Skip to Main Content
 

Global Search Box

 
 
 
 

Files

File List


StarkweatherSarahIrene2002 dr.pdf (2.03 MB)

ETD Abstract Container

Abstract Header

Perceptions of Safety and the Rights to Space: Limitations and Strategic Responses

Starkweather, Sarah Irene
http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1393194978

Abstract Details

2002, Master of City and Regional Planning, Ohio State University, City and Regional Planning.
Using a mixed qualitative approach, and focusing on the experiences of undergraduates at The Ohio State University, three research questions were addressed. First, what characteristics of individuals, situations and locations influence individuals’ perceptions of safety? Second, how do perceptions of safety influence the use of campus spaces? Third, what strategies do individuals choose to counteract limitations on their use of space that may be imposed by perceptions of safety? Data were collected through two methods: the self¬-administered questionnaire and the semi-structured interview. Many factors influenced respondents’ perceptions of safety. Adequate lighting and the presence of others, various campus security measures, and the supposed isolation of campus from the surrounding city make students feel safer. Other influential factors included gender, race or ethnicity, physical confidence, personality, past and current places of residence, familiarity with campus, previous threatening experiences, and hearing of others being threatened. Also, certain places are perceived to be safer than others because of specific design features, reputation, or both. Perceptions of personal safety may limit students’ (particularly female students’) access to campus spaces and, therefore, their access to certain university facilities and activities. Spatial restrictions are a violation of students’ rights to space. However, many respondents displayed a tendency to downplay limitations on their use of campus space by viewing such limitations as “natural” and “smart” (especially for women). Whether or not they perceived access to campus spaces as an issue of spatial rights, students described strategies they have adopted in response to spatial limitations imposed by perceptions of safety. Three types of strategies can be identified: isolation strategies (avoiding certain places or situations); precautionary strategies (venturing into threatening spaces but compensating for a perceived lack of safety); and boldness strategies (feeling unafraid). Three key conclusions have implications for future research: a complex set of factors determines individuals’ perception of safety; spatial limitations can be viewed as an issue of rights; and there are many strategies for managing fear, including choosing not to be afraid. This research also has implications for policy-making related to making people feel safer, and to facilitating their strategic responses to perceptions of safety.
Jack Nasar (Advisor)
Eugene McCann (Advisor)
Mei-Po Kwan (Committee Member)
Hazel Morrow-Jones (Committee Member)
181 p.
Civil Engineering

Recommended Citations

Citations

  • Starkweather, S. I. (2002). Perceptions of Safety and the Rights to Space: Limitations and Strategic Responses [Master's thesis, Ohio State University]. OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1393194978

    APA Style (7th edition)

  • Starkweather, Sarah. Perceptions of Safety and the Rights to Space: Limitations and Strategic Responses. 2002. Ohio State University, Master's thesis. OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center, http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1393194978.

    MLA Style (8th edition)

  • Starkweather, Sarah. "Perceptions of Safety and the Rights to Space: Limitations and Strategic Responses." Master's thesis, Ohio State University, 2002. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1393194978

    Chicago Manual of Style (17th edition)

osu1393194978
141
© 2002, all rights reserved.
This open access ETD is published by The Ohio State University and OhioLINK.