1. Disorder and Insecurity in Residential Context A study focusing on Finnish suburban housing estates of the 1960s and 1970s
Teemu Kemppainen
VTE

2. Background Academy of Finland: PREFARE (2012-2015) Three sub-projects
Housing estate: post-WWII, modernist, multi-storey, peripheral
Estate studies: case studies, non-random ”problem” samples
Convergence:
Social disorganisation theory: crime and disorder
Fear of crime literature

3. Sub-studies
I Kemppainen T & Saarsalmi P (2015): Perceived social disorder in suburban housing estates in the Helsinki region: a contextual analysis. Research on Finnish Society 8: 47–60. II Kemppainen T, Kauppinen TM, Stjernberg M & Sund R: Tenure structure and perceived social disorder in post-WWII suburban housing estates: A multi-level study with a representative sample of estates. [Submitted to Acta Sociologica, minor revisions] III Kemppainen T, Lönnqvist H & Tuominen M (2014): Turvattomuus ei jakaudu tasan: Mitkä asuinalueen piirteet selittävät helsinkiläisten kokemaa turvattomuutta? Yhteiskuntapolitiikka 79(1): 5–20. [Insecurity is not evenly distributed. Which residential area characteristics explain experiences of insecurity in Helsinki?] IV Kemppainen T (2014): Spatiaalista mallinnusta pistedatalla: kyselypohjainen analyysi koetusta terveydestä ja turvattomuudesta Helsingin metropolialueella. Sosiaalilääketieteellinen aikakauslehti 51(4): 253–271. [Spatial modeling of point data: a survey-based analysis of self-rated health and feeling of unsafety in the Helsinki metropolitan area.]

4. Three sets of data Survey data Contextual register data
Helsinki & districts
Helsinki region & statistical grids
Finnish estates of the 60s and 70s & aggregates of grids
Next: main results (excl. IV)

5. Sub-study I: estates vs other neighbourhoods

6. Key findings (I)
The level of perceived social disorder is only slightly higher in the estates of the 1960s and 1970s compared to other multi-storey neighbourhoods
the small difference is due to socio-economic disadvantage.
Low-rise neighbourhoods are considerably more peaceful than the multi-storey ones

7. Sub-study II: diverse estates

8. Key findings (II) Rental domination  disadvantage  disorder
Normative regulation mediates partly the latter association
Integration plays no role

9. Sub-study III: insecurity in Helsinki

10. Key findings (III)
Disadvantage, disorder (police), metro/train stations, social housing block of flats  insecurity
Disadvantage – victimisation – insecurity

11. Discussion Contribution to disorganisation theory
survey data on the outcome (cf. court & police data)
fairly good neighbourhood definition (II)
extra-community forces
Contribution to fear of crime literature
independent measures of disorder and insecurity (III)
the role of victimisation: inconsistent prior findings
public transport & insecurity: advanced quantitative studies were needed
Further points
disadvantage—disorder: regulation explains only partly
disadvantage—insecurity...
housing market perspectives & tenure mix
estate definition
language & target population
reciprocal causality & omitted variables
spatiality
replication