Are Places Where People Feel Safe or Unsafe Similar to Spatial Crime Patterns?

This study examines the spatial crime perception gap (SCPG), the mismatch between perceived and actual crime, which can lead to unnecessary avoidance behaviors, anxiety, or lack of vigilance. While few studies have explored this phenomenon from a spatial perspective, this research analyses the collective spatial perception of safety and unsafety in Vienna and Budapest and compares them with recorded crime patterns. Using a digital sketch map survey tool, 656 participants identified safe and unsafe areas as well as their daily routes.

The responses were analyzed using spatial analytical and statistical methods to delineate the perception gaps in space, which were also diversified by crime type aggregations, including all crimes, violent crimes, property crimes, and visible crimes. Distance-based analyses were also conducted to examine the “spatial diffusion” and “spatial endowment” effects.

The results show that many areas that are perceived as unsafe are not statistical crime hotspots. Perception aligns more closely with violent crime patterns than with property or visible crimes. The spatial diffusion effect illustrates that crime hotspots may influence and expand the perception of unsafety in adjacent and nearby areas. The spatial endowment effect suggests that people are more likely to perceive an area as unsafe if it is further away from their activity spaces, while overlooking crime hotspots that may intersect with it.

These patterns were consistent across both cities, although the perception gap was larger in Budapest, while the endowment effect was more pronounced in Vienna. By highlighting where and how perception diverges from reality, this study provides insights that can inform strategies to reduce unfounded fear and strengthen the perceived safety and psychological resilience of urban populations.

Read the full article