Social Capital and Feelings of Unsafety in Later Life

Abstract

The aim of this study was to examine the relation between social capital, defined in terms of social ties, place attachment, and civic participation, and feelings of unsafety in later life. Survey data for 24,962 people aged 60 years and older from 85 municipalities across Belgium provided the empirical evidence for the analysis. The results of the multiple regression analysis reveal that a lack of opportunities for political participation is the most important factor in interpreting feelings of unsafety. In addition, several features of place attachment proved to be associated with feelings of unsafety, such as neighborhood satisfaction and neighborhood involvement. Finally, some recommendations to reduce feelings of unsafety among older people are discussed. The results point to the need to enhance opportunities to give older people a voice in the process of political decision making as an important action in reducing feelings of unsafety.

Keywords

fear of crime feelings of insecurity social capital social networks place attachment political participation older adults

The relationship between feelings of unsafety and quality of life in old age is a topic of increasing interest. A number of scholars have pointed to the negative consequences of feelings of unsafety for individuals, both in terms of psychological issues (life dissatisfaction, distrust) (Adams & Serpe, 2000) as well as in terms of financial costs (Dolan & Peasgood, 2007). Much research shows that feelings of unsafety increase with age (e.g., De Donder, Verté, & Messelis, 2005; Van den Bogaerde, Van Den Steen, & De Bie, 2009). However, there is only limited research on the diversity of factors that heighten feelings of unsafety in later life.

The majority of research on determinants of feelings of unsafety has focused on the impact of crime (Lee, 2007) and on crime-related aspects of the physical design of the neighborhood (i.e., disorder and incivilities), while other determinants of feelings of unsafety in later life have generally been underacknowledged (Acierno, Rheingold, Resnick, & Kilpatrick, 2004). Conversely, much less is known about the role of social capital. Although the positive effects of social capital on the subjective well-being of older people (Litwin & Shiovitz-Ezra, 2011), their health (Pollack and von dem Knesebeck, 2004), quality of life (Nilsson, Rana, & Kabir, 2006), and levels of mortality (Kawachi, Kennedy, Lochner, & Prothrow-Stith, 1997) have long been recognized, research is only just beginning to unravel its relation with feelings of unsafety in later life (Ferguson & Mindel, 2007).

Nevertheless, several authors point to an increasing need to investigate the influence of the social environment on feeling safe (e.g., Carro, Valera, & Vidal, 2010; Dallago et al., 2009). Pain (2000), for example, argued that social relationships in the local environment may be a more decisive factor in reducing feelings of unsafety than the physical outlook. Moreover, some studies have acknowledged the value of the quantity of social ties to reduce feelings of unsafety (e.g., Kanan & Pruitt, 2002; Rountree & Land, 1996). However, much less is known about, for example, the role of active participation in civic activities (Dallago et al., 2009) or participation in informal care (Martinson & Minkler, 2006).

Against this background, further research is needed that identifies the ways in which various dimensions of social capital can either increase or decrease older people’s feelings of unsafety. In this study, we seek to identify the relation between social capital, taking on board a broader array of indicators including social ties, place attachment, and civic participation, and feelings of unsafety in later life. This is particularly relevant in the context of creating age-inclusive communities. Feeling safe is a key issue for ensuring older people’s independence, social participation, and social inclusion in their neighborhoods (World Health Organization, 2007).

Theoretical Background

Feelings of Unsafety and Social Capital: Concepts

The theme of feelings of unsafety has gained much prominence in the literature and in social policy over the past 40 years. This increasing attention has been accompanied by a shift in definition from a rationalist to a more symbolic approach (Elchardus, De Groof, & Smits, 2008). In the rationalist paradigm, fear of crime is seen as a consequence of risk and vulnerability with regard to crime and victimization (Elchardus et al., 2008). In contrast, the symbolic paradigm suggests that feelings of unsafety cannot be understood as a single result of fear of becoming a victim of crime but rather as a manifestation of a wide range of daily insecurities (Hale, 1996; Jackson, 2006). Jackson (2004), for instance, argued that crime is a “symbolically dense concept,” as it refers to people’s concerns about social problems related to their livelihoods and future stability. People feel unsafe because they express concerns about community and neighborhood problems and the decline of social capital (Elchardus et al., 2008; Jackson, 2009a). Although victimization studies in the United States and the United Kingdom have been conducted on a frequent basis since the 1970s, research on victimization in Belgium has been executed only since 1997. The results of those victimization studies demonstrate that between 2002 and 2008, feelings of unsafety and crime rates of Belgian residents slightly decreased (Van den Bogaerde et al., 2009).

Throughout the years, the concept of social capital has received increasing policy and academic interest. Drawing on the work of Bourdieu (1986), Coleman (1988), and Putnam (Putnam, Leonardi, & Nanetti, 1993; Putnam, 2000), the concept has been defined in many different ways. In essence, social capital includes an array of social contacts that give access to social, emotional, and practical support, local institutions, and to the interconnections between “trust, norms and networks” (Putnam et al., 1993). The term often indicates a wide variety of aspects relating to the “degree of social interaction within communities and families” and “civic participation and associational activity” (Forrest & Kearns, 2001, p. 2129). In this study, we examine three components of social capital: social ties, place attachment, and civic participation. It is stated and widely documented that social capital generates positive outcomes (e.g., Gray, 2009; Li, Pickles, & Savage, 2005), but its relation with feelings of unsafety is less clear (Ferguson & Mindel, 2007).

Social Capital and Feelings of Unsafety: Theory and Empirical Evidence

In studying the relation between social capital and feelings of unsafety, studies can lay emphasis on different domains of social capital. In this article, we elaborate on three components: social ties, place attachment, and civic participation or engagement.

Social ties

As for social ties, the “convoy model” of social relations provides a theoretical base on which to describe and explain differences in health and well-being (Antonucci, Birditt, & Akiyama, 2009). The term convoy encompasses the different, close social ties of an individual. Antonucci et al. (2009) distinguished several components of social relations. The first component refers to structural characteristics of the social network, such as the number of people in one’s network, the relationship with the individual, and the contact frequency. These social relations may also promote health and well-being through the benefits that they create through the exchange of social support. Social support, the second component in the model, includes the people in the social network who might offer support in terms of providing help and emotional support or even by giving affirmation.

The convoy model is most often used to study the effect of social relations on health and psychological well-being (Antonucci et al., 2009). In addition, a number of studies have demonstrated that social ties are characteristics that can reduce feelings of unsafety (e.g., Ferguson & Mindel, 2007; Rountree & Land, 1996). Supportive social ties can enhance well-being and health in general and feelings of unsafety in particular (Ferguson & Mindel, 2007). Kanan and Pruitt (2002), for example, found a negative relationship between the number of social contacts in the neighborhood and feelings of unsafety.

Further research exploring the relation between social ties, social support, and feelings of unsafety among older people is needed for two reasons. First, although most studies address the size and composition of elders’ networks, the relation with social support is less researched. Second, from a life span and developmental point of view, it has been suggested that social relationships change over a person’s course of life (Antonucci et al., 2009). Ajrouch, Antonucci, and Janevic (2001) concluded that older people have smaller social networks and that they have less frequent social contact in comparison with younger people. Moreover, as it is suggested that in particular among older people, social bonds have a positive impact on feelings of safety, there is a clear need for incorporating social network characteristics in the study of feelings of unsafety in later life (Acierno et al., 2004; Beaulieu, Dubé, Bergeron, & Cousineau, 2007).

Place attachment

Some studies addressing feelings of unsafety have focused on the role of place attachment, which is often seen as a component of social capital. Place attachment concerns the affective, positive bonds between individuals and their homes and neighborhoods. These positive bonds often involve feelings of pride and satisfaction about the local area (Brown, Perkins, & Brown, 2003). Particularly in the case of older people, studies have highlighted a strong relationship between older people and their neighborhoods as a source of social identity (Gilleard, Hyde, & Higgs, 2007; Phillipson, Bernard, Phillips, & Ogg, 1999).

The neighborhood is of particular importance in understanding feelings of unsafety. People return to their local living environments, which hold a feeling of being warm, familiar, and safe places (Bauman, 2001). Moreover, neighborhood attachment refers to stability, familiarity, and security (Brown et al., 2003). Studies that address such place attachment and feelings of unsafety distinguish between two domains: neighborhood satisfaction and neighborhood involvement. First, examining the association between neighborhood satisfaction and feelings of unsafety, satisfaction with the neighborhood appeared to be a significant predictor of feelings of unsafety (Baba & Austin, 1989; Carro et al., 2010; Dallago et al., 2009; Ferguson & Mindel, 2007), a finding that was confirmed in an elderly sample (McCoy, Wooldredge, Cullen, Dubeck, & Browning, 1996). Second, neighborhood involvement is considered a key variable in measuring the relationship between place attachment and feelings of unsafety (Hale, 1996; Kanan & Pruitt, 2002; McCrea, Shyy, Western, & Stimson, 2005; Ross & Jang, 2000). Although most studies have discovered no relation and concluded that neighborhood commitment or emotional investment in the neighborhood yields no meaningful contribution to research on feelings of unsafety (Kanan & Pruitt, 2002; McCrea et al., 2005; Ross & Jang, 2000), Hale (1996) suggested that the positive influence of commitment to the neighborhood on feelings of unsafety was especially marked among elderly people.

Civic participation

Another important element of social capital is civic participation. Putnam et al. (1993) and Putnam (2000) considered civic engagement and participation in associational activities to cause a more cohesive society and higher trust in government. Drawing on the work of Putnam, most of the studies examining civic participation have measured the influence of membership of formal organizations. In relation with feelings of unsafety, Hale (1996) suggested that membership in formal organizations is positively related to feelings of safety. However, these findings are contradicted by several studies concluding that the influence of participation in formal activities is not significant (Baba & Austin, 1989; McCoy et al., 1996; Ross & Jang, 2000). Moreover, Van den Herrewegen (2010) suggested that stimulating civic participation is not always beneficial to an individual and can even be “detrimental to people’s perception of safety” (p. 85).

Several cautions should be mentioned in this matter. First, the lack of a precise definition of civic participation has been criticized (Martinson & Minkler, 2006), and some authors have used a broader definition: Civic participation refers to voluntary or paid participation with a direct impact on the local community, membership in associations, and political participation (Kaskie & Gerstner, 2004; Morrow-Howell, 2010). Second, it can be noted that in studying civic participation and feelings of unsafety, participation in formal organizations is generally only measured through membership of neighborhood watch schemes¹ (Hale 1996). Studies have failed to adequately consider active participation in other, organized civic activities (Dallago et al., 2009). Third, most research on social capital does not discriminate between informal and formal participation and examines only membership in voluntary associations (Li et al., 2005). In addition, membership in voluntary associations is measured predominantly by examining male-dominated activities (Lowndes, 2000). Lowndes (2000) gave the example of Putnam’s famous study on social capital in Italy, in which 73% of the associations questioned were sports clubs, whereas only 1% involved health and social services. Moreover, social networks that involve informal care are hardly ever (if ever) considered in research on social capital (Martinson & Minkler, 2006) or in relation to feelings of unsafety.

Purpose

In sum, the literature acknowledges the important role of social capital for the well-being of older people (Gray, 2009), yet its relation with feelings of unsafety in later life is less clear. In investigating the importance of components of social capital on feelings of unsafety, most studies have examined only one aspect, either only social ties (Acierno et al., 2004; Kennedy & Silverman, 1984) or only place attachment (e.g., Adams & Serpe, 2000; Franklin, Franklin, & Fearn, 2008), and few studies have included civic participation. Moreover, social capital theory suggests that these components are causally related to each other. To enhance our understanding of the interrelationship among aspects of three key components of social capital and older people’s feelings of unsafety, we seek to identify the relationship between social capital, measured in terms of social ties, place attachment, and civic participation, and feelings of unsafety.

First, drawing from the propositions of the convoy model and given the established empirical evidence for the positive influence of social relations on well-being, it is hypothesized that older people who have more frequent contact with other people and who can rely on those people for social support experience lower levels of feelings of unsafety. Furthermore, we seek to identify which members of a social network are most influential in the case of feelings of unsafety among older people.

Second, the literature review has demonstrated that research on place attachment and feelings of unsafety produce mixed results. Nevertheless, because it is suggested that when people age, their attachment to their residential environment increases (Gilleard et al., 2007), place attachment could be of particular importance in explaining feelings of unsafety among older people. Moreover, we aim to determine which aspects of place attachment are key determinants in relation to feelings of unsafety in later life.

Third, civic participation is considered an essential domain of social capital. We aim to shed light on the relationship between civic participation and feelings of unsafety by testing the hypothesis that participation in formal organizations, participation in informal care, and political participation relate to lower levels of feelings of unsafety. Finally, we seek to identify which components of civic participation add most to explaining feelings of unsafety among older people.

Data and Methods

Data Collection

The data for this study originated from the Belgian Ageing Studies, a research project conducted in several municipalities in the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium (Flanders) since 2004. This project aimed to gather information from home-dwelling residents aged 60 years and older about their perceptions of various aspects related to quality of life and living conditions in later life. The survey used a highly structured questionnaire to examine several issues, such as older people’s attitudes, neighborhood features, participation, feelings of unsafety, and well-being.

The data collection method of the Belgian Ageing Studies was designed to maximize the response of older people. The research project was developed and carried out in cooperation with the provincial government, local authorities, and local senior organizations. On the basis of the principles of peer research, peers were involved as voluntary partners in the research data collection. These older volunteers were recruited in the municipality. In each municipality, between 30 and 100 older volunteers participated in the project. The volunteers invited respondents to participate in the research project by sending them a letter and subsequently contacting the respondents face to face a few days later. The questionnaire was meant to be self-administered, although volunteers were allowed to clarify the meanings of questions if requested. To perform these tasks, all volunteers received several training sessions. Respondents were assured of the voluntary nature of their partaking, their right to refuse to answer, and the privacy of their responses. Neither the respondents nor the volunteers received any remuneration for their participation.

Depending on the municipality, interviews were completed with 65% to 85% of the eligible persons who were contacted. To reduce the potential bias of nonresponse, volunteers received replacement addresses in the same quota category to exchange for respondents who refused or were hampered in filling in the questionnaire.

Sampling

The scope of the survey consisted of home-dwelling elders aged 60 years and older. The present study is based on data gathered in 85 municipalities. These municipalities were not randomly selected. Each municipality could freely decide to participate in the research project or not. In each municipality, a sample was randomly selected from the census records by the local government. A proportional stratified sampling method was applied per municipality by using gender and age (60 to 69, 70 to 79 years, and ≥80 years) as stratification variables. The sampling fraction depended on the size of the municipality, varying between 182 and 1,592. Consequently, these numbers were not representative at a national level, but every sample was representative for the specific municipality.

Cases with missing responses to the main measures (described in greater detail in the next section) were excluded. This procedure resulted in a sample of 24,962 respondents. Approximately 55.8% of the households had to manage with monthly incomes of less than €1,500. Respondents ranged in age from 60 to 99 years, with a median of 70 years. More than half of the respondents were women, and 72.3% of the respondents were married. Only 3.4% of respondents had university degrees, whereas 37.5% had attended only primary school.

Measures

The dependent variable, feelings of unsafety, was measured using eight items:

You have to be extra careful when you are out on the streets at night.

These days it is not safe to be out on the streets at night.

These last ten years the streets have become less safe.

After nightfall I don’t open the door when someone rings.

These days it is not safe to let children out on the streets without supervision.

I seldom go out alone because I am afraid of being mugged.

These days an alarm system is more than just a gadget.

When I go away on holiday I don’t dare to leave my house unwatched.

Answer categories ranged from completely disagree (1) to completely agree (5). This eight-item scale was considered appropriate for older people: The Elders Feelings of Unsafety scale was validated among older adults, using confirmatory factor analyses, χ²(18) = 116.63, p < .001; goodness-of-fit estimates were as follows: goodness-of-fit index = .97, Tucker-Lewis index = .96, comparative fit index = .97, and root mean square error of approximation = .074 (90% interval = .062 to .087). Confirmatory factor analysis produced factor loadings ranging from .59 to .82. On the basis of these measures of overall fit, there is evidence that the hypothesized model of feelings of unsafety is a good-fitting model. The one-factor model proved to be internally consistent, with a Cronbach’s α value of .89. The Elders Feelings of Unsafety scale is a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (feeling completely safe) to 5 (feeling completely unsafe).

Several items related to social ties were taken into account: quantity and potential social support from the social network. To measure the quantity of the social network, respondents were asked how often they had contact (paying a visit, receiving a visit, or calling on the telephone) with a number of personal network members: children, children-in-law, grandchildren, brothers and sisters, other relatives, friends or acquaintances, and neighbors. For each group they could answer whether this contact happened never (1), less than once a month (2), monthly (3), 1 to 2 times per week (4), or on a daily (or almost daily) basis (5). Additionally, respondents could indicate whether they experienced a shortage of family, friends, or acquaintances in their neighborhoods (1 = yes, 2 = no). To assess potential social support from the social network, respondents were asked, “Imagine you could not do the activities you usually do in the housekeeping anymore for a certain while, whom could you call on for help?” Possible persons were partner, daughter, son, daughter-in-law, son-in-law, sister or brother (or sister-in-law or brother-in-law), other relative, neighbor, and friend or acquaintance. Answer categories were no (1) and yes (2).

Place attachment is measured through neighborhood satisfaction and neighborhood involvement. To assess neighborhood satisfaction, respondents were asked to rate the item “Would you say that this is a neighborhood you enjoy living in?” using a 5-point, Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all enjoyable) to 5 (very enjoyable). The next three questions inquired which statements about the satisfaction of the social composition of the neighborhood were applicable to the respondent’s neighborhood, such as “Too many foreigners live in the neighborhood” (1 = yes, 2 = no). Finally, respondents were also asked to what extent they felt involved in their neighborhoods. Participants could specify their “level of involvement” from not at all involved (1) to very involved (5).

The next set of questions measured features of civic participation. Informal care was measured by two questions asking (a) whether the respondents helped ill, disabled, or elderly relatives or neighbors and (b) whether they sometimes looked after children from their neighborhoods, circles of acquaintances, or families. To measure formal participation, participants scored several items related to a broad range of formal activities: social associations, cultural participation, voluntary work, and political participation. Twenty-one possible social associations or clubs were presented to the respondents, varying from hobby clubs to associations for amateur practice of art, from antipollution organizations to fan clubs, from peace-associations to sports clubs. All items were summed, and one variable was created: the number of memberships in associations. Analogously, one variable of cultural participation was created: participation or not in cultural activities. Respondents were asked how often they attended a list of 20 types of cultural events during the past year, such as classical theater, cabaret, classical ballet, contemporary dance, jazz, commercial film, and variety. The sum of these variables was recoded as 0 = participated in zero cultural events in the past year and 1 = participated in at least one cultural event in the past year. Next, older adults had to indicate whether they participated in voluntary work or not (1 = no volunteer work, 2 = volunteer work). In terms of political participation, the residents were questioned to what extent they had experienced insufficient opportunities for political participation. Possible answer categories were never (1), seldom (2), sometimes (3), and often (4). Finally, they were asked whether they could score the influence of elderly people regarding the municipal policy as well as about their influence on the organization of the neighborhood. Possible answer categories ranged from very bad (1) to very good (5).

Gender, age, number of children, and marital status were incorporated as individual control variables in the data analyses. On the basis of preliminary analysis, marital status was recoded as widowed or not widowed. Finally, five objective area-level variables were included in the analysis: sociodemographic information (population size and migration saldo²), socioeconomic profile (average level of income in the municipality), number of road accidents, and crime rate, both in the past year. All indicators were measured on the level of municipalities; these numbers are based on the total population in a particular municipality and not aggregated across municipalities (Study Service of the Flemish Government, 2011).

Analysis Plan

Our aim was to predict the relationship between feelings of unsafety and social capital—measured as social ties, place attachment, and civic participation—controlling for age, gender, marital status, and number of children. First, Pearson’s correlations were used to evaluate the associations between feelings of unsafety and the social capital indicators, by identifying significant relationships at a bivariate level. Variables that did not significantly correlate with feelings of unsafety were not included in the next step of the analysis. In addition, collinearity diagnostics were assessed to detect high correlations between independent variables. The cutoff criterion was set at a variance inflation factor > 2.0, indicating a multicollinearity problem (Field, 2006). Consequently, variables with a multicollinearity problem were omitted. Finally, a multiple linear regression analysis was used to measure the relative importance of each independent variable. The stepwise method was used, building up the model gradually, adding variables to the model when a significant predictive value to the outcome variable occurred (Field, 2006). All analyses were performed in SPSS 17.0 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL). Given the large sample size, statistical significance was set at p < .01 for all analyses.

Results

Table 1 summarizes the descriptive statistics (percentages and means) for the dependent and independent variables. Considering social ties, the results of the total sample indicate that neighbors are the most frequent contacted group in one’s social network. While 42% of the elderly population had almost daily contacts with their children or children-in-law, 52.3% had almost daily contacts with their neighbors.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics (Percentages and Means)

Characteristic	%	M (SD)
Control variables
Gender (female)	51.9
Marital status (widowed)	20.4
Age (years)		70.63 (7.69)
Number of children		2.33 (1.52)
Objective area-level indicator
Population size		23,514 (18,672)
Average income per year (Ι)		15,644 (1,729)
Number of road accidents per year		121.50 (209.16)
Crime rate per year		1,050.97 (2,502.36)
Migration saldo		76.26 (109.11)
Social ties
Quantity of social ties
(About) daily contact with children and children-in-law	42.2
(About) daily contact with grandchildren	25.6
(About) daily contact with brothers and sisters	6.3
(About) daily contact with other relatives	2.6
(About) daily contact with friends and acquaintances	9.9
(About) daily contact with neighbors	51.2
Insufficient friends and acquaintances in the neighborhood	23.7
Can count on practical support of
Partner	65.8
Daughter	55.8
Son	50.0
Daughter-in-law	36.8
Son-in-law	36.7
Grandchild or great-grandchild	31.7
Brother or sister (in-law)	33.0
Other relative	21.2
Neighbors	44.1
Friend or acquaintance	43.5
Place attachment
Neighborhood satisfaction
Enjoy living in the neighborhood	33.8
Agree with: only older people in the neighborhood	19.4
Agree with: too many young people in the neighborhood	4.4
Agree with: too many foreigners in the neighborhood	4.1
Feeling very involved in the neighborhood	33.2
Civic participation
Participation in informal networks
Caring for sick or older people	30.7
Looking after children	44.6
Participation in formal organizations
Membership of a social association or club	70.4
Participating in cultural activities	53.4
Voluntary associations	17.1
Political participation
Seldom or often insufficient opportunities for participation	28.1
(Very) good influence on local policy	31.3
(Very) good influence on organization of the neighborhood	28.9
Feelings of unsafety		3.44 (0.90)

Looking at social support, the results demonstrated that 65.8% of the older adults stated they could count on their partners for support when needed, somewhat more than half of them could rely for support on their children, and over 42% indicated that they were able to rely on their friends and on their neighbors.

A second group of variables was related to the concept of place attachment. The results indicated that almost one third of the respondents very much enjoyed living in their neighborhoods. Almost one fifth of the respondents agreed with the statement that “too many older people live in the neighborhood.” Conversely, 4.4% of older adults felt there were too many young people in their neighborhoods. Almost one third felt very involved in their neighborhoods.

On the matter of civic participation, the results indicated that over 30% of the respondents cared for sick or older people and 45.4% regularly looked after children. Regarding participation in formal associations, over 70% were active in social associations, and 17.1% volunteered. With regard to political participation, 31.4% of older people perceived their influence on local policy to be good or very good.

Next to subjective feelings of social capital, several objective area-level indicators were included in the research. The average population size of the participating municipalities was 23,514 inhabitants, and the average income per inhabitant was €15,644. Over the past year, on average, 121.5 road accidents occurred, and 1,050.97 crimes were committed. The average migration saldo per municipality was 76.26 citizens per 1,000 inhabitants, indicating that more people entered the city than left it.

With regard to the bivariate correlations analysis (Pearson’s ρ) for the regression variables, most independent variables showed statistically significant relationships with feelings of unsafety (data not shown), except for potential support from daughter, potential support from son-in-law, and number of contacts with grandchildren. Moreover, two objective area-level variables were not significantly related with feelings of unsafety: migration saldo and crime rates. Therefore, they were not included in the regression analysis. Furthermore, variance inflation factor and tolerance statistics indicated a multicollinearity problem with the item “being able to count for support on the partner.” Consequently, this variable was omitted in further analyses.

Table 2 presents the multiple linear regression coefficients of the regression analysis between social capital and feelings of unsafety. The regression model explained 9.5% of the total variation in feelings of unsafety.

Table 2.

Multiple Linear Regression Coefficients of Indicators of Social Capital on Feelings of Unsafety

Variable	B	SE	Std. B
Control variables
Age	.013	.001	.111*
Gender (female)	.297	.013	.167*
Marital status (widowed)	.062	.018	.028*
Number of children	−.037	.004	−.063*
Objective area-level indicators
Population size	.000	.000	.036*
Social ties
Quantity of social contacts
Friends and acquaintances	−.024	.006	−.030*
Place attachment
Neighborhood satisfaction
Enjoy living in the neighborhood	−.052	.009	−.047*
Too many young people in the neighborhood	.090	.030	.021**
Only older people in the neighborhood	.073	.016	.032*
Too many foreigners in the neighborhood	.318	.032	.071*
Feelings of neighborhood involvement	−.023	.006	−.029*
Civic participation
Participation in formal organizations
Social associations or clubs	−.011	.003	−.026*
Voluntary associations	−.110	.019	−.047*
Cultural participation	−.042	.013	−.023**
Political participation
Insufficient possibilities for participation	.095	.007	.103*
Adjusted R²	9.5%

p < .001. **p < .01.

As for social ties, one indicator of the quantity of the social network generated significant coefficients. Respondents who had more frequent contact with friends and acquaintances experienced fewer feelings of unsafety.

Furthermore, the model stresses the importance of place attachment in interpreting feelings of unsafety. All indicators of neighborhood satisfaction and neighborhood involvement were significantly related to feelings of unsafety. Enjoying living in the neighborhood decreased feelings of unsafety. Next, older people reporting too many older people, too many young people, or too many foreigners in their neighborhoods experienced higher levels of feelings of unsafety. Finally, older people who were more involved in their neighborhoods reported feeling safer.

As shown in Table 2, some features of civic participation were related to feelings of unsafety. The strongest relationship was detected with insufficient opportunities for political participation. Older people experiencing problems with exercising political influence felt more unsafe. Second, participation in voluntary associations was related to lower feelings of unsafety. Respondents who were active as volunteers felt safer than elderly people who did not volunteer. Finally, more memberships of social organizations or clubs and participating in cultural activities contributed to experiencing higher levels of feelings of safety.

Moreover, one objective area-level indicator (population size) was significantly related to feelings of unsafety, although the regression coefficients were very weak and even negligible. More important, these results indicate that regardless of several objective indicators of social disorganization several features of one’s social capital were significantly related with feelings of unsafety.

Finally, several indicators of social capital were not significantly related to feelings of unsafety. In particular, the quantity of contacts with children, siblings other relatives and neighbors, potential social support, the lack of friends and family in the neighborhood, informal care, and influence on local policy and organization of the neighborhood did not predict feelings of unsafety among older people.

Discussion

Our aim in this study was to identify the relation between social capital, measured as social ties, place attachment, and civic participation, and feelings of unsafety in an elderly sample. We can conclude that the explained variance of feelings of unsafety by the diverse indicators of social capital remains moderate, and several indicators appear to be irrelevant. The following section provides an extensive discussion of features of social capital related to feelings of unsafety.

The first domain of social capital included in this study concerns social ties (both quantity and potential support of the social network). The results confirm the convoy model (Antonucci et al., 2009) only modestly. In particular, this study provides only evidence for the importance of maintaining frequent social contacts with friends. Indeed, our data suggest that the quantity of contacts with friends or acquaintances is of more importance in feeling safer than that with close relatives such as children or the partner. A possible explanation is that older people with many friends feel safer because of the social support they may receive from their friends (Gubrium, 1974). Different types of social support exist, and although our results do not confirm the importance of practical social support from friends and acquaintances in reducing feelings of unsafety, the influence of emotional and financial support remains unaddressed and needs to be examined in future research. Finally, although several studies have demonstrated the importance of the number of contacts with neighbors in reducing feelings of unsafety (e.g., Franklin et al., 2008; Kanan & Pruitt 2002; Lee, 1983; Oh & Kim, 2009), this could not be confirmed in the present study.

The second domain of social capital that we have explored is place attachment. The findings show that all indicators of place attachment contribute to predicting a participant’s feelings of unsafety. The results indicate that general neighborhood satisfaction is related to higher feelings of safety. The findings on general neighborhood satisfaction are in line with previous research, suggesting that the more satisfied people are with their neighborhoods, the less they feel unsafe (Dallago et al., 2009; Ferguson & Mindel, 2007; Markowitz, Bellair, Liska, & Liu, 2001; McCoy et al., 1996).

Furthermore, in studying satisfaction of the social composition of the neighborhood, the perception of too many foreigners in the neighborhood is positively related to feelings of unsafety. On one hand, this finding may suggest that feelings of unsafety can be understood as a profound fear of strangers (Biderman, Johnson, McIntyre, & Weir, 1967). The concept of stranger danger is most often used in research on feelings of unsafety among women. This suggests that even while most harassments or threats come from familiar persons, negative experiences with male strangers are more salient predictors of fear (Scott, 2003). Furthermore, in the idyllic construction of community, warm relationships are strongly linked to the notion of safety. Thereby, “others” or “strangers” are perceived as intruders into a warm and safe community: “The stranger or outsider becomes the personification of anti-community and of the threat to the security and stability of rural society” (Little, Panelli, & Kraack, 2005, p. 154). Moreover, stereotyping others or strangers may reinforce one’s own social identity (Jackson, 2009a). On the other hand, this fear of strangers should not be overestimated, as only 4.1% of older adults indicate that there are too many foreigners in their neighborhoods. Nevertheless, policy makers could concentrate on building bridges between different cultural groups. Neighborhood organizations can be encouraged to open their doors to nonclassical members or to cooperate with other organizations in the locality. An open and welcoming neighborhood motivates newcomers to integrate (World Health Organization, 2007).

The reported findings on perceiving too many older people in the neighborhood suggest that an exclusive emphasis on reinforcing homogeneous social ties could have perverse effects. Policy makers should therefore not only strive for a reinforcement of social capital among older people but take into account all residents of the neighborhood. At present, policy makers often develop plans for senior organizations, senior activities, senior meetings, and so on. However, an exclusive emphasis on peer activities could create higher feelings of unsafety. Hence, intergenerational activities are more desirable than activities exclusively for older people (World Health Organization, 2007). Attempts should be made to include older people in regular activities, which are adapted to different ages.

Third, this study has incorporated indicators of participation in informal networks, participation in formal organizations, and political participation. Older people who are members of social associations or clubs or contribute to voluntary associations show lower feelings of unsafety. Similar results are endorsed in the literature (Lee, 1983). Furthermore, it is worthwhile mentioning that many studies measure participation in local organizations through membership of neighborhood watch schemes. Some studies concluded that this increases the levels of feelings of unsafety (Hale, 1996; Ross & Jang, 2000), whereas others (Oh & Kim, 2009) concluded that participation in neighborhood watch schemes is not significant. However, when other, non-crime-related associations (such as recreational, administrative, or educational activities) are taken into account, participation in social and cultural organizations or executing voluntary work is significantly related to lower feelings of unsafety (Lee, 1983).

Finally, findings indicated that experiencing insufficient opportunities for political participation increases feelings of unsafety the most. Policy hardly ever recognizes this form of formal social control and its impact on a sense of safety (Crawford, 1999). Important recommendations in this matter are giving older people a voice and a role in the policy process, providing them with opportunities to bring solutions to specific problems and to communicate successes and failures (Forrest & Kearns, 2001).

The present findings should be considered in the light of the following limitations, each raising questions to be addressed in future research. The first limitation concerns the rather modest levels of explained variance. This points to the fact that understanding feelings of unsafety among older people requires more than just the predictors investigated in this study. For example, no attention is given to satisfaction with these ties, and very weak and ephemeral ties. These weak relationships between people are based on infrequent social interactions, for example, wishing someone on the street one does not really know a pleasant day. Blokland (2009) indicated that not only the strong and supportive ties are important, but social capital also includes these weak and ephemeral relationships. These fleeting contacts are critical for creating familiarity in the neighborhood, which in turn decreases mistrust among neighbors (Blokland, 2009). In reference to social capital and feelings of unsafety, such inquiry deserves to be thoroughly pursued. Additionally, the measures of civic participation did not yield information on participation in paid activities nor on the location where this civic participation was exercised. Consequently, we could not make a clear-cut distinction between within- and beyond-neighborhood participation. This could be addressed in future research.

Second, measures on personality were not included in the Belgian Ageing Studies. Future research could give more attention to the role of psychological factors in relation to feelings of unsafety (e.g., Jackson 2009b). Van der Wurff, van Staalduinen, and Stringer (1989), for example, suggested that an individual’s estimation of power and control when experiencing a potential threat could influence feelings of unsafety. Similarly, other researchers have pointed at the role of self-efficacy and individual coping mechanisms (Gabriel & Greve, 2003). Klama and Egan (2011) also demonstrated that neuroticism, extraversion, and conscientiousness may lead to increasing feelings of unsafety.

Third, this study found a significant association between social capital and feelings of unsafety, although causality has yet to be established. As with most studies to date, the study is limited because of its cross-sectional nature, which eliminates the possibility of determining temporality of relationships. Longitudinal studies could provide more elaborate evidence on this matter.

Fourth, the convoy model suggests that incorporating a gender perspective could generate more profound understandings. Because men and women tend to experience social relationships and the benefits of these relationships differently (Antonucci et al., 2009), analyzing women and men separately could enhance knowledge about the subject.

Finally, this study has identified which aspects of social ties, place attachment, and civic participation are related with feelings of unsafety. However, it has been noted that these three components of social capital are also causally related to each other. Therefore, future research could identify the influence and the interrelatedness of the components, rather than the influence of the separate items, by using structural equation modeling, which combines aspects of multiple regression and factor analysis (Gefen, Straub, & Boudreau, 2000).

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the elder volunteers for their commitment and enthusiasm throughout the research. Furthermore, we are indebted to our colleagues for their useful remarks on earlier drafts of the article.

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Bios

Liesbeth De Donder, PhD, is an assistant professor in educational sciences at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel. Her main research topics include feelings of unsafety and elder abuse, from a perspective that focuses on social exclusion, inequalities, and social participation in later life.

Nico De Witte is a gerontologist affiliated as a lecturer at the University College Ghent and Vrije Universiteit Brussel. His main research topic concerns vulnerability in later life. Furthermore, he studies malnutrition, falls, and quality of life among older persons.

Tine Buffel currently works as a research assistant in the Department of Adult Educational Sciences at Vrije Universiteit Brussel, with a scholarship from the Fund for Scientific Research Flanders. Her PhD focuses on older people’s relationship with the local environment, using critical and environmental perspectives on aging.

Sarah Dury is currently preparing her PhD in educational sciences at Vrije Universiteit Brussel. Her dissertation will focus on the relation between context and volunteering in later life.

Dominique Verté, PhD, is coordinator of the Belgian Ageing Studies. His research interests include the (political) participation of older people in society and social exclusion of older people.

References

Acierno

Rheingold

A. A.

Resnick

H. S.

Kilpatrick

D. G.

(2004). Predictors of fear of crime in older adults. Anxiety Disorders, 18, 385-396.

Adams

R. E.

Serpe

R. T.

(2000). Social integration, fear of crime, and life satisfaction. Sociological Perspectives, 43(4), 605-629.

Ajrouch

K. J.

Antonucci

T. C.

Janevic

M. R.

(2001). Social networks among Blacks and Whites: The interaction between race and age. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 56B(2), 112-118.

Antonucci

T. C.

Birditt

K. S.

Akiyama

(2009). Convoys of social relations: An interdisciplinary approach. In Bengtson

V. L.

Gans

Putney

N. M.

Silverstein

(Eds.), Handbook of theories of aging (2nd ed., pp. 247-59). New York: Springer.

Baba

Austin

D. M.

(1989). Neighborhood environmental satisfaction, victimization, and social participation as determinants of perceived neighborhood safety. Environment and Behavior, 21, 763-780.

Bauman

(2001). Community: Seeking safety in an insecure world. Cambridge, UK: Polity.

Beaulieu

Dubé

Bergeron

Cousineau

(2007). Are elderly men worried about crime? Journal of Aging Studies, 21, 336-346.

Biderman

A. D.

Johnson

L. A.

McIntyre

Weir

A. W.

(1967). Report on a pilot study in the District of Columbia on victimization and attitudes towards law enforcement. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Blokland

(2009). Eyes for each other: Feelings of safety and social control in the big city. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: University Press.

10.

Bourdieu

(1986). The forms of capital. In Richardson

J. G.

(Ed.), Handbook of theory and research in the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). New York: Greenwald.

11.

Brown

B. B.

Perkins

D. D.

Brown

(2003). Place attachment in a revitalizing neighborhood: Individual and block levels of analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 259-271.

12.

Carro

Valera

Vidal

(2010). Perceived insecurity in the public space: Personal, social and environmental variables. Quality and Quantity, 44, 303-314.

13.

Crawford

(1999). Questioning appeals to community within crime prevention and control. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 7, 509-530.

14.

Coleman

(1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95-120.

15.

Dallago

Perkins

D. D.

Santinello

Boyce

Molcho

Morgan

(2009). Adolescent place attachment, social capital and perceived safety: A comparison of 13 countries. American Journal of Community Psychology, 44, 148-160.

16.

De Donder

Verté

Messelis

(2005). Fear of crime and the elderly: Key-factors that determine fear of crime among elderly people in West Flanders. Ageing International, 30(4), 363-376.

17.

Dolan

Peasgood

(2007). Estimating the economic and social costs of the fear of crime. British Journal of Criminology, 47, 121-132.

18.

Elchardus

De Groof

Smits

(2008). Rational fear or represented malaise: A crucial test of two paradigms explaining fear of crime. Sociological Perspectives, 51(3), 453-471.

19.

Ferguson

K. M.

Mindel

C. H.

(2007). Modeling fear of crime in Dallas neighborhoods: A test of social capital theory. Crime & Delinquency, 53(2), 322-349.

20.

Field

(2006). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London: Sage Ltd.

21.

Forrest

Kearns

(2001). Social cohesion, social capital and the neighbourhood. Urban Studies, 38, 2125-2143.

22.

Franklin

T. W.

Franklin

C. A.

Fearn

N. E.

(2008). A multilevel analysis of the vulnerability, disorder, and social integration models across multiple dimensions of fear of crime. Social Justice Research, 21, 204-227.

23.

Gabriel

Greve

(2003). The psychology of fear of crime: Conceptual and methodological perspectives. British Journal of Criminology, 43, 600-614.

24.

Gefen

Straub

D. W.

Boudreau

M. C.

(2000). Structural equation modeling and regression: Guidelines for research practice. Communication of the Association for Information Systems, 4(7), 1-79.

25.

Gilleard

Hyde

Higgs

(2007). The impact of age, place, aging in place, and attachment to place on the well-being of the over 50s in England. Research on Aging, 29, 590-605.

26.

Gray

(2009). The social capital of older people. Ageing & Society, 29, 5-31.

27.

Gubrium

(1974). Victimization in old age. Crime & Delinquency, 20, 245-250.

28.

Hale

(1996). Fear of crime: A review of the literature. International Review of Victimology, 4, 79-150.

29.

Jackson

(2004). Experience and expression. Social and cultural significance in the fear of crime. British Journal of Criminology, 44, 946-966.

30.

Jackson

(2006). Introducing fear of crime to risk research. Risk Analysis, 26, 253-264.

31.

Jackson

(2009a). Bridging the social and the psychological in the fear of crime. In Lee

Farral

(Eds.), Fear of crime. Critical voices in an age of anxiety (pp. 143-167). London: Routledge-Cavendish.

32.

Jackson

(2009b). A psychological perspective on vulnerability in the fear of crime. Psychology, Crime and Law, 15(4), 365-390.

33.

Kanan

W. J.

Pruitt

M. V.

(2002). Modelling fear of crime and perceived victimization risk: The (in)signifance of neighborhood integration. Sociological Inquiry, 72(4), 527-548.

34.

Kaskie

Gerstner

(2004). Work and volunteer opportunities for older persons in main county: A market analyses. Larkspur, CA: Marin Community Foundation.

35.

Kawachi

Kennedy

B. P.

Lochner

Prothrow-Stith

(1997). Social capital, income inequality, and mortality. American Journal of Public Health, 87, 1491-1498.

36.

Kennedy

L. W.

Silverman

R. A.

(1984). Significant others and fear of crime among the elderly. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 20(4), 241-256.

37.

Klama

E. K.

Egan

(2011). The Big-Five, sense of control, mental health and fear of crime as contributory factors to attitudes towards punishment. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 613-617.

38.

Lee

G. R.

(1983). Social integration and fear of crime among older persons. Journal of Gerontology, 38(6), 745-750.

39.

Lee

(2007). Inventing fear of crime. Criminology and the politics of anxiety. Cullumpton, UK: Willan.

40.

Pickles

Savage

(2005). Social capital and social trust. European Sociological Review, 21(2), 109-123.

41.

Little

Panelli

Kraack

(2005). Women’s fear of crime: A rural perspective. Journal of Rural Studies, 21, 151-163.

42.

Litwin

Shiovitz-Ezra

(2011). Social network type and subjective well-being in a national sample of older Americans. The Gerontologist, 51, 379-388.

43.

Lowndes

(2000). Women and social capital: A comment on Hall’s “Social capital in Britain.” British Journal of Political Sciences, 30, 533-540.

44.

Markowitz

F. E.

Bellair

P. E.

Liska

A. E.

Liu

(2001). Extending social disorganization theory: Modeling the relationships between cohesion, disorder, and fear. Criminology, 39(2), 293-320.

45.

Martinson

Minkler

(2006). Civic engagement and older adults: A critical perspective. The Gerontologist, 46(3), 318-324.

46.

McCoy

H. V.

Wooldredge

J. D.

Cullen

F. T.

Dubeck

P. J.

Browning

S. L.

(1996). Lifestyles of the old and not so fearful: Life situations and older persons’ fear of crime. Journal of Criminal Justice, 24(3), 191-205.

47.

McCrea

Shyy

Western

Stimson

R. J.

(2005). Fear of crime in Brisbane: Individual, social and neighbourhood factors in perspective. Journal of Sociology, 41, 7-27.

48.

Morrow-Howell

(2010). Volunteering in later life: Research frontiers. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 65B(4), 461-469.

49.

Nilsson

Rana

A. K.

Kabir

Z. N.

(2006). Social capital and quality of life in old age: Results from a cross-sectional study in rural Bangladesh. Journal of Aging and Health, 18, 419-434.

50.

Kim

(2009). Aging, neighborhood attachment, and fear of crime: Testing reciprocal effects. American Journal of Community Psychology, 37(1), 21-40.

51.

Pain

(2000). Place, social relations and the fear of crime: Review. Progress in Human Geography, 24(3), 365-387.

52.

Phillipson

Bernard

Phillips

Ogg

(1999). Older people’s experiences of community life: Patterns of “neighbouring” in three urban areas. Sociological Review, 47, 715-739.

53.

Pollack

C. E.

von dem Knesebeck

(2004). Social capital and health among the aged: Comparisons between the United States and Germany. Health & Place, 10, 383-391.

54.

Putnam

(2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.

55.

Putnam

R. D.

Leonardi

Nanetti

(1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

56.

Ross

C. E.

Jang

S. J.

(2000). Neighborhood disorder, fear and mistrust: The buffering role of social ties with neighbors. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28(4), 401-420.

57.

Rountree

P. W.

Land

K. C.

(1996). Perceived risk versus fear of crime: Empirical evidence of conceptually distinct reactions in survey data. Social Forces, 74(4), 1353-1376.

58.

Scott

(2003). Stranger danger. Explaining women’s fear of crime. Western Criminology, 4(3), 203-214.

59.

Study Service of the Flemish Government. (2011). Local statistics. Retrieved August 20, 2011, from http://aps.vlaanderen.be/lokaal/lokale_statistieken.htm

60.

Van den Bogaerde

Van Den Steen

De Bie

(2009). Results of the federal survey. Retrieved July 13, 2011, from http://www.polfed-fedpol.be/pub/veiligheidsMonitor/2008_2009/monitor2008_2009_nl.php

61.

Van den Herrewegen

(2010). “Safety: Everybody’s concern, everybody’s duty?” Questioning the significance of “active citizenship” and “social cohesion” for people’s perception of safety. In Cools

De Ruyver

Easton

Pauwels

Ponsaers

Vande Walle

. . . Vynckier

(Eds.), Governance of security research papers, Vol. 3: Safety, societal problems and citizens’ perceptions. New empirical data, theories and analyses (pp. 85-108). Antwerp, Belgium: Maklu.

62.

Van der Wurff

van Staalduinen

Stringer

(1989). Fear of crime in residential environment—Testing a social psychological model. Journal of Social Psychology, 129(2), 141-160.

63.

World Health Organization. (2007). Global age-friendly cities: A guide. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.