it difficult for potential offenders to reach potential targets and victims. According to Liverpool’s guidance ‘when people pass through an area they provide activity, security by “natural surveillance” and passing trade’ (Armitage, 2006: 139).
A further important point to make here is that ‘community safety should be seen as the legitimate concern of all in the local community’ (Home Office, 1991 as cited in Department of Criminology, 2006/07). Explicitly, another measure to deter potential offenders can be taken by citizens themselves. More accurately, the public can adopt some security measures to avoid the possibility of their own victimisation (Bowers and Johnson, 2005).
They can avoid being on streets late at night and they can refrain from cashing checks/pension. Moreover, they can park their cars in well-lightened areas, lock their doors etc. (Fyfe et al., 1997). It is important at this point to note that local authorities can encourage the public to be vigilant and take the above measures. For instance, they can put public reminders such as ‘Lock your Vehicle’ signs in car parks and ‘Thieves are operating in this area’ signs in areas with high theft rates (Bowers and Johnson, 2005).
From the above it becomes clear that risk theories that argued that people risk-calculate their choices, influence in a great degree the development of community safety strategies as they contribute to the concept of community policing and territorial reinforcement.
Nevertheless, people sometimes behave irrational or some seek risky situations as psychological approaches proposed. Under these circumstances, the local government could require from the criminal justice system more severe punishment and provide stricter surveillance over places and people (Alexiadis, 2004). Moreover, local authorities can take preventative measures to protect vulnerable sections of the community population who due to some characteristics (age, gender, race and physical deficiencies) include themselves into groups of highly possibility of victimisation (Department of Criminology, 2006/07). For instance, police officers can during policing survey more frequently places where these vulnerable groups usually are, such as playgrounds and places where ethnic minority groups are congregated (Alexiadis, 2004). This strategy can be effective, since regardless of the risk calculation that the potential offender does or does not, the potential victims are protected.
Similarly, local authorities can take measures that focus not on deterring potential offenders from committing crime or on the potential victims, but on making the community appear safe and the public to feel secure (Alexiadis, 2004). These strategies are mediated from social and cultural approaches. As it is mentioned above, territorial reinforcement can deter offenders from committing crimes. However, this measure also has a secondary function. By making places look safe, people feel some connection and affinity, namely they feel secure too (Alexiadis, 2004).
In addition, the existence of graffiti and/or rubbish constitutes evidence of ‘prior crime’ which generates fear. Council policies for removal of graffiti and rubbish collection practices can have a positive effect in people’s feelings of security within the community (Tilley, 1992).
Furthermore, some theories claim that crime is associated with unemployment and consequently with economic inequality (Vold, Bernard and Snipes, 2002). Although studies that have been conducted in this area are contradictory, there is some evidence that the relationship between unemployment and crime is positive and thus the local government can reduce the unemployment rate in the attempt to assure community safety. ‘Security and risk avoidance may be becoming dependent upon income and social status and therefore, by extension, community safety may also become related to wealth and area status’ (Beck as cited in Department of Criminology, 2006/07: 9-17).
Moreover, it is argued that social exclusion can directly contribute towards riots which can destroy quality of life and consequently community safety (Department of Criminology, 2006/07). Some people due to their class, ethnicity, age or gender are being marginalised and ignored within community and they react against this unfair treatment by exhibiting anti-social behaviour (Department of Criminology, 2006/07). Local authorities should take measures to consider these people’s political and social demands and depart any social injustices against them in order to accomplish safety within community (Lampropoulou, 2001). From the above it becomes clear that, social and cultural risk theories influence the development of community safety strategies in relation to the social, cultural and economic conditions of the community.
From the writer’s point of view, there are no specific boundaries between the above risk theories. Even though they present from a different aspect individuals’ assessment of risk, they do not necessarily oppose each other. On the contrary, they can be seen to complement each other offering valuable insight in people’s risk perception and contributing in a great degree to the development of community safety strategies (Department of Criminology, 2006/07). Thanks to these theories, the concept of policing has evolved and it has emerged the necessity of safe parks, schools, hospitals and in general of a safe community (Alexiadis, 2004).
Government, local authorities and the public cooperated in transferring a combination of all risk approaches into workable community safety strategies so as the public to be and feel secure.
In conclusion, risk theories are closely related to community safety strategies and they influence the development of these strategies in a great degree each one from a different perspective. There are theories of risk that propose that people are rational creatures who risk-calculating their decisions. According to this approach, people seek choices that lead to rewards and avoid whatever they can be punished for (Department of Criminology, 2006/07). Based upon this suggestion, community safety strategies can be developed by deterring potential offenders from exhibiting deviant behaviour. This can be achieved through policing, territorial reinforcement and measures in avoiding people their own victimisation (Bowers and Johnson, 2005).
Cognitive, psychometric and mental models are psychological approaches which claimed that people are irrational and they act mediated from their personal desires (Department of Civil Safety and Security, 2005/06). Therefore local authorities focus more on protecting citizens from being victims of a crime. On the other hand, social and cultural perspectives suggested that risk, like any other phenomenon, is socially constructed and that people are influenced from cultural background in their decision on avoiding or taking risks (Langford and McDonald, 1997). As a result, the local government can take measures that are related to the social, cultural and economic conditions of the community.
Despite their relative weaknesses, risk theories help local authorities to bring theory to practice and shape effective community safety strategies in order to guarantee security to the public in their everyday lives.
REFERENCES
Alexiadis, S. (2004), Criminology, 4th ed., Athens-Thessaloniki: Sakkoulas
Publications
Armitage, R. (2006), ‘Predicting and Preventing: Developing a Risk Assessment
Mechanism for Residential Housing’ in Crime Prevention and Community Safety:
An International Journal, 8: 137-149, accessed on 9th May 2009 at
http://www.palgrave-journals.com/cpcs/journal/v8/n3/abs/8150024a.html
Bowers, K. and Johnson, S. (2005), ‘Using Publicity for Preventive Purposes’, in
Tilley, N., Handbook of Crime Prevention and Community Safety, USA and
Canada: Willan Publishing, 329-354
Community Safety Unit (2009), ‘Community Safety: the Definition’, accessed on 27th
April 2009 at http://www.communitysafetyni.gov.uk
Department of Criminology (2006/07), MSc Criminology and Criminal Justice, Issues
in Community Safety, Module 3
Department of Criminology (2006/07), MSc Criminology and Criminal Justice,
Theories of Crime and Deviance, Module 1
Department of Institute of Lifelong Learning Civil Safety and Security (2005/06),
MSc in Risk, Crisis and Disaster Management, Module 2
Fyfe, J., Greene, J., Walsh, W., Wilson, O.W. and McLaren, R. (1997), Police
Administration, 5th ed., USA: The McGraw-Hill companies, Inc.
Gauntlett, D. (2001), ‘Anthony Giddens: Modernity, Post-Modernity and the Post-
Traditional’, accessed on 14th May 2009 at http://www.theory.org.uk/giddens3.htm
Home Office, Crime Reduction (2004), ‘Crime Reduction-Helping to Reduce Crime
in Your Area’, accessed on 16th May 2009 at
http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/learningzone/rct.htm
Hughes, G. (2008), ‘Crime Prevention, Community Safety, and Crime and Disorder
Reduction’, accessed on 1st May 2009 at
http://www.pbni.org.uk/bsgordonhughes.pdf
Lampropoulou, E. (2001), Community Safety and Society of Control, Athens: Kritiki
Publications
Langford, I. and McDonald, A.L. (1997), ‘Risk Perception, Health and
Environmental Change: A Multidimensional Model’, accessed on 9th May 2009 at
http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/cserge/pub/wp/gec/gec_1997_14.htm
Loader, I. and Sparks, R. (2007), ‘Contemporary Landscapes of Crime, Order and
Control: Governance, Risk and Globalization’, in Maguire, M., Morgan, R. and
Reiner, R., The Oxford Handbook of Criminology, 4th ed., New York: Oxford
University Press, 78-101
Oliver, W. (2004), Community-Oriented Policing: A Systematic Approach to
Policing, 3rd ed., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.
Squires, P. (1999), ‘Criminology and the “Community Safety” Paradigm: Safety,
Power and Success and the Limits of the Local’, The British Society of
Criminology, Vol. 2, speech given at the British Criminology Conference, accessed
on 29thApril 2009 at http://www.britsoccrim.org/volume2/012.pdf
Tilley, N. (1992), ‘Safer Cities and Community Safety Strategies’, accessed on 14th
May 2009 at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/prgpdfs/fcpu38.pdf
Vold, G., Bernard, T. and Snipes, J. (2002), Theoretical Criminology, 5th ed., Oxford:
Oxford University Press
