'1:

 

‘L..n ‘
p.11

.:,..r‘.,.A,»...

. .. .
.53... 3;
v: I x}.

 

.1‘ .
Zzyaa‘p
.1}:

. :wznl.

 

 

 

NiBZéiq'b”

G NIVERSITY LIBRARIES

MI‘CHMNITTIWK‘T WW I". l;

Mu llllllllllgllLllll

m‘higon State
university

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN AND THE OCCURRENCE
OF CRIME IN CAMPUS RESIDENCE HALLS

presented by

ROGER CHARLES MILLER

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

MASTER OWdegree in W JUSTICE

flf/Zw /\/ 'M C/L/fiilW‘e.»\

\// Major professor

 

Date MARCH; 1990

0-7639 MS U is an Ajfirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or betore due due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

in}? 11 it: 751:3

‘I ll l l
L_l

 

 

 

 

 

 
   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l:l
WWW.

 

MSU Is An Affirmative AdiorVEqual Opportunity Institution

 

PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN AND THE OCCURRENCE
OF CRIME IN CAMPUS RESIDENCE HALLS

Est
Roger Charles Miller

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

 

MASTER OF SCIENCE

School of Criminal Justice

1990

1

@0557

”I
n,/
v"?

ABSTRACT

PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN AND THE OCCURRENCE
OF CRIME IN CAMPUS RESIDENCE HALLS

By
Roger Charles Miller

This study investigates the relationship between physical environmental
design and the frequency of occurrence of burglary. larceny. and malicious
destruction of property in campus residence halls. A purposive sample of the
residence halls at Michigan State University resulted in the selection of eight
residence halls with a combined population of of 6.51 1 residents.

Crime data utilized were the 221 incidents which occurred in the eight
residence halls during the school year September. 1986 to June. 1987, as reported
by the campus Department of Public Safety. Physical design features include hall
length. percentage of room doors facing room doors across the hall. number of
rooms per floor. number of rooms per residence hall. number of floors. floor level.
and common bath versus two rooms sharing a bath.

All research hypotheses were rejected at the .05 significance level. Results of
this study may have been influenced by the use of a non-random sampling procedure

and the small number of cases in some hypothesis tests.

To my parents, Fletcher and Margaret Miller

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My thesis committee. John McNamara. Ken Christian. and Robert Warden.
provided the necessary direction and motivation. They also went "beyond the call of
duty" in scheduling my defense on short notice at a busy time.

MSU Department of Public Safety Director Bruce Benson provided access to
crime incident records and authorized interviews of department personnel.
Commander Andrew McEntee answered many questions and directed me to other
sources of information.

Mary Haas and cm Hellman of the University Housing Programs Office
assisted in locating the Stu ent Opinion Survey results and answered questions about
the residence halls.

Jerry Puca. University Housing Assignments Ofl‘ice. provided residence hall
population data and information about hall assignments.

John LaFevre. Physical Plant Engineering Services. gave valuable assistance in
locating residence hall floor plans from which I gathered physical design
information.

Pete Marvin and Anders J chanson supplied critical computer files and
answered questions about the use of those files.

Finally. my wife Linda and dau hter Mallory endured frequent and lengthy
absences of a husband and father an provided much needed support which allowed
me to complete this thesis.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIST OF TABLES viii

CHAPTER I. THE PROBLEM I
NEED 1
PURPOSE 4
HYPOTHESIS 4
THEORY 4
OVERVIEW 7

CHAP'IERII. LITERATURE REVIEW ......................... ' 8
INTRODUCTION-ORGANIZATION 8

 

CRIME PREVENTION THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN .......... 8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TERRITORIALITY 18
CAMPUS CRIME 2O
RESIDENCE HALLS 27
SUMMARY 38
CHAPTER III. DESIGN OF STUDY 43
DESIGN 43
HYPOTHESES 44
SAMPLE 45
MEASURES 47
CRIME DATA 47

 

DESIGN FEATURES 48

 

DATA COLLECTION

CRIME INCIDENTS

 

HALL POPULATION DEMOGRAPHICS

STUDENT OPINION SURVEY

 

 

INTERVIEWS

 

ANALYSIS PROCEDURES

 

CHAPTER IV. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

 

CRIME DATA

DESCRIPTIVE

 

HYPOTHESES

 

STUDENT OPINION SURVEY

 

DESCRIPTIVE

 

SOS HYPOTHESES

 

SUMMARY

 

CHAPTER V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

 

SUMMARY

 

CONCLUSIONS

 

DISCUSSION FUTURE RESEARCH. ..............

 

APPENDICES

 

APPENDIXA DEFINIIIONS

 

APPENDIX B MAP OF CAMPUS

 

APPENDIX C CRIME STATISTICS

 

50
50
5 l
5 l
54
54
55
55
55
59
6 l
6 1
62
63
67
67
69
7O

72

-72

74

75

APPENDIX D RESIDENCE HALL POPULATION DESCRIPTIONS ....... 78

APPENDIX E SOS SURVEY INSTRUMENT

 

-- 80

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

CITED REFERENCES

 

GENERAL REFERENCES

 

83

83

87

Table 2. 1
Table 2.2
Table 2.3
Table 3. 1
Table 3.2
Table 4. 1
Table 4.2
Table 4.3
Table 4.4
Table 4.5
Table 4.6
Table 4.7
Table 4.8
Table 4.9
Table C. I
Table C.2
Table C.3
Table D. 1

Table D2

LIST OF TABLES

Location. Defensible Space. & Danger Perception

 

Crime Type. Victimization Characteristic. Victimization Rate ...........

 

Summary of Literature Review

Hall. #Floors. Population. and Crime Rate

 

SOS Item Analysis

 

Crime Types and Number of Incidents

 

Floor level and Number of Incidents

 

Crime Location

 

Class of Stolen Items

 

Dollar Value of Stolen Items

 

Dollar Value of Damage Incidents

 

Day Crime Incident Occurred

 

Tools Used In Crime

 

Hall Population. SOS Responses

 

 

Campus Crime Statistics

Crime Statistics For All Halls

 

Residence Hall Crime Rates

 

Residence Hall Populations Of Eight Sample Halls

 

Residence Hall Populations Of All Halls

 

16
25
39
47
54
55
56
56
57
57
58
58
58
61
75
76
77
78

79

. I. irrggllqbam; ulna-vi
' :0: .. ...
r. .

 

CHAPTER I. THE PROBLEM

NEED

Since 1921. crime and the fear of crime have continued to be important
issues. (O'Hare. 1921) In recent times. sources such as The Gallop Poll. the Uniform
Crime Reports. and the National Crime Victimization Survey have provided
information about the status of crime and the fear of crime in our nation's cities and
rural areas.

The occurrence of crime can cause events such as the destruction or loss of
property. physical injury or death. or the demise of businesses or neighborhoods.
Although the level of crime may vary and the actual amount of crime may be
disputed. crime continues to be of great concern to many people. The fear of crime
has become a problem as serious as crime itself. (Clemente & Kleiman. 1977) The
President's Commission on Law Enforcement. the Gallop Poll. and the National
Crime Victimization Survey have all documented the fear of crime in the United
States.

g'Ihe fear of crime can force changes in daily living habits and affect the
psychological well-being of those living in a state of constant amdetfl Skogan (1986)
states that the fear of crime can cause: (1) physical and psychological withdrawal
from community life; (2) a weakening of the informal social control processes that
inhibit crime and disorder; (3) a decline in the organizational life and mobilization
capacity of the neighborhood; (4) deteriorating business conditions; (5) the
importation and domestic production of delinquency and deviance: and (6) further
dramatic changes in the composition of the population.

The problem of crime and the fear of crime has not been limited to the cities

and rural areas. This problem has developed on the campuses of colleges and

universities as well. Early campus problems included the provision of heat. the
disposal of waste. the avoidance of fires. the protection of property. or disciplinary
problems such as swearing. drunkenness. noise.improper dress. and card playing.
(Gelber. 1972) John W. Powell (1979) states that there was very little need for
Mpus security in the early 1900's because the campus of that time projected a
'sanctuary image.’ The outside community was not allowed on campus. and as a
result. few crimes were committed by outsiders. In the late 1940's and 50's there
was an increase in thefts. vandalism. and campus parking problems. These problems
continued on through the early 1960's.

The belief that campus crime is a problem as serious as crime 011' the campus
is increasingly being accepted. During the 1960's and early 1970's. student dissent
and disturbances developed into a major problem on many US. campuses. By the
late 1970's. student dissent had declined. but theft of property. vandalism. arson,
assaults. and armed robbery had increased.

In 1982. the authors of an article in Newsweek magazine (Williams. D.A..
Morris. H. & Contreras. J .. 1982) reported that crime on college campuses had
become almost as big an issue as crime in the city streets. US. News St World
Report (1982) writers reported that college and university administrators said that
many campuses could no longer be considered "secure havens for scholarly pursuit"
(p.49).

As campuses become communities with non-heterogeneous populations of
difl’ering values. cultures. and philosophies. campus administrators are faced with
the same types of problems faced by other communities. Crime problems on the
campus are similar to and just as serious as those 011’ the campus.

In a recent survey by USA Today (1988). college and university officials from

698 schools reported a total of 285.932 crimes for 1987. This total included 3.366

dnrg law violations. 1.874 armed robberies. 653 rapes. 13.079 assaults. 22.170
burglaries. and 144.717 thefts. Of the theits. 13.446 occurred in residence halls.

Although there may not have been a major statistical increase in campus
crime. there has certainly been an increased awareness of crime on campus. In an
attempt to deal with the increased awareness and concern about crime on campus.
many campus officials are utilizing techniques of crime prevention. (American School
and University. 1980; Dahlinger. 1989; Gross. 1973; Handley. 1980; Williams. D.A..
Morris. H.. & Contreras. J.. 1982; Nolte. 1977; Strunk. 1980; US. News & World
Report. 1982) One of these crime prevention techniques is known as Crime
Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED). This technique is based on the
assumption that environmental design can play a part in preventing crime and
reducing the level of fear of crime. It is generally agreed that lighting and target
hardening (locks. alarms. fencing. tamper-resistant materials. etc.) have an effect on
the occurrence of crime. The relationship between the incidence of crime and
other environmental design techniques is less clear. Variations in the strength of
the relationship between crime and environmental design may be influenced by
demographics. social behavior. other crime prevention techniques being utilized.
and research design.

Most of the research examining CPTED and its relation to the frequency of
occurrence of crime has been conducted in public housing environments which were
generally composed of low to middle income families. These studies generally
evaluated only one or two types of crime and usually were limited to comparisons of
low-rise versus high-rise structures.

Research in the residence hall environment has generally examined low-rise
versus high-rise halls and related social behavior. not the occurrence of crime. One

published study. Bynum and Purri (1984). examined the relationship of student

victimization by theft and residence in high-rise versus low-rise residence halls.
Thus. little research in the residence hall environment has been conducted which
contributed to the development of CPTED theory. This lack of research has also left
campus administrators with little information for rational campus planning in their
attempts to deal with a major portion of campus crime. that which occurs in

residence halls.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to explore the relationship between physical
environmental design and the frequency of occurrence of crime in selected
residence halls on the campus of Michigan State University. The residence halls
were selected based upon their location on campus. physical design. and crime rate.
The crime incidents used for this study were larceny. burglary. and malicious
destruction of property. This study also explored the use of a student opinion survey
as a means of measuring intervening variables in the relationship between physical

environmental design and the frequency of occurrence of crime.

HYPOTHESIS
The general hypothesis for this study is that the frequency of occurrence of
burglary. larceny. and malicious destruction of property is related to physical design

features. Specific research hypotheses are discussed in the Design of Study section.

THEORY
This study is based upon the premise that a certain amount of crime can be
prevented from occurring in certain locations. The concept of crime prevention has
been defined by the National Crime Prevention Institute as ”.. .[a] simple and direct

approach that protects the potential victim from criminal attack by anticipating the

Hal .

possibility of attack and eliminating or reducing the opportunity for it to occur--and
the possibility for personal harm or property loss should it occur" (Sloan. 1988. p. 1).

Walter A. Lunden (1962) contends that there is no theory of crime
prevention. only theories of crime causation. He states that a theory of criminality is
a "Why" question and a theory of crime prevention is a "How" question. This may be
generally accepted. as there does not seem to be an accepted general theory of
crime prevention.

However. there are several theoretical approaches to crime prevention. one of
which is Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CP'I'ED). Wallis and Ford
(1980) argue that the ’Opportunity Hypothesis’ is the basis for all CP'I‘ED programs.
This hypothesis states that "if crime is significantly influenced by the opportunities
available in a particular setting. then it should be possible to afi'ect the crime rate by
modifying the opportunity structure. This goal can be achieved by (1) increasing the
perceived risk or efi‘ort necessary to commit the crime. or (2) by reducing the
number of available targets" (p. 10).

Oscar Newman (1972) contended that his concept of 'Defensible Space' was a
"model for residential environments which inhibited crime by creating the physical
expression of a social fabric that defends itself“ (p.3). Newman's 'Defensible Space'
concept was built around four characteristics: (1) territoriality. (2) surveillance. (3)
image. and (4) environment.

mbenstein. et al. (1980) consider the relationship between crime and the
built environment to be composed of three basic rationales. The 'Hardware
Rationale' consists of those measures which "can succeed solely by means of
technoloy and. paid operators" (p.6). This rationale is based on the assumption that
"no social variable need enter into the equation before a relationship with crime or

fear of crime levels can be expected" (p.6). Second. the hypothesis of the 'Social

Surveillance' rationale is that the "design of the physical environment can help
residents and users detect suspicious behavior or actual crime" (p.9). Third. the
'Community Building Rationale' is based upon the hypothesis that “physical
characteristics afi’ect social interaction and cohesion. which in turn afi'ect crime and
the fear of crime" (p.11).

This study will be conducted upon the acceptance of the three rationales of
Rubenstein. et al with the major focus of the study based upon the 'Community
Building Rationale.‘

One of the basic concepts of CPTED. Defensible Space. and the Community
Building Rationale is territoriality. Irwin Altman has identified five themes that

' appear in the literature on human and animal territoriality. These themes are:

{Territories can belong to individuals or grou s.
OTerritories are geographical areas that are 0 en marked and

personalized.
(Territories function in the service of a variety of needs and
motives includin childre . food gathering. sex. mating. and a

variety of social unctions suc as status and resource control.
OTerritories serve as boundaries that allow selective control over
who may see. hear. or participate in an activity.
01f invaders cross territorial lines. defense responses may range from
threats to overt aggression. (Cited in Brown & Altman. 1981. p.58)

From these themes. Altman developed a working definition which stated that
territoriality is a "self/ other boundary regulation mechanism that involves
personalization of or marking of a place or object and communication that it is
'owned' by a person or group. Personalization and ownership are designed to
regulate social interaction and to help satisfy various social and physical motives.
Defense responses may sometimes occur when territorial boundaries are violated"
(1981. p.107). The concept of territoriality in this study will be based upon the

above themes and definition presented by Altman.

OVERVIEW

In Chapter W0. literature pertinent to this study will be reviewed. The
reviewed literature will be divided into four categories: Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design; Territoriality; Campus Crime: and Residence Halls.

Chapter Three contains a description of the design used for this study.
Information will be provided about the sample. measures. hypotheses. data collection
procedures. and analysis procedures in this study.

An analysis of results is provided in Chapter Four. The first section of the
chapter contains a discussion of the results of the analysis of crime data in relation to
the CPTED measures of the residence balls. The second section of the chapter
contains the analysis of campus crime data in relation to CPTED measures of the
residence halls in conjunction with results from a Student Opinion Survey
completed by residents of the residence halls.

Definitions. map of the campus. campus crime statistics. residence hall
population demographics. and a copy of the Student Opinion Survey Instrument can

be found in the Appendices.

CHAPTER II. LITERATURE REVIEW

IN TRODUCTION-ORGANIZATION

The literature reviewed for this chapter concerns studies similar to the
currem study and research testing concepts and theories upon which this study is
based. Each review is organized to provide the purpose. hypothesis. design. and
results of each study.

The reviews are divided into four sections: Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design (CPTED); Territoriality: Campus Crime: and Residence Halls.
The CPTED section contains reviews of literature examining CPTED in environments
other than campus residence halls. The Territoriality section contains reviews of
literature examining territoriality. which is one of the basic concepts in CPTED.
Reviews of literature examining general campus crime are located in the Campus
Crime section. Finally. the Residence Hall section contains reviews of literature
examining CPTED concepts in the campus residence hall environment. References
for all of the reviewed literature are located in the Cited References section of the
bibliography.

The chapter concludes with a discussion and summary of the reviewed

literature.

CRIME PREVENTION THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN
Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) had its present
day beginning in the work of Jane Jacobs (1961). Jacobs proposed that. to establish
a safe city. the city must contain a diversity of uses that give each other constant
mutual support. Jacobs specified four conditions which are necessary to generate

diversity in a city's streets and districts.

First. the city must serve more than one primary function and these functions
must insure the presence of people who go outdoors on different schedules and for
different purposes. Second. most blocks must be short to open up the neighborhood
by providing alternate routes for travel. Long blocks cause streets to become isolated
and the residents may not mingle except in major commercial areas. Third. the city
must mingle buildings that vary in age and condition. Finally. there must be a
sufllciently dense concentration of people. Additionally. for a street to be safe.
Jacobs stated that public and private space must be well defined. buildings must be
oriented to the street for surveillance by residents. and the sidewalks must be used
fairly continuously. Jacobs based her statements on "inklings. speculations. notions.
and clues” (p. 15) and not empirical research. Therefore the acceptance and

application of these concepts should be accomplished with care.

CPTED concepts were further developed by Schlomo Angel ( 1968). Angel
was concerned with those public areas where pedestrians circulate. He purported
that the physical environment exerts a direct influence on crime settings by: (1)
delineating territories: (2) reducing or increasing accessibility by the creation and
elimination of boundaries and circulation networks: and (3) by facilitating
surveillance by citizens and by the police. Angel also felt that the physical
environment has an indirect influence on crime settings through the creation of the
social contexts.

Angel suggested that the physical environment be designed to channel traffic
to produce a desired level of intensity of use. He defined intensity of use as the
number of people present in a unit of time. When the intensity of use is low. there
will be virtually no crime as there will not be enough potential victims. An area with
low intensity ofuse will thus be a safe area. As the intensity of use increases there

are enough potential victims. but there are not enough people to function as a social

lO

deterrence to crime through visual surveillance. The assumption is that deterrence
is achieved by the increased number of persons who act as witnesses. This is
considered an unsafe area because most crimes occur here.

As intensity of use further increases the area becomes populated and again
becomes safe. There are more potential victims. but there are also adequate
numbers of people to perform a surveillance function. Angel did not establish the
boundaries of the difi'erent levels of intensity of use which make an area safe or
unsafe. As was the case with Jacob's work. Angel's suggestions were not based on any
empirical research. but are only a postulation of his ideas.

The development of the CPTED concept continued with C. Ray Jeffery
(1971). who stated that. from a scientific point of view. behavior is a product of the
interaction of organism and environment. J efi'ery proposed that there were no
criminals. only environmental circumstances which result in criminal behavior.

J efi'ery viewed criminal behavior as a result of gain minus risk plus interaction with
conditioning history plus interaction with environmental opportunity.

To change criminal behavior. Jeffery suggests that the environment be
changed by (1) decreasing the reinforcement available from criminal acts. and (2)
increasing the risk involved in criminal acts. He further distinguished between
crimes against property and crimes against persons. Environmental changes which
might apply to controlling crimes against property include (1) alarm and surveillance
systems. (2) urban planning and design. (3) environment and behavior. and (4)
citizen participation. Environmental changes that might apply to controlling crimes
against persons include (1) urban design. (2) environmental behavior. and (3) citizen
participation. Although the changes proposed by Jefl'ery include more than just
physical environment changes. he later stated that major research should be

undertaken to determine the ways in which urban design contributes to crime.

11

The work of Oscar Newman may have done more than any other to popularize
the idea of CPTED. Newman (1972). proposed that crime could be controlled by
designing buildings to establish a 'defensible space'. The concept of 'defensible
space' utilizes a design which allows residents or users to supervise and be seen to
be responsible for the areas in which they live or are using.

Newman viewed the concept of 'defensible space as a "model for residential
environments which inhibits crime by creating the physical expression of a social
fabric that defends itself“ (p.3). 'Defensible space' utilizes (1) real and symbolic
barriers. (2) strongly defined areas of influence. and (3) improved opportunities for
surveillance.

Newman identified four aspects of the defensible space concept. These are:

TERRITORIALIT‘Y - The territorial definition of space in developments
reflecting the areas of influence of the inhabitants.

SURVEILIANCE - The positioning of apartment windows to allow
residents to naturally survey the exterior and interior public areas of
their living environment.

IMAGE - The adoption of building forms and idioms which avoid the
stigma of peculiarity that allows others to perceive the vulnerability
an isolation of the inhabitants.

ENVIRONMENT - The enhancement of safe by locating residential
developments in functionally sympathetic an areas immediately
adjacent to activities that do not provide continued threat. (p.9)

Newman analyzed the relationship between physical design elements and
criminal activity. Newman's main focus was on territoriality and surveillance. His
basic design solutions were: (1) that housing blocks should face directly onto public
streets: (2) that semi-public access should be kept to a minimum; (3) that open
space should be assigned to and overlooked by particular buildings and residents:
and (4) that dwelling units should be closely grouped together to encourage social
contacts.

The housing areas compared in Newman's study were the Brownsville and

Van Dyke housing projects in New York City. Each project housed approximately

‘Id

It

CI

It

CI".

318

Var

12

6.000 residents with 288 persons per acre. The Brownsville project covered 23% of
the land and the buildings were 36 stories in height. The Van Dyke project covered
16.6% of the land and consisted of 9 three story buildings and 13 fourteen floor
high-rises. Both housing projects had very similar demographic characteristics.

Crime data were gathered from the New York City Housing Authority Police
for incidents that occurred in the two projects. Crime data were also collected from
the New York City Police Department to compare project crime with that of
surrounding communities.

Newman developed a list of physical characteristic measures and data on
tenant characteristics were gathered from the New York City Housing Authority.
Newman also conducted interviews with residents of four housing projects including
the two in his present study. A detailed description of the interviewing methodology
and results were to be provided in a forthcoming publication.

The reporting of the results of the statistical analysis of the above study is
incomplete and somewhat confusing. Newman conducted a regression analysis using
ten physical features as independent variables and robbery as the dependent variable.
Robbery was selected because Newman considered it to be a "particularly indicative
crime" (p.231) because of its variation and its capacity to occur in any location. The
ten physical features used as independent variables were not specified in the study.

In the first analysis. the direct influence of physical variables alone upon
crime was more strongly related to locational percentages than to the total robbery
rate. Physical variables had an explained variance of .17 at the .05 significance level
' in terms of the total robbery rate and an explained variance of .38 at the .04
significance level in terms of location percentages.

Newman reported that in a regression analysis using 6 social and 6 physical

variables. social variables were significant in accounting for variations in crime and

0‘.

dc

Val
Sta
of 1

I01

13

physical variables had a compounding influence upon crime in particular locations.
Newman stated that ”the combination of five key physical and social variables alone
approached an r2 of .50" (p.231). Newman did not specify the five key variables and
using the term "approached" does not provide a clear picture of his results.

Newman provided a table of the correlation coefi'icients of the physical and
social variables with robbery. However. the table did not provide significance levels
for these results. Without further information. support for Newman's theories may
be in doubt.

Booth (1981) concludes from Newman's work that the built environment may
encourage crime in two ways: (1) by permitting non-residents to have easy access to
public areas: and (2) by limiting the opportunities residents may have to observe
activities in public areas adjacent to their home.

Booth investigated the relationship between accessibility and opportunities to
observe and the occurrence of crime. Crime. assessed through a victim survey rather
than official reports. was the dependent variable. Booth additionally gathered
information on whether residents felt responsible for what goes on in public areas.
Data on physical characteristics were gathered by trained observers who assessed the
design features of each dwelling and its surroundings.

Booth compared two matched samples of urban households. one of which had
been victims of vandalism or burglary. and the other sample had not been victims of
vandalism or burglary. The samples were matched by type of dwelling. minority
status of residents. household composition. and years in school. Ihom observations
of the dwellings. the researchers created measures of accessibility and opportunities

to observe. These measures were:

. . . i

If

It:

0b

nu

the

are

14

Accessibility

no boundaries (fences. shrubs. etc.)

one or more dimensions ater than 400 feet
(community areas

three or more people present

signs of use (debris. defacement. wear)

bounded by public facilities

Opportunity to observe - cannot be seen from

cannot be seen from the street

cannot be seen from more than one direction before using
cannot be seen from more than 50 feet before using

cannot be seen from door of dwe '

cannot be seen from window of dwe

cannot be seen from porch or balcony of dwelling. (pp.563.564)

A correlation matrix of the accessibility and opportunity to observe variables
revealed that the variables for outdoor areas are independent of one another. but
measures for the indoor areas are not independent. A cross-tabular analysis showing
the percentage of the noncrime and crime household samples which have
environmental features that increase access to public areas by strangers or limit
residents' opportunities to observe such areas revealed that. for outdoor public areas.
the differences between the samples were slight. The differences for public areas
inside the housing were also slight. but were all in a direction which suggested to
the author that easy access and limited opportunity to observe facilitates crime.

The residents were asked. "Do you or any member of your household feel
responsible for what goes on in _7" (p.567) The question was asked for each of
the 164 outdoor community areas. The percentage of residents responding
afl'irmatively averaged 996 and generally indicated that people are more likely to feel
responsibility for areas with limited accessibility and significant opportunity to
observe. The author stated that many of the percentages were based on small
numbers of cases so interpretation must be done with caution. The study concluded
that defensible space seems to significantly influence burglary and vandalism in some

areas. but not in others.

 

fa

hi.

15

Merry (1981) examined the patterns of intervention in crimes in a modern
American housing development which contained many of the characteristics of
defensible design. Her research was accomplished by conducting 18 months of
anthropological participant observation of a small inner-city housing project during
1975/76. Merry spent almost every day visiting with. talking to. and taking trips
with residents. She also assisted in community groups. The author had regular
contact with three Chinese families. three white families. and four black families.
Through the leader of a group of youths who 'hung out' in the project and were
blamed for much of the crime that occurred there. Merry spent over 100 hours with
the members of the group discussing their attitudes toward crime. the design of the
project. and their choice of victims and crime opportunities.

Merry also collected quantitative data. First. by attempting to interview as
many households as possible. rather than sampling. the author interviewed one
member of two-thirds of the households about their victimization. expectation
someone would help them. and their own intervention in crime. Second. 90 of the
interviewees filled in a map of the project indicating which areas they perceived as
safe or dangerous. Last. a twelve page. closed-ended questionnaire was administered
to 101 persons selected to represent the categories of ethnicity. age. sex. and length
of residence in he project. The questionnaire contained questions about attitudes
toward crime and danger. knowledge of identity of local teenagers. and victimization.

The project consisted of 500 apartments and 100 units of housing for the
elderly in a square. 28 acre area surrounded by vacant lots. industry. parking lots.
and an expressway. The author focused her study on the 300 four-story low-rise
apartments. These apartments had 2-4 bedrooms and housed almost entirely
families with children. The other portion of the project contained 1-2 bedroom.

high-rises housing primarily elderly and childless couples. Most of the tenants were

l6

semi-skilled or unskilled. low income families with 60% of the families having lived
in the project for at least 10 years. However. in spite of the lengthy residence of
many. the residents' social and recreational lives were separated ethnically.

Merry reported that over half of the incidents of robbery in the project
occurred in defensible areas. while the remainder occurred either in secluded
lobbies; narrow. dim area between buildings: in short-cut areas: and in sidewalks

along streets with concrete pillars and recessed alcoves (see Table 2. 1).

Table 2. 1 Location. Defensible Space. & Danger Perception

EEKUON PERCENT O F DEF EN IBE PERCENED 'ER " e
ROBBERIES SPACE DANGEROUS SAFE

 

 

Alleys and

Entrances 25% (15) No 46% (37) 4% (3)
Playground 2% (1) Yes 33% (26) 12% (10)
Square 5% (3) Yes 12% (10) 22% (18)
Front of house 50% (30) Yes/No 5% (4) 57% (46)

 

Other places 18% (12)
Note. Ta e a apted rom Table 1. Merry. 1981. pg. 415.

Although the project generally conformed to the concepts of defensible space.
features such as translucent enclosures and turns of stairwells. entry hallways hidden
from view. and fenced trash container enclosures provided hiding places and
prohibited surveillance. Furthermore. if an area is designed for surveillance.
surveillance is successful only when crime is observed. In this project. there was
nothing of interest to watch in the courtyards and many of the windows facing the
courtyards and walkways were covered by curtains which prevented surveillance by
the occupants. Even when residents did observe criminal activity. they may not have
intervened because of their inability or unwillingness to distinguish intruders from
neighbors. lack of knowledge of effective modes of intervention. the fear of crime
and retaliation. and because residents were less likely to help strangers than persons

who were known to them.

17

From her conversations with individuals who committed crimes in the
project. Merry found that they considered both physical and social factors when
determining where to commit a crime. Physical factors included visibility. vehicle
tramc. number of people in an area. amount of light. and escape routes. Social
factors included the probability of actual surveillance and level of active intervention
by the residents. Merry concluded that defensible space is a valuable concept. but to
prevent crime it requires the interaction of social behavior by residents who provide

surveillance and active intervention.

Pyle (1976) looked at Cleveland public housing in areas previously identified
as high crime risk areas. The housing was categorized according to design type: (1)
row houses: (2) 3-story walk-ups: (3) high-rise apartments: and (4) mixed or
planned unit development-type housing. Data were gathered on crimes reported
during a 24-month period. The purpose of the study was to determine whether or
not design (architectural type and general location) could help explain the
distribution of crime. The demographic characteristics used were those related to
known aspects of crime in other locations. Pyle cited Y.H. Cho. 1974. Demographic
characteristics were used as independent variables in a canonical factor analysis of
association with homicide. rape. assault. robbery. theft. burglary. and vandalism.

The major findings were that grouping crimes by architectural type showed a
relationship statistically significant at the .05 level. but not at the .01 level. and that
crimes grouped by demographic characteristics were statistically significant at the
.01 level. Demographic factors were significant more than twice as often as design
type. The demographic factors used were age of children. percentage of families
with children and only one parent. and percentage of total population.

Pyle also looked at the crime location as related to the address of the arrested

suspect. Sixty-one percent of all those arrested for crime against persons resided in

 

‘hdwaeiri .

DE

DE

CO

fix

Ac

pa

all

OI]

18

the same census tract as the crime location. The average distance traveled by an
ofi'ender between home and the crime location was 1.9 miles. Forty-eight percent of
the persons arrested for crimes against property also came from the same census
tract as the one where the crime was committed. but the average distance traveled

increased to 2.3 miles.

TERRITORIALITY
Schroeder (1980) defines territoriality as "the acquisition. demarcation. and
defense of a spatial area with corresponding dimensions of implied ownership.
personalization. and maximum control" (p. 16). Schroeder identifies several

functions of territoriality. These are:

Oregulating density and social interaction

oorganizing behavior

Oproviding areas for privacy and security

oreducing conflict and a ression

oinspiring social order an group stability
Opromoting self-definition and self-identity. (p. 120)

Schroeder suggests strategies to enhance territorial functions in primary.
secondary. and public territories which will facilitate the territorial behavior of
residents. For Primary Territories. Schroeder suggests. first. the personalization of
personal space. Residents should be encouraged to change room atmospheres by
painting and wall papering: adding plants. posters. and drapes: paneling:
constructing lofts. bookcases. and other furniture: refinishing doors. replacing
fixtures: and plastering ceilings. Second: he suggests Privacy Regulation.
Administrators should ofl'er more private rooms or encourage residents to build
partitions and lofts. and create boundaries through arrangement of bookcases. plants.
and desks. Third: he urges the promotion of effective Roommate Relationships.
This should be done by assisting roommates to define their living habits by

organizing space and functions within their room.

 

(I)

as

In

In

19

For Secondary Territories. Schroeder suggests. first. creating defensible
space. This is accomplished by encouraging residents to territorially mark hallways
and lounges by painting and decoration. Further. opportunities should be provided
for residents to lock 03' houses and corridors and restrict access to residents and
their guests. Residents should begin to take care of the space. and encroachment by
unidentified persons should be reduced. Second. increased social interaction and
group stability should be attempted by reducing the size of secondary territories by
partitioning long hallways into smaller units and providing centrally located group
rooms which residents could personalize and control.

For Public Territories. first. public territories should be converted into group
socializing areas. This should be done by walling off unused areas or relocating
lounges under the control of houses or units and limiting access to group members
and their invited guests by issuing lounge keys to group members. Second.
behavioral zones should be created. Create stimulation zones for games and other
activities: freedom zones for libraries. mechanical drawing. etc.: and privacy zones
such as study cartels. This enhances social interactions and provides privacy.
security. and reduction of conflicts.

Schroeder concludes that a sense of community cannot be developed within

residence halls without considering the significance of territoriality.

McCarthy and Saegert (1979) studied the effects of high density in the
immediate residential environment on residents' experiences of social overload and
the consequences of these experiences for their social relationships and attitudes.
The site of their study was a low-income housing project with 2.000 families which
contained both high- and low-rise buildings. The 56 low-rise buildings housed 12
families per entrance and the 12 high-rise buildings housed 1 10 families each. The

authors' hypothesis was that "high-rise residents would experience more social

SI

at

V8

at

ha

Te:

Du

36L

2O

overload. which would result in more perceived crowding. feelings of less control.
safety. and privacy in the residential environment as well as less positive and more
problematic social relationships with other tenants. and more feelings of withdrawal.
alienation. and dissatisfaction with the residential environment generally" (p.57).

A total of 60 structured interviews were conducted. 15 each from two 14
story bufldings. and 4 to 6 each from the six 3 story buildings. Interviewers knocked
at doors randomly and interviewed the female head of households. There were not
any significant demographic differences between the interviewees in high-rise versus
low-rise residences.

The authors found that high-rise tenants were:

vmore likely to report experiences of social overload and crowding:
more likely to feel a weaker sense of control. privacy. and safety
in various interior spaces of their building;
0more likely to experience greater difficulty in social relations: and
0more alienated. less sa ied. less involved. and more detached from
their own building and the project in general. (p.59)

The high-rise tenants felt more crowded. and those living on higher floors
also felt more crowded than those on lower floors. Additionally. tenants who felt
more crowded perceived the other residents as less friendly. less likely to stop
vandalism. and less likely to intervene if another tenant were attacked.

The authors stated that the major limitation of their findings would be in an
attempt to generalize the findings to middle- and upper-income groups who might
have more opportunity to choose where to live and to live with people with whom
they already have social ties.

CAMPUS CRIME
In 1977. James Fox stated that campus crime had not received very much
research attention. This is currently true. at least for research which has been
published. Often the literature on campus crime discusses organization.

administration. operational procedures. personnel selection and legal authority of

21

the campus police or security agency. (Iannarelli. 1968: Adams & Rogers. 1971;
Gelber. 1972: Bordner & Peterson. 1983) Although there seems to be a paucity of
literature dealing with campus crime. this section contains a review of some of the

literature which does deal with campus crime.

Molumby (1976) conducted a study at Florida State University's married
housing development. 'Alumni Village'. The village is divided into three main areas
with four distinct building types. Area 1 contained eighteen l6-unit buildings. each
with dual two-story double-loaded entryways. Area 11 contained thirteen townhouse-
style buildings and six two-story buildings with entryways in the front for apartments
on both levels. Area III contained both townhouse-style buildings and single-level
efficiency apartments.

A victimization survey was developed to gather information about the number
and types of crimes in the village. where and when it occurred. the method of entry.
whether it was noticed right away. dollar loss. and if it was reported to the local
police. The study focused on property crime. but data on other types of crimes were
collected. The crimes were categorized as larceny. burglary and others. The 'others'
category included breaking and entering where nothing was taken. acts of vandalism.
and one assault. Information was also noted on the spatial aspects of the dwelling
units - (building type. placement. lighting. traffic flow. etc.). The information
gathered covered a period of apprordmately 15 months.

Apartments having no buildings on the opposite side of the street and a
location along a main access route represented only 39% of the apartments. but they
were the location of 65% of all crimes in Areas 1 & II. The Chi-square for this
relationship was was found to be significant at the .001 level.

Area III contained 40% of the apartments and 29% of the crime. Chi-square

for the relationship of apartments which have no buildings on the opposite side of

 

Ii

It

22

the street and a location along a main access route and the rest of the apartments
was found to be significant at between the .20 and .30 levels. For Molumby. this
result suggests there was little difference between crime rates for the two
neighborhoods.

In Area I. 95% of the crimes occurred outside the apartment. In Areas II 8:
III. 35% of the crimes involved entering the apartment. Molumby concluded that
this difi'erence in crime technique could be explained by occupant visibility.
Visibility of the parking and other areas outside the Area I apartments was extremely
poor. In Areas II 8: III. the visibility of the parking area was much better. but the
areas behind the buildings were unprotected and the apartments easier to break into
because of sliding glass doors which the residents often left unlocked.

The victimization rates were found to be .36 for the larger apartments (Type
I). .26 for townhouses (Type 2). .04 for single-level efficiencies (Type 3). and .025
for upstairs] downstairs apartments (Type 4). Although Molumby reports these
victimization rates. he does not explain how the rates were computed.

Molumby concluded that property crime in Alumni Village seemed to occur
mostly at night. along the main access routes through the village and that crime rates
in the village were a reflection of (1) street patterns and usage. (2) apartment
building design. and (3) the surrounding environment.

Fox (1977) conducted research on the assumption that the data available from
university police departments gives only a "vague impression of the distribution of
crime on campus" (p.346). Fox's study of the University of Virginia was designed to
answer the following questions: ( 1) Is a mailed questionnaire a viable method for
screening victims of crime on the college campus?. (2) What is the distribution of
crime on the college campus?. and (3) How does the distribution of crime on the

college campus compare with that of crime in the general population?

 

iiuifliifiani

23

A sample of 2.002 was selected from the omcial roster of all University of
Virginia students during the 1972-73 school year. A questionnaire was mailed to
each student of the sample with an initial return rate of 51 percent. A second
mailing produced 15% more responses. A telephone follow-up was conducted which
resulted in a total response of 79% of the original sample. Each respondent who
indicated he or she had been victimized was interviewed to verify the alleged
incident and gather personal data. The omcial records of the university police were
examined to (a) identify patterns of incidence of victimization to validate the survey
findings. (b) identify patterns of geographical distribution. and (c) establish how
many of the incidents identified in the mailed questionnaire were actually on the
official records.

The types of crime analyzed were rape. assault. robbery. burglary. larceny and
car theft. Variables considered in terms of their correlation with victimization were
sex. age. religion. class standing. marital status. number of people sharing a living
unit. average weekly spending. visible wealth. and social cohesiveness. Variables that
did not appear to be related to victimization were race. possession of a weapon for
protection. ownership of a dog. frequency of drinking alcohol. whether or not the
individual locked the door to the living unit. the number of entrances to the
residence. and the number of observable entrances to the residence. The type of
crime with victim characteristics and the victimization rates for each is displayed in
Table 2.2.

The findings of the victimization survey were compared with the official
reports of the university police. For rape. robbery. and assault. the official reports
indicated a victimization rate of .3 per 100 students where the survey rate for these

crimes was 3. 1 per 100 students. According to the ofllcial records. the victimization

24

rate for auto theft. burglary. and larceny was 3 per 100 students while the
victimization rate from the survey was 27 per 100 students.

A review of the distribution of crimes reported to the police showed that the
highest incidence of crimes was between 6pm and 12 midnight. Analysis of the
victimization survey data revealed that the rate of victimization was highest in the
afternoon rather than the evening. The author stated that relying on the reported
crimes could lead to misinterpretation of criminal behavior.

Campus victimization rates for rape. robbery. assualt. and auto theft were
lower than the composite rate for the cities. Campus victimization rates for burglary
and larceny were higher than the composite city rates.

The author concluded that there. most likely. are many college students who
are being victimized whose cases are not known by college administrators. that
'target hardening is possible only when the incidence of crime can be accurately
analyzed in terms of time. place and potential victim. and that it is feasible to use the

victimization survey on the college campus.

McPheters (1978) examined the hypothesis that crime on university
campuses has a systematic and statistically identifiable relationship to characteristics
of (1) the student population. (2) physical aspects of the campus. (3) forces outside
the campus that may induce outsiders to perpetrate criminal acts on campus
property. and (4) the level of campus security activity. The study was based on a
model using two simultaneous equations estimating crime and security activity where
crime was the FBI index crimes per 10.000 students and security activity was the
security budget per 10.000 students. The equations included variables for the
percentage of the student body living in residence halls: student density per nonfarm

acre: unemployment rate in the nearest city with a population over 100.000: urban

25

Table 2.2 Crime Type. Victimization Characteristic. Victimization Rate

TYPE r RIME CRIME TYPE VITTIM CHARA-CTE—RISTI'T'
VICTIMIZATION CHARACTERISTIC VICTIMIZATION
RATE VRATE

 

 

 

Rape 0.4 Female 1.1
Assault 2.2 Re ous

pre erence 4.5
Robbery 0.6 Living in unu

of 7 or more 1.7
Burglary 10.9 Living in

fraternity 40.8

21-22 years of age 15.5

Lowest quartile on

social

cohesiveness 17.6

Seniors 16.0

Juniors 14.0

Avera e weekly

spen > or =

$9.00 1' 14.1

unit 0

21% than 7 20.6
Larceny 15.6 Males 17.7

Third quartile on -

social

cohesiveness 19.0

19-20 years of age 18.0
Car Theft 0.9 Visible wealth > or

= .600 2.4

Female 1.7
Total Victimization 30.6 Males 29.8

iii-amaze

1- e .
Seniorzi'mrs ag 37.0
m 31.0
in
fraternity 51.0

 

Note: Rates of victimization are per 100 . This table was adapted from TaEIe 2. Fox.
1977. pg.348. P=.05 or less.

location of campus; number of buildings on campus: and the number of nonfarm
acres on campus. There was also a variable reflecting gains from legal and illegal
activities and community tolerance for crime and a variable reflecting campus
administrative and student desires for security activity.

Crime data for the study were collected from the 1975 Uniform Crime

Reports Budget data. campus physical and location data. and student population data

26

were obtained by a survey of the security departments of 75 universities. There were
38 complete responses resulting in a 5 1% response rate. Data on unemployment
rates were obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Using a two-stage least squares regression. three variables (percent of student
body living in dorms. the unemployment rate in the nearest city. and security
expenditure per capita) were found to be significant at the .05 level in the crime
equation. The results for the security expenditure equation show dormitory
population as a proportion of student enrollment and the indigenous crime variable
significant at the .05 level. The author concluded that the model suggested that
campus crime rates are influenced by forces both on and 08' campus and that the
results of the study suggest that closing campuses to nonstudents would reduce

crime rates. but would place severe restrictions on personal freedom on the campus.

Sigler and Formby (1982) conducted a study of the victimization of students
and personnel during the 9-month academic year. 1977-78. at the University of
Alabama. The 9-month victimization rates were converted to 12-month rates to
facilitate comparison with other studies. The comparison data were taken from the
Uniform Crime Reports for 1974 to 1978. Criminal Victimization in the United
States: 1978. and Trends in Criminal Victimization: 1973-1978.

Victimization data for the campus were collected by a victimization survey
adopted from the National Crime Survey instrument. The survey was administered
by telephone. A stratified random sample of faculty. staff and students was drawn
proportionally for sex. faculty. staff. and year of attendance for the student. The goal
was to obtain a 1% sample. but because of refusal to participate. or other loss. the
final sample was only 0.73% of the population. Because the study was focused on
victimization which occurred on campus. those cases which occurred of'f campus

were removed from the analysis and the number of victims in the sample was

27

reduced to forty—one. The sample was representative except that women and blacks
were overrepresented. The 41 victims were compared with the 90 nonvictims
across all variables and no measurable differences were found.

The victimization survey found that black subjects were victimized at a higher
rate than white subjects in theft from auto and burglary. while white subjects were
victimized more often than black subjects for larceny and attempted larceny.

Male subjects had a higher victimization for burglary than females. while
females experienced higher victimization rates for theft from auto. larceny. and
attempted larceny.

Women tended to be victimized near their residences while men tended to be
victimized away from their residences. Women were more likely to be victimized
inside a building. while men were victimized more often outside a building.

Finally. victims were more likely to report victimizations which occurred in
their residence and when the loss was over $30. The campus crime rate was

signficantly higher than national rates for all offenses reported.

RESIDENCE HALLS

Bynum and Purri (1984) investigated the manner in which the physical
environment influenced the incidence of crime and criminal behavior in the
residence halls on the campus of Michigan State University. At the time of the study.
the 26 undergraduate residence halls on campus housed over 17.000 students.

The residence halls were grouped into five complexes. The 1 l residence
halls in Complexes A and B were older. three story buildings with a common bath on
each floor. These residence halls housed an average of 390 students. Complex C
consisted of six residence halls containing four floors and housing an average of 460
students. The 9 residence halls in Complexes D and E were newer buildings

containing 6 to 10 floors and housing an average of 1.100 students. These residence

28

balls were designed with 2 rooms sharing a bath and some apartments. Some floors
were also used for classrooms and office space. For their study. Bynum and Purri
divided the residence halls into low-rise and high-rise categories. They did not state
this clearly. but. it appears that the low-rise category consisted of Complexes AB.
and C while the high-rise group were those in Complexes D and E.

A victimization survey. utilizing a disproportionate sample. stratified on the
basis of the complex. as described above. was administered to 3.000 randomly
selected on-campus students during the winter quarter of 1980. The survey was
designed to measure the students' on-campus victimization the previous quarter.
The overall response rate was 62% with the return of 1.872 questionnaires. The
return rate for the complexes ranged from 60.8% to 64.6%. but the response rate
for both high- and low-rise categories was 61%.

The study included all incidents of theft in which the value of the item stolen
was geater than ten dollars. The rates of theft were calculated per 1.000 students.
Bynum and Purri found a rate of theft in the high-rise residence halls that was twice
that of the low-rise (22.80 v 46.64). The rate of theft of items less than $50 was
19.54 for low-rise and 34.70 for high-rise residence halls while the rate of theft for
items geater than $50 was 11.93 for high-rise and 3.26 for low-rise. However. the
last rate was based on only three incidents in the low-rise and eleven incidents in
the high-rise residence halls.

When assessing the feelings of community cohesion in the residence halls.
the authors found that residents of both low- and high-rise residence halls described
their immediate neighborhood similarly. However. the residents in the low-rise
bufldings were more likely to feel that they could ask their immediate neighbors for

a favor than were those who lived in high-rise residence halls.

29

Significant criticisms of evaluations of the relationship between crime and
environmental design presented by the authors include an overreliance on oflicial
statistics. the nonrandom assignment of students to the residence halls. and
concern that resident and social environment characteristics may be intervening
factors which must be evaluated.

Bynum and Purri concluded that despite the limited ability to generalize the
results of their study. "the issues of the impact of building desigr on human
interaction and behavior appear to warrant consideration in the desigi and

construction of multi-unit residential areas" (p. 193).

Hood and Hodges (1974) conducted a study to examine student residents'
attitudes toward security in their residence halls at the University of Iowa. Soon
after the initial study was completed. a coed was murdered in one of the residence
halls. The original study was replicated to determine the impact of the murder on
students' attitudes toward residence hall security.

The study utilized a 30-item questionnaire to elicit responses about:

othe university's responsibility for security.

ostudents' responsibility for security.

0the effect of open visitation on security.

0concern about crime in the residence hall.

Cpersonal behavior related to security. and

0reactions to various institutional security measures. (p.353)

The sample was taken from the eight residence halls on campus. housing
from 300 to 975 residents each. Five of the residence halls were coed. with halls.
floors. and wings varying on the proportion of class standing and visitation privileges.
Floor plans were examined to gather a sample that would be representative with
regard to sex. visitation policy. and year in school. An equal number of high- and low-
trafilc rooms were chosen. TWO rooms were randomly chosen from each selected

floor plan.

30

The initial questionnaires were distributed early in the evening during the
first part of the week prior to the final examination period. The questionnaires were
collected approximately 30 minutes later.

The initial survey resulted in 7 1 completed questionnaires (36 male. 35
female) while the follow-up survey also resulted in 71 completed questionnaires (38
male. 33 female). The follow-up questionnaire was administered fifteen days after
the coed's murder. The murderer was still at large and the police had not released
information about what evidence they possessed.

Approximately 75% of the respondents said they had not been concerned
about a lack of security in their residence hall and there was no sigiificant change in
this response after the murder. When asked if they were concerned about violent
crime in their residence hall. 90% of the respondents in both samples did not
believe that a violent crime was likely to occur.

Prior to the murder. over 50% of the respondents felt the university should
be responsible for the security of students and their belongings. After the murder.
apprordmately 66% ageed with this statement.

All of the males stated they locked their room door when leaving the
residence hall. both before and after the murder. For the females. 94% before and
85% after the murder stated that they locked their door. While taking a shower.
64% and 74% of the males and 37% and 45% of the females (before and after.
respectively) locked their room door.

Of the males. 22% before and 8% after the murder locked their doors while
studying in the room. For the females. 0% before and 8% after the murder locked
their doors. While sleeping in the room. 75% of the males before and 84% after the
murder locked their doors. while 83% of the females before and 84% after the

murder locked their doors.

31

The authors concluded that the murder of a coed in the residence hall did
not significantly affect residents' security related behavior. The students may have
felt that this was an isolated event and there were no important consequences or
implications for them.

The authors stated that residence hall administrators may find it difllcult to
convince residents about the need for additional security measures in the residence
hall. However. it may be possible that the residents' attitudes might change if the
impact of more common events such as burglary and theft from the rooms were felt
by a larger number of residents. Residents might then feel that they were more

likely to be a victim and consider changes in their behavior as being necessary.

According to Baum and Davis (1980):

control over social experience appears to be an important aspect of
response to high densi ; when such control is threatened or reduced.
crowding and associate costs are more likely to occur. Group
formation in these settings is an influential component of this control;
the structures provided by a group reinforce individual members'
ability to regulate interaction. Thus. the designs of difi'erent
dormitories determine residential group size. which in turn influences
goup development and regulatory control.(p.473).

For this study the authors used three settings: a long corridor. a short
corridor. and a long corridor altered by architectural intervention. It was
hypothesized that residents of the long corridor altered by intervention would
exhibit more positive social experience. less withdrawal. and less helplessness than
residents on the long corridor without alteration. Experiences and behaviors of
residents on the short corridor should be similar to those of the residents of the
altered corridor.

The second floor of a residence hall was selected as the intervention floor.
The third floor was the long corridor with 40 residents and the short corridor with

20 residents was in a difl'erent. but comparable residence hall. The intervention on

32

the second floor consisted of bisecting the floor by converting three rooms into a
lounge area with unlocked doors on either side.

The residents of the residence halls were primarily freshmen and the floors
chosen housed womenonly. On the first day of registration and after 5 and 12
weeks. the subjects completed questionnaires assessing their feelings about college
and residence hall life. Questionnaires varied in format over the the administrative
periods. All 86 residents completed the first survey. but attrition reduced the final
group to 67 residents.

An observation of resident behavior was conducted three times a week at 10-
1 1pm during week nights between the 3rd and 14th weeks by a college age male.
The observer was not aware of the experimental hypothesis.

A laboratory assessment was conducted between the 5th and 1 1th week to
assess resident behavior. Each subject arrived at the laboratory alone. expecting to
participate in a study of "impression formation." Each subject was asked to wait until
the experiment began. in a room where a confederate had been placed. Subjects
were told that the confederate was also waiting for the experiment.

Data from the questionnaire provided evidence that long corridor residents
reported increasing difficulty in regulating social contact. were more likely to have
problems with the large number of people they lived with. and expressed less
confidence in their ability to control experience inside and outside the residence
hall. Long corridor residents felt that small goups were less likely to form on their
floor and they felt more crowded in the residence hall.

The behavioral observation resulted in the finding that long corridor residents
participated in less social activity and were less likely to leave their doors open as an

invitation to interaction.

 

"1

 

 

 

33

The laboratory assessment resulted in the finding that long-corridor residents
sat further away from a confederate. looked at her less. and felt more uncomfortable
following a five minute waiting period. Long corridor residents also expected to have
less control over the session once it started.

The authors did not feel that the extra lounge space provided by the
intervention affected the findings because observations indicated the lounges were
rarely used. and in any case. were not fully furnished until the semester following the
study semester. Overall. the intervention of the long-corridor floor resulted in (1)
more positive interaction. (2) more local group development. (3) more confidence
about ability to control events in the residence hall. and (4) less withdrawal in both

residential and non-residential environments than the unaltered long corridor.

Holahan. et al. (1978) reported that previous research had reported less
living satisfaction and social cohesion in high-rise residence halls in contrast to low-
rise residence halls. In previous research. this dissatisfaction had been interpreted
as a function of crowding. whereas in the present study. the efl'ect of floor level on
both levels of social satisfaction and friendship development were considered.

The subjects for this study were 346 (208 males and 138 females) randomly
selected residents of a 14 story. coed residence hall on the campus of a large
southwestern university. The hall housed approximately 3.000 residents who were
randomly assigned to their rooms. The population size and living space per resident
were the same on all floors.

A questionnaire was developed which measured social participation. social
privacy. and an index of friendships formed within the residence hall. The
questionnaires were handed out to subjects by the resident assistants on their floors.

The questionnaires were completed anonymously and returned to the resident

34

assistant's mailbox within 2 days. Five hundred questionnaires were administered
and a return rate of 58% was achieved.

All the measures showed a strong relationship to floor level . with the high
floors having the lowest scores on all measures. However. the relationship of low to
middle floors varied across the three measures.

The authors concluded that the development of relationships on the lower
floors may have been related to the geater use of rooms on the lower floor because
of their case of access. The social privacy dissatisfaction of lower floor residents may
have been a result of the use of lounges. study areas. and dining facilities on lower
floors by residents of other floors. Social privacy dissatisfaction on the upper floors
may have been influenced by acting out behavior that was reported to have occurred

on these floors or may have been a negative response bias.

Bickrnan. et al. (1973) examined the "relationship between dormitory density
and the behavior and attitudes of the students who live in these dormitories." The
research focused on density within a structure which can be measured by persons
per structure or units per structure. These measures are related to the number of
different persons a resident could interact with in laundry rooms. hallways.
elevators. lobbies. and communal bathrooms. Bickrnan. et al. suggest that a benefit of
conducting research in college residence halls is that age. education. quality of
housing. overcrowding. and sometimes. social class are similar across difi'erent levels
of research variables.

In this study. the concept of helping behavior was used as an indicator of
resident attitudes toward others. In the first measure of helping behavior. stamped.
addressed letters without a return address were dropped in residence hall hallways.

Picking up the letter and mailing it should reflect a helping behavior. The second

35

measure involved asking students to save mflk cartons for an art project being
conducted by other students.

The first study subjects were the 2.384 undergaduate residents of 10 female
residence halls at the University of Massachusetts and the 2. 161 female
undergaduates in 37 houses at Smith College. T\vo 22 story towers housing 522 and
535 students were designated as high-density residence halls. .The medium-density
residence halls were 8 residence halls from four to seven stories tall. housing an
average of 165.9 residents. The low-density residence halls housed between 16 and
81 students. with an average of 58.4 residents.

A 69 item questionnaire assessing the character of the residence halls. living
habits. self-perceptions. and perceptions of neighbors was distributed to 30 subjects
in the high-density. 60 in the medium-density. and 36 in the low-density residence
halls. The authors did not state how these subjects were selected.

As a result of the lost letter technique. Bickman. et al. reported that
percentages of letters returned were 63% in high-density. 87% in medium-density.
and 100% in low-density residence halls. After counting 18 envelopes not picked up
as being not mailed. the percentages were 58%. 79%. and 88%. respectively.

Questionnaire responses showed no difference in desire to move based on
density. Eighty-one percent of the students in the low-density and eighty-three
percent of the students in the medium-density residence halls said their residence
halls were friendly. while the students in the high-density residence halls were split
between friendly and impersonal. When assessing trust of other students in the
residence hall. 88% of the low-density. 74% of the medium-density. and 48% of the
high density residence hall students said they trusted other students. In the high-
density residence halls. 97% of the residents said they locked their doors compared

to 82% in the medium-density and 48% in the low-density residence halls. When

36

asked what they would do if they found a window broken in a common area. 82% of
the low-density. 60% of the medium-density. and 33% of the high-density residents
stated they would report the broken window.

The subjects in the second study were the 3.526 male and female residents of
four University of Pennsylvania residence halls and 64 non-university town houses.
The high-density residence halls were two 25 story halls. housing an average of 954
residents. TVvo 4 story residence halls housing an average of 233 residents were the
medium-density residence halls. The low-density housing consisted of 64
townhouses located close to campus which housed an average of 12 persons per
house. The average height of the town houses was 3 stories. The authors stated that
most of the residents in the town houses were students. but did not state what
percentage and did not give any information about the other residents.

In the low-density housing. 90.6% of the letters were returned compared to
77.4% in the medium-density and 63.6% in the high-density residence halls. In the
milk carton test. using a ratio of the actual number given to the maximum which
could be given. the authors found that low -density residents gave 55%. medium-
density 54%. and high-density 37% of the maximum cartons which could be given.

Analysis of the questionnaires revealed that high-density residents had the
least positive Opinions of their resident group. The lower the density. the more
cheerful. friendly. relaxing. unrestrictive. diversified. spacious. and warm the
residence hall was perceived to be. However. the high- and medium-density
residence halls were perceived to be better kept and safer than the OE campus low-
density town houses. This may not be a factor of density. but may be related to a
difi'erence in administration and maintenance procedures.

In the first study. the researchers found that students in high-density

residence halls reported less trust. cooperativeness. and responsibility in their

37

residences and that higher density residents behaved in a less socially responsible
manner toward other residents. The first study was limited by the fact that the low-
density housing was located on a difi’erent campus and that the residence halls were
female only. The results might have been different in a male only or mixed
residence hall. The authors also found that density was inversely related to the
length of residency. In the second study. the researchers found that residents of
high-density residence halls rated other residents lower on sense of community and
friendliness and considered their residence halls to be more impersonal. unfriendly.

and cold.

Schroeder (1976) stated that when designing high-rise residence halls. little
emphasis had been placed on the individual needs and interactions of the residents.
resulting in resident dissatisfaction about lack of privacy. roommate conflicts.
personal space. enforced sociability. and lack of opportunity for personalization.
Schroeder described the residence halls at Auburn University as being characterized
by long. narrow corridors. communal baths. and wit by 12ft double occupancy
rooms. Residents' behavior problems resulted in damage to the residence halls.
roommate conflicts. and discipline cases.

The author proposed that territoriality and the goup system were two
strategies that could be used to reduce the problems in the residence halls.
Territoriality was defined as the "acquisition. demarcation. and defense of a spatial
area." (p.386) The group system was considered to be a basic social structure which
provides opportunities for freedom. stimulation. security and order which present
conditions for human development.

In the Magnolia Dormitories at Auburn University. students were encouraged
to personalize their rooms by painting and decorating and floor units as goups were

encouraged to paint and decorate hallways. stairs. and goup rooms. Each fall a

38

contest determined the best decorated personal and goup areas and a prize of $600
was awarded. In addition. territoriality was developed by providing several private
rooms in addition to the double occupancy rooms.

To provide for the goup system. roommates were paired on the basis of
shared majors and personality types and floors were assigied on the basis of
commonality of dominant process as determined by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.
Certain floors were partitioned to create goups of 8-20 persons.

Within three years. occupancy was up 30%. damages were down 78% .and
retention from spring to fall was 72%. Schroeder concluded that territoriality and
the goup system appeared to be significant strategies for structuring residence hall
environments and called for empirical research to evaluate the impact of these

strategies on residents' behavioral development.

SUMMARY

A summary of the literature review is contained in Table 2.3.

39

Table 2.3 Summary of Literature Review

 

AUTH R ENVIRONMENT CPTED HYP E ULTS
FEATURE
Jacobs. City Short bIocks. blic and eoretical
196 1 functional private spaces
variety. building defined.
variety. density bufldings
oriented for
surveillance
el. Public areas with Defined Level of Theoretical
19 pedestrians territories. intensity of use
controlled determines
accessibility. amount of crime
controlled
densi .
surve ance
Jeffery. Tar et Behavior is a Theoretical
1971 har ening. product of the
urban p interaction of
and design. organism and
environment environment
and behavior.
citizen
participation
Newman. Public Housing Low-rise versus Control crime Physical '
1972 high-rise. ten by estab a variables more
unidentified defensible space strongly related
physical to location than
eatures crime rate.
Booth. Urban Non-resident non- Limited access
198 l households access. resident access and increased
surveillance and limited surveillance
surveillance by prevents crime
residents in some areas.
encourages but not in
crime others
Merry. Small inner city Defensible Relationship Defensible
1981 housing project versus non- between design space
defensible areas features and necessary. but
actual not sufficient
intervention for crime
prevention.
Requires
resident
intervention

surveillance.

Table 2.3 Continuation

4O

 

AUTH R ENVIRONMENT PT'ED HYP E IS RE ULTS
FEATURE
Pyle. Public Housing Row housefi- Does Architectural
1 976 story walkup. architectural type significant
High-rise. and at .05. ut not
eneral location at .01.
elp explain
distribution of
crime?
Schroeder. Residence Hall Enhance Enhanced Theoretical
1980 territorial territorial
function. function will
facilitate
territorial
behavior of
residents.
McCarthy & Low income High-rise versus High-rise Hypothesis
Saegert. housing. low-rise. residents supported.
1 979 experience
more social
overload: less
control. safety.
and privacy:
more
withdrawal and
alienation.
Molumby. Married campus Building type. Exploratory Crime rates
1976 housing. lacement. research. were a
h . and reflection of
traffic ow. street usage and
raise. a is.
11 CS .
and
surrounding
environment.
Fax. Campus N/A Viability of Mailed
1977 mailed victimization
victimization survey is
s . feasible for
distri ution of campus use.
campus crime. Victimization
comparison of was highest in
campus crime afternoon.
distribution Campus
with general victimization
population. rate different

than city rate.

41

Table 2.3 Continuation

 

AUTH R ENVIR NMENT P'TED HYP 1 UL
FEATURE
MEPheters. Campus Demographic Crime has a Campus crime
1978 data. physical tematic and rates are
aspects of entifiable influenced by
campus. outside relationship to forces on and
forces. level of stated design ofl’ campus.
campus features. Closing campus
security. to non-students
would reduce
crime. but
restrict
freedom.
Sigler & Carrrpus N/A Victimization Campus rate
Formby. survey.and higher than
I 982 compariso national rate
with national Blacks
rates. victimized more
frequently than
whites. Males
are more likely
auto theft
victim. Females
glore likely
victims.
Bynum & Residence halls Low-rise versus Influence of High-rise theft
Purri. high-rise. physical design rate twice that
1984 on incidence of of low-rise.
crime.
Hood & Residence halls. N/A Determine No sigrificant
Hodges. impact of coed change in
1974 murder on concern about
attitudes toward lack of security.
security. No significant
change in
security related
behavior.
Baum & Residence halls. Corridor length Short corridor Lo corridor
Davis. intervention. residents will resi ents
1980 experience less experienced
withdrawal and more crowding
hel lessness and control
an a more roblems and
positive social ess social
experience. activity.

Table 2.3 Continuation

42

 

AUTH R ENVIRONMENT CPTED HYP ESIS RE UL
FEATURE
Holahan. Residence halls. floor level in lationsllip of All measures
et al. high-rise social had strong
1978 residence hall. participation. relationship to
social privacy. floor level with
and friendships high floors
formed with the
floor level. low wes scores.
Bickrnan. Residence halls. Residence hall High density
et al. density. responsible residents
1 973 behavior is exhibited less
related to trust.
density of cooperativeness
residents. .and
responsibili
less sense 0
community. and
friendliness.
Schroeder. Residence halls. Territoriality. Territoriality Damages down
1976 goup system. andgroup 78%. occupangfi'
system will up 30% and f
reduce to spring
damages. retention up
increase 72%.

occupancy &
retention.

 

CHAPTER III. DESIGN OF STUDY

DESIGN

This study is a quasi-experimental. cross-sectional. static group comparison.
Due to the research being done in a ‘real life' environment. use of a true
experimental design was not practical.and manipulation of physical design features
would be very costly and disruptive. The non-random sampling of residence halls to
ensure variation in design limits the use of an experimental design.

The study is cross-sectional rather than longitudinal to ensure that the study
would be manageable in relation to resource and time limitations.

Because limitations of this study precluded the ability to establish cause-effect
relationships among variables. the study is descriptive rather than explanatory. The
study is a combination of hypothesis testing and exploration. Hypothesis testing will
be conducted on hypotheses developed from established concepts which have been
previously tested in environments different from the current study environment.

The majority of previous studies have been conducted in public housing
environments. This study will be conducted in a campus residence hall environment
which may be in some respects homogeneous . but has diversity in areas of
socioeconomic backgound. nationality. culture. etc. Also. attitudes toward police.
crime. and fellow students may be significantly difi'erent than those of previous
studies.

Finally. this study explores the use of the Student Opinion Survey as a
measurement of intervening variables in the relationship between physical design

and the occurrence of crime.

43

44

HYPOTHESES

The general hypothesis for this study is:

The frequency of occurrence of burglary. larceny. and malicious
destruction of property is related to the physical design features.

The specific research hypotheses are as follow:

B1: The frequency of occurrence of burglary. larceny. and malicious
destruction of property is positively related to hall length.

B2: The frequency of occurrence of burglary. larceny. and malicious
destruction of property is positively related to the percentage of
residence room doors facing.room doors across the hall.

B3: The frequency of occurrence of burglary. larceny. and malicious
destiriuction of property is positively related to the number of rooms
per car.

B4: The frequency of occurrence of burglary. larceny. and malicious
destruction of property is positively related to the number of rooms
per residence hall.

B5: The frequency of occurrence of burglary. larceny. and malicious
destruction of property is positively related to the number of floors in
the residence hall.

B6: The frequency of occurrence of bu lary. larceny. and malicious
destruction of property is positively rela ed to the floor level.

B7: The frequency of occurrence of burglary. larceny. and malicious
destruction of roperty is greater in residence halls with common
bath facilities an in residence halls with two rooms sharing a bath.

Student Opinion Survey scores (SOS) are the mean scores of student
resident res rises to questions assessing attitudes and behavior of
residents w ich may be related to the crime rate in the residence
halls. The Student Opinion Survey hypotheses are as follow:

808 B1: SOS scores are negatively related to residence hall crime
rates.

808 B2: SOS scores are negatively related to the percentage of
residence room doors facing room doors across the hall.

18108 B3: SOS scores are negatively related to the number of rooms per
car.

SOS B4: SOS scores are negatively related to the number of rooms per
residence hall.

806 B5: SOS scores are negatively related to the number of floors in
the residence hall.

808 B6: SOS scores are negatively related to the floor level.

808 B7: SOS scores will be lower in residence halls with common
baths than in residence halls with two rooms sharing a bath.

45

SAMPLE

The site for this study is the campus of Michigan State University in East
Lansing. The campus consists of 5.263 acres. with 3.163 acres devoted to
experimental farms. outlying research facilities and natural areas. The northern half
of the campus contains most of the buildings of the campus including the library.
administrative buflding. classrooms and offices. and residence halls. The majority of
the southern half of the campus is farm acreage and associated agicultural facilities.
This north/ south division is emphasized by railroad tracks which pass through the
entire campus.

The north. east. and west boundaries of the campus are very distinct. being
marked by major north/south and east/west streets. To the north is a business
district serving the campus and adjacent city of East Lansing. The areas to the west
and cast are generally residential areas. with some businesses to the west which
serve the campus community and nearby residential areas. No major highways or
streets bisect the interior of the campus. although there is one east/west campus
street which terminates at each border where it intersects with north/ south streets.
The majority of trafi‘ic on the campus is related to campus activity.

The campus is approximately quartered by one north/ south street and the
east/west street mentioned previously. with both streets terminating where they
intersect with the boundary streets.

Crime statistics and population figures for this study were collected for the
1986-87 academic school year. For the 1986 fall term. 41.897 students were
enrolled on MSU's East Lansing campus. Apprordmately 17 .000 students were
residents of the 27 residence halls on campus.

The residence halls are gouped by geographic location into five complexes of

4-6 halls each. The complexes are located. one in each corner of the northern half

46

of the campus. with the fifth complex located near the center of the northern

boundary of the campus. The complexes and the halls that comprise them follow.

BRODY Armstrong. Bailey. Butterfield. Bryan. Emmons. Rather
WEST CIRCLE Campbell. Gilchrist. Landon. Mayo. Williams. Yakely
RED CEDAR Abbot. Mason. Snyder. Phillips. Shaw

EAST Akers. Holmes. Hubbard. McDonel. Owen. Van Hoosen
SOUTH Case. Holden. Wflson. Wonders

The halls in the West Circle and Red Cedar complexes. with the exception of
Shaw Hall. are older halls. constructed in approximately the 1920's/1930's. Brody
Complex was constructed in the 1950‘s and Shaw Hall. East Complex. and South
Complex were constructed in the 1960's and 1970's.

Shaw hall is unique in that is is situated by itself west of the east complex and
south of the Red Cedar complex in the interior of the campus. Owen Hall is unique
in that it houses ahnost exclusively graduate students while the rest of the halls
house mostly undergraduates.

Students can request to be placed in a specific hall and with specific
roommates. Without a specific request. room assignments are made for the student.
There are no designated freshmen halls. however. some halls are predominantly
freshmen because returning students request halls toward the center of campus
leaving empty spaces in residence halls on the edge of campus. These empty rooms
are then filled with incoming freshmen. Room assignments are generally made by
class standing first and then age.

Crime data used for the study were the incidents of burglary. larceny. and
malicious destruction of property which occurred in the residence halls during the
school year September. 1986 to June. 1987. as reported by the Department of Public
Safety. There were 599 incidents in all halls and 22 l incidents in the eight selected
halls which will be used for analysis. Purposive sampling of the residence halls was
done to draw a sample which contained variation in physical design. geogaphic

location. and crime rate.

47

The residence halls selected were Bailey. Rather. Williams. Shaw. Case.
Wonders. Hubbard. and McDonel. Rather and Bailey are both located in Brody
Complex and have the same physical desigr features. However. the crime rates
were very different. Williams Hall is located in West Circle Complex and has the
highest crime rate of that complex. Shaw Hall has a different physical design than all
the other halls and is located by itself. towards the interior of campus. McDonel and
Wonders Halls are the same physical design. are located in difi'erent complexes. and
have sigrificantly difierent crime rates. Case Hall is located in South Complex next
to Wonders Hall. Both halls are 6 story buildings and the room desigls are similar.
however. Case has a significantly lower crime rate. Finally. Hubbard Hall is located in
East Complex and at 12 stories. is the tallest residence hall on campus.

The eight selected residence halls. the complex. number of floors.
population. and crime rate are shown in Table 3. 1. Information for the remaining

halls is provided in Appendix D.

Table 3.1 Hall. #Floors. Population. and Crime Rate
HALL ] #FLOORS I POPU_L_ATIONI CRIME RATE

 

 

 

 

WIIIiams 4 227 44. l
as " "5': $33
4 4 .
Shaw 6 994 30.2
Case 6 954 15.7
Wonders 6 1 144 57.7
McDonel 6 1082 24.0
Hubbard 12 1204 36.5
MEASURES
CRIME DATA

The occurrence of crime and the calculation of the crime rate is based upon
the measurement of incidents of burglary. larceny. and malicious destruction of

property which occurred in the residence halls during the period September. 1986

48

to June. 1987. These crimes were selected because they comprise approximately
57% of all crimes in all residence halls. excluding Owen Hall. and 62% of all crimes
in the eight selected halls during the study period.

During the same period. there were 122 false alarms and 95
nuisance/obscene phone calls in all halls. excluding Owen Hall. and 25 false fire
alarms and 30 nuisance / obscene phone calls in the eight selected halls. Since the
incidents of burglary. larceny. and malicious destruction of property accounted for
such a sigiificant portion of the crime. they were chosen for this study. Additionally.
the next largest group of crimes. false fire alarms and nuisance/ obscene phone calls.
most likely would be only slightly influenced by the physical desigr.

The limitations of the use of official crime statistics. as described by many
authors. (Black. 1970: Bottomley & Coleman. 1981: Coleman & Bottomley. 1976;
Feirrberg. 1981; Reiss. 1986: Skogan. 1974; Sparks. Genn 8r Dodd. 1977) were
considered when deciding to use crime statistics from the MSU Department of
Public Safety. However. some authors (Miller & Graves. 1985: Reiss. 1986: Skogan.
1986b: Sparks. Germ & Dodd. 1977: Sparks. 1981; Van Dijk & Steinmetz. 1984)
have shown problems and limitations with the use of victimization surveys also.
Although a victimization survey may have contributed to this study. this method was

not utilized due to limitations of time and resources.

DESIGN FEATURES

The desigl features utilized as measurements of CPTED concepts were
adapted from previous CPTED research. The measurements used in this study are
identified in the following section.

Ball Length- It is theorized that residents of short hallways will exhibit more
positive territorial behavior than residents of long hallways. This positive territorial

behavior should inhibit the occurrence of crime.

49

Measurements of the hall lengths were made by measuring ‘to-scale' floor
plans with a ruler. The major source of possible unreliability occurred in the
hallways which connect. The interconnecting portion of the two hallways was not
split between the hallways. but was given entirely to one hallway depending on
placement of the rooms at the intersection.

Percentage Of Residence Room Doors Facing - Residence halls with a geater
proportion of room doors facing room doors across the hall should have higher crime
rates than halls with a smaller percentage of room doors facing. Similarly. floors
with geater percentage of doors facing than offset should have a greater crime rate.
(Heiwell, 1973)

Possible threats to reliability are computational error and not lmowing exactly
which rooms were occupied. Unoccupied rooms may have been counted.

Number Of Rooms Per Floor - This type of measurement is based upon density
within a unit. This type of density reflects the number of interactions that take place
with the same individuals over time. Privacy. social obligations. and overstimulation
should vary with the density level. Higher density should result in a higher crime
rate.

Threats to the reliability of this measurement are counting error and not
knowing exactly which rooms were occupied and which might have been
unoccupied.

Rooms Per Residence Ball - This measurement is based upon density within a
structure. This density is related to the number of different individuals a resident
can interact with in shared facilities such as laundry rooms. hallways. elevators.
lobbies. and bathrooms. This measurement will have the same threats to reliability

as rooms per floor.

50

Number of Floors - It is theorized that residence halls with a higher number
of floors will have a higher rate of crime than residence halls with a lower number of
floors. This measurement contains no apparent threat to reliability.

Floor Level - It is theorized that higher floors will have higher crime rates
than lower floors. Threats to reliability for this measurement may be improper
reporting of floor level by the complainant or improper recording of the floor level by
the recording officer. ‘

Common Bath Versus M Rooms Sharing A Beth - Residence halls with two
rooms sharing a bath will have lower crime rates than residence halls with common
bath facilities. This measurement is based upon density. Prolonged exposure to high
social density engenders the experience of crowding and causes residents to avoid
one another. Residents on floors with common bath facilities are more likely to feel
that their floor is crowded. that there are too many others with whom they must
interact. and that there are others whom they would prefer to avoid. (Baum. et al.
1975) Information for this measurement was taken from residence hall blue prints

and should be very reliable.

DATA COLLECTION

CRIME INCIDENTS
Information about the incidents of burglary. larceny. and malicious
destruction of property were collected from the ofllcial records of MSU Department
of Public Safety. Some incident information was gathered from records stored on

computer tapes. This information included the following:

Complaint number

Geographic code of residence hall
Date com laint received

Date incl ent occurred

Time incident occurred

Ffleclass of incident

51

Tool or weapon used
Damage value
c of item stolen
ue of item stolen
Victim and suspect information

Using the complaint numbers of incidents from the computer files. further

information was taken from DPS incident reports. This information included:

Day incident was reported

Room number

Crime location

Floor

Whether door was open. closed. locked. or unlocked.
Miscellaneous information

Data from the computer tapes were compared with the incident reports to
eliminate discrepancies. This provided data which was relatively free of recorder
error. This process provided a total of 22 1 useable cases in the eight selected

residence halls

HALL POPULATION DEMOGRAPHICS
Demographic data such as gender. class standing. and total population were
provided by the MSU Housing Assignments Office for Fall 1986. Winter 1987. and
Spring 1987. Population figures for the three terms were averaged to produce a

figure to compute the crime rate for each residence hall.

STUDENT OPINION SURVEY

Student responses to the Student Opinion Survey administered in J anuary,
1987 by the University Housing Programs Office to the residents of MSU residence
halls were used to assess the attitudes and behavior of residents which may be
related to the crime rate in the residence halls. The Student Opinion Survey was
administered to the entire population of the residence hall system. Of the 17,000
surveys distributed. 9.087 were returned for a rate of 53.9%. The return rate for the
eight halls selected for this study was 52.7%.

52

The surveys were given to the resident assistant of each floor. The method of
distribution was left to the discretion of each resident assistant. The most common
method of distribution was for the survey to be placed under each room door and the
room resident returned the survey to a collection point. Other resident assistants
may have personally gathered the completed surveys. Some resident assistants may
have ofi‘ered incentives for completed surveys.

Demographic data provided by the questionnaire about the respondents

included:

Number of terms lived in MSU residence hall
Class standing

e

House option of resident

Sex

Housing arrangements planned for next year

In addition to the demographic questions. 42 questions were asked about
resident assistants. resident hall programs. hall administration. relations with other
residents. and physical condition and maintenance of the residence hall. These
questions were five-option Likert-type design.

Nelve. three-option Lykert-type questions were asked about the respondents
increased personal skills since the first of the term.

Finally. 13 true /false questions were asked about hall administration. resident
assistants. knowledge about how to contact appropriate residence hall
administrators. and using residence hall programs.

The questions utilized for this study were taken from the first section and
were those that assessed attitudes about residence hall cleanliness. physical
condition of the residence hall. relationships between residents. safety in the

residence hall. and general attitudes about life in the residence hall.

53

The questions listed below are those that were selected as representing
intervening variables in the relationship between the residence hall physical design

and the occurrence of crime.

W14 Most residents on my floor are concerned about me.

W15 Most residents try to keep the floor clean and free of damage.

W16 Most residents on my floor respect my rights.

W17 Most residents respect the progergrI of one another.

W18 People on my floor respect eac 0 er.

W19 The level of quiet on my floor is satisfactory.

W41 I feel safe If in this residence hall.

W42 This hall is a c can lace to live.

W44 Living in residence alls has been beneficial to me.

W45 I would recommend residence balls to someone else as a good
place to live.

W48 The custodial stafi‘ responds to maintenance concerns in a
reasonable amount of time.

W50 The residence hall is in good repair.

Each question contained 5 response choices; Strongly Agree. Agree. No
Opinion. Disagree. and Strongly Disagree. Response values were. consecutively.
5.4.3.2, and 1 for each question. All individual scores were summed and then
divided by the number of individuals to provide a mean score for analysis.

An item analysis was conducted to determine the ability of each item to
discriminate between high response scores and low response scores. providing the
discriminative power (DP) for each item. The items and their respective
discriminative powers are listed in Table 3.2.

Reliability of the scales was evaluated with the split-half reliability test.
Correlation of the two halves resulted in a reliability coefi'icient of .47 for the

responses from the eight halls selected for this study.

54

Table 3.2 SOS Item Analysis

 

 

 

___EEM I DP
W14 LE
W15 1.61
W16 1.54
W17 1.14
W18 1.44
W19 1.61
W41 1.00
W42 1.37
W44 1.21
W45 1.23
W48 0.92
W50 0.98

INTERVIEWS

Key person interviews were conducted with DPS officials. residence hall
administrators. and housing programs personnel to gather background information
and other information which might assist in the interpretation of study findings.
The interviews were conducted by the same person and interview notes were

written up immediately after each interview to increase recording accuracy.

ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
Univariate data analysis procedures included frequencies. rates. and
percentages. Bivariate data analysis procedures included Pearson's r. Spearman‘s

Rho. and the t-test for difference of means. Significance tests were conducted

utilizing the t-test.

CHAPTER IV. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
CRIME DATA

DESCRIPTIVE

During the study period. 22 1 incidents of burglary. larceny. and malicious
destruction of property were reported in the eight selected residence halls.
Burglary occurred most frequently with a total of 105 incidents comprising 47.5% of

all reported incidents. In each individual hall. burglary comprised at least 40% of all

incidents.(see Table 4.1)

Table 4.1 Crime Types and Number of Incidents

 

   
   
    

 

 

 

 

HALL MALICIOUS
DESTRUCTION
W i . l ' 4
Rather 3 1 1 1 1 6
Bailey 315 5 3 15
Shaw 317 6 9 15
Gas: 32 1 6 3 6
Wonders 323 19 2O 27
McDonel 324 1 l 2 l 3
Hubbard 331 13 5 19
TOTAL 72 44 105

 

At least one incident occurred on each floor level with the highest frequency
of incidents occurring on the first (58) and second (44) floors for all 8 halls
combined. (see Table 4.2) In each individual hall. incidents also occurred most

frequently on the first and second floors. except for Hubbard Hall which had 8

incidents on the 12th floor.

55

56

Table 4.2 Floor level and Number of Incidents

* HALLcofia
FLOOR Wm 11 31 17 _1 4 1

 

 

 

3
Basement 9 1 2 4 1 1
Terrace 6 6
Ground 8 4 4
First 58 5 3 5 8 4 19 10 4
Second 44 3 2 1 1 7 3 1 2 5 1
Third I 9 1 2 3 2 2 5 1 3
Fourth 19 3 2 8 1 5
Fifth 1 1 2 4 4 1
Sixth 9 6 3
Seventh 2 2
Eighth 5 5
Ninth 1 1
Tenth 1 1
Eleventh 5 5
Nelfth 8 8
Unknown 2 1 1
Missing 10 1 1 1 5 1 1
Misc 4 3 1

 

Approximately 52% of all incidents occurred in residence rooms. The next
most frequent crime locations included study lounges. bikerooms. and lobbies. (see

Table 4.3)

Table 4.3 Crime Location

 

HALLCOD'EL
LOCATION All. 308 32 315 317 Emmi 1
Residence 114 6 7 13 17 8 28 12 23

 

Study 18 2 2 4 2 8

lounge

Bikeroom l4 1 8 5
Lobby 13 7 2 4
laundry 1 1 5 1 1 4
Room

Stairwell 9 6

Elevator 7 1 6

Hallway 7 2 1 1 3
Cafeteria 4 1 l 1 1
Reception 4 2 2

Desk

Missing/ 7 1 2 2 2

Unknown

Misc 13 1 1 1 l 1 3 3 2

 

The most common items stolen were in the miscellaneous category (8 1).

followed by currency and notes (36). (see Table 4.4) The value of items stolen

57

totaled almost $20,000 in the combined eight halls. Individual hall totals ranged
from $520 to $4.337. (see Table 4.5)

Table 4.4 Class of Stolen Items

HALLCODE
ITEM “mmflnemm 1
Notes 44 ‘ 7 a 1 1 . -

 

Currency

Jewelry 12 1 1 1 5 4
Precious

Metals

T.V‘S 13 3 3 2 l 1 1 2
Radio's

Clothing 22 1 3 4 9 2

has

Office Equip 1 1
Household 6 1 5

Goods

Consumable 3 l l 1
Goods

Misc 103 7 2 10 12 8 33 15 20
Blank 232 1 1 1 4 l 2 3 22 6 7

 

Note: Misc includes vehicle parts. books. pets. etc.

Table 4.5 Dollar Value of Stolen Items

HALLCODE
ALL mmm-mmm 3 1
Value 19831 520 709 1534 l 10 794 8141 2246 43 7

e 2-1500 5-250 14-400 2-206 3-350 4-150 4-1500 5-450 5-892
Note: Values are in doTars.

 

 

 

Reported damage values in the eight halls totaled $5. 103 and each incident
ranged from $10 to $800. (see Table 4.6) Reported incidents of malicious
destruction of property (MDOP) may not give an accurate picture of the amount of
damage occurring. One police officer stated that residence hall personnel handled a
large portion of the MDOP incidents internally. The officer suggested that damage
cases were reported to DPS only when the individual causing the damage could not
be controlled or it was a very clear case of deliberate vandalism. However. a
university housing official stated that damage over $50 was reported to DPS and all

other incidents were handled by the residence hall system.

58

Table 4.6 Dollar Value of Damage Incidents
l HAILCODE
[ALL | 308 | 311 | 315 | 317 I 321 I 323 ¥ 331
Value 103 50 2 545 1376 900 1580 27 3 1
e 10-800 50 25 30-40510-30050-80015-25010-15010-120
Note: Values are in dollars.

 

 

 

 

Crime incidents occurred most frequently on Saturday (90). followed by
Friday and then Thursday for all eight halls together. Incidents occurred most
frequently on Saturday for each individual hall. (see Table 4.7)

Table 4.7 Day Crime Incident Occurred

 

 

 

 

| HALLCODE
_DAY [@130813111315I317I321I323I324I331
Sunday 17 l 1 6 l 6 1 1
Monday 21 l 2 2 6 1 9
Tuesday 19 1 3 1 1 6 3 4
Wednesday 16 2 1 3 l 2 4 2 1
Thursday 24 1 1 2 2 10 3 5
Friday 34 2 1 4 4 3 10 5 5
Saturday 90 4 3 8 14 8 24 11 18

 

The tool used to perpetrate the crime in 74 incidents was personal (hands.
fist. feet. etc.). The tool used was unknown in 50 incidents and blank in 89
incidents. (see Table 4.8) A specific tool was recorded in only 8 incidents. The
large number of incidents in the personal category may be partially explained by the

number of incidents (59) in which the door to the room was unlocked.

Table 4.8 Tools Used In Crime

fipe of l HALL CODE
$01 7 AIL 308 31 l 31 317 321 324 l

 

 

 

1 I
Instrument
Cutting 3 1 1 1
Instrument
Blunt Object 2 2
Personal 714 5 5 4 8 6 22 4 20

l

Instrument
Other 1 1
Unknown 50 1 l 1 1 7 3 8 8 1 1
Blank 89 4 2 7 13 6 34 12 1 1

 

59

In only 2 incidents were individuals in police custody at the time the incident
report was written. In 29 incidents an individual was cited and there was a suspect
in 32 incidents. In 2 incidents the complaint was dismissed by motion. Forty-eight
individuals were acquitted by a judge and the disposition information was not

provided for 171 incidents.

HYPOTHESES
H1: The frequency of occurrence of burglary. larceny. and malicious

destruction of property is positively related to hall length

r=-.062 t=.783
r2=,004 P=.05
N: 161 DF=160

Does not support hypothesis.

H2: The frequency of occurrence of burglary. larceny. and malicious
destruction of property is positively related to the percentage of residence room

doors facing room doors across the hall.

Does not support hypothesis.

H3: The frequency of occurrence of burglary. larceny. and malicious

destruction of property is related to the number of rooms per floor.

I = -.15 t = 1.029
r2 = .022 P = -05
N = 48 DP: 47

Does not support hypothesis.

60

H4: The frequency of occurrence of burglary. larceny. and malicious

destruction is related to the number of rooms per residence hall.

r=-.122 t=.30
. 15 P=.05
N=8 DF=7

Does not support hypothesis.

H5: The frequency of occurrence of burglary. larceny. and malicious
destruction of property is related to the number of floors in the residence hall.
r = -.019 t = .047
r2 = .000 P = -05
N = 8 DP = 7

Does not support hypothesis.

H6: The frequency of occurrence of burglary. larceny. and malicious

destruction of property is related to the floor level.

p = .145 t = .528
p2 = ,021 P = .05
N = 15 DF= 14

Does not support hypothesis.

H7: The frequency of occurrence of burglary. larceny. and malicious
destruction of property is greater in residence halls with cormnon bath facilities (X1)

than in residence halls with two rooms sharing a bath (X2).

t = .220
P = .05
X1 mean = 35.7

x2 mean = 33.5
DF = 6

Does not support hypothesis.

61

STUDENT OPINION SURVEY

DESCRIPTIVE

There were 9.087 responses to the Student Opinion Survey from all
residence halls on campus. From the eight residence halls selected for this study
there were 3.432 responses. (see Table 4.9)

Over 50% of the respondents had lived in the residence hall system for two
or less terms. Freshmen and sophomores comprised approximately 70% of the
respondents. Eighty percent of the respondents were below the age of 2 1 and 40%
of the respondents lived in special designated housing options such as limited
visitation. quiet house or hall. coed by suite. or honors college floor.

Females comprised 58% of the respondents and males were 42% of the total.
When considering housing plans for the next year.approximately 80% were evenly
divided between moving ofi’ campus. staying in the same hall and being undecided.

The remainder were either graduating or leaving or moving to a different hall.

Table 4.9 Hall Population. SOS Responses

HAIL I F013 sos % WP
BAILEY 45—J‘T—l_8 2 8 '.' .

 

 

 

 

 

7 0 6 9
RATHER 448 253 6.9 7.3
WILLIAMS 227 78 3.5 2.2
SHAW 994 592 1 5.3 1 7.2
CASE 954 245 14.7 7. 1
WONDERS l 144 559 1 7.6 16.3
HUBBARD 1204 691 18.5 2.0
MCDONEL l 082 776 16.6 22.6

 

62

SOS HYPOTHESES

SOS H1: SOS scores are negatively related to residence hall crime rates

r=-

.688 t=2.32
r2=.473 P=-O5
N=8 DF=7

Does not support hypothesis.

808 H2: SOS scores are negatively related to the percentage of residence
room doors facing room doors across the hall.

r=.608 t=l.876
r2=.37 P=-05
N=8 DF=7

Does not support hypothesis.

SOS H3: 808 scores are negatively related to the number of rooms per floor.

r= 421 t=3.147
r2=.177 P= .05
N=48 DF=47

Does not support hypothesis.

SOS H4: SOS scores are negatively related to the number of rooms per
residence hall.

r= 632 t=1.998
=4 P=.05
N=8 DF=7

Does not support hypothesis

63

806 H5: SOS scores are negatively related to the number of floors in the

residence hall.

r=.147 t=.446
r2=.022 P=-05
N=8 DF=7

Does not support hypothesis.

SOS H6: 808 scores are negatively related to the floor level.

p = .016 t= .058
2:.000 P=.05

P
N=15 DF=7

Does not support hypothesis.

808 H7: SOS scores will be lower in residence halls with common baths (X1)

than in residence halls with two rooms sharing a bath (X2).

= 1.71
P = .05
X1 mean = 43.1
X2 mean = 44.7
DF=6

Does not support hypothesis.

SULIMARY

H1: The hypothesis that the frequency of occurrence of burglary. larceny. and

malicious destruction of property is positively related to hall length was not

supported at the .05 significance level. The critical t value was not met and the

correlation was in a negative direction.

64

H2: The hypothesis that the frequency of occurrence of burglary. larceny. and
malicious destruction of property is positively related to the percentage of residence
room doors facing room doors across the hall was not supported at the .05
significance level. The critical t value was not met and the correlation was in a

negative direction.

H3: The hypothesis that the frequency of occurrence of burglary. larceny. and
malicious destruction of property is positively related to the number of rooms per
floor was not supported at the .05 significance level. The critical t value was not met

and the correlation was in a negative direction

H4: The hypothesis that the frequency of occurrence of burglary. larceny. and
malicious destruction of property is positively related to the number of rooms per
residence hall was not supported at the .05 significance level. The critical t value

was not met and there was a slight correlation in a positive direction.

H5: The hypothesis that the frequency of occurrence of burglary. larceny. and
malicious destruction of property is positively related to the the number of floors in
the residence hall was not supported at the .05 significance level. The the critical t

value was not met and the correlation was in a negative direction.

H6: The hypothesis that the frequency of occurrence of burglary. larceny. and
malicious destruction of property is positively related to the floor level was not
supported at the .05 significance level. The the critical t value was not met and

there was a slight correlation in a positive direction.

65

H7: .The hypothesis that the frequency of occurrence of burglary. larceny. and
malicious destruction of property is greater in residence with common bath facilities
than in residence halls with two rooms sharing a bath was not supported at the .05

significance level. The t-test for difi'erence of means did not meet the critical value.

808 H1: The hypothesis that SOS scores are positively related to residence hall
crime rates was not supported at the .05 significance level. The critical t value was

met. but the correlation was in a negative direction.

808 H2: The hypothesis that SOS scores are negatively related to the percentage of
residence room doors facing room doors across the hall was not supported at the .05
significance level. The the critical t value was not met and the correlation was in a

positive direction.

808 H3: The hypothesis that SOS scores are negatively related to the number of
rooms per floor was not supported at the .05 significance level. The critical t value

was met. but the correlation was in a positive direction.

808 H4: The hypothesis that SOS scores are negatively related to the number of
rooms per residence hall was not supported at the .05 significance level. The

critical t value was met. but the correlation was in a positive direction.

808 H5: The hypothesis that SOS scores are negatively related to the number of
floors in the residence hall was not supported at the .05 significance level. The

critical t value was not met and there was a slight correlation in a positive direction.

(A

66

808 H6: The hypothesis that SOS scores are negatively related to the floor level was
not supported at eh .05 significance level. The critical t value was not met and there

was a slight correlation in a positive direction.

808 H7: The hypothesis that SOS scores will be lower in residence halls with
common baths than in residence halls with two rooms sharing a bath was not
supported at the .05 significance level. The critical t value was not met in a

difference of means test.

CHAPTER V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

SUMMARY

The belief that campus crime is a problem just as serious as crime 03' campus
is increasingly being accepted. As campuses become communities with populations
of difi’ering values. cultures. and philosophies. campus administrators are faced with
the same type of problems facing non-campus communities.

In an attempt to deal with the increased awareness and concern about crime
on campus. many administrators are utilizing techniques of crime prevention. One of
these techniques of crime prevention is Crime Prevention Through Environmental
Design (CPTED). This technique is based upon the assumption that environmental
design can play a part in preventing crime and reducing the level of fear of crime.

Most of the research examining CPTED and its relationship to the frequency
of occurrence of crime has been conducted in public housing environments which
were generally composed of low to middle income families. Little research has been
done in the residence hall environment to contribute to the development of CPTED
theory. This lack of research in the residence hall environment has also left campus
administrators with little information for rational campus planning in their attempts
to deal with a major portion of campus crime. that which occurs in the residence
hall.

The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between the
physical environmental design and the frequency of occurrence of crime in selected
residence balls on the campus of Michigan State University. The residence halls
were selected based upon their location on campus. similar or dissimilar physical
design and crime rate. The crime incidents used for the study were burglary.

larceny. and malicious destruction of property.

67

68

This study was a quasioexperimental. cross-sectional. static group comparison.
Due to the research being conducted in a 'real life' environment. use of a true
experimental design was not practical and manipulation of physical design features
could be very costly and disruptive.

Because the limitations of this study preclude the ability to establish cause-
efi'ect relationships among variables. the study was descriptive rather than
explanatory. This study was a combination of hypothesis testing and exploration.

The general hypothesis for this study was that the frequency of occurrence of
burglary. larceny. and malicious destruction of property is negatively related to the
degree of physical design features which can be measured.

Crlrne data used for the study were the incidents of burglary. larceny. and
malicious destruction of property which occurred in the residence halls during the
school year. September. 1986 to June. 1987. as reported to the campus Department
of Public Safety. Purposive sampling of the residence halls was done to draw a
sample which contained variation in physical design. geographic location. and crime
rate.

The physical design features utilized were hall length. percentage of
residence room doors facing doors across the hall. number of rooms per floor.
number of rooms per residence hall. number of floors. floor level. and common bath
versus two rooms sharing a bath.

Student responses to the Student Opinion Survey (SOS). administered to the
residents of Michigan State University residence halls in January. 1987 by the
University Housing Programs Office. were used to explore the relationship between

SOS scores. physical design. and crime rates.

69

CONCLUSIONS

The general hypothesis that the frequency of occurrence of burglary. larceny.
and malicious destruction of property is related to physical design features was not

supported. A list of each research hypothesis and its result follows

H1: The frequency of occurrence of burglary. larceny. and malicious
destruction of property is positively related to hall length. Rejected at
the .05 significance level.

H2: The frequency of occurrence of burglary. larceny. and malicious
destruction of property is positively related to the percentage of
residence room doors facing room doors across the hall. Rejected at
the .05 significance level.

H3: The frequency of occurrence of burglary. larceny. and malicious
destruction of property is positively related to the number of rooms
per floor. Rejected at the .05 significance level.

H4: The frequency of occurrence of burglary. larceny. and malicious
destruction of property is positively related to the number of rooms
per residence hall. Rejected at the .05 significance level.

H5: The frequency of occurrence of bu lary. larceny. and malicious
destruction of property is positively rela ed to the number of floors in
the residence hall. Rejected at the .05 significance level.

H6: The frequency of occurrence of burglary. larcerfiy. and malicious
destruction of property is ePositively related to the oor level. Rejected
at the .05 significance lev .

H7: The frequency of occurrence of burglary. larceny. and malicious
destruction of tBroperty is greater in residence halls with common
bath facilities an in residence halls with two rooms sharing a bath.
Rejected at the .05 significance level.

The Student Opinion Survey hypotheses are as follow:

SOS H1: SOS scores are negatively related to residence hall crime
rates. Rejected at the .05 significance level.

808 H2: SOS scores are negatively related to the percentage of
residence room doors facing room doors across the hall. Rejected at
the .05 significance level.

808 H3: SOS scores are negatively related to the number of rooms per
fioor. Rejected at the .05 significance level.

808 H4: SOS scores are ne ativ related to the number of rooms per
residence hall. Rejected at e .0 significance level.

808 H5: SOS scores are negatively related to the number of floors in
the residence hall. Rejected at the .05 significance level.

808 H8: SOS scores are negatively related to the floor level. Rejected
at the .05 significance level.

70

808 H7: SOS scores will be lower in residence halls with common
baths than in residence halls with two rooms sharing a bath. Rejected
at the .05 significance level.

DISCUSSION-FUTURE RESEARCH

The two major limitations of this study are the non-random sampling
procedure used and the small number of cases in some hypothesis tests. These
limitations restrict any contribution to the examination of the relationship between
physical design and the frequency of occurrence of crime. These limitations could
be eliminated in future research by utilizing the total population of residence halls on
campus. This would result in a study of 24 residence halls which would provide a
larger sample size and remove the problem of utilizing a non-random sample.

In this study the hypothesized relationship between the Student Opinion
Survey Scores. physical design and the crime rate was not supported. This could
have been a result of the survey not being an accurate measure of the intervening
attitudes which influence the frequency of occurrence of crime. Future research
would benefit from the development and use of a survey instrument to measure these
intervening attitudes. This survey could be administered during the same time
period as the crime statistics are drawn.

The use of a victimization study would provide a comparison to the official
crime statistics. An analysis of crime victimization results might reveal a different
relationship than an analysis of official statistics.

The accuracy of future research could be improved by actual verification of
room occupancy in the residence halls. This information was not gathered for this
study so floor crime rates and the number of residence rooms per floor could be

difi'erent from the actual figures. These different figures could result in different

findings.

71

Each hall used in future research should be checked for special crime
prevention programs or any 'community building' programs which might influence
study findings. A residence hall with a crime prevention program may have a lower
crime rate than a residence hall without a crime prevention program. Also a hall or
floor with a special community program might have a different crime rate than on
without.

Future research might also benefit from the use of multiple correlation to
examine the effect that gender. class standing. age. major. or other special grouping
might have on the relationship between physical design and the frequency of
occurrence of crime.

Finally. it is possible that a form of intervention might be utilized to conduct
research in a design that is closer to a true experiment. Existing doorways could be
identified which could be locked and entry allowed by key to residents and guests of
a specific floor or section of floor. This intervention could be used to examine the

influence of territoriality on the frequency of occurrence of crime.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

APPENDIXA

DEFINITIONS

BURGLARY. Entry with or without force without intent to commit. Entrywith or

without force without the intent to commit a theft or other felony.

BURGLARY. Entry without force with intent to commit. Entry without force made

for the purpose of committing a theft or other felony.

BURGLARY. Forced Entry. All ofi'enses where force of any kind is used to unlawfully

enter a structure for the purpose of committing a theft or felony.
CITED. For a subject who has been identified as responsible for a criminal incident
to the point that the case is ready for the prosecutor and that the subject is either on

personal recognizance. released on an appearance ticket. or released on bond.

CONSUMABLE GOODS. Liquor. meat. perishable goods. canned foods. cigarettes.

CIC.

CURRENCY. NOTES. ETC. Items of currency and legal documents which are

interpreted as being negotiable in the open market.

DAY REPORTED. The date the incident was received at the department.

HOUSEHOLD GOODS. Beds. sofas. chairs. appliances. etc.

72

73

LARCENY. The unlawful taking. carrying. leading. or riding away of property from

the possession or constructive possession of another.
MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY. The willful malicious destruction.
injury. disfigurement. or defacement of any public or private property. real or

personal. without consent of the owner or person having control.

MISCELLANEOUS. Items not accounted for in any other category. Ex. - vehicle

parts. boat. trailers. books.

PHYSICAL DENSITY. The amount of space available to a particular number of people.

SOCIAL DENSITY. The number of people occupying a fixed amount of space.

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX B

MAPOF CAMPUS

magmamémm $2082-42 mmmozozummm $5-8m EEmuZm 333$: mumscmnfim mzfiqdzlmom

 

3......{43-91-
ti: I! ll .3 I. 7"
le!!!» 1...... I

'l.l.l I 'lO.
Ere-ll

 

74

APPENDIX C

 

APPENDIX C

CRIME STATISTICS

Table C. 1 Campus Crime Statistics

 

 

 

OFFENSE l 1 1 86 19 7 1 8
Murder] Manslaughter 0 1 0 1
Kidnapping 2 0 3 2
Criminal Sexual Conduct 20 33 l 9 l 9
Robbery l2 5 7 10
Aggravated Assault 45 35 32 20
Non-Aggravated Assault 106 135 125 1 12
Burglary 599 592 547 474
Larceny l 574 147 5 1 783 1604
Malicious Destruction 459 470 508 526
Arson 30 36 26 46
Drug Violations 100 20 58 27
Weapons Laws 24 29 33 23
UDAA 52 54 59 62
Window Peeping 22 l 8 3 1 l 9
Indecent osure 22 15 25 17
Other Sex enses 23 15 2 l 10
Liquor Violations 23 58 1 l 7 73
Drunkenness 14 23 23 27
False Fire Alarms 144 158 161 92
Nuisance Telephone Calls 169 l 19 188 l l 5
All Others 280 274 240 241
TOTAL 270 3 6 400 3 2

 

75

76

Table C.2 Crime Statistics For All Halls

 

IDEN E CODE BURGIAIU LARCENY MALI I U
DESTRUCTION .

Landon 305 0 2 1
Van HMoosen 3(1): :1} (2) 2
Mary a 1
CampbelI'o 304 6 1 0
Rather 31; 6 é (1)
Ryan 1 4

Williams 308 4 5 1
Butterfield 310 7 2 2
Armstrong 316 5 5 4
Case 321 6 6 3
Emmons 314 9 8 0
Owen 320 2 14 2
Gilchrist/Yakely 306 1 2 6 1
Bailey 3 15 15 5 3
Phillips] Snyder 300 1 4 1 0 4
McDonel 324 l 3 l 1 2
Shaw 3 17 15 6 9
Abbot/Mason 302 14 10 7
Hubbard 331 19 19 5
Holden 332 27 16 4
Akers 326 23 18 9
Wilson 322 23 23 5
Holmes 330 37 l 2 6
Wonders 323 27 19 20

 

77

Table C.3 Residence Hall Crime Rates

 

TOTAL ALL CRIME
CRIMES RATE FOR

 
 

 

ALL CRIMES

Landon 363 9.6 15 417—1
Van Hoosen 3(1): 37.? 3) 37.;
Mary M 4. 1 41.
CampbealI,0 304 23.5 1 3 43.6
Rather 31 1 17.9 16 35.7
Bryan 3 12 19.4 1 6 34.6
Williams 308 44. 1 1 5 66. 1
Butterfield 3 10 27.0 2 1 5 l .6
Armstrong 3 16 30.2 2 7 58.2
Case 32 1 15.7 44 46. l
Emmons 314 37.8 28 62.2
Owen 320 22.4 3 1 38.7
Gilchrist/Yakely 306 36.8 39 75.6
Bailey 3 15 50.2 35 76.4
Phillips] Snyder 300 37.5 44 60.0
McDonel 324 24.0 40 37 .0
Shaw 3 17 30.2 5 1 5 1.3
Abbot/Mason 302 4 1 . 1 53 70.3
Hubbard 33 1 36.5 70 59.0
Holden 332 38.0 99 80.0
Akers 326 40.8 89 72.7
Wilson 322 46.7 100 9 1 .6
Holmes 330 43.4 84 66.2
Wonders 323 57 .7 86 75.2

 

APPENDIX D

 

APPENDIX D

RESIDENCE HALL POPULATION DESCRIPTIONS

Table D. 1 Residence Hall Populations Of Eight Sample Halls

 

6 1
Rather 31 l 294 109 37 5 4 223 225
Bailey 315 353 76 19 8 2 226 232
Shaw 317 379 363 171 74 7 478 516
Case 321 420 306 158 66 5 482 472
Wonders 323 423 529 l 59 3 l 1 562 582
McDonel 324 56 278 434 300 14 590 492
Hubbard 33 l 884 2 1 1 69 34 5 597 607

 

Note: Population figures are an average of three terms.

78

79

Table 0.2 Residence Hall Populations Of All Halls

 

 

IDENCE DE NUMBER POPULATI N
OF FLOORS
Landon 3 312
Van Hoosen 319 2 80
Mary M o 309 3 243
Campbe 304 3 298
Rather 31; 4 44:3
1 4
Williams 308 4 227
Butterfield 310 4 407
Armstrong 316 4 464
Case 321 6 954
Emmons 314 4 450
Owen 320 802
Gilchrist/Yakely 306 4 516
Bailey 315 4 458
Phillips/ Snyder 300 4 746
McDonel 324 6 1082
Shaw 317 6 994
Abbot/Mason 302 4 754
Hubbard 331 12 1204
Holden 332 6 1238
Akers 326 6 1225
Wilson 322 6 1092
Holmes 330 6 1268
Wonders 323 6 l 1 44

 

Note: Population Igures are an average of three terms.

APPENDIX E

APPENDIX E

SOS SURVEY INSTRUMENT

 

 

UNIVERSITY HOUSING PROGRAMS OFFICE
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

STUDENT OPINION SURVEY

Dear Residence Hall Student:

This survey is' designed to obtain information from you about selected aspects of the residence hall living en-
vironment. The results are used by hall staff and student groups so that they can do a better job for you. Please
carefully consider each question, but omit any question that is not clear or is offensive to you. YOUR lN-
DIVIDUAL RESPONSES ARE CONFIDENTIAL will not be identified in any way.

INSTRUCTIONS: Please use a number 2 pencil and mark the answer on the answer sheet
that is correct for you. Your resident assistant will help you complete items 1 through 4.
ANSWER THE QUESTIONS BASED ON YOUR EXPERIENCE FOR THIS ACADEMIC
YEAR. Thank you far your cooperation.

1.-2. Hall Code 3.-4. Floor Code
5. How many terms have you lived in a MSU Residence hall?
1. one 3. three 5. five or six
2. two 4. four 6. seven or more
6. What is your class standing?
1. Freshman 3. Junior 5. Graduate
2. Sophomore 4. Senior 6. Other
7. What is your age?
1. less than 18 3. 19 5. 21 7. 24-25
2. 18 4. 20 6. n-za 8. over 25

10.

11.

12.

I3.

. What option house are you living in?

1. Limited Visitation

. Quiet House or Hall

. Coed by Suite

. Honors College Floor

. Combined Honors College 8 Quiet House
. Other

OOUI&wN

. What is your sex?

1. male 2. female

What is your legal residence?

1. 0.5. 2. foreign country
What is your racial/ethnic group?
1. White/Caucasian 2. Black/Afro-American
3. Chicano/Mexican American 4. Spanish American/ Hispanic
5. American Indian 6. Asian Pacific Islander
7. Other

Do you have a physical handicap?
1. yes 2. no

What housing arrangements are you planning for next year?
Moving off campus

Remaining in same hall

Moving to a different hall
Graduating or leaving school
Undecided

9'.“ny

 

80

 

81

 

 

 

PLEASE INDICATE YOUR RESPONSE TO EACH OF THE STATEMENTS BELOW BY
USING THE FOLLOWING CODE IF YOU:

Strongly Agree

Agree

Does Not Apply/No Opinion
Disagree

Strongly Disagree

UlbuN-l
IIIII

 

_e
b

. Most residents on my floor are concerned about me.

. Most residents try to keep the floor clean and free of damage.

. Most residents on my floor respect my rights.

. Most residents respect the property of one another.

. People on my floor respect each other.

. The level of quiet on my floor is satisfactory.

. Alcohol use by other floor residents has been a problem to me.

Our floor representative keeps me informed about hall government and its activities.
Our floor representative asks my opinions in programs and activities.

Things of value are accomplished through hall government.

. My RA has made an effort to get to know me.

My RA has made me aware of my rights and responsibilities as a hall resident.
I feel listened to when I talk to my RA. '

. My RA is open to cpinions of others that differ from his/ hers.

. My RA could provide me with resource information.

. I am satisified with the contact I have had with my RA.

. My RA helps make the floor a positive place to live.

. My RA treats peOple with respect.

. I respect my RA.

. My RA helps me get along with other people.

. My RA does his/ her job well.

My RA has helped me with my academic life (classes. career plans, major. study habits, etc.).
. I am satisfied with my RA's availability.

. I have been satisfied with the contact I have had with the Minority Aide.

I understand the purpose of the Caucus/culture room.

Things of value are accomplished through Caucus.

. I should support the policies of this residence hall.

. I feel safe living in this residence hall.

This hall is a clean place to live.

There is adequate space in this hall to study.

Living in residence halls has been beneficial to me.

I would recommend residence halls to someone else as a good place to live.
Participation in IM sports through the residence halls is important.

I understand the differing roles of the Resident Director and the Hall Manager.
The custodial staff responds to maintenance concerns in a reasonable amount of time.
The desk receptionists in this hall are helpful and courteous.

This residence hall is in good repair.

I have gained knowledge from attending floor programs.

I have been positively influenced by floor programs.

I have gained knowledge from attending all-hall programs.

I have been positively influenced by all-hall programs.

Residence hall programming has helped me develop in the following areas: social. physical. sexual.
emotional, life planning, intellectual. values. and human awareness.

dd-g—b-A
mmqmm

assassaeesesusaseess

33.339865985352338

 

 

82

 

 

 

PLEASE INDICATE YOUR RESPONSE TO EACH OF THE STATEMENTS BELOW BY
USING THE FOLLOWING CODE IF YOUR ABILITY HAS INCREASED:

1 - To a great extent
2 - To some extent
3 =- Not at all

 

SINCE SEPTEMBER. I HAVE INCREASED MY ABILITY TO:

3.338138335383334

Understand the consequences of excessive drinking.
Manage stress.

Be confident of myself.

Develop study skills for college work.

Manage my time effectively.

Protect myself against sexual assualt.

Become comfortable with my sexuality (gay. straight. bisexual).
Learn to stand up for my rights.

Resolve conflicts with roommates/suitemates.

Make friends in new situations.

Decide what is "right" or "wrong" for me.
Understand the values and beliefs of others.

 

THE NEXT SERIES OF QUESTIONS ARE TRUE/FALSE STATEMENTS. PLEASE
MARK A III IF THE STATEMENT IS TRUE. AND A IZI IF THE STATEMENT IS FALSE.

 

74.
75.
76.
77. I have contacted the Minority Aide in my building.

68. I know who our floor representative to government is.
69.
70. If my rights are violated, I would know how to use the campus judicial system.
71.
72.
73.

If I had a conflict with my roommates/suitemates, I would attempt to resolve it.

I know how to contact the Resident Director.

I know how to contact a Graduate Advisor.

I have been harassed in this or other residence halls because of my: gender, racial/ethnic
background. sexual orientation or religion.

I have gone to talk with my RA.

My RA has explained Wellness.

1 know how to contact the Minority Aide.

78. l have used the culture/ Caucus room.

79.
80.

I have participated in a Caucus-sponsored event.
I know how to contact the Hall Manager.

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

CITED REFERENCES

AdamsMGB &R08mWPG(l97IIWWMS
Angeles: University of Southern California. Center for Justice Administration.

Angel S. (1968). WWW (Working paper No.75).
Berkeley. University of California. Center for Planning and Development Research.

   

Baum.A. & Davis. G. E. (1980). Reduu
architectural intervention. - .
471-48 1.

'thstre fh h-dnsi livinngn
e 880 ig.rroo.13_8(3).

Bickrnan. L. Teger. A.. Gabriele. T.. McLauglin. C. Berger. M.. & Sunada (1973).
Dormitory density and helping behavior W. 3(4). 465-
490.

Black. D. J. (1970). Production of crime rates. WW. 35(4).
733-748.

Booth. A. (1981). The built environment as a crime deterrent. mm. 18(4).
557-570.

Bordner. D. c. & Peterson. D. M. (19831.9amnuucimW
mugs-.1913. Lanham: University Press of America.

Bottomley. A. K.. St Coleman. C. (1981).
. Westrnead. England: Grower
Publishing Co. LTD.

Bynum. T.. & Purri. D. M. (1984) Crime and architectural style. An examination of
the environmental design hypothesis Warrior. 1.112). 179-
196.

Cho. Y. H. (1974). W. Cambridge. MA: Ballinger.

Clemente. F.. & Kleiman. M. B. (1977). Fear of crime in the United States: A
multivanate analyse. W. 56(2). 519-531.

Coleman. C. A. 81 Bottomley. A. K. (1976). Police conceptions of crime and 'no crime'.
Wm. June. 344-360.

Dahlinger. C. (1989). Gearing up for residence hall security. W
W. 12(1). 16-17.

83

84

Feinberg. S. E. (1981). D what and whom to count. In R. G. Lehnen and W. G.

Skogan (Eds).
(pp.59-60). Washington. DC: US Government Printing
omce.

Formby. W. A. & Sigler. R. T. (1982). Crime and victim characteristics on college
campuses: A research report. WW. Ill-4). 218-
223.

Fox. J. W. (1977). Crime on campus- MW. .1515).
345-351.

Galle. O. R.. Grove. W. R.. & McPherson. J. M. (1972). Population densi and
pathology: What are the relations for man? meme. 116(4030). 23- .

Gelber. s. (1972). MW- Washtneton. DC:
US. Government Printing Office.

Goodstein. L.. & Shotland. R. L. (1980). The crime causes crime model: A critical
review of the relationship between fear of crime. bystander surveillance. and
changes in the crime rate. Wain-4). 133-
151.

Gross. P. J. (1973). Security and safety: Prevention and education at cuse
University is the key to campus security. W. 40110). 53- 5.

Handley. J .R. (1980). Crime prevention in university residence halls. W
W. 152(3). 24-28.

Holahan. C. J.. Wilcox. B. L.. Bumam. M.. & Culler. R. E. (1978). Social satisfaction
and friendship formation as a firsrgit‘ifnsggflggg level in high-rise student housing.

Hood. A. B. & Hodges. R. T. (1974). The effect of a serious crime upon attitudes
toward reeldent hall security. Wei. 15(5). 352-
356.

Innarelli. A. V. (1968). W. Hayword: Precision Photo Form.
Jacobs. J. (1961). W. New York: Random

House.

Jefi'ery. C. R (1971). WWW. Beverly Hills:
Sage Publications.

Lunden. W. A. (1962). The theory of crime prevention. WW.
2. 213-228.

McCartIxzaD. P.. & Saegert. S. (1979). Residential density. social overload. and social
with wal. In J. R. Aiello andA. Baum (Eds). W
(pp.55-75). New York: Plenum Press.

McPheters. L. R. (1978). Econometric ana is of factors influencing crime on
campus. MW. 6 1). 47-52.

85

54613.8 (1981) Defensible space undefended. Social factors in crime control
T011811 environmental (1681811- WW 15(4). 397-422.

Miller. R. V. & Groves. R. M. (1985). Matching survey responses to official records.
An exploration of validity in victimization reporting. W.
42(1). 366-380.

Molumby. T. (1976). Patterns of crime in a university housing project. American
Wanner. 20(2). 247-259.

Newman. 0. (1972). W. New York: The McMillan Company.

O'Hare. K. R. (1921). W- Girad: Frank P. OzHare. Haldeman Julius
Collection.

Pablat. P. & Baxter. J. C. (1975). Environmental correlates of school vandalism.
WW. 41(4). 270-279.

Powell. J. W. (1979). Campus and school see .In J. T. O'Brien and M. Marvin
(Eds. 1. WW (ppl 4-138l- New Yorln Petsamon Prese-

Pyle. G. F. (1976). Spatial and temporal aspects of crime in Cleveland. Ohio.
WW. 211(2). 175- 198.

Reiss. A.J. .Jr. (1986). Officialandsurveycrirne statistics. InE.A. Fattah (Ed.l. mm
W (pp 513-79) New
York: St. Martin's Press.

Schroeder. C. C. (1980). Territoriali rative for wand development and
residence education. In D. A. D ster1m P. Mable ( Wm

(pp.114-13l). Cincinnati:
American College Personnel Association.

Schroeder. C. C. (1976). New strategies for struct residential environments.
WW.

11(5). 386- 90.
Skogan. W. G. (1974). The of official crime statistics. An empirical
investigation. $92131 551:2: gunnery. 55(1). 25-38.
S an. W. myGiEIAQSGa). Fear of crime and neighborhood change. In A. J. Reiss. Jr. &
s

MIpp. 203- 229). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Skogan. W. G. (1986b). Methodological issues in the study of victimization. In E. A.

ttahHIEd) Quarantine tin 0.011109 1

(pp. 80-1 16). New York: St. Martin's Press.

 
 

Sloan. J. (Ed.). (1980). °
. Washington. DC: US Government Printing Office.

S ksR.F(1981) Surveysofvictimization Anoptimisticassessment InM To
pairiwrnonsredslcmamsrmmflmmmem In?

60). London: University of Chicago Press.

86

SW R.F.. Genn.H G.. &DOGd D J (1977) WWW

 

.New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Strunk. D. M. (1980). Crime on campus. W. 41(5). 39-40.
The high risks of higher education. (1988. October 4). W. p. 6A.

U. S. News & World Report. (1982.Janu.ary§1.1) Colleges fight back against campus
crime W- P4

Van Dijk. J. J. M.. & Stienmetz. C. H. D. (1984). The burden ofcrime inDutch
society. 1973-1979. In a. Black (Ed.).
W. Washington. DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.

Williams. D.A.. &Morris. H.. 2&Contreras. J. (1982. January 25). Crime on the
campus Nmmk. p8

Rubenstein. H.. Murray. C.. Motoyama. T.. & Rouse. W. V. (1980).
Institute of Justice). Washington. D.C: U.S. Government Printing Office

(National

87

GENERAL REFERENCES

Adams. G. R.. & Schvoneveldt. J. D. (1985). W New
York: Longnan.

 

W. New York: IrvingPublishers. Inc.

Baum. A.. Calesnick. L. E.. & Aiello. J. R. (1978). Crowding and personal control:
social density and the development of learned helplessness. W

W 36(9).1000-1011.

Baum. A.. Davis. G. E. & Valins. S. (1979). Generating behavioral data for the design
process InJ RAtelloandABaumlEdsl. W

(pp. 175-196). New York: Plenum Press.

Baum.A.. Harpin. R. E.. &Valins. S. (1975). The role of go henomenairrthe
experience of crowding W. 2.) 1 5498..

Brantingham. P. J.. & Brantingham. P. L. (Eds). (1980). W.
Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Brown. B. B.. & Altman. I. (1981). Territoriali and residential crime. A conceptual
framework. InP. J. Brantingham and P. L. rantingham (Eds). W

9111111119190! (pp.55-76). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Christensen. L- 13.. & Stoop. C. M. (1986). W
W Montcry. cs Brooks/C016.

Daher. D. M.. Corozzini. J. D.. & McKinnon. R. D. (1977). An environmental red
program for residence halls. WWW. 18(7). 11-1

Davidson. R. N. (1981). W. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Dooley. D. (1984). W Englewood Clifi's. NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Dufi'ala. D. C. (1976). Convenience stores. armed robbe . and physical environmental
features. WW. 29(2). 227- 47.

Fox.J. A.. 81 Hellman. D. A. (1985). Lrécgation and other correlates of campus crime.
193W ~444.

Gerst. M. S.. 81 Moos. R. H. (1972). Social ecolog of university student residences.
Whales! 6.316). 5 525

Gerst. M. S. & Sweetwood. H. (1973). Correlates of dormitory social climate.
W. 5(4). 440-464.

Greenberg. S. W.. & Rohe. W. M. (1984). Neighborhood design and crime. W
W. 59(1). 48-61.

Greenberg. S. W.. Rohe.W. M.. swrllrams. J. R. (1982). Safeanim

I‘IT‘hThOOOOO‘ Plb‘I- 1 It.” _‘r~‘3 ' IOINL' 3,-‘10990 I!
Wartime (U S Department of Justice). Washington DC: U S

Government Printing Office.

88

Haelig. J. R. (1988). Ensuring security through construction and design. W
W. 18(6). 38 a 44.

Heilweil. M. ( 1973). The influence of dormitory architecture on resident behavior.
WW. 5(4). 377-412.

Herzon. F. D.. & Hoper. M. (1976). WWW
New York: Harper & Row.

Hickey. A. A. (1986). - 1
New York: Random House.

 

Jennings. G. F. (197121}.4 Dasmgage old problem. new approach at Central Michigan.

Koehler. R. J. (1974). Room and corridor painting program at U. Of W. - LaCrosse.
W126). 10-11.

Latta. W. J. (1984). The Residence Hall Environment questionnaire. W
W. 25(4). 370-373.

Lyman. S. M.. & Scott. M. B. (1967). Territoriality: A ne ected sociol al
dimension. W. 15(2). 236-249. gl 0g“:

Mawby. R. I. (1977). Defensible space: A theoretical empirical appraisal. m
We “(2)0 169-179-

Mayhew. P. ( 1979). Defensible s ace: The current status of crime prevention theory.
0 ”(3)0 150-159.

McClinton. D. (1989). Enhancing residence hall security. W
192111311201. 18410.

Mofi'et. R. E. (1983). Crime prevention through environmental design - A
management perspective. W 250). 19-31.

Moran. R.. & Dolphin. C. (1981). The defensible space concept: Theoretical and
operational explication. W. 1.813). 396-4 16.

Nachmias. D.. & Nachmias. C. (1976). W New
York: St. Martin's Press.

Nadler. A.. Bar-Tel. D.. & Drukrnan. O. (1982). Density does not help: Help-giving.
help-seeking. and help-reel rocating of residents of high and low student
dormitories. W. .50). 2542.

Newman. 0.. & Franck. K. A. (1982). The efi’ects of bull size on personal crime
and fear of crime. WW. 5(4). 2 ~220.

O'Block. R. L. (1981). W St. Louis: The C.V. Mosby
Company.

Phillips. B. (1985). W-fimwood. IL:
The Dorsey Press.

89

Reppetto. T. A. (1976). Crime prevention through environmental policy. W
W. 2.0(2). 275-288.

Sommer. R. (1968). Student reactions to four types of residence halls. W31
Wand. 9(4). 232-237.

Stoner. K. L. & Thurman. C. W. (1978). The effects of density in a high- -rise
residence hall on helping behavior and social interaction.

WW. 8(1). 14-18.

Taylor. R. B. & Gottfredson. S. (1986). Environmental design. crime. and
prevention: An examination of community dynamics. In A. J. Reiss. Jr. & M.
onry (EdS.). 0mm . e u r H ‘ ; r-u -r. ‘ ‘
IDLE (pp. 387-416). Chicago. The University of Chicago Press.

 
 

Tryon. G. (.1985) An exploratory study“ of the relationship between residence hall
design and student alcohol consumrp tion WWW.
25(4). 372-373.

Valins. S.. & Baum. A. (1973). Residential p size. social interaction. and
crowding. W. (4). 421-439.

Wallis. A.. &Ford. D. (1980).

W (U. S. Department of Justice) Washington. DC. U. S.
Government Printing Office.

West. N. C.. Warren.R.W. Jr. &Schroeder. C. C. (1979). Thegrouproom: Anaidto
student development WWW.
5(1). 20- 24.

Wilcox. B. L.. & Holahan. C. J. (1976). Social «0% of the megadorm in university
student housing. ”55(4) 453-458.

Wilson. S. (1978). Vandalism and defensible space on London hous estates. In R.

V..CG C(Edlarke )..]:agkhngyandammp 41-84). London: Her jesty's
Stationary Ofi‘ice.

“llllrllillllrlr