CSIS Discussion Paper No. 128

Parental Altruistic Fear: Environmental Cues and Association withChildren’s Outdoor Play

July 2014

Mamoru AMEMIYA *Corresponding Author
1-1-1, Tennodai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-8573, Japan
Faculty of Engineering, Information and Systems, University of Tsukuba
amemiya@sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
Tomoko Doi HATA
〒356-8533
1196 Kamekubo, Fujimino, Saitama, 356-8533 JapanThe Faculty of Human Studies, Bunkyo Gakuin University
thata@bgu.ac.jp
George KIKUCHI
2576 E San Ramon, MS/ST104, Fresno CA 93740-8029
Department of Criminology, California State University, Fresno
gkikuchi@csufresno.edu

Abstract
This study aimed to identify environmental cues that give rise to parental
altruistic fear of children’s crime victimization and the relationship between such fearand children’s actual outdoor play area choices. Questionnaire surveys with maps to 410
children and 234 parents residing in one school district in Tsukuba City, Japan, wereanalyzed using a geographical information system. The results indicated parental
altruistic fear was evoked by environmental cues similar to cues giving rise to fear ofcrime in general, including opportunities for concealment and a low level of residents’
activity. Furthermore, the locations of children’s outdoor play area choices seemed to be
influenced by parental altruistic fear, which was spatially concentrated in certain areasof the school district. The implication of parental altruistic fear for children’sdevelopment and possible measures for reducing parental altruistic fear are discussed.
Keywords: Altruistic fear, Fear of crime, Children, Outdoor play, Spatial analysis

1. Introduction
Japan, where the present study was conducted, has a reputation as a safecountry (OECD, 2011). However, despite the low national crime level, a number ofsurveys conducted recently have indicated that fear of crime among the general
Japanese public has been increasing (The Nikkoso Foundation for Safe Society, 2011).
In particular, a notable trend is that parental “altruistic fear” (Snedker, 2006; Warr &Ellison, 2000) of their children’s victimization is rising considerably. While fear ofcrime in general is defined as “an emotional response of dread or anxiety to crime orsymbols that a person associates with crime” (Ferraro, 1995, p. 4), altruistic fear ispeople’s fear that their significant others may become the target of crime (Snedker,
2006). Studies have shown that altruistic fear level tends to be higher than fear of
personal victimization (Snedker, 2006; Tulloch, 2004; Warr & Ellison, 2000). This
trend is also the case in Japan. According to a recent national public opinion survey,
37.7% of Japanese adults “often” or “sometimes” feel fear of personal victimization,
while 50.7% of Japanese parents “often” or “sometimes” worry that their children
would be crime victims (The Nikkoso Foundation for Safe Society, 2011; Cabinet
Office, Government of Japan, 2013). Parental altruistic fear is particularly elevated insuburban areas in Japan, according to several recent surveys (National ResearchInstitute of Police Science, 2008; 2011; Amemiya, 2012).
In contrast to other developed countries, many suburban areas in Japandeveloped rapidly without effective urban planning. Therefore, one uniquecharacteristic of Japanese suburban areas is a land use mixture of residential,
agricultural, and wooded areas (Yokohari, Takeuchi, Watanabe, & Yokota, 2000). This
land use mixture can provide diverse opportunities for children’s outdoor activities.
Indeed, children living in Japanese suburban areas often play in not only public parks
but also other green open spaces, including agricultural and wooded areas, vacant lots,
and grounds of shrines (Senda, 1998). On the other hand, for parents, the existence ofdiverse green open spaces in residential areas means that their children’s play areas are
difficult to supervise. Thus, one of the reasons for elevated parental altruistic fear inJapanese suburban areas is children’s outdoor play in diverse natural settings andparents’ limited awareness of their children’s play areas.
Parental altruistic fear of crime can be considered a subset of general fear of crime.
Since the 1960s, fear of crime has been an important theme in various social sciences(Hale, 1996). Studies on fear of crime in environmental psychology can be divided into
two categories. The first category is studies that regard fear of crime as consequences.
These studies focus on people’s environmental evaluations that precede fear of crime.

Previous studies of this category have shown that places evoking fear of crime areconcentrated in certain areas with particular environmental characteristics (Doran &Burgess, 2012; Nasar & Fisher, 1993). In natural settings, the environmental physicalcharacteristics that affect people’s fear of crime include physical and social incivilities(e.g., litter, graffiti, loitering teenagers, etc.), isolation, lack of surveillance, lowvisibility, darkness, and difficulty of escape (Burgess, 1995; Doran & Burgess, 2012;
Fisher & Nasar, 1992, 1995; Herzog & Miller, 1998; Jorgensen & Anthopoulou, 2007;
Jorgensen, Hitchmough, & Calvert, 2002; Jorgensen, Hitchmough, & Dunnett, 2007;
Jorgensen, Ellis, & Ruddell, 2013; Kuo, Bacaicoa, & Sullivan, 1998; Nasar & Fisher,
1993; Nasar, Fisher, & Grannis, 1993; Nasar & Jones, 1997; Parsons, 1995; Robinson,
Lawton, Taylor, & Perkins, 2003; Yokohari, Amemiya, & Amati, 2006). Since theseenvironmental cues increase the perceived risk of crime victimization and lower the
possibility of help from others, fear of crime at such places is raised. While these studies
discussed fear of one’s own victimization, it is hypothesized that parental fear of theirchildren’s victimization, or altruistic fear, would also be evoked by certain
environmental characteristics. However, environmental cues that evoke parental
altruistic fear have not been explored in previous studies. If parental altruistic fear
relates to certain environmental cues as does fear of crime in general, the places thatevoke parental altruistic fear may concentrate in small areas too. Thus, this study
examined the geographical concentration of fearful places and environmental cues thatevoke parental altruistic fear of their children’s victimization.
The second category of studies on fear of crime in environmental psychology focuseson the consequence of the fear. In other words, these studies aim to identify people’s
behavior that is affected by fear of crime. In particular, the influence of parental
altruistic fear on children’s behavior has been a key research theme. Previous studies
have shown that parental altruistic fear is an important contributor to restrictions of theirchildren’s behavior (Alparone & Pacilli, 2012; Blakely, 1994; Carver, Timperio, &Crawford, 2008; Carver, Timperio, Hesketh, & Crawford, 2010; Prezza, Alparone,
Cristallo, & Luigi, 2005; Prezza & Pacilli, 2007; Prezza et al., 2001; Valentine &McKendrick, 1997; Veitch, Bagley, Ball, & Salmon, 2006). Moreover, a number ofstudies have indicated that parental restrictions caused by parental altruistic fear canseverely limit their children’s outdoor play (Gill, 2007; Hillman, 2006; Hillman,
Adams, & Whitelegg, 1990; Malone, 2007; O’Brien, Jones, Sloan, & Rustin, 2000;
Valentine & McKendrick, 1997). Outdoor play is important not only for children’s
physical development but also for their mental development (Biddle, Gorely, & Stensel,
2004; Boreham & Riddoch, 2001; Ekelund et al., 2004; Page at al., 2005). Therefore,

parental altruistic fear can be a key concept in discussing children’s physical and mental
development. However, while the previous studies discussed above have identified therelationships between parental altruistic fear and the frequency, contents, and number ofplaymates participating in children’s outdoor play, few studies attempted to determine
the spatial relationships between places for children’s outdoor play and parental
altruistic fear, with the exception of a unique study conducted by Veitch and hercolleagues (2008). Since parents can prohibit their children from playing in places thatevoke parental altruistic fear, such places would be underrepresented in thegeographical distribution of their children’s outdoor play areas. Thus, this study
examined whether parental altruistic fear of specific places severely limits theirchildren’s outdoor play area choices.
Therefore, the objectives of this study were to identify the geographical concentration of
the places that evoke parental altruistic fear, to uncover the environmental
characteristics of fearful places, and to examine the relationship between parental
altruistic fear and their children’s outdoor play from a spatial perspective.
2. Methods
2.1 Study area
The study was conducted at an elementary school in Tsukuba City, Ibaraki
Prefecture, Japan. Tsukuba City is located about 50 km northeast of Tokyo and is one ofseveral suburban cities around metropolitan Tokyo (Yokohari et al., 2006). Tsukuba
City finished constructing a new railway system connecting the city and the center ofTokyo directly in 2005 and has been rapidly urbanizing. Because of its increasing
population and changes from traditional community relationships, the social andphysical environments of children have changed drastically and parental altruistic fear
has been assumed to be increasing. Thus, Tsukuba City is an ideal study site to research
the effects of environment on people’s attitudes and behaviors, including parental
altruistic fear.
The school district examined in this study (Figure 1) included several
agricultural and wooded areas. Additionally, four small city parks and twoneighborhood parks were located in the district. Many children in the elementary school
play in not only public parks but also other open spaces including agricultural, wooded
areas, vacant lots, shrines, and roads. However, it was difficult for adults to supervise
their children in many places because about 60.8% of the land in the school district
consists of agricultural and wooded areas. These physical characteristics contributed toparental altruistic fear even though serious crimes against children had not actuallyoccurred in the area.

Figure 1: Map of the school district in Tsukuba City in which data were collected
2.2 Procedure
A questionnaire survey using maps was conducted at the elementary school in
2009. Prior to the study, the objective of the survey was explained to the educational
committee of Tsukuba City, the director of the school, and the parents of children in theschool. The participants of the study were all of the children in the school (n = 540) andtheir parents (n = 400). Children’s age ranged from 6 (first graders) to 12 (sixth graders)
years old.
Of the 540 questionnaires distributed to the children and the 400 questionnaires
distributed to the parents, 410 and 234 completed questionnaires, were returned andused in the analysis, respectively. The response rates were 75.9% for the children and58.5% for the parents. A detailed demographic profile of the respondents is shown in
Table 1.

Table 1: Demographic Profile of the RespondentsChildren (N = 410)
GenderBoy

210 (51.2%)

Girl

199 (48.5%)

School Year (Age [years])
1st (6–7)

59 (14.4%)

2nd (7–8)

73 (17.8%)

3rd (8–9)

88 (21.5%)

4th (9–10)

73 (17.8%)

5th (10–11)

64 (15.6%)

6th (11–12)

53 (12.9%)Male

22 (9.4%)

Female209 (89.3%)

Parents (N = 234)
GenderAverage age

37.88 (SD = 4.06)

Average length of residence (yrs)8.89 (SD = 10.33)

Household income per year (million yen)<3

13 (5.6%)

3–6

59 (25.2%)

6–9

77 (32.9%)>943 (18.4%)

Car ownership

226 (96.6%)

House typeNote. Missing values in each category.

Privately owned single family

204 (87.2%)

Rented single family house

7 (3.0%)Rented apartment house

18 (7.7%)

2.3 Data collection
As a part of the questionnaire, we collected data by use of mapping
methodology, similar to some previous studies on general fear of crime (Doran &Burgess, 2012; Nasar et al., 1993; Veitch et al., 2008). Each child respondent received astapled booklet containing eight maps covering the entire school district. The children
were asked to indicate a maximum of three outdoor places where they often played byplacing stickers on the maps. In order to accommodate children’s possibly limited
understanding of maps, we asked the children to seek their parents’ help, if necessary.
The stickers were 5 mm in radius and each map was printed in color on 297 mm × 420
mm white paper (A3, approximately tabloid size). The maps were created by the authors
using existing geographical information system (GIS) data with a scale of 1:5,000.
The parents were asked to indicate with stickers a maximum of three places
that induced fear when they thought of their children playing there. The reasons forselecting each place were further elicited through open-ended questions. Additionally,
the parents were asked to indicate a maximum of three places where they were able toallow their children to play without altruistic fear and a maximum of three places where
they prohibited their children from playing because of altruistic fear.
The collected data of selected play areas, fear-inducing places, andpermitted/restricted places were entered into the GIS as point features with XY
coordinate pairs. The GIS software used in this study was ESRI ArcGIS 10.1 (ESRI,
Redlands, CA).
2.4 Data Analysis
2.4.1 Geographical concentration of fearful places
We first examined the geographical concentration of the places that elicitedparental altruistic fear by calculating nearest neighbor distances between locations ofparental altruistic fear. The nearest neighbor measure R is a measure of spatial
clustering of point patterns. R is calculated as shown in Equation 1, in which i is eachpoint; r is the nearest neighbor rectilinear distance between points; n is the total numberof points; and A is the size of the area in which all points are distributed (Clark &Evans, 1954).

0.5⁄

⁄

(1)

R becomes 0 when a point pattern is concentrated completely on one point and
1 when a point pattern is randomly distributed. R is greater than 1 when a point patternis dispersed and regularly distributed. R in this study means the degree to which theplaces that evoke parental altruistic fear concentrate spatially. In other words, thedistribution of places that evoke parental altruistic fear concentrates in small areas when
R nears a value of 0.
2.4.2 Characteristics of fearful places
In order to identify the characteristics of the places that evoke parental altruistic
fear, two analyses were conducted. First, the physical characteristics were examined byoverlaying the coordinates of the fearful places on a land-use map of the school district.
Second, the responses to the open-ended questions about parents’ reasons for describing
certain places as fearful were examined through text mining. We tagged nouns, verbs,
and adjectives after parsing sentences, since nouns, verbs, and adjectives would be most
likely to express the reasons for place selection. We counted the frequency of each parseand visualized the relationships between the tagged parses by calculating Jaccard
indices. The Jaccard index J is calculated as shown in Equation 2, in which x and yrepresent parses included in descriptions of places eliciting parental altruistic fear. J
indicates the degree of co-appearance of words. In this study, the description consistingof words with large J will be interpreted as the description expressing environmental
characteristics of the places that evoke parental altruistic fears.

,| ∩ | ⁄| ∪ |(2)

We clustered the parses by using the method proposed by Newman and Girvan(2004); the parses that have strong links with each other are divided into some clusters
based on the “modularity index” (Newman & Girvan, 2004). All parses were analyzed
as Japanese words, using the Japanese text mining software KH Coder (Higuchi, 2013).
2.4.3 Spatial relationships between parental altruistic fear, permission, restriction, andchildren’s outdoor play
Finally, the nearest neighbor spatial association measures were calculated andcompared in order to examine the relationships between the places eliciting parental
altruistic fear, places of parental permission/restriction, and children’s actual outdoor
play locations. The nearest neighbor spatial association measure R' is calculated asshown in Equation 3 (Lee, 1979), where dABi is the rectilinear distance from point i in
Series A to the nearest point in Series B; dBAj is the rectilinear distance from point j inSeries B to the nearest point in Series A; NA and NB are the number of points of Series
A and B; nA and nB are the ratios of A and B to the total number of points; and A is thesize of the area in which all points are distributed.

′

⁄2

⁄

⁄2

⁄

(3)

This statistic approaches 0 when two point patterns (e.g., the distributions of fearfulplaces and play areas) are matched completely and becomes 1 when two point patterns
are randomly distributed. R' becomes greater than 1 when two point patterns are
dispersed and regularly distributed. We compared R' values between the distributions offour location types: places that elicited parental altruistic fear, places where parents
permitted their children to play, places where parents restricted their children from play,and places where their children chose as their play areas.
3. Results
3.1 Geographical Concentration of Fearful Places
More than half (148) of 234 parents indicated at least one fearful place. Of 148
in total, 83, 44, and 21 parents indicated one, two, and three fearful place(s)respectively. Therefore, the total number of fearful places indicated by the parents was
234. Figure 2 shows the distribution of the locations indicated by the parents as eliciting
fear for their children’s safety. As shown in Figure 2, certain places were marked as
fearful by many parents. The nearest neighbor measure R was 0.43 (Z = -16.7, p < .001;
Null hypothesis is R = 1), which indicates a significant concentration of the places
evoking parental altruistic fear. In other words, this result implies that there are “hotspots” of parental altruistic fear of crime in this school district.

Figure 2: Point distribution map of children’s play locations evoking
parental altruistic fear (n = 234). Source of Aerial Photo: ESRI World Imagery(Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid,
IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community)

3.2 Characteristics of Fearful Places
Figure 3 represents the relationship between the places eliciting parental
altruistic fear and land use. The parents tended to indicate parks, roads, wooded areas,
agricultural areas, and water areas as fearful places and residential areas as safe places.
The land use category is therefore assumed to be one of the factors associated withparental altruistic fear.

Figure 3: Land use of children’s play locations evoking parental altruistic
fear (n = 234).
However, it is difficult to glean more detailed environmental cues of parental
altruistic fear from land use categories. This is why we examined parents’ evaluations offearful places in order to identify additional environmental cues for fear using text
mining and Jaccard index. Figure 4 shows the results of the text mining that analyzed
open-ended descriptions of reasons for parental altruistic fear. Each of the words in
Figure 4 was translated from Japanese into English after analysis. The size of the circles
represents the frequency of occurrence of each parse. Bigger circles mean parses are
frequently used to explain the environmental characteristics of parental fearful places.
The line widths represent Jaccard indices, which indicate co-appearance of parses. The
colors indicate clusters of closely connected parses. We can understand environmental
characteristics of parental fearful places structurally using the clusters. Figure 4 was
drawn after simplifying the text mining results by limiting the frequency of each parse(≥5) and the Jaccard index ranks (≥.1).

Figure 4: Results of text mining of descriptions of children’s play locations
evoking parental altruistic fear. Circle size: frequency of occurrence of each parse;line width: Jaccard index magnitude indicating co-appearance of parses; color:
related parses. (Figure drawn after simplifying text mining results by limiting thefrequency of each parse [≥5] and Jaccard index ranks [≥.1].)
As shown in Figure 4, the parses associated with evaluations of fear-inducing
places could be categorized into eight types: Cluster A—places with dense woods,
darkness, low visibility, and litter; Cluster B—places that are dark (similar to Cluster A)
and easily accessed by strangers; Cluster C—places with few pedestrians or people;
Cluster D—places where suspicious persons had been witnessed; Cluster E—places
around which it was difficult for parents to observe ; Cluster F—places where strangers
had spoken to children (similar to Cluster D); Cluster G—places with public restrooms;
Cluster H—places with heavy traffic. The words in these clusters describe
environmental characteristics of places that evoke parental altruistic fear.

3.3 Spatial Relationships between Parental Altruistic Fear, Permission,
Restriction, and Children’s Outdoor Play
About 70% (n=156) of 234 parents indicated at least one place where they
permitted their children to play. Of 156 in total, 105, 36, and 15 parents indicated one,
two, three of them, respectively. About 30% (n=76) of 234 parents indicated at least one
place where they restricted their children from play. Of 76 in total, 46, 22, and 8 parents
indicated one, two, three of them, respectively. All of the children (n=410) indicated atleast one play area. Of 410 in total, 72, 120, and 219 children indicated one, two, andthree play area(s), respectively. Therefore, a total of 222, 114, and 969 places wereindicated as the places where parents permitted their children to play, the places whereparents restricted their children to play, and the places where children indicated as theirplay areas, respectively.
Figure 5 shows the distributions of the places where parents permitted theirchildren to play or restricted them from playing and the places that children indicated asplay areas. Table 2 shows the R' nearest neighbor spatial association measures for eachcombination of the spatial distributions of parental altruistic fear, permission,
restriction, and children’s actual outdoor play. The R' value between the places ofparental altruistic fear and prohibited places was 0.32 (Z = -21.06, p < .001; Nullhypothesis is R' = 1), and the R' value between the places of parental altruistic fear andpermitted places was 0.84 (Z = -11.08, p < .001). These results indicate that parents
tended to restrict their children from playing in places that elicited parental altruistic
fear. The R' value between restricted places and children’s actual play areas was 0.68 (Z= -18.03, p < .001), while the R' value between permitted places and children’s actual
play areas was 0.41 (Z = -35.00, p < .001). These results indicate that parental
restrictions on their children’s outdoor play were spatially correlated with children’s
actual outdoor play area choices.

Figure 5: Point distribution maps of permitted and restricted play areas indicatedby parents and actual play areas indicated by children.
Table 2: Nearest Neighbor Spatial Association Measures among Point
Distributions

R'
Parentalaltruistic fear
placesPermitted
placesRestricted
placesActual play
areas

Parentalaltruistic fear
placesPermitted
placesRestricted
placesActual play
areas

-

-

-

-

0.84**---

0.32**

0.71**--

0.73**

0.41**

0.68**-

Note. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01

4. Discussion
Previous studies have found a geographical concentration of places evoking
fear of crime (Doran & Burgess, 2012; Nasar & Fisher, 1993). However, these studies
have focused on fear for respondents’ own safety rather than altruistic fear. Focusing onparental altruistic fear of their children’s victimization, this study examined thegeographical concentration of altruistic fear by using nearest neighbor measurement.
We found that places evoking parental altruistic fear within a school district wereconcentrated in certain small areas. This result is consistent with findings about fear ofcrime in general (Doran & Burgess, 2012; Nasar & Fisher, 1993).
Additionally, this study identified land use categories and the physicalcharacteristics of places that evoke fear among parents. The map overlaying analysis
and text mining revealed that natural settings in particular, including parks, woodlands,
agricultural areas, and water areas, tended to be indicated as fearful places by parents.
Conversely, play areas in residential areas tended to be indicated as safe places. The
results of text mining showed a relationship between parental altruistic fear of a placeand environmental characteristics such as lack of surveillance, lack of activities of local
residents, poor visibility, darkness during day and night, incivilities, and easy access by
strangers. These findings are consistent with previous studies examining general fear ofcrime in natural settings (Jorgensen et al., 2013); environmental features such as
numerous concealed places, low visibility, difficulty of escape, and few observers
correlate with fear in general. Thus, it is likely that theories that explain general fear ofcrime in natural settings can also apply to altruistic fear of crime. In other words,
reducing parents’ fear of personal victimization through appropriate environmental
design in natural settings may also reduce parental altruistic fear for their children.
We also examined spatial correlations among places indicated as fearful by
parents, permitted/restricted play areas, and children’s actual outdoor play areas byusing nearest neighbor spatial association measures. A noteworthy result of our analyses
was that the locations of parent-restricted places were correlated with locations evoking
parental altruistic fear of crime. Therefore, it is possible that parents restrict theirchildren from playing in these fearful places. Additionally, locations where children
actually played were more closely correlated with parent-permitted locations than withparent-restricted locations. In other words, children tended to select play areas whereparents approved of rather than those areas where parents disapproved of for safety
reasons. Thus, parental altruistic fear may reduce the probability of some places chosen
as play areas by children.

Previous studies (Doran & Burgess, 2012; Fisher & Nasar, 1992) have shownthat people tend to avoid places where they fear becoming a victim of crime, while thisstudy found that an individual’s avoidance behavior can also be caused by altruistic fear
for others. Specifically, parental altruistic fear of their children’s victimization cancause children’s avoidance behavior through parental restrictions. However, sincechildren’s behaviors in their neighborhoods depend on a system of child-parentenvironment negotiations (Perez & Hart, 1980), children’s avoidance behavior may becaused by other factors such as close relationship between parents and children,
children’s individual characteristics, and children’s own fear in their play areas. Closer
examination of the relationship between parental altruistic fear and children’s avoidance
behavior remains for future studies.
Based on the results of this study, children’s avoidance behavior induced byparental altruistic fear seems to have arisen especially in natural settings. Surely, such
avoidance behavior may lower the actual crime victimization risk of children, especiallyin high crime areas. However, avoidance behavior may also have negative effects.
Previous studies (Burgess, Harrison & Limb, 1988; Fjortoft & Sageie, 2000; Hart, 1979;
Kytta, 2004; Moore, 1986) have suggested that unstructured and unsupervised outdoor
activities, especially play in natural settings, are important for the development ofchildren’s social skills and autonomy. Natural settings in Japan, which include woods
and agricultural areas, are considered valuable play areas where children can engage inactivities such as gathering insects, climbing trees, and observing plants (Senda, 1998).
The results of this study suggest that opportunities for this sort of play may besignificantly reduced because of rising parental altruistic fear of victimization of theirchildren.
In addition to these substantive findings, a methodological aspect of this study
should be highlighted. This study examined the relationship between people’s behavior
and physical environment using GIS and spatial statistics. Using GIS and spatial
statistics, we could discuss parental altruistic fear and children’s play area choicegeographically. Similar to this study, many studies focus on the geographicalrelationship between people and environment in environmental psychology. GIS andspatial statistics can be used to encourage methodological progress in environmental
psychology.
5. Policy Implication
Finally, we discuss practical implications of this study. Recently, in order totackle heightened parental altruistic fear, some Japanese city officials, including

Tsukuba City where this study took place, have begun to create safer naturalenvironments for children by modifying play areas via a safety-from-crime perspective
based on CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design) theory (Amemiya& Yokohari, 2004). However, the usual implementation of this approach is to simply
enhance visibility by cutting woods (Amemiya & Yokohari, 2004; Yokohari et al.,2006). Based on the results of this study, this effort may reduce parental altruistic fear
indeed, but there are limitations to this approach. Not only is it difficult to eliminate allblind spots in all play areas of children, but it may also reduce play in natural settings,
including in nature refuges which can have an important role in children’s healthy
development. Changing physical environments only from a crime prevention
perspective does not always mean creating desirable play areas for children.
The results of this study suggest a different approach to promoting children’s
outdoor play in natural settings as well as reducing parental altruistic fear. This study
identified the geographical concentration of the places that evoke parental altruistic fear.
The results imply the importance of focusing on certain areas when implementing
countermeasures. Additionally, in this study, physical concealment was identified as anenvironmental cue that evokes parental altruistic fear, but so was lack of people’s
activity. Therefore, encouraging activities of local residents in natural settings might
reduce parental altruistic fear even without eliminating blind spots. Some recent efforts
in Japan have eschewed typical crime prevention activities such as neighborhood footpatrols by residents in favor of everyday activities like gardening at children’s playareas. Such measures would increase natural surveillance without placing an
unnecessary burden on local residents. It is possible to reduce parental altruistic fear
without damaging the attractiveness of children’s play areas in natural settings throughenhancing “natural” activities of local residents (e.g., setting garden beds or facilities
that enhance natural surveillance of local residents in fearful places).
Despite the above strengths, there were some limitations to this study. Since
this study examined a pattern in one school district only, the results may not be
generalizable to other school districts or other cities. With regard to the fearful places, itis necessary to identify environmental cues more closely based on experimental
approaches used in previous studies (Jorgensen & Anthopoulou, 2007; Jorgensen et al.,2002). The effect of parental altruistic fear on their children’s development should bestudied in more detail using longitudinal data in the future. Moreover, the effects ofdemographic factors such as children’s age, parents’ age, sex, personality, social class,and the relationship between parents and their children on parental altruistic fear andchildren’s outdoor play are further challenges for future research.

References
Alparone, F. R., & Pacilli, M. G. (2012). On children’s independent mobility: Theinterplay of demographic, environmental, and psychosocial factors. Children’s
Geographies, 10(1), 109–122.
Amemiya, M., & Yokohari, M. (2004). Identifying the problems associated with crime
prevention in parks and measures for their solution in Japan. International Federation ofPark & Recreation Administration, The 20th world congress in HAMAMATSU, CDROM.
Amemiya, M. (2012). The area difference of the relationship between children’s
independent mobility measured by parental license and children’s outdoor play.
Landscape Research Japan, 75(5), 477–452. (in Japanese)
Biddle, S. J., Gorely, T., & Stensel, D. J. (2004). Health-enhancing physical activity andsedentary behavior in children and adolescents. Journal of Sports Sciences, 22, 679¬–
701.
Blakely, K. S. (1994). Parents’ conceptions of social dangers to children in the urban
environment. Children’s Environments, 11, 16–25.
Boreham, C., & Riddoch, C. (2001). The physical activity, fitness and health ofchildren. Journal of Sports Sciences, 19, 915¬–929.
Burgess, J. (1995). Growing in confidence: Understanding people’s perceptions ofurban fringe woodlands. Cheltenham, England: Countryside Commission.
Burgess, J., Harrison, C. M., & Limb, M. (1988). People, parks and the urban green: A
study of popular meanings and values for open spaces in the city. Urban Studies, 25(5),455–473.
Cabinet Office, Government of Japan. (2013). Public opinion survey on safety ofchildren. Retrieved from http://www8.cao.go.jp/survey/h25/h25-kodomo/index.html.
(In Japanese)

Carver, A., Timperio, A., & Crawford, D. (2008). Playing it safe: The influence ofneighborhood safety on children's physical activity—A review. Health & Place, 14,
217–227.
Carver, A., Timperio, A., Hesketh, K., & Crawford, D. (2010). Are children andadolescents less active if parents restrict their physical activity and active transport due
to perceived risk? Social Science & Medicine, 70, 1799–1805.
Clark, P. J., & Evans, F. C. (1954). Distance to nearest neighbor as a measure of spatial
relationships in populations. Ecology, 35, 445–453.
Doran, B. J., & Burgess, M. B. (2012). Putting fear of crime on the map: Investigating
perceptions of crime using geographic information systems. New York, NY: Springer.
Ekelund, U., Sardinha, L. B., Anderssen, S. A., Harro, M., Franks, P. W., Brage, S.,
Frogerg, K. (2004). Associations between objectively assessed physical activity andindicators of body fatness in 9- to 10-y-old European children: A population-based
study from 4 distinct regions in Europe (the European Youth Heart Study). American
Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 80, 584–590.
Ferraro, K. F. (1995). Fear of crime: Interpreting victimization risk. Albany, NY: State
University of New York press.
Fisher, B. S., & Nasar, J. L. (1992). Fear of crime in relation to three exterior sitefeatures: Prospect, refuge, and escape. Environment and Behavior, 24, 35–65.
Fisher, B. S., & Nasar, J. L. (1995). Fear spots in relation to microlevel physical cues:
Exploring the overlooked. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 32, 214–239.
Fjortoft, I., & Sageie, J. (2000). The natural environment as a playground for children:
Landscape description and analyses of a natural playscape. Landscape and Urban
Planning, 48, 83–97.
Gill, T. (2007). No fear: Growing up in a risk averse society. London, England:
Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.
Hale, C. (1996). Fear of crime: A review of the literature. International Review ofVictimology, 4, 79–150.

Hart, R. A. (1979). Children’s experience of place: A developmental study. New York,
NY: Irvington.
Herzog, T. R., & Miller, E. J. (1998). The role of mystery in perceived danger andenvironmental preference. Environment and Behavior, 32, 301–322.
Higuchi, K. (2013). KH Coder. http://khc.sourceforge.net/en/
Hillman, M. (2006). Children’s rights and adults’ wrongs. Children’s Geographies, 4,
61–67.
Hillman, M., Adams, J., & Whitelegg, J. (1990). One false move . . . A study ofchildren’s independent mobility. London, England: PSI Publishing.
Jorgensen, A., & Anthopoulou, A. (2007). Enjoyment and fear in urban woodlands—
does age make a difference? Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 6, 267–278. Jorgensen,
A., Hitchmough, J., & Calvert, T. (2002). Woodland spaces and edges: Their impact onperception of safety and preference. Landscape and Urban Planning, 60, 135–150.
Jorgensen, A., Hitchmough, J., & Dunnett, N. (2007). Woodland as a setting for
housing-appreciation and fear and the contribution to residential satisfaction and place
identity in Warrington New Town, UK. Landscape and Urban Planning, 79, 273–287.
Jorgensen, L. J., Ellis, G. D., & Ruddell, E. (2013). Fear perceptions in public parks:
Interactions of environmental concealment, the presence of people recreating, andgender. Environment and Behavior, 45(7), 803–820.
Kuo, F. E., Bacaicoa, M., & Sullivan, W. C. (1998). Transforming inner-city
landscapes: Trees, sense of safety, and preference. Environment and Behavior, 30(1),28–59.
Kytta, M. (2004). The extent of children’s independent mobility and the number ofactualized affordances as criteria for child-friendly environments. Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology, 24, 179–198.
Lee, Y. (1979). A nearest-neighbor spatial-association measure for the analysis of firminterdependence. Environment and Planning A, 11, 169–176.

Malone, K. (2007). The bubble-wrap generation: Children growing up in walled
gardens. Environmental Education Research, 13, 513–527.
Moore, R. C. (1986). Childhood’s domain. London, England: Croom Helm.
Nasar, J. L., & Fisher, B. (1993). “Hot spots” of fear and crime: A multi-method
investigation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13, 187–206.
Nasar, J. L., Fisher, B., & Grannis, M. (1993). Proximate physical cues to fear of crime.
Landscape and Urban Planning, 26, 161–178.
Nasar, J. L., & Jones, K. M. (1997). Landscapes of fear and stress. Environment andBehavior, 29, 291–323.
National Research Institute of Police Science (2008). A report on daily activities andcrime victimizations of elementary children. National Research Institute of Police
Science, Japan.
National Research Institute of Police Science (2011). A report on life and safety ofelementary children. National Research Institute of Police Science, Japan.
Newman, M., & Girvan, M. (2004). Finding and evaluating community structure in
networks. Physical Review E, 69, 026113.
O’Brien, M., Jones, D., Sloan, D., & Rustin, M. (2000). Children’s independent spatial
mobility in the urban public realm. Childhood: A Global Journal of Child Research, 7,257-277.
OECD. (2011). Personal security. In How’s life? Measuring well-being. OECD
Publishing. doi:10.1787/9789264121164-13-enPage, A., Cooper, A. R., Stamatakis, E., Foster, L. J., Crowne, E. C., Sabin, M., &Shield, J. P. H. (2005). Physical activity patterns in nonobese and obese children
assessed using minute-by-minute accelerometry. Journal of Investigative Dermatology,
29, 1070.
Parsons, R. (1995). Conflict between ecological sustainability and environmental
aesthetics: Conundrum, canard or curiosity. Landscape and Urban Planning, 32, 227–244.

Perez, C., & Hart, R. (1980). Beyond playgrounds: Planning for children's access to theenvironment. In P.F. Wilkinson (Ed.), Innovation in play environments (p. 252–271).
New York: St. Martin's Press.
Prezza, M., Alparone, F. R., Cristallo, C., & Luigi, S. (2005). Parental perception ofsocial risk and of positive potentiality of outdoor autonomy for children: The
development of two instruments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 437–453.
Prezza, M., & Pacilli, M. G. (2007). Current fear of crime, sense of community, andloneliness in Italian adolescents: The role of autonomous mobility and play duringchildhood. Journal of Community Psychology, 35, 151–170.
Prezza, M., Pilloni, S., Morabito, C., Sersante, C., Alparone, F. R., & Giuliani, M. V.
(2001). The influence of psychosocial and environmental factors on children’s
independent mobility and relationship to peer frequentation. Journal of Community &Applied Social Psychology, 11, 435–450.
Robinson, J. B., Lawton, B. A., Taylor, R. B., & Perkins, D. D. (2003). Multilevellongitudinal impacts of incivilities: Fear of crime, expected safety, and block
satisfaction. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 19, 237–274.
Senda, M. (1998). Play space for children. Tokyo, Japan: Ichigaya Syuppan.
Snedker, K. A. (2006). Altruistic and vicarious fear of crime: Fear for others andgendered social roles. Sociological Forum, 21, 163–195.
The Nikkoso Foundation for Safe Society. (2011). Research Report on Fear of Crime.
Retrieved from http://www.syaanken.or.jp/wpcontent/uploads/2012/05/23031bouhan23_03.pdf. (In Japanese)
Tulloch, M. I. (2004). Parental fear of crime: A discursive analysis. Journal of
Sociology, 40(4), 362–377.
Valentine, G., & McKendrick, J. (1997). Children’s outdoor play: Exploring parental
concerns about children’s safety and the changing nature of childhood. Geoforum, 28,
219–235.

Veitch, J., Bagley, S., Ball, K., & Salmon, J. (2006). Where do children usually play? A
qualitative study of parents’ perceptions of influences on children’s active free-play.
Health & Place, 12, 383–393.
Veitch, J., Salmon, J., & Ball, K. (2008). Children’s active free play in local
neighborhoods: A behavioral mapping study. Health Education Research, 23(5), 870–
879.
Warr, M., & Ellison, C. G. (2000). Rethinking social reactions to crime: Personal andaltruistic fear in family households. American Journal of Sociology, 106, 551–578.
Yokohari, M., Amemiya, M., & Amati, M. (2006). The history and future directions ofgreenways in Japanese new towns. Landscape and Urban Planning, 76, 210¬–222.
Yokohari, M., Takeuchi, K., Watanabe, T., & Yokota, S. (2000). Beyond greenbelts andzoning: A new planning concept for the environment of Asian mega-cities. Landscapeand Urban Planning, 47, 159–171.