Marco empírico:

Public concerns surrounding the problems of security in the built environment can lead to an increase in the fear of security threats, and CTMs and CPMs can be used to lessen this apprehension. Katz (2004, cited in Graham, 2004, p.17), puts forward the argument that terrorism, leads the public to experience a ‘pervasive crisis in feelings of safety in everyday life’ (Graham, 2004, p.17). This fear of terrorism is exemplified when incidents occur, such as power outages, failures in telecommunication networks, and aviation accidents are instantly questioned as potential terrorist attacks.

The fear of crime can be defined as ‘a rational or irrational state of alarm of anxiety engendered by the belief that one is in danger of criminal victimization’ (McLaughlin, 2006, p.164). The fear of crime has become normalised within society and even if people are not the victims of an actual crime, they are still victimised by the ‘threat and some of us live in fear of it’ (Furedi, 2006, p.2). Moreover, this fear can be amplified by the physical

environment of the railway station and issues such being a crowded space at peak times during the day and a lack of physical presence or supervision by members of staff (Morgan and Cornish, 2006, p.1). This can be outside of peak hours and can be seen to ‘contribute to vandalism, graffiti, robbery of staff and passengers, assaults of staff and passengers…fare evasion’ (Morgan and Cornish, p.3).

The fear of crime is spatialized and temporal, altering with the locations and times people find themselves in (Taylor, 2001 and Waters, 2006). Hence, the fear of security threats is a social construction, and the multiple stakeholders regardless of their position and function in the railway station must account for how and where the public consider the issue of crime to be situated (McLaughlin, 2006). It is contended ‘the search for security and the threat of insecurity’ (Cochrane and Talbot, 2008, p.2) are entangled concepts that are social constructs. This pursuit occurs on a broad continuum, from national to global issues, which are construed and interpreted temporally ‘into national and local policy initiatives relating to…crime control’ (Cochrane and Talbot, 2008, p.2). For instance, the issue of ‘personal security (feeling safe from threats of violence or incivility)’ (Cochrane and Talbot, 2008, p.3) is positioned in the personal and localised space of the individual and can be viewed in terms of local policies, such as CPMs to keep the public safe from crime.

In recent years, the media has portrayed railway stations as places rife with crime, which strike fear and concern for passengers (Cozens et al., 2004). This coverage through amplification can raise the public’s awareness of issues within the railway to be disproportionate. It is recognised in passenger surveys that the fear of crime being committed while in a railway station in Britain is a key worry for passengers. Much of the research into the railway station and crime has been centered on the fears and concerns of passengers over their personal safety while waiting or passing through it. The research of Cozens et al. (2004) focused on these fears, specifically in terms of visibility, of passengers waiting on railway station platforms in Wales. Platform shelters often provided passengers with reduced visibility, which could lead to fears of personal safety, resulting in passengers feeling less secure (Smith, 2011). Passengers and customers using railway stations have expressed dissatisfaction with their perceived personal safety within both the railway station and the associated car parking facilities (Smith, 2011). Additionally, there is a level apprehension and fear articulated by passengers regarding a lack of staff presence and

their availability at railway stations (Smith, 2011). Indeed, 46% of passengers, who frequented unstaffed/partly staffed stations, regarded their personal security as poor (Smith, 2011, p.14).

However, the danger and fear of terrorism can be viewed as ‘national security (protects the nation from internal and external threats)’ (Cochrane and Talbot, 2008, p.3), and this is positioned in distant space of uncertainty and insecurity. Yet, without a doubt, the concepts of security and insecurity are intrinsically interconnected in the everyday and specifically when considering the resilience of SPIRS. Therefore, the pervasive implementation and operation of prevention measures in a railway station, ‘from CCTV…to security announcements…may serve to remind us continually of the threat, paradoxically making us feel more insecure’ (Cochrane and Talbot, 2008, p.7).

Cozens et al. (2004) and Waters (2006, p.249) suggest the fear of crime can be reduced by

‘manipulating the physical environment to improve perceptions of personal safety’. Railway stations should have money invested in their prevention measures to break the ‘vicious spiral’ that can develop from a lack of investment which ‘will not only harm the transport system but also the communities that depend on them’ (Morgan and Cornish, 2006, p.3).

Therefore, the organisational multiple stakeholders of the railway station must undertake initiatives to reduce and minimise these worries over security threats, crime, and terrorist (Cozens et al., 2004). However, there are differences in the perception of being a victim of crime and the actual empirical data of becoming one (Taylor, 2001). There are discrepancies between the actual and the seeming chances of being a victim of crime (Innes, 2011). For instance, in the period 2010-11 the Crime Survey reported the number of actual reported violent crimes as three percent, whereas those taking part in the survey, thirteen percent ‘thought that they were very likely or fairly likely to be a victim’ (Innes, 2011, p.84) of this type of crime. The below table highlights the ‘factors contributing to fear’

(Morgan and Cornish, 2006, p.8) among passengers and the public.

Table 4.0 Factors leading to increased fear in passengers and the public (Source: adapted from Morgan and Cornish, 2006, p.8)

Lack of visibility Inappropriate or inadequate lighting Poor lines of clean sight

Recesses allowing hiding places for potential offenders

Overgrown vegetation around the boundaries Perceived lack of protection or assistance Lack of other passengers

Lack of visible rail staff Lack of CCTV surveillance

Insecurity caused by poor design features – corridors and long flights of stairs

Passenger uncertainty Lack of familiarity with the space Inadequate or confusing signage Perceived lack of control or care Badly maintained space – litter or graffiti

Presence of perceived disorderly people – drunks, beggars, homeless people, and rowdy young people

Overcrowded spaces

Lack of boundaries between the station and surrounding area

Previous victimisation or awareness of others being victimised

Having been a victim of crime previously in the space or similar

Observing others being the victims of crimes

Network Rail is endeavouring to address these concerns, by proposing during the period of 2014-2019, through a programme of refurbishments and improvements, the National Stations Improvement Programme (NSIP). It is anticipated these refurbishments and improvements will help to enhance the security of passengers, for instance;

• enhancing the ambience of railway stations

• increasing levels of lighting

• “open” architecture

• parking amenities are enhanced

• upgrading and improved CCTV (Network Rail, 2011f, p.104)

The merits and disadvantages of these measures are discussed in further detail in

Chapter Seven.