The current study explores the association between place features (e.g., schools, public transportation nodes, bars and restaurants) and perceived unsafe locations using data from two open-ended items in a cross sectional random sample community survey in Malmö, Sweden. Perceived unsafe locations in respondents’ own neighborhood and in other parts of the city are geocoded and merged with a 200 by 200-m grid-cell network. The data are analyzed using logistic regressions inspired by the Risk Terrain Modeling approach, where geographical representations of place features are used as predictors and geographical representations of unsafe locations used as outcomes. The results show that several place features are associated with unsafe locations, but the importance of different features seem to vary between outcomes. While grid-cells being near an elementary school, convenience store or park demonstrates significant associations with unsafety when respondent’s report locations in their own neighborhood, these patterns are weaker when considering unsafe locations in other parts of the city, where the most important variable is whether a grid-cell is located within a neighborhood defined as vulnerable by the national police agency. This indicates a qualitative difference in what types of locations are being reported as unsafe when respondents are asked about locations in their own neighborhood versus other parts of the city. These results contribute to the current body of research on place-based fear of crime, and the findings may offer guidance in better understanding why some places are perceived as unsafe and how public perceptions of safety may be improved.

Objectives: This study introduces and evaluates GraphTrace, a graph-based method for identifying crime hotspots suitable for CCTV placement. The method addresses key limitations in traditional spatial crime analysis techniques, such as rigid spatial divisions and reliance on heuristics, by dynamically modeling crime clusters with guaranteed distance constraints.

Methods: We evaluate GraphTrace using five years of official crime data (N = 125,512) from Malmö, Sweden, and compare its performance against four established spatial methods: Grid+KDE, K-Means, HDBScan, and Greedy PAI Maximization. Each method uses crime data from one year to identify high-crime locations used as suggested CCTV camera placements, which are then evaluated based on their ability to capture crimes occurring within a specified radius in the following year. For example, hotspots identified from 2019 data are assessed against 2020 crime data by counting how many crimes that fall within the radius of each location. Performance is measured using total crime counts and the Predictive Accuracy Index (PAI).

Results: GraphTrace significantly outperforms all comparison methods (p<0.05) in terms of both crime capture and PAI. Effect sizes using Cohen’s d range from 0.14 to 1.98, demonstrating up to very large improvements in PAI. Despite its performance, GraphTrace maintains feasible runtimes and scales well.

Conclusions: GraphTrace balances precision and computational efficiency by avoiding exhaustive pairwise comparisons while preserving spatial flexibility. Unlike grid-based methods, it does not segment the study area arbitrarily, and unlike many clustering heuristics, it enforces strict distance constraints. This study presents an initial evaluation and open-source implementation of GraphTrace for hotspot detection and CCTV placement, showing strong promise for spatial crime analysis.

The lack of research on why certain locations are perceived as unsafe has often been attributed to the scarcity of suitable data on place-based fear of crime. To address this gap, this study explores two spatial data collection methods applied in semi-rural areas of Kristianstad, Sweden. The first method uses a digital sketch map integrated with open-ended questions, accessed via an online web map platform, allowing participants to directly mark unsafe locations and resulting in geographically precise data on perceived fear of crime. The second method involves a random sample survey, employing open-ended questions to identify unsafe locations and circumstances, with responses geocoded into points, lines, or polygons for spatial inquiry. The study identifies similarities and differences in the geography of fear of crime derived from these methods. Strong alignment between the web map and survey is observed in both locations, and Spearman’s rank correlation also reveals a significant link between signal crimes and fear of crime. Kernel Density Estimation and Nearest Neighbour analysis reveal significant clusters of fear of crime in both areas, often overlapping with crime hotspots. The findings suggest that a convenience sample collected via a web application performs comparably to a traditional open-ended survey with a random sample, indicating that simpler and more cost-effective methods may be sufficient for capturing place-based fear of crime. This methodological insight supports pragmatic data collection and informs targeted, place-based fear of crime prevention strategies in both rural and urban contexts.

This anthology brings together researchers and practitioners from the fields of criminology and crime prevention in a shared ambition: to advance knowledge about the geographies of fear and unsafety and to address questions of where, when, and why people feel unsafe. By combining diverse perspectives, the anthology demonstrates that unsafety is not only about fear of crime, but also about how people experience their everyday environments. Feelings of unsafety emerge through the interaction between the individual, the place, and the social context – and vary depending on time, space, and personal experience. The anthology provides new insights into how fear of crime and unsafety is distributed across places, why some environments are perceived as more unsafe than others, and how different risk factors interact. At the same time, it highlights the challenges involved in measuring fear of crime and unsafety, and in designing effective interventions. For anyone working with, researching, or interested in issues of fear of crime and unsafety, this anthology offers a comprehensive knowledgebase for understanding the transition from geographies of unsafety to geographies of safety.

The editors of the anthology are Karl Kronkvist (Malmö University), Manne Gerell (Malmö University), and Nicklas Guldåker (Lund University/Nordregio). The anthology is published in Swedish.

I denna antologi återkommer det på flera ställen att otryggheten inte är jämntfördelad. I stället varierar otryggheten både mellan individer och rent geografiskt.Ofta presenteras en enda utvecklingsbana som beskriver om otryggheten ökar, minskar eller förblir stabil. I tidigare forskning beaktas sällan hurotrygghetsnivåer utvecklas i olika bostadsområden. Ett fåtal tidigare studier har6. OTRYGGHETENSUTVECKLINGSVÄGAR: EN ANALYS AVSVENSKA BOSTADSOMRÅDEN92dock indikerat att även om den generella nivån av otrygghet verkar ha legat på enrelativt stabil nivå över tid, finns skillnader där otryggheten uppvisar en annanutveckling i vissa typer av områden jämfört med andra (Ivert m.fl., 2015; DiRocco m.fl., 2023). Detta kapitel har en explorativ ansats, det vill sägautforskande ambitioner, och syftar till att undersöka i vilken utsträckning detfinns just olika utvecklingsvägar av otrygghet i svenska bostadsområden. Våruppfattning är att utvecklingsperspektivet är av stort intresse för att kunnaprioritera resurser i det trygghetsskapande arbetet. Om det finns flera distinktautvecklingsbanor mellan områden är det centralt att synliggöra dessa eftersom demed stor sannolikhet har betydelse för vilka insatser som bör prioriteras. Kapitletger inledningsvis en överblick över otrygghet med särskilt fokus påbostadsområdets betydelse för att därefter presentera resultat från en explorativanalys av utvecklingen av otrygghet i svenska bostadsområden över tid.

Politiker är en utsatt samhällsgrupp, något som inte minst har uppmärksammats medialt under senare tid. Faktum är att under 2024 uppgav en fjärdedel av förtroendevalda att de under föregående år utsatts för någon form av hot, trakasserier, våld, stöld eller skadegörelse på grund av sitt förtroendeuppdrag. Detta är något som i förlängningen kan bli ett demokratiskt problem då förtroendevalda påverkas i sitt politiska utövande. Mot denna bakgrund har Malmö stad beslutat att genomföra en trygghetsundersökning bland politiker inför valet 2026. Denna rapport tar avstamp i denna trygghetsundersökning. Undersökningen ska bistå med en kartläggning av situationen för förtroendevalda i Malmö samt deras behov av och tillgång till stöd för att förbättra möjligheterna att på ett adekvat sätt stötta förtroendevalda. Därtill ska undersökningen även bidra med ny kunskap om politikers utsatthet för brott i Malmö, samt hur deras situation avseende utsatthet och otrygghet förhåller sig till politiker nationellt samt till den svenska befolkningen i allmänhet.

Överraskande nog har vi, åtminstone fram tills nyligen, haft begränsad kunskapom var människor upplever otrygghet. Vi vet en hel del om vilka bostadsområdensom präglas av hög otrygghet, något som diskuterades i kapitel sex. Däremot harvi betydligt sämre kunskap var i bostadsområdet eller staden som otrygghetenfaktiskt tar form. Är det utanför den lokala matbutiken, på cykelvägen genomparken eller intill en populär nattklubb? Detta beror förstås på att det saknas8. VAR ÄR VI OTRYGGA OCH VADBEROR DET PÅ?118tillgänglig och platsspecifik statistik över otrygghet, till skillnad från exempelvisbrottslighet, där anmälda brott kan ge en bild av vilka platser som är mestbrottsaktiva. För att förstå var människor känner sig otrygga måste vi helt enkeltfråga dem och samtidigt ställa frågor om deras upplevelser, vilket har diskuteratsi kapitel fyra och fem i denna antologi. Under lång tid genomfördes detta genomintervjuer eller postenkäter, metoder som visserligen gav värdefull kunskap, mensom också är relativt kostsamma. Det senaste årtiondet har användandet av olikaapplikationer med kartfunktioner där otrygga platser kan markeras ökat, och idaganvänds dessa verktyg av både forskare och kommunala tjänstemän (se kap 7 och12). I det här kapitlet går vi igenom vad den nya forskningen om platsbaseradotrygghet har kommit fram till. Viktiga frågor för både forskning och praktik isammanhanget är följaktligen: Vad kännetecknar de platser som pekas ut somotrygga? Vilka förklaringar ges till otrygghet på dessa platser? Om vi vet varmänniskor känner sig otrygga och vad otryggheten beror på, kan vi också sätta inåtgärder för att minska den. Utan den kunskapen blir förebyggande åtgärder mototrygghet betydligt svårare.

Much research on individual differences in fear of crime has focused on broad demographic characteristics, such as age and gender, while considerably less attention has been directed toward psychological factors that may explain such differences. This is problematic, since relying on broad demographic characteristics neglects variation in fear of crime within large demographic groups. This study therefore provides further insights into the person–fear relationship by examining how a set of theoretically relevant psychological variables is associated with various types of fear of crime. A web survey (N = 499) was administered to measure a wide range of psychological variables potentially relevant to fear of crime, including two measures of anxiety, suspiciousness, beliefs about crime and justice, vulnerability, and coping. OLS regression models were estimated to examine how these variables are associated with three different fear of crime outcomes, net of individual controls, including demographics and previous victimization. Preliminary findings reveal that several psychological factors are significant predictors of fear of crime. For instance, conservative beliefs about crime and justice are positively associated with all types of fear of crime. Anxiety also emerges as an important predictor, although the two anxiety measures differ in their effects across outcomes. In contrast, vulnerability and coping do not exhibit significant effects on any outcome in the preliminary analyses. These findings remain stable when including individual controls, although being female and having experienced multiple victimizations in the past year are both positively associated with all outcomes. The preliminary overall conclusion from the study is that psychological factors are important when studying individual differences in fear of crime. Psychological variables should therefore be given greater consideration in fear of crime research. Future research using random sampling procedures is needed to examine the external validity of the preliminary findings in this study.

Much of the existing research on individual differences in fear of crime has primarily emphasized broad demographic factors, such as age and gender, while psychological dimensions have received comparatively limited attention. This study contributes to a deeper understanding of the person-fear nexus by analysing how a set of theoretically relevant psychological variables relate to different manifestations of fear of crime. Drawing on data from a web survey (N = 499), a series of regression models were conducted to examine associations between psychological characteristics and three distinct fear of crime outcomes. The results show that two personality traits, anxiousness and suspiciousness, as well as conservative beliefs about crime and justice, are positively linked to worry about victimisation even when controlling for individual characteristics. In relation to behavioural fear of crime, recent symptoms of anxiety and conservative crime related beliefs display positive associations with the outcome. For the third outcome, worry about victimisation in one's neighbourhood, anxiousness and conservative crime related beliefs again emerge as significant positive predictors. Overall, these findings underscore the relevance of psychological factors in the study of fear of crime, particularly various forms of anxiety and conservative views on crime and justice. However, because different psychological variables appear to matter for different fear of crime outcomes, the results also highlight the importance of conceptualising fear of crime as a multidimensional construct shaped by diverse psychological mechanisms.

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to examine changes in disorder and fear of crime in a disadvantaged neighbourhood following the implementation of a Business Improvement District (BID) organisation, a collaborative initiative designated to improve a defined geographical area.

Design/methodology/approach: A mixed-method design was used. The quantitative data was collected through an annual community survey with four pre-implementation and five post-implementation waves. Also a comparison area was included. The qualitative data was comprised of interviews with key informants in the community, which were completed before the organisation commenced its work and then again six years later.

Findings: Survey results revealed a reduction in disorder and fear of crime. This trend, albeit smaller, could be seen in the comparison area as well. Key informants further corroborated the reduction in disorder and fear of crime, attributing many of the neighbourhood changes to the organisation’s work.

Originality/value: This study is the first to evaluate whether BIDs can affect perceived disorder and fear of crime, relevant factors affecting crime levels and community well-being. Furthermore, it illustrates the benefits of using a comprehensive study design suitable for accounting for changes in a setting where it is difficult to isolate effects.