DIFICULTADES EN COMPRENSIÓN LECTORA

By analysing the usual moment of visit of respondents to the shopping centres, the possible influence of camera surveillance on routine activity patterns was investigated. Furthermore, the difference in the numbers of respondents indicated to feel extremely safe in the two shopping areas was analysed. More specifically, the difference was analysed by looking at

53

the moment of participation. Finally, the public stance regarding camera surveillance is analysed.

As emerges from Table 6, many respondents indicated to visit the shopping area usually in the afternoon. Another major part of the respondents indicated to have no specific preference for a visit to the shopping area. The people usually visiting the shopping area in de morning or usually in the evening then logically form the minor groups.

Table 6: Routine activity pattern plus location specific results.

Usual moment of visit

Number of

respondents Boven ‘t Y Oostpoort

Morning 24 10 (11.1%) 14 (14.9%)

Afternoon 69 43 (47.8%) 26 (27.7%)

Evening 33 21 (23.3%) 12 (12.7%)

No difference 58 16 (17.8%) 42 (44.7%)

Total 184 90 (100%) 94 (100%)

When looking at the location specific findings, differences can be noted. Nearly half of the respondents in shopping area ‘Boven ‘t Y’ indicated to visit the shopping area usually in the afternoon. Additionally, just over 23% of the visitors in the shopping with camera surveillance indicated to usually be present in the evening. Only 10 out of 90 respondents usually visit the shopping area in the morning. In ‘Oostpoort’, nearly 45% of the respondents indicated to have no difference between parts of the day they usually visit the shopping area. Another large share indicated to visit the shopping area usually in the afternoon. Remarkably, only 12 out of 94 respondents indicated to visit the shopping area usually in the evening. Apparent from previous analyses, 122 respondents indicated to feel extremely safe. Shopping area ‘Oostpoort’ has a slightly larger share in this group of people than shopping area ‘Boven ‘t Y’ (53.3% versus 46.7% respectively). When looking at the different parts of the day, location specific differences appeared (see: Table 7). From the respondents that indicated to feel extremely safe, 48 were questioned during daytime, 30 during night-time and 44 during daytime in the weekend. The share each shopping area had in the amount of respondents that

54

felt extremely safe was nearly equal for both daytime moments: around 45% of them were visiting shopping area ‘Boven ‘t Y’ and more or less 55% was visiting ‘Oostpoort’. However, from the 30 respondents indicated to feel extremely safe during a night-time visit, the majority was found in shopping area ‘Boven ‘t Y’ (53.3%, versus 46.7% in shopping area ‘Oostpoort’).

Table 7: Respondents indicated to feel extremely safe and the moment of participation.

Moment of visit

Number of

respondents Boven ‘t Y Oostpoort

Daytime 48 22 (45.8%) 26 (54.2%)

Night-time 30 16 (53.3%) 14 (46.7%)

Daytime (weekend) 44 19 (43.2%) 25 (56.8%)

Total 122 57 (46.7%) 65 (53.3%)

Finally, the opinion of respondents regarding the influence of surveillance cameras was investigated. The answers on the assertion were displayed in multiple figures, which can be found in Appendix III. As emerged from Figure 5 (see: Appendix III), a large group of the total number of respondents said to feel safe in case they know that cameras are present in a shopping centre. However, this result did show to be location specific. For example, respondents in shopping area ‘Boven ‘t Y’ indicated more often to feel safe in case they know that cameras are present in a public area than in shopping area ‘Oostpoort’. Furthermore, as appeared in Figure 5, respondents in ‘Oostpoort’ more often had a neutral stance regarding their feeling of safety when they are aware the presence of surveillance cameras. Finally, a minority of the research population disagreed with the assertion, although it is remarkable that the amount of respondents strongly disagreeing with the assertion in ‘Oostpoort’ doubled the amount of respondents strongly disagreeing in ‘Boven ‘t Y’ (eight and four respondents respectively).

When respondents were asked about the perceived diffusion of benefits in case camera surveillance is executed in the shopping area, varying answers were given (see: Figure 6, Appendix III). Overall, more respondents agreed than disagreed with the assertion that camera surveillance in a shopping area is beneficial for the entire neighbourhood. However,

55

again results were showed to be location specific. Amongst respondents with a neutral stance and respondents who disagreed with the assertion, the differences were most appealing. In shopping area ‘Oostpoort’, a larger part of the respondents had a neutral or positive stance regarding the diffusion of benefits than in shopping area ‘Boven ‘t Y’. In the latter shopping area, a significant amount of respondents disagreed with the assertion, thereby indicating that, according to them, camera surveillance does not result in a safer neighbourhood. Furthermore, it was asked whether the respondent perceived CCTV of influence on his or her privacy. The answers on this assertion were displayed in Figure 7 (see: Appendix III). Overall, 45 respondents agreed with the assertion that CCTV affects their privacy. Nearly half of the research population rejected the idea of surveillance cameras influencing their privacy. However, when looking at the location specific results, remarkable differences were found. For example in shopping area “Boven ‘t Y”, only 15 respondents agreed with the idea of cameras infringing their personal space, while 55 did not see the point of cameras influencing their privacy. In shopping area ‘Oostpoort’, respondents were more reluctant: 30 respondents agreed with the assertion, whereas 35 disagreed. It can thus be noted that the respondents in ‘Oostpoort’ were more convinced of cameras infringing their privacy than the respondents in shopping area ‘Boven ‘t Y’.

56

5. Conclusion

Surveillance cameras in shopping area ‘Boven ‘t Y’ are targeted to increase the general safety in the public area and, specifically, to prevent violent raids and youth nuisance (Homburg & Bleeker, 2015a). The latest municipal evaluation of this camera project revealed that it remains necessary to label the shopping centre as ‘unsafe,’ based on the local crime rates. However, the extent to which visitors of the shopping area feel safer as a result of the surveillance cameras or whether other features are at stake remains unclear from the data presented by the municipality of Amsterdam (Homburg and Bleeker, 2015a). One of the manners to solve this gap of information was to compare empirical research findings from shopping area ‘Boven ‘t Y’ with data gathered in a similar area where surveillance cameras are absent, which is found to be shopping area ‘Oostpoort’. In general, methodological and location specific differences in empirical studies provided in divergent conclusions regarding the effect of cameras on crime and the sense of security. Additionally, previous research in the camera surveillance domain has resulted in the presumption that two conditions are necessary for effective camera surveillance projects in the public domain. The first condition is that the public needs to be aware of the surveillance cameras; the second is that the public has to feel safer due to this knowledge (Van Eijk et al., 2006). Therefore, the following research questions have been the subject of this study:

1. What is the sense of security among visitors of Amsterdam shopping areas ‘Boven ‘t