Community Security/Safety and Social Capital: An Alternative
Interpretation of Broken Window Theory
Shigeo TATSUKI 1*
1*

Doshisha University, Japan
Kim Tae-Hwan 2*

2*

Yongin University,Korea

Abstract

The concept of social capital has been considered one of the most important social policy
agendas in long term social recovery from the 1995 Kobe earthquake. After the fourteen
years that have passed since the Kobe earthquake, more than eighty percent of people nolonger consider themselves as being the earthquake survivors. It is, however, still strongly
felt among many community leaders that social capital plays a major role in community
governance. A study forum was started in 2006 in order to investigate the role of social
capital in post-earthquake society by conducting field research to nine communities where asense of social capital was felt still strong in post-recovery normal everyday lives. Eightfactors were identified as associated with rich social capital communities. In the following
year of 2007, questionnaires measuring the eight factors as well as levels of social capital,
sense of social safety and security were administered to 2,637 neighborhood/condominium
resident association presidents and 1,813 valid questionnaires were returned.

Based onindividual scores, ZIP code averages of the above variables were obtained. At the same time,occurrences of street mugging, house and car break-in, and arson per ZIP area were separately
collected. Structural Equation Modeling of the survey as well as crime variables revealed thatfive factors enriched social capital, which in turn mitigated levels of social incivilities thatwere found to be the direct cause of street crimes, perceived crime risks and fears. In order
to examine the generalizability of the current findings, the paper concludes that it is necessary
to conduct a similar type of social survey in Korean society.

Keywords: Social Capital, Questionnaire Survey, Incivilities, Crime Risk and Fear of Crime,
GIS, Structural Equation Modelling
１*

Shigeo TATSUKI, Department of Sociology, Doshisha University, Kamigyo-ku, Kyoto, 602-8580 Japan,
statsuki@ymail.doshisha.ac.jp
2*
Kim Tae-Hwan, Yong In University, Korea, taehwan@yongin.ac.kr

1. Introduction
One of the biggest concerns in current Japanese society is a steady decline in the sense ofsafety and security against crimes in urban neighborhood communities. Less face-to-facecontact and a lowering of interest in local community affairs among residents have been citedas major causes of this decline. The current paper aims to examine empirically if enrichingsocial capital through resident-government collaborative measures can in fact counter-act thisdeclining trend and make impacts upon a heightened sense of safety and security against
crimes in local neighborhoods.
Two distinctively different theoretical frameworks have directed studies on neighborhood
crime prevention. One is from a rational choice perspective, which assumes humans are
purposeful and goal oriented in such a way as to increase benefits and/or to decrease costs
even when choosing criminal behavior alternatives. Clarke (1997) proposed four groups oftechniques that reduce situational crime opportunities: 1) increasing perceived effort, 2)
increasing perceived risks, 3) reducing anticipated rewards, and 4) removing excuses. One
can apply all these techniques to individuals and the physical environment.

The rational-

choice framework provided urban planners with a theoretical basis for CPTED (Crime
Prevention through Environmental Design) (e.g., Newman, 1973), which aimed to increase
both 1) perceived effort and 2) perceived risks in physical environments. Likewise, “a broken
window” theory by Wilson and Kelling (1982) focuses mainly on 4) removing excuses by
enforcing compliance in public space by means of thorough, consistent and immediate
enforcements against “small” incivilities among individuals.
Person-in-situation-interactions and social capital perspective represent an alternative
approach to neighborhood crime prevention. This perspective emphasizes the importance ofcommunitarian rather than utilitarian, social rather than structural, trust-based rather thanenforcement-based ways of crime prevention. Jacobs (1961) asserted that safer streets werecharacterized by people’s trust that somebody nearby would come and help them in case of
incivilities occurring on the street.

In other words, rich social capital helps to reduce

incivilities because people, rather than enforcement officers, care about what is the right thing
to do on the street.
The purpose of this paper is to examine 1) what constitutes social capital, 2) what
facilitates enrichment of social capital, 3) whether social capital has empirical impacts upon
incivilities, crime risk and fear for crime among residents, and 4) how the findings from thecurrent study can be cross-culturally validated and generalized to other modernized societies
such as Korean society.
12. Method
2.1 BackgroundA study forum was formed in 2006 in order to investigate the role of social capital insocial safety and security by conducting field research to nine communities where a sense ofsocial capital was felt still strong in post-1995-earthquake-disaster recovery normal everyday
lives in Kobe city (see Figure 1).

Kobe University
Community
Collaboration
Project

Non-Profit
Organization
Group “Wa”

Higashi-Nada
Ward Welfare
Liaison Council

Chuo Ward
Ninomiya District“Garbage Ranger”
Project
Kita-Suma
Neighborhood
Association
Rokko-Island City
Neighborhood
Association
Tarumi Ward
Social Welfare
Council

Nagata Town
Management
Organization

Nagata Ward
Mano District

Fig. 1 Researched Nine Communities

Field surveys and interviews with key persons of these nine community activity leaders
produced an eight dimension model of social capital enrichment (see Figure 2).

Kid’s Involvement

Event

Good Marital andFamily Relations

Disposable Time &MoneyCommunity
GovernanceAppropriate
Distance with
Govmt

Sustainability
Involvement with
NeighborhoodChildren

Neighborhood
Event andActivities

Sustainable Community
Organization Consistingof Varied Roles ofMembers

Weak Tie among
PeopleCompassion, Trust,
Kindness, &Extending Help

Interests in & Attachment
to Community

Social Capital

Know Neighborhood
History &UniquenessInterests in &Attachment toCommunity

Greeting

Everybody
Exchange Greetings

Long-term
Residency

Mutual Help &Friendship Building

Common Problems
to be Solved in theCommunity
Various Types ofResidents canParticipate inCommunity Activities

Common Problem
to Solve

Participation of
Various Residents

Fig.2 Eight Dimensions of Social Capital Enrichment Identified

2.2 Sample
In the following year of 2007, a questionnaire instrument that measured the eight
dimensions as well as levels of social capital, sense of incivilities, social safety and security2were administered to 2,637 neighborhood/condominium resident association presidents and1,813 valid questionnaires were returned (valid response rate 68.8%). Among those who
responded, male accounted for 82.3 % and female 17.4%. Average age of respondents was
63.5 years old (SD=11.5).
2.3 Instruments
Social Capital Enrichment Dimensions: Based on the previous year’s field research, 8social capital enrichment dimensions were identified as seen in Figure 2. Those included 1)
interests in and attachment to community, 2) greetings, 3) community events, 4) involving
children in community activities, 5) participation of various residents, 6) common problems tosolve, 7) local government support, and 8) community governance. A 31 item 5-point Likert
scale was created in order to measure each of these dimensions.
Level of Social Capital: Based on Robert Putnam’s (2001) definition, a 9 item 5-point
Likert scale was developed to measure a level of social capital in terms of the degree of
exchanges in daily social network, reciprocity and trust that residents have to each other.
Incivilities: Based on Taylor (2001), a 5 item yes-no scale asked about such street
incivilities as litter, broken streetlights, teenage smoking, midnight hanging around by youths
and noise/nuisance from hot rod riders.
Crime, Crime Risk and Fear for Crime: Street-block-based actual crime statistics on street
muggings, house break-ins, car break-ins and arson were collected from both police and fire
department. Possibility and fear of house break-ins, being mugged on the street, car break-ins,
and arson were asked by 4-point Likert scales.

3. Results and Discussions
3.1 Social Capital Enrichment Dimensions
Table 1 shows factor analysis results of the 31 item social capital enrichment scale. Fivefactors were extracted and then VariMax-rotated for the ease of interpretation. For factor 1,
those items that were characterized by “participation of various residents, shopkeepers, small
business owners”, “collaboration among them”, “utilizing preexisting informal network”, and“involving children” loaded high. Therefore, factor 1 was named “participation of various
residents”. Most of highly loaded items on factor 2 included “event” and thus it was named“community event” factor. Those items referring to governance of neighborhood/tenantassociations loaded high on Factor 3, which was named “community governance” factor.
Those items designed to measure efforts to increase interests in and attachments tocommunity loaded high on factor 4. Finally, all “greeting” items loaded high on Factor 5.
3

Table 1 Factor Analysis Results of Social Capital Enrichment Dimensions
Factor 1

Factor 2

Factor 3

Participationof Various
Residents

Community
Event

Community
GovernanceFactor 4
Factor 5
Interests in &Attachment
Greetings
to Community

Communality

Q36_24 Community brokers are active in the community

0.76

0.18

0.20

0.15

0.21

0.72

Q36_22 Storekeepers and small business owners in the community are encouraged to participate in solving
problems that threaten the community

0.75

0.18

0.19

0.12

0.21

0.68

Q36_25 Various types of residents, storekeepers, and small business owners are welcomed to express theiropinions and for their participation in community activities

0.74

0.17

0.23

0.19

0.18

0.70

0.70

0.12

0.18

0.23

-0.03

0.59

0.65

0.13

0.10

0.26

-0.07

0.52

0.53

0.51

0.08

0.15

0.03

0.56

0.51

0.27

0.36

0.13

0.29

0.56

0.45

0.25

0.29

0.12

-0.13

0.38

0.42

0.26

0.27

0.22

0.26

0.43

0.21

0.75

0.24

0.17

0.05

0.70

Q36_30 The neighborhood association initiates collaboration with shopping streets and small businesses
Q36_31 The neighborhood association initiates collaboration with Non-Profit Organizations in order tosolve community problems
Q36_18 Encourage children's initiatives to plan and manage community events
Q36_23 The neighborhood association utilizes existing informal human networks in the community
Q36_29 The neighborhood association establishes a financial base through organizing flea market and otherprofit making community activities
Q36_15 Make problem solving actions as a part of community fun events
Q36_16 The neighborhood association organizes community events and activities that encourage
participation of both adults and children
Q36_11 Residents take initiatives in planning and managing community activities and events
Q36_19 The neighborhood association collaborates with local schools and children's circles when planning
community activities and events
Q36_12 The neighborhood association makes special efforts to encourage residents' participatation incommunityand events
Q36_17 Theactivities
neighborhood
association prepares a space for the gathering of various age group children andteenagers
Q36_14 The neighborhood association utilizes public funds for community activites and events
Q36_13 The neighborhood association collaborates with voluntteer groups and Non-Profit Organizations
for community activities and event
Q36_7 Utilize naturally formed drop-in spots in the community

0.10

0.74

0.20

0.21

0.15

0.66

0.36

0.65

0.19

0.16

0.09

0.62

0.02

0.65

0.33

0.20

0.27

0.64

0.43

0.63

0.09

0.15

0.07

0.62

0.36

0.52

0.20

0.23

0.13

0.51

0.43

0.48

0.02

0.23

0.20

0.51
0.48

0.25

0.47

0.16

0.34

0.25

Q36_5 Residents organize "clean-up" days as regular community events

0.01

0.43

0.33

0.23

0.26

0.42

Q36_26 The resident association is making efforts to widely communicate current issues in the community

0.14

0.21

0.78

0.14

0.16

0.71

Q36_27 Always look for those community members who can help with community problem solving actions
Q36_28 Manuals and handbooks on neighborhood association management and policies are available forsustainable community activities
Q36_32 The neighborhood association tries to keep a principle of equlity with local government whenorganizing community activities

0.28

0.17

0.69

0.16

0.24

0.67

0.18

0.12

0.61

0.05

-0.05

0.42

0.33

0.27

0.52

0.29

0.02

0.54

Q36_20 The concerned individuals are welcomed when solving community issues

0.35

0.22

0.50

0.12

0.36

0.56

Q36_3 Always look for attractive and special features of the community

0.30

0.24

0.16

0.76

0.15

0.77

Q36_1 The neighborhood association is keen about learning local traditions, culture and history
Q36_4 The neighborhood association makes efforts to communicate attractive and special features insideand outside the community
Q36_2 Always look for useful information in community life

0.20

0.25

0.16

0.72

0.15

0.66

0.31

0.22

0.11

0.66

-0.03

0.60

Q36_6 The neighborhood association makes efforts to know about local volunteer groups and Non-Profit
Organizations
Q36_9 The neighborhood association encourges neighbors to take the initiative to promote greeting among
the residents
Q36_8 Neighbors greet each other regularly
Q36_10 The neighborhood association makes efforts so that local children and adults greet each other on
the street
Variance Accounted For (%)

0.10

0.23

0.42

0.56

0.23

0.61

0.36

0.33

0.06

0.45

0.21

0.49

0.22

0.13

0.08

0.21

0.71

0.62

-0.06

0.13

0.13

0.01

0.67

0.49

0.35
16.62

0.35
14.70

0.08
10.06

0.28
9.79

0.50
6.98

0.58

A comparison of the original 8 dimension social capital enrichment model with the above
empirical analysis results indicated that “4) involving children in community activities” wasmerged into factor 2 (Community Event). Likewise, “6) common problems to solve”, “7)local government support”, and “8) community governance” items were all grouped into
factor 3 (Community Governance).
3.2 Social Capital Scale
Table 2 illustrates principal component

Table 2 Principal Component Analysis Results of Social Capital Scale Items
Q37_1 Neighbors regularly greet each other
0.56
Q37_2 Neighbors often chat on the street
0.67
Q37_3 Neighbors participate in joint sport and other hobby activities
0.63
Q37_4 Neighbors go out shopping or dining together
0.76
Q37_5 Neighbors exchange gifts and souvenirs
0.79
Q37_6 Neighbors often visit each other's houses
0.79
Q37_7 Neighbors extend help and show compassion to each other
0.81
Q37_8 Neighbors are willing to help each other for even minor things
0.82
Q37_9 Neighbors become friends with each other easily
0.82
Variance Accounted For (%)
55.33

analysis results of a nine item social capitalscale.

The first solution accounted for55.3 % of the total variance and showed good
unidimensionality:

Those

nine

items

measuring social network, reciprocity andtrust showed a convergence (Cronbach’s alpha .90) as the social capital theory (Putnam,2001) predicted.

43.3 Incivilities
Table 3 Optimal Scaling Results of Incivility Items

Because 5 incivility items on litter,broken street lights, teen ager smoking,midnight hanging around among the youth

Item

Category
WeightCategory

Frequency

Yes
No
Don't Know

271
1469
73

-0.94
0.25
-1.61

Yes
No
Don't Know

92
1618
103

-0.89
0.15
-1.60

Yes
No
Don't Know

437
739
637

-0.86
0.88
-0.44

Yes
No
Don't Know

595
705
513

-0.77
0.96
-0.42

Yes
No
Don't Know

550
918
345

-0.66
0.66
-0.69

Q38_1Litter on the street

Q38_2 Broken street lights

and hot rod riders were all nominal scale
Q38_3 Teen ager smoking(i.e., yes-no) items, optimal scaling yielded
quantified weights for each item’s response
categories (see Table 3). Cronbach’s alphaQ38_4 Midnight hanging aroundQ38_5 Hot rod riders annoying the community

was .66 and showed a moderate level ofinternal consistency reliability.
3.3 Crime, Crime Risk and Fear for Crime

Table 4 Principal Component Analysis Results of Crime Types
Mugging on the Street (2006)
House Break-in(2006)
Car Break-in (Locked Car) (2006)
Car Break-in (Unlocked Car) (2006)
Arson (1996 to 2005)

Table 4 shows principal component
analysis

resultsofstreet-block-based

occurrences of street muggings, house breakins, car break-ins and arson.

Table 5 Principal Component Analysis Results of Crime Risk Items
Solution 1
Q39_1 Possibility of house break-ins within the next 12 months
0.77
Q39_2 Possibility of being mugged on the street within the next 12 months
0.84
Q39_3 Possibility of car break-ins within the next 12 months
0.82
Q39_4 Possibility of arson within the next 12 months
0.73
Variance Accounted For (%)
62.69

The first

principal component accounted for 50 % of
the total variance, indicating areas that aresusceptible

to

one

particular

type

Solution 1
0.70
0.53
0.75
0.81
0.71
Variance Accounted For (%)
50.14

Table 6 Principal Component Analysis Results of Fear for Crime
Q40_1 Fear of a house break-in
Q40_2 Fear of being mugged on the street
Q40_3 Fear of a car break-in
Q40_4 Fear of arsonofneighborhood crime are also susceptible to

Solution 1
0.83
0.89
0.87
0.85
Variance Accounted For (%)
74.45

other types of crimes. Table 5 shows principal component analysis results of crime risk items.
Only the first eigenvector produced more than 1 eigenvalue which supported the scale’s
unidimensionality. It accounted for 63 % of the total variance (Cronbach’s alpha .80).
Similarly, items on fear of crime exhibited high unidimensionality with the first eigenvector
accounted for 74 % of the total variance (Cronbach’s alpha .89) (see Table 6).
3.5 Spatial Comparison of Crime and Social Capital Index’96 to ‘05

Social Capital Index

A rson0-2-1.63 - -1.11

3-6-1.10 - -0.59

7 - 11-0.58 - -0.18

12 - 18-0.17 - 0.17

19 - 25

0.18 - 0.60

26 - 33

0.61 - 1.30

34 - 69

1.31 - 2.60

Fig.4 Social Capital Index
Note) White areas indicate that no questionnaires
were returned.

Fig.3 Arson (’96 to ’05)

Scores from principal component and optimal scaling analyses were aggregated by ZIP
code, which provided areal indices on social capital and crime related variables. These5indices were then geo-mapped using GIS. Comparison of those maps suggested a spatial
correlation between neighborhood crime (Figure 3) and social capital (Figure 4).
3.6 Causal Analyses
Table 7 shows correlations among social capital and its enrichment variables, as well as
incivilities, crime, crime risk and fear for crime variables. Structural equation modeling
1 Participation of Various Residents
2 Event
3 Community GovernanceInterests in & Attachment
4
to Community
5 Greeting
6 Social Capital
7 Incivilities
8 Crime Risk
9 Fear for Crime
10 Crime Index

Table 7 Correlations among ZIP-code-based aggreaged variables
2
3
4
5
6
7

1
1
-0.09
-0.02

1
0.00

1

-0.01

0.08

-0.01

1

0.05
0.07
0.10
0.03
0.03
0.11

-0.02
0.26
-0.08
0.00
-0.04
-0.15

-0.06
0.23
-0.04
-0.06
-0.02
-0.15

-0.04
0.19
-0.13
0.02
-0.06
-0.04

1
0.26
-0.06
-0.04
0.03
0.00

1
-0.15
-0.09
-0.09
-0.13

8

1
0.30
0.23
0.13

1
0.54
0.15

9

1
0.08

10

1

Mean
0.01
0.12
0.08

SD
0.86
0.80
0.75

0.12

0.85

0.06
0.12
-0.08
-0.02
-0.01
0.00

0.78
0.76
0.77
0.77
0.79
1.00

(SEM) of these variables showed a very good fit and confirmed that five factors enrichedsocial capital, which in turn prevented levels of social incivilities that were found to be thedirect cause for street crimes, perceived crime risks and fears.
χ2 =48.686 df=30 p=.017 GFI=.984 AGFI=.970
CFI=.960 RMSEA=.033 AIC=98.686
e5.02

CitizenParticipation

Arson/Crime Index
.09

-.09

.26

Event

.13

.10
e1

.08

Governance

.18

e3

.04

.25
.24

.11

e2

Amountof SC-.14

Incivilities

.10
.29

Crime Risk-.10

Interests &Attachment

.08

.52

.28

Greeting
e4.30Note）SC= Social Capitalp < .05

Fear for Crime

Fig.5 Causal Modelling Results among Social Capital, Incivilities, Crime, Crime Risk and Fearfor Crime Variables.

In order to examine the generalizability of the current findings, the paper concludes that itis necessary to conduct a similar type of social surveys in another industrialized society suchas Korean society.

Reference[1] Clarke, R. V. (Ed.) Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies (2nd ed.). Albany: Harrow andHeston, 1997.
[2] Newman, O. Defensible Space: Crime Prevention through Urban Design. New York: Collier books, 1973.
[3] Putnam, R. Bowling Alone, New York: Simon & Schuster, 2001
[4] Wilson,J.Q., & Kelling, G.L. Broken Windows, Atlantic Monthly, No. 211, pp. 29-38, 1982.
[5] Jacobs, J. The death and life of great American cities. New York: Random House, 1961.
[6] Taylor, R.B. Breaking away from Broken Windows: Baltimore Neighborhoods and the Nationawide Fightagainst Crime, Grime, Fear, and Decline. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2001.

6