Siinviidatu võiks huvi pakkuda nii politseinikele, poliitikakujundajatele kui kõikidele, kes soovida elama asuda maapiirkonda. Eriti oluliseks muutub selle teksti sisu kallineva kütuse ning keerustuva logistika tingimustes, sest maapiirkondade eraldatus suureneb. Tekst võiks kindlasti kandideerida politseikursuste seminaritekstiks.

Kontekstiks:

There is a tendency to think of rural and remote communities as idyllic settings secured by a strong sense of social cohesion, a low incidence of social and physical disorders, and resilient social ties between community members (Short 2006; Baylina and Berg 2010; Donnermeyer and DeKeseredy 2014; Haigron 2017). 1 However, empirical literature suggests that such an idealized conception is ill-founded (Hogg and Carrington 1998, 1999; Carrington and Scott 2008). […] For example, the rate of violent crimes against women and girls aged 24 and younger in northern Canada was three times higher compared to their counterparts in southern Canada and four times higher than the overall Canadian average in 2017 (Rotenberg 2019: 3).

Mis on maapiirkond?

While there is no perfect definition of rurality as these definitions are inevitably purpose dependent (Carrington and Scott 2008; Hart and Casey 2012), we argue that a more comprehensive approach is nevertheless possible and warranted for the study of people’s perceptions of crime and safety.

Operatsionaliseerimise küsimus:

Against this backdrop, we propose to examine variations in citizens’ perceptions of crime and safety across urban, rural and remote communities through a more comprehensive conceptualization and operationalization of rurality.

Traditsiooniline vaade turvatundele:

Traditionally, citizens’ assessment of crime as a problem in their c nities was understood as being directly related to concerns, worries and anxieties at the prospect of becoming the victim of a crime (Ferraro and LaGrange 1987; Hale 1996). However, findings suggest that such a conceptualization is incomplete as perceptions of crime and safety also articulate crucial social and cultural dimensions. Indeed, they simultaneously embody expressive concerns about the state of society and communities. These include, for instance, lay judgments about social order, social cohesion and values, and community stability ( Jackson 2004, 2008; Farrall et al. 2009).

Komplitseeritus:

It follows that people’s perceptions of crime and safety may be more diffused than traditional considered. Instead, it involves both experienced events of concern about crime and social judgments about the state of society and communities, socially and culturally conditioned ( Jackson 2004, 2008; Farrall et al. 2009).

Asukohaga seotus:

At the basis of our conceptualization is the notion that human activities are inevitably situated in space, unable to be disconnected from that location (Giddens 1984; Soja 1985; Lefebvre 1991; Gans 2002; Löw 2016).

Isoleeritus:

Accordingly, variations in perceptions of crime and safety should not be expected to only exist between urban and non-urban areas but all along the urban–rural–remote continuum based on the relative degree of geographical isolation.

Lugemishuvi suurendamiseks:

However, our findings tell a different story. They suggest that perceptions of crime (and disorder) and perceptions of safety in rural and remote communities are much more nuanced than previously reported. […] As the geographical isolation of communities starts increasing, we observed that people begin to perceive more crime and disorder in their environment and feel less safe. […] In other words, people living in highly isolated communities were found to perceive more crime and disorder, and feel less safe than people living in large metropolitan areas.

David, J. D. (2022). Rethinking perceptions of crime and safety in rural and remote communitiesThe British Journal of Criminology.