Journal of Experimental Criminology

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-021-09490-x

The Urban Security Image Database (USID): development

and validation of an image dataset for experimental
studies on fear of crime

Inês Guedes1 · Samuel  Moreira1 · Carla Sofia Cardoso1

Accepted: 6 October 2021

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2021

Abstract
Objectives  Researchers have been studying the most important environmental cues
that influence people’s fear and how to measure these emotions and perceptions in a
more valid way. In order to contribute to experimental studies, we develop and vali-
date the Urban Security Image Database (USID).
Method  The construction and validation of the USID followed two stages: (a) the
obtainment by researchers of more than 300 naturalistic pictures in different urban
contexts of the city of Porto and (b) using a within-subject design, a large sample
(N = 1780) classified 49 selected pictures for fear of crime, risk perception of vic-
timization, arousal, and valence levels.
Results  The validated Urban Security Image Database (USID) contains 49 pictures
that are grouped in three categories according to fear mean levels: low fear, neutral
fear, and high fear. Pictures of the low fear group depict residential areas, with high
prospect spaces and well-cared vegetation. Pictures in the high fear group represent
scenarios in night-time, with signs of incivilities and low prospect spaces. Fear of
crime was negatively correlated with valence and positively with arousal.
Conclusions  USID is an important step to laboratorial experiments in the field of
fear of crime and its relationship with environmental features. Moreover, since fear
of crime is correlated with valence and arousal, it provides strength to the impor-
tance of considering fear a context-specific experience.

Keywords  Urban Security Image Database · Fear of crime · Laboratorial Studies ·

Image validation · Arousal · Valence

* Inês Guedes
iguedes@direito.up.pt
1
Present Address: School of Criminology, Faculty of Law, University of Porto, Rua dos Bragas
223, 4050‑123 Porto, Portugal

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 I. Guedes et al.

Introduction

One of the main efforts researchers have been trying to pursue in laboratorial
studies is the use of environmental-controlled stimuli for inducing specific emo-
tional states (Lang et al. 1999, 2008). To create those stimuli, a wide variety of
datasets have been developed (e.g. International Affective Picture System, IAPS;
Nencki Affective Picture System, NAPS; Geneva Affective Picture Database,
GADEP) using emotionally charged materials such as naturalistic or manipulated
pictures, static emotional faces, film clips, or auditory stimuli (Lang et al., 1997;
Wessa et  al., 2010; Westermann et  al., 1996). These databases are standardized
on the fact that the central dimensions characterizing the affective experiences
are the arousal (or activation), the valence (or pleasantness), and the dominance
(or control) (Lang et al., 1993). Arousal ranges from excited/aroused to relaxed/
unaroused and is associated to behavioural, autonomous, and cortical activity.
On the other hand, valence ranges from highly positive to highly negative, thus
indicating which motivational system is involved (a pleasant-approach one or an
unpleasant-avoidance one) (Lang et  al., 1993; Prada & Garcia-Marques, 2006).
Finally, dominance represents the degree of perceived control over the affective
stimulus, ranging from a feeling of dominance, control, and self-assurance to
submission, passivity, and timidity. This dimension is often less homogeneous
than valence and arousal and explains only a small proportion of variance. Gen-
erally, to collect normalized ratings for these three dimensions, the Self-Assess-
ment Manikin (SAM) scale is used (Bradley & Lang, 1994). While the IAPS is
the most widely used database of natural pictures, certain issues related with this
database have been raised (e.g. Dan-Glauser & Scherer, 2011). One of the limita-
tions is the restricted number of pictures belonging to specific content categories.
Under the field of fear of crime, this is especially true.
Fear of crime might be defined as a more restricted phenomenon correspond-
ing to an emotional component (Ferraro & LaGrange, 1987; Warr, 2000). On the
other hand, fear of crime is also conceptualized as a wider phenomenon com-
prising affective, cognitive, and behavioural elements (e.g. Gabriel & Greve,
2003). While fear of crime is an emotion (Ferraro, 1995), arising from crime or
symbols associated with it, researchers have been trying to understand what are
the contextual cues that trigger higher levels of fear of crime. Moreover, to over-
come the limitations of surveys, there is a tendency to use innovative methods to
explore the relationship between fear of crime and environmental space, such as
eye tracking (e.g. Guedes et al., 2015), app-based measures (e.g. Solymosi et al.,
2020), and physiological measures (e.g. Castro-Toledo et  al., 2017; Noon et  al.,
2019a). Both eye tracking and physiological studies have historically used stand-
ardized and validated set of stimuli. Nevertheless, to the best of our knowledge,
there is not any image set with naturalistic urban pictures available and validated
to be used in laboratorial studies to explore the relationship between fear of crime
and environmental features. Therefore, the present study aims at validating the
Urban Security Image Database (USID) to be used in laboratorial studies in the
field of fear of crime.

13
The Urban Security Image Database (USID): development and…

Stimuli and databases

Among the different types of materials used for emotional stimulation, the vis-
ual (e.g. static pictures) is the most prevalent in experiments. When researchers
choose the stimuli for their laboratorial studies, it is important to define the types
of static pictures necessary for the setting, as well as the intrinsic value of these
stimuli. Pictures must be tested on various parameters prior to the experiments
since they will be used as controlled inducing material. Generally, that are two
possibilities for the researcher (Dan-Glauser & Scherer, 2011): one is to gather
the pictures for the specific study, and the other is to use databases from other
available laboratories/studies.
The development and systematization of the IAPS (Bradley & Lang, 2007;
Lang et  al., 1997, 2008) marked a directive step in the use of stimuli when
studying emotions, psychological elements, or psychosocial processes. IAPS is
the most worldwide used naturalist pictures database, having been validated in
numerous studies (e.g. Déak et al. 2010; Lang et al., 1993; Weinberg & Hajcak,
2010). Its fundamental aim is “to develop a large set of standardized, emotion-
ally-evocative, internationally accessible, colour photographs that includes con-
tents across a wide range of semantic categories” (Lang et  al., 1997: 1). There-
fore, datasets such as IAPS allow improved experimental control in the selection
of emotional stimuli, facilitate the comparison of results across various studies
conducted in the same or different laboratories, and, finally, encourage replica-
tions within and across laboratories (Lang et al., 1997, 2008). IAPS comprehends
a vast display of pictures representing a multiplicity of objects and situations such
as landscapes, plants, animals, children and adults, plants, food, natural disasters,
weapons, and erotica. Each picture is associated with a certain affective and emo-
tional response and includes normative ratings concerning valence, arousal, and
dominance measured through SAM (Bradley & Lang, 1994).
Several studies have found high stability of affective ratings worldwide (e.g.
Vila et  al., 2001) suggesting that emotional reactions that stem from IAPS pic-
tures are quite stable cross-culturally. Also, other studies have shown the reliable
induction of emotional responses by these stimuli (Lang et al., 1993; Weinberg &
Hajcak, 2010). Nevertheless, authors such as Marchewka et al. (2014) and Dan-
Glauser and Scherer (2011) have pointed out several issues regarding IAPS data-
set, namely the existence of a limited set of pictures underlying specific catego-
ries, leading to situations in which individuals observe the same materials two or
more times, reducing the capacity of emotional induction. Moreover, some inter-
nal validity issues have been raised, as the quality of the images is not always sat-
isfactory, and studies have been shown that the physical properties of the image,
such as luminance, size, or complexity, might influence the affective processing
of visual stimuli (Marchewka et al., 2014).
Other datasets have been developed and validated in the last years. For
instance, Dan-Glauser and Scherer (2011) created the GADEP which comprises a
set of negative, positive, and neutral pictures and aims at increasing the availabil-
ity of emotional visual stimuli. Furthermore, Wessa et al. (2010) also developed

13
 I. Guedes et al.

the Emotional Picture Set (EmoPicS) developed as a complementary database for

IAPS. However, as the 378 pictures included in this dataset have a low resolution,
Marcewka and colleagues (2014) developed the NAPS. NAPS is then constituted
by a set of high-resolution pictures included in five main groups: people, faces,
animals, objects, and landscapes. The authors classify these pictures regarding
their valence, arousal, and motivational direction towards the picture.

The use of image databases in the field of fear of crime

Recent laboratorial experiments in the field of fear of crime (e.g. Castro-Toledo

et al., 2017; Noon et al., 2019a) use a variety of stimuli such as videos or pictures,
which can be manipulated or naturalistic. Although scarce, these experiments aim at
understanding the environmental elements that trigger higher levels of fear of crime.
The emotional reaction of fear involves higher levels of arousal and lower levels of
valence directed to a specific stimulus (e.g. Vrana et al., 1986). Few databases offer
available stimuli to be used under the field of fear of crime. One exception is the
Crime and Threat Image Set (CaTIS), containing 78 images across four categories:
threat-and crime, threat-only, crime-only, and neutral (Noon et  al., 2019b). These
authors conclude that threat, compared to crime, has a greater influence on fear of
crime. Concretely, they observed that participants’ fear of crime had a relationship
with the high-threat images but not with the low-threat images. While CaTIS offers
a way to experimentally explore the relationship between fear, crime, and threat, it is
insufficient to explore how individuals react to urban scenes in order to understand
the impact of contextual cues on fear of crime. CaTIS pictures were mainly obtained
through the Flickr database and also from the GAPED (Dan-Glauser & Scherer,
2011), and they include human bodies, riots and rioting, animals (e.g. snakes, spi-
ders), graffiti on the walls, police making an arrest, and neutral images such as fur-
niture of groups of people. Nevertheless, to the best of our knowledge, there is no
image dataset available with pictures representing different urban contexts to be
used as emotional induction in fear of crime laboratorial studies.

Fear of crime and contextual cues

Fear of crime might be conceived as an experiential or an expressive fear (Farrall

et  al., 2009). While the first is a fleeting, transitory, and short-lived experience,
appearing in reaction to external stimuli, the other is built through people’s knowl-
edge and perceptions about their community or broader social-cultural worries. In
this paper, we study the experiential fear, arguing that fear of crime is a context-spe-
cific experience. Therefore, it is important to understand which contextual features
lead individuals to perceive some spaces as more crime-prone than others (Solymosi
et al., 2020). Many studies indicate that the lack of perspective or low prospect, the
existence of places in which the potential offender could be hiding, and areas with
blocked escape are highly associated with fear of crime (e.g. Hanyu, 2000; Nasar
& Jones, 1997). The term prospect is related to the ability of individuals to see the

13
The Urban Security Image Database (USID): development and…

openness of its immediate environment both looking at in and walking through it

(Fisher & Nasar, 1995). Negatively related to this feature is the absence of lightning,
poor lightning, or simply darkness, which is consensually associated to increased
feelings of fear (e.g. Bishop & Rohrmann, 2003; Painter, 1994). Therefore, places
dimly lit reduce the individual’s vision field, creating difficulties as well in escaping
when facing a potential offender. Other aspects such as the presence of incivilities—
graffiti, litter, vandalism, and other signs of neglect of the environments—have the
potential to increase fear of crime (e.g. Doran and Lees 2005; Wilson & Kelling,
1982), communicating a breakdown and threat of social order (Innes, 2004). On the
other hand, well-cared environments increase individual’s perceived security (e.g.
Chiang & Nasar, 2014).

Present study

Taking into consideration the growing number of studies in the field of fear of crime
that have been using innovative methods to explore (a) the nature of fear of crime as
a context-specific multidimensional experience and (b) the environmental cues asso-
ciated with fear, there is a demand for additional pictorial databases providing infor-
mation about the properties of the stimuli (fear of crime rates and affective dimen-
sions, such as valence and arousal). Therefore, in the present work, we provide a set
of 49 naturalistic photographs of urban scenarios varying in features that research
has been suggesting to be related to fear of crime, such as presence/absence of inci-
vilities, night/daytime, well-cared vegetation/untended vegetation, low prospect/
high prospect, and others. In light of previous studies, we hypothesized that pictures
with higher levels of fear of crime are rated with higher levels of arousal and lower
levels of valence. Moreover, we expect that pictures rated with higher levels of fear,
comparing with pictures rated with low levels, will present a set of contextual fea-
tures that are generally associated with fear, such as signs of incivilities, poor light-
ning, and low prospect.
Considering the normative rating procedures of Lang and colleagues (2008),
for each picture, we collected ratings of valence and arousal, adding ratings of per-
ceived risk of victimization and fear of crime. One of the advantages of this database
is related to the diversity of pictures selected and the consideration of more than
two affective ratings. Also, this dataset of urban security enables the comparison
of results between distinct studies that use these stimuli and encourage the replica-
tion within and between research centres. Thus, the Urban Security Image Database
(USID) is available to the scientific community for non-commercial use.

Method

Participants

In total, 1780 participants contributed to the evaluation of the pictures. Partici-

pants were selected using a convenience sampling technique. We recruited students

13
 I. Guedes et al.

Table 1  Sample characterization
Total sample Female Male p

N 1780 67.1% 32.9%

Age (X ± SD) 24.53 ± 6.69 23.67 ± 7.46 26.13 ± 10.60 .0001
Min–max age 16–74 16–69 17–74
Previous victimization 19.1% 16% 25.5% .0002
Education .009
High school 6.0% 5.0% 8.0%
Undergraduate student 57.9% 60.4% 52.9%
Graduate 21.1% 19.2% 25.0%
Post graduate degree 15.0% 15.4% 14.1%
1 2
Notes: t-test comparing mean ages of female and male; chi-square test comparing previous victimiza-
tion between female and male; 3ANOVA comparing the different categories of education between female
and male

and staff from different Portuguese universities. Participants were between 16 and
74  years, and the mean age was approximately 25  years (M = 24.53, SD = 6.69).
About 67% were female and 33% male. Most of our sample was attending a degree
at the university (57.9%) and had already a degree (21.1%) or a post degree (15%).
Furthermore, more than 80% of the participants has never been victim of a crime
(Table 1).

Materials

Stimuli constitution, selection, and preparation

The stimuli were a total of 49 naturalistic and nonmanipulated pictures obtained by

researchers both by photographing places in the city of Porto and through Google
Street View. To gather the stimuli, a set of including and excluding criteria were
considered. Included pictures should depict (i) urban spaces with different charac-
teristics, such as (a) places with signs of disorder (such as trash dispersed on the
ground, graffiti, broken windows, vandalism, non-cared vegetation, visibly aban-
doned spaces) and places with no signs of incivility (for instance, well-cared gardens
and flowerbeds, clean places) and (b) corners, alleys or similar places, narrow streets
with perceived difficulty to escape, and streets with open prospect and wide walks,
and (ii) urban spaces at different times of the day, and, if possible, the photographic
stimuli in nocturnal context should correspond to the exact locations represented
by the photographic stimuli in the diurnal context in order to allow for compara-
tive studies; on the other hand, while obtaining pictures, researchers should avoid
(i) historical, commercial, and emblematic areas of the city, since it is not neutral
and has a strong social connotation, and (ii) the appearance of people in pictures, in
order to maintain internal validity, since the main goal was to understand the physi-
cal aspects of urban space that trigger insecurity. In addition to these criteria, while

13
The Urban Security Image Database (USID): development and…

obtaining pictures, researchers took a set of relevant precautions such as photograph

the images horizontally, in colour, not black-and-white, and also to choose similar
atmospheric conditions between the different scenarios. Lastly, and following previ-
ous studies (e.g. Odgers et al., 2012), the Google Street View tool was also used to
select and retrieve images without the need for researchers to be physically in those
locations. In total, more than 300 pictures were obtained.
The selection of stimuli for the database comprised two steps. In the first step,
25 pictures were selected by the team of researchers to be rated by an external sam-
ple. Since the sample would rate each picture for four dimensions (fear of crime,
perceived risk, arousal, and valence) and their personal characteristics, which could
lead to tiredness and possible desistance of the experience, researchers agreed to
present only a set of pictures to the participants. To choose these 25 naturalistic pic-
tures, researchers determined the following criteria: (i) to select places with clear
signs of incivilities/without incivilities, pictures depicting daylight/night-time,
non-cared vegetation/well-cared vegetation, etc.; (ii) pictures without people and
emblematic areas of the city (reinforcing the criteria used above to obtain the pic-
tures); (iii) select pictures with good quality and avoid pictures with bad quality
(for instance, many pictures were blurred, especially at night-time, which were then
eliminated); (iv) to eliminate pictures with very diverse atmosphere conditions (e.g.
such as raining days); and (v) to eliminate pictures very similar to each other. After
the selection of the 25 pictures through multiple meetings with the research team,
taken into consideration the above criteria, this collection was rated by a sample
from one Portuguese university.
While analysing the data, it was observed that the affective space resulting from
the relationship between arousal and valence for the 25 pictures showed the inexist-
ence of images that combined high arousal and high valence. Therefore, in order to
achieve pictures with those characteristics and, at the same time, to extend the num-
ber and diversity of pictures to the database, 241 more photographs were selected.
During this process, researchers obtained and searched on Google Street View urban
scenarios depicting sidewalks near the beaches, gardens, and open spaces. While
the first set of pictures (25) was rated by students of the University of Porto, the
remaining 24 were classified by other two universities (Lisbon and Minho). Table 2
presents the sample that observed each picture, varying between n = 235 (picture 49)
and n = 1478 (picture 1).
After the selection of the stimuli, the total amount of pictures was maintained
in their original colour; however, changes were made in their size and resolution.
Specifically, to guarantee the internal validity and to make sure the external sample
would not be biased by other aspects besides the content of stimuli, all images had a
size of 150 KB and a resolution of 600 by 800 pixels. The total pictures of the data-
set are available from the corresponding author on request.

1
  Due to an error detected when the survey was ready to be launched (one of the pictures previously
selected was repeated), 24 instead of 25 pictures were evaluated by the external sample.

13

Table 2  Mean levels, SD, median, and confidence intervals of valence, arousal, fear of crime, and perceived risk of victimization
Picture Valence (1–9)
n M ± SD Mdn 95% CI
13
1 1478 3.92 ± 1.37 4
2 1425 3.59 ± 1.42 3
3 1366 4.44 ± 1.38 4
4 1340 3.18 ± 1.49 3
5 1314 3.01 ± 1.54 3
6 1301 4.46 ± 1.44 5
7 1265 4.18 ± 1.38 4
8 1247 5.06 ± 1.69 5
9 1241 2.17 ± 1.25 2
10 1220 3.25 ± 1.37 3
11 1198 4.43 ± 1.30 4
12 1184 3.66 ± 1.83 3
13 1160 3.39 ± 1.30 3
14 1135 3.77 ± 1.45 4
15 1123 6.66 ± 1.52 7
16 1106 3.59 ± 1.53 3
17 1092 5.70 ± 1.63 6
18 1085 7.41 ± 1.46 8
19 1072 3.31 ± 1.25 3
20 1064 3.55 ± 1.53 3
21 1044 3.04 ± 1.29 3
22 1034 3.62 ± 1.45 4
23 1022 6.49 ± 1.55 7
24 1017 3.44 ± 1.36 3
Arousal (1–9)
n M ± SD
[3.88, 4.05] 1475 3.29 ± 1.59 3
[3.47, 3.64] 1422 4.18 ± 1.79 4
[4.38, 4.55] 1358 3.04 ± 1.46 3
[3.03, 3.22] 1333 4.32 ± 1.83 4
[2.91, 3.10] 1309 4.72 ± 2.07 5
[4.38, 4.56] 1294 3.38 ± 1.53 3
[4.10, 4.27] 1257 3.22 ± 1.49 3
[4.98, 5.19] 1240 3.31 ± 1.66 3
[2.04, 2.19] 1237 4.98 ± 2.26 5
[3.19, 3.36] 1213 4.28 ± 1.89 4
[4.35, 4.52] 1188 3.25 ± 1.49 3
[3.48, 3.71] 1177 3.85 ± 1.87 4
[3.32, 3.48] 1156 3.89 ± 1.75 4
[3.68, 3.86] 1127 3.66 ± 1.64 4
[6.60, 6.78] 1119 3.62 ± 1.98 3
[3.51, 3.71] 1102 4.12 ± 1.82 4
[5.60, 5.81] 1088 3.34 ± 1.71 3
[7.36, 7.54] 1082 3.84 ± 2.33 4
[3.23, 3.39] 1059 3.69 ± 1.68 4
[3.46, 3.65] 1059 4.07 ± 1.78 4
[2.96, 3.13] 1033 4.09 ± 1.86 4
3.53, 3.72] 1029 3.69 ± 1.69 4
[6.40, 6.59] 1024 3.54 ± 1.92 3
[3.35, 3.52] 1006 3.93 ± 1.76 4
Fear of crime (1–5) Perceived risk (1–5)
Mdn 95% CI n M ± SD Mdn 95% CI n M ± SD Mdn 95% CI
[3.16, 3.37] 1477 3.05 ± .67 3 [2.99, 3.07] 1477 2.21 ± 1.11 3 [2.13, 2.27]
[4.12, 4.37] 1426 3.79 ± .71 4 [3.79, 3.88] 1427 3.20 ± .1.07 3 [3.18, 3.31]
[2.91, 3.10] 1364 2.65 ± .65 3 [2.59, 2.67] 1365 1.66 ± .99 1 [1.58, 1.70]
[4.29, 4.53] 1341 3.65 ± .71 4 [3.64, 3.73] 1341 3.01 ± 1.17 3 [2.96, 3.10]
[4.63, 4.90] 1317 4.02 ± .75 4 [3.96, 4.05] 1316 3.49 ± 1.15 4 [3.39, 3.51]
[3.29, 3.48] 1300 2.80 ± .68 3 [2.56, 2.84] 1301 1.81 ± 1.07 1 [1.73, 1.86]
[3.25, 3.45] 1265 2.82 ± .64 3 [2.76, 2.84] 1266 1.80 ± 1.06 1 [1.72, 1.85]
[3.18, 3.40] 1250 2.38 ± .78 2 [2.32, 2.42] 1249 1.50 ± .93 1 [1.44, 1.55]
[4.95,5.25] 1244 4.33 ± .71 4 [4.30, 4.39] 1244 4.09 ± .88 4 [4.04, 4.15]
[4.20, 4.45] 1222 3.80 ± .69 4 [3.76, 3.84] 1222 3.21 ± 1.11 3 [3.13, 3.27]
[3.11, 3.31] 1197 2.78 ± .64 3 [2.72, 2.80] 1199 1.76 ± 1.03 1 [1.66, 1.78]
[3.77, 4.02] 1183 3.54 ± .83 4 [3.50, 3.60] 1186 2.90 ± 1.29 3 [2.83, 2.99]
[3.77, 4.01] 1161 3.63 ± .67 4 [3.58, 3.67] 1163 2.97 ± 1.12 3 [2.88, 3.02]
[3.59, 3.81] 1139 3.06 ± .71 3 [3.01, 3.09] 1140 2.16 ± 1.19 3 [2.07, 2.22]
[3.50, 3.77] 1125 2.04 ± .72 2 [1.98, 2.07] 1127 1.27 ± .72 1 [1.21, 1.30]
[4.03, 4.27] 1111 3.27 ± .73 3 [3.23, 3.32] 1111 2.50 ± 1.20 3 [2.43, 2.58]
[3.23, 3.45] 1097 2.27 ± .67 2 [2.22, 2.31] 1099 1.34 ± .76 1 [1.28, 1.37]
[3.68, 3.99] 1092 1.91 ± .84 2 [1.85, 1.96] 1091 1.26 ± .73 1 [1.20, 1.29]
[3.63, 3.85] 1075 3.42 ± .68 3 [3.37, 3.45] 1075 2.72 ± 1.15 3 [2.65, 2.80]
[4.01, 4.25] 1063 3.12 ± .72 3 [3.09, 3.18] 1065 2.33 ± 1.19 3 [2.26, 2.41]
[4.00, 4.25] 1047 3.80 ± .65 4 [3.77, 3.85] 1047 3.23 ± 1.19 3 [3.18, 3.27]
[3.59, 3.81] 1038 3.45 ± .76 3 [3.40, 3.50] 1038 2.80 ± 1.24 3 [2.71, 2.87]
[3.41, 3.67] 1028 2.15 ± .69 2 [2.10, 2.18] 1030 1.33 ± .81 1 [1.28, 1.38]
[3.83, 4.06] 1019 3.42 ± .80 3 [3.37, 3.57] 1020 2.76 ± 1.23 3 [2.68, 2.84]
I. Guedes et al.
 Table 2  (continued)
Picture Valence (1–9) Arousal (1–9) Fear of crime (1–5) Perceived risk (1–5)
n M ± SD Mdn 95% CI n M ± SD Mdn 95% CI n M ± SD Mdn 95% CI n M ± SD Mdn 95% CI

25 1006 2.80 ± 1.32 3 [2.72, 2.89] 996 4.36 ± 2.07 4 [4.25, 4.53] 1007 3.98 ± .72 4 [3.93, 4.02] 1010 3.48 ± 1.09 4 [3.41, 3.53]
26 297 2.80 ± 1.31 3 [2.68, 3.03] 294 4.62 ± 2.00 5 [4.59, 5.13] 296 3.99 ± .64 4 [3.85, 4.10] 296 3.43 ± .85 3 [3.32, 3.55]
27 292 6.25 ± 1.37 6 [6.04, 6.39] 289 4.06 ± 1.80 4 [3.81, 4.29] 291 2.28 ± .63 2 [2.16, 2.42] 290 2.16 ± .60 2 [2.08, 2.23]
28 282 4.16 ± 1.32 4 [3.99, 4.33] 281 4.15 ± 1.65 4 [3.95, 4.40] 282 3.44 ± .71 3 [3.33, 3.60] 281 3.11 ± .74 3 [2.97, 3.16]
29 278 5.17 ± 1.46 5 [4.98, 5.35] 277 4.11 ± 1.63 4 [3.90, 4.37] 278 2.82 ± .68 3 [2.63, 2.92] 277 2.53 ± .75 2 [2.31, 2.61]
30 274 5.81 ± 1.81 6 [5.59, 6.04] 272 4.56 ± 2.08 5 [4.25, 4.82] 275 2.19 ± .70 2 [2.09, 2.36] 274 1.99 ± .65 2 [1.90, 2.05]
31 274 3.34 ± 1.64 3 [3.13, 3.55] 271 4.74 ± 1.97 5 [4.62, 5.15] 273 3.54 ± 1.10 4 [3.32, 3.69] 271 3.86 ± 1.68 3 [3.28, 3.51]
32 271 5.25 ± 1.56 5 [5.01, 5.41] 270 3.86 ± 1.68 4 [3.59, 4.03] 270 2.69 ± .68 3 [2.54, 2.79] 269 2.42 ± .65 2 [2.30, 2.48]
33 269 2.29 ± 1.55 2 [2.10, 2.51] 266 5.91 ± 2.30 6 [5.70, 6.33] 268 4.43 ± .78 5 [4.10, 4.44] 266 4.27 ± .83 4 [4.16, 4.38]
34 268 7.76 ± 1.32 8 [7.76, 7.93] 266 5.33 ± 2.28 5 [4.99,5.61] 267 2.40 ± .76 2 [2.31, 2.49] 266 2.41 ± .76 2 [2.29, 2.48]
35 266 4.33 ± 1.57 3 [4.09, 4.48] 263 4.38 ± 1.65 5 [4.30, 4.74] 265 3.17 ± .66 3 [2.99, 3.26] 265 2.84 ± .75 5 [2.76, 2.95]
36 262 2.73 ± 1.55 3 [2.49, 2.88] 263 5.37 ± 2.18 5 [5.24, 5.82] 264 4.24 ± .67 4 [4.09, 4.37] 264 3.95 ± .84 4 [3.83, 4.05]
The Urban Security Image Database (USID): development and…

37 265 6.00 ± 1.66 6 [5.79, 6.20] 260 4.14 ± 1.93 4 [3.86, 4.36] 264 2.24 ± .72 2 [2.12, 2.39] 264 2.08 ± .66 2 [1.97, 2.14]
38 262 3.60 ± 1.40 4 [3.41, 3.77] 257 4.19 ± 1.78 4 [4.01, 4.50] 260 3.27 ± .66 3 [3.05, 3.33] 261 2.93 ± .74 3 2.83, 3.03]
39 261 7.09 ± 1.56 7 [6.92, 7.30] 260 5.19 ± 2.18 5 [4.92, 5.53] 261 2.57 ± .80 3 [2.40, 2.73] 261 2.39 ± .80 2 [2.27, 2.47]
40 259 6.54 ± 1.33 7 [6.33, 6.67] 256 4.65 ± 1.83 5 [4.37, 4.88] 257 2.47 ± .66 2 [2.31, 2.58] 258 2.26 ± .64 2 [2.17, 2.32]
41 256 2.78 ± 1.31 3 [2.57, 2.91] 251 4.95 ± 1.99 5 [4.71, 5.27] 257 3.77 ± .74 4 [3.54, 3.87] 256 3.41 ± .90 3 [3.28, 3.52]
42 255 2.31 ± 1.46 2 [2.15, 2.55] 252 5.46 ± 2.21 6 [5.17, 5.78] 255 4.32 ± .73 4 [4.07, 3.38] 254 4.19 ± .83 4 [4.09, 4.31]
43 252 7.12 ± 1.46 7 [6.90, 7.28] 251 4.92 ± 2.09 5 [4.63, 5.23] 253 2.05 ± .68 2 [1.87, 2.15] 253 1.91 ± .61 2 [1.83, 1.99]
44 244 6.42 ± 1.30 6 [6.21, 6.55] 239 4.47 ± 1.90 5 [4.16, 4.69] 248 2.44 ± .64 2 [2.28, 2.53] 243 2.20 ± .78 2 [2.12, 2.29]
45 244 3.69 ± 1.36 4 [3.51, 3.87] 239 4.14 ± 1.82 4 [3.87, 4.38] 244 3.54 ± .68 4 [3.38, 3.65] 243 3.24 ± .78 3 [3.15, 3.35]
46 241 5.51 ± 1.48 5 [5.31, 5.70] 237 4.12 ± 1.72 4 [3.83, 4.31] 240 2.53 ± .62 3 [2.47, 2.71 238 2.31 ± .64 2 [2.22, 2.38]
47 239 6.61 ± 1.50 7 [6.35, 6.75] 237 4.58 ± 1.94 5 [4.26, 4.81] 240 2.35 ± .70 2 [2.23, 2.51] 240 2.13 ± .60 2 [2.05, 2.21]

13


Table 2  (continued)
Picture Valence (1–9) Arousal (1–9) Fear of crime (1–5) Perceived risk (1–5)
n M ± SD Mdn 95% CI n M ± SD Mdn 95% CI n M ± SD Mdn 95% CI n M ± SD Mdn 95% CI

13
48 237 3.77 ± 1.37 4 [3.61, 3.97] 235 4.14 ± 1.70 4 [3.93, 4.41] 237 3.63 ± .69 4 [3.45, 3.75] 236 3.19 ± .79 3 [3.11, 3.31]
49 235 6.40 ± 1.62 7 [6.19, 6.62] 232 4.46 ± 2.07 5 [4.13, 4.71] 235 2.32 ± .72 2 [2.22, 2.52] 235 2.07 ± .58 2 [2.00, 2.15]
I. Guedes et al.
The Urban Security Image Database (USID): development and…

Measures

To evaluate the pictures for the database, a survey was developed. The first part of
the survey consisted of four variables measuring valence, arousal, fear of crime, and
perceived risk of victimization. Regarding the valence scale, subjects were asked
to evaluate the degree of pleasantness of the image presented in a scale that ranged
between 1 (very unpleasant) and 9 (very pleasant). To measure arousal, subjects
were asked to evaluate the degree of arousal of the image presented from 1 (not
intense) to 9 (very intense). Both measures (valence and arousal) followed Brad-
ley and Lang (1994)’s work concerning the use of SAM. In addition, two ques-
tions to measure fear of crime and perceived risk of victimization were included.
For the former, subjects were asked “Imagine that you are in the place represented
by the image. Please evaluate the degree of insecurity you would feel” in a scale
that ranged between 1 (very secure) to 5 (very insecure). Subjects were also asked
to evaluate their perception of victimization risk through the following question:
“Imagine that you are in the place represented by the image. What is the likelihood
of being a crime victim from 1 (unlikely) to 5 (very likely)?”. The second group of
questions was related to the personal characterization of participants. Sex, age, edu-
cation, and victimization in the last 12 months were included.

Procedure

An online survey built in Survey Monkey Software was used in the present study.
Before starting answering to the survey, participants were informed about the goals
of the study, the expected duration of filling the survey, and that a gift card would
be drawn in order to reward participants for their time. We also informed that the
participation was voluntary and that the data would be only used for the purposes of
scientific research. After subjects provided informed consent, they would be directed
to the questionnaire starting with the phrase “watch the next image for a few sec-
onds” appeared. Since it was not possible to control the viewing time of each image,
due to the fact of subjects answered the questionnaire on their personal computer,
each picture remained on the screen until the participant intentionally proceed to
the next page. To control for potential order effects, we randomized the order of the
images presented. After rating the images, participants completed the personal char-
acterization measures.

Data analysis

Data was analysed through IBM Statistics 26. Mean and standard deviation levels
were obtained for each of the four main dimensions: arousal, valence, fear of crime,
and perceived risk of victimization. In order to constitute three groups based on the
levels of fear of crime, the percentiles 33.3 and 66.6 of fear of crime mean levels
were calculated. Then, taken those means levels into consideration, the variable fear
of crime was recoded into a new variable that ranged between 1 (low fear) and 3

13
 I. Guedes et al.

(high fear). These three groups were compared for fear, perceived risk, arousal, and
valence means, using one-way repeated measures ANOVA to analyse if participant’s
ratings differenced significantly across the image categories. To explore the relation-
ship between the four measures in each group, correlations tests were made using
Pearson coefficient. Lastly, to build the affective space, the quadratic relationship
between arousal and valence was considered.

Results

Classifications of images by an external sample

For each picture, the four dimensions were evaluated: valence, arousal, fear of crime,
and perceived risk of victimization. Table 2 presents the mean levels (M), standard
deviation (SD), median (Mdn.), and confidence intervals (CI, 95%) for the 49 pic-
tures of the database. As it can be observed in Table 2, the confidence intervals are
small thorough all the ratings of each image, showing an agreement in ratings.
The following procedure was to group the 49 images according to fear of crime
levels as explained in the “Data analysis” section. Therefore, we obtained three sets
of images with low, neutral, and high levels of fear of crime.
Table  3 presents mean levels of valence, arousal, fear of crime, and perceived
risk of victimization and the differences between groups. The results of one-way
ANOVA revealed that across the different groups, there were significant differ-
ences on classifications of each variable. First, valence mean levels are higher in
the low fear group (6.43) compared to neutral group (4.05) and high fear group
(3.00) (F = 139.15, p <  − 001). The results from the post hoc test showed mean dif-
ferences between the three groups. Concerning the arousal dimension, it is possible
to observe that both the low fear (4.28) and the high fear (4.62) present higher mean
levels compared to neutral fear group (3.77) (F = 9.96, p < 0.001). Nevertheless,
low fear and high fear groups do not differ in arousal means (p = 0.199). Regard-
ing the fear of crime variable, one-way ANOVA and post hoc test showed differ-
ences between three groups. The mean levels of fear of crime are higher in high fear
(3.90) group compared to neutral fear (3.08) and low fear groups (2.29) (F = 153.81,
p < 0.001). Lastly, perceived risk of victimization is also different between three
groups (F = 46.82, p < 0.001), and it can be observed that the mean levels of this var-
iable are higher in the high fear group (3.48) compared to neutral fear group (2.47)
and with the low fear group (1.91).

Relationships between ratings

Table 4 presents the correlations between variables both for all the pictures together
and for each group based on fear of crime levels.
Considering all the 49 pictures, and as expected, we observed a negative corre-
lation (r = -0.926, p < 0.001) between fear of crime and valence. Therefore, images
with higher levels of fear of crime are considered less positive or pleasant for

13
 Table 3  Mean comparisons of Fear of crime, arousal, valence, and risk perception of victimization between the different groups
Groups by fear levels Cronbach alpha Image number Valence M ± SD Arousal M ± SD Fear of crime M ± SD Perceived risk M ± SD

Low fear 8, 15, 17, 18, 23, 27, 30, 34, 6.43 ± .71a 4.28 ± .63a 2.29 ± .18a 1.91 ± .42a
37, 39, 40, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49
Neutral fear 1, 3, 6, 7, 11, 14, 16, 19, 20, 4.05 ± .57b 3.77 ± .40b 3.08 ± .29b 2.47 ± .54b
22, 24, 28, 29, 32, 35, 38, 48
High fear 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 13, 21, 25, 3.00 ± .48c 4.62 ± .59a 3.90 ± .30c 3.48 ± .42c
26, 31, 33, 36, 41, 42, 45
Comparisons between groups: 139.15 (p =  < .001) 9.96 (p =  < .001) 153.81 (p =  < .001) 46.82 (p =  < .001)
The Urban Security Image Database (USID): development and…

­Fa
a
 One-way ANOVA of variance test
b, c,d
  Denotes the differences between groups using Tukey’s HSD post hoc test
Note: Cut-off vales were 2.622 for the percentile 33.3 and 3.477 for the percentile 66.6. Low fear images vary between the lowest rating and 2.62; neutral fear varies
between 2.63 and 3.48; high fear varies between 3.49 and the highest rating

13
 I. Guedes et al.

Table 4  Correlations between Valence Arousal Perceived risk

variables
Fear of crime (total)  − .926** .382** .914**
Low fear of crime  − .248 .393 .728**
Neutral fear of crime  − .773** .556* .724**
High fear of crime  − .904** .823** .914**

Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient; *p < .005, **

p < .001, Pearson

individuals. Moreover, higher levels of fear are also correlated with higher arousal
(r = 0.382, p < 0.001). Lastly, and as expected, fear of crime is strongly correlated
with perceived risk victimization (r = 0.914, p < 0.001). Regarding the relationship
of these variables taking into consideration the three groups of pictures, it is possible
to observe relevant results. First, the relationship between fear of crime and valence
is only observed in groups 2 and 3 (neutral and high fear, respectively) but not in
the low fear group. Moreover, the negative relationship between valence and fear is
stronger in group 3 compared to group 2. The same can be visualized when observ-
ing the relationship between fear of crime and arousal. In fact, in group 3, where
mean levels of fear are higher, a stronger correlation between fear and arousal can be
observed when compared to group 2. Finally, in the three groups, a strong relation-
ship between fear of crime and perceived risk of victimization can be observed.

Affective space of images database

Figure 1 shows the distribution of the ratings of the 49 images in the valence and
arousal affective space. It can be observed that the distribution of the 49 images
in the affective space adopts the U shape when the valence is positioned on the
X-axis and the arousal on the Y-axis. The value of R2 quadratic is 0.546, considered
a high quadratic correlation between arousal and valence. Therefore, arousal ratings
are highest at the most pleasant (positive valence) and most unpleasant (negative
valence).

Analysis of contextual features by group

After the constitution of the three groups differing according fear level, the environ-
mental cues of the pictures composing the groups were analysed (Fig. 2). A set of
contextual cues were chosen based on literature review, namely time of the day (day/
night), incivilities (presence/absence), vegetation (well-cared/untended), residential
area (yes/no), and prospect (open/close).
Group 1 (low fear, 16 pictures) is fully composed of pictures obtained in day-
time (100%), and most of the pictures depict a residential area (81.3%). Further-
more, 93.3% of the pictures do not present any signs of incivilities. Concerning the
state of vegetation, it is possible to observe that all of the pictures present well-cared
vegetation and have high prospect or openness. The second group (neutral fear)
is composed of pictures with mixed features. Of the 17 images that constitute this

13
The Urban Security Image Database (USID): development and…

Fig. 1  Distribution of 49 images as a function of the averages for the total sample subjects in the affec-
tive space defined by the dimensions of the valence and the arousal. The respective regression curve
(quadratic) is also observed

Fig. 2  Sample images from each image category

13
 I. Guedes et al.

group, only 2 pictures (11%) depict night-time instead of daytime. Moreover, while
10 images represent residential areas (58.8%), 7 images (41.2%) depict other places
such as different streets of Oporto downtown. The presence of incivilities can be
observed in 9 of 17 pictures, such as some graffiti on the wall and buildings under
construction which are mostly the features of non-residential areas presented on the
images. Furthermore, analysing the pictures of this group, it is possible to notice
that only 5 images present vegetation, and in three of them the vegetation is well-
cared. Lastly, prospect can be understood as an important feature to distinguish the
previous and this group of images. In fact, in the total of 17 pictures, 61.1% depict
places with low prospect or openness. The last group (“high fear”) is composed of
16 pictures. Half of the pictures (50%) depict night-time scenarios. Of these 8 pic-
tures, 7 are from residential areas. The remaining pictures are from daytime sce-
narios, and only one is from a residential area. The other 7 pictures present features
such as tunnels, alleys or corners, isolated streets under construction, or with signs
of incivilities. In fact, of the 16 pictures, 12 present scenarios with physical disor-
der—highly visible signs of graffiti, abandoned buildings, and untended vegetation.
Lastly, the prospect seems to be a very relevant feature of this group since in a total
of 16 pictures, 14 of them (87.5%) depict scenarios with low prospect or openness
(e.g. corners or poor lightning places).

Discussion

The purpose of this research was to develop and validate a set of urban naturalistic
pictures varying in valence, arousal, fear of crime, and perceived risk of victimi-
zation to be used in experimental studies in the field of fear of crime. Therefore,
departing from a large set of images obtained by researchers both in situ and through
Google Street View, we selected and validated 49 of these images which are part of
the Urban Security Image Database (USID).
Based on fear of crime levels, we aggregated the images into three groups: low
fear (16 pictures), neutral fear (17 pictures), and high fear (16 pictures). The results
showed that the mean levels of valence, arousal, fear of crime, and perceived risk of
victimization were different between groups. The analysis of temporal and physical
environmental features of each group showed a set of relevant distinctions. Low fear
group was constituted of pictures at daylight, without signs of disorder, with well-
cared vegetation, and with open prospect. Pictures in the high fear group, in turn,
mainly depicted scenarios with signs of incivilities or symbols associated with crime
(vandalism, graffiti, bars on the windows, untended vegetation), with low prospect,
and at night-time. These results are consistent with prior research on fear of crime.
A large body of research suggests that people feel safer during daylight com-
pared to night-time (Nasar & Jones, 1997; Painter, 1994; Warr, 1990; Welsh &
Farrington, 2007). For instance, in an experimental study, Castro-Toledo and
colleagues (2017) found that the lack of luminosity in public spaces triggered
experiences of fear of crime. Specifically, physiological reactions of arousal as
an indicator of fear were higher in the experimental group where poor lighting
was introduced. In an extensive review, Lorenc (2013) concluded that lighting

13
The Urban Security Image Database (USID): development and…

appears to be important in two ways: “first, it increases visibility and it is thought

to reduce potential hiding places for attackers (…) second, it gives a more pleas-
ant and welcoming impression of the environment, partly by acting as an indica-
tor of the presence of other people” (p. 4). Related to the daylight or the exist-
ence of adequate lighting at night is the sense of prospect. In fact, individuals
tend to like and feel safer in places with open views and dislike or feel unsafe in
places with lack of prospect (Fisher & Nasar, 1992). An open view allows a per-
son to anticipate what is ahead. Thus, obstructions to visibility might create the
feeling that a person is stuck. In the present study, images in the low fear group
depicted scenarios with high visibility and without signs of obstruction. Accord-
ingly, Andrews and Gatersleben (2010) found that individuals rated photographs
depicting walks with greater levels of prospect-refuge (that is, higher visibility or
prospect and fewer hiding places) as less dangerous and fearful.
Other important environmental feature resulting from the analysis of the pictures
in each group is the vegetation type and its maintenance. Previous studies found that
dense vegetation is related with increased perceived insecurity (e.g. Fisher & Nasar,
1992; Tablot and Kaplan 1984), since it might communicate concealment places of
potential offenders and a poor maintenance of spaces, representing social disorder
and threat. Contrarily, well-cared vegetation, such as tended grassy areas, high can-
opy trees, flowers, and low bushes, increases feelings of safety (Kuo & Sullivan,
2001), not only because it communicates social order, but also because it offers a
clear view.
An additional significant aspect for the ratings of fear of crime was the presence
or absence of incivilities. The incivilities theory suggests that subcriminal activities
or physical signs of crimes (e.g. vandalism, decay in the environment, broken win-
dows, public drunkenness, abandoned cars) have an important role for the increase
of fear of crime. Several studies, through different methods, have been studying
the relationship between these variables and showing that incivilities are positively
associated with fear of crime. For instance, Guedes et al. (2015), using the eye track-
ing methodology in a laboratorial setting, observed that in pictures previously rated
as more fearful, individuals tended to look more at incivilities such as graffiti, dimly
lit spaces, tunnels, unattended vegetation, and other signs such as windows bars. On
the other hand, in pictures rated as more secure, individuals looked mainly at the
bottom of the street, suggesting that in these places it was less necessary to detect
cues of danger. Accordingly, Crosby and Hermens (2019) examined, through survey
and eye tracking techniques, whether visual factors played a role in fear of crime.
The results suggested that well-maintained areas, green spaces, and day-time photos
were associated with higher safety ratings. Moreover, eye movements revealed that
signs indicating the presence of people were relevant for reducing fear of crime. The
relationship between incivilities and fear of crime can be explained by the inter-
pretation made by the residents or users of spaces. In fact, individuals read into the
presence of incivilities that authorities (and other users) have lost control over the
community and that social order is eroded (Jackson, 2004).
Taken together, this study showed that the good maintenance of spaces (e.g. well-
cared vegetation, lack of incivilities), adequate lighting, and places with high visibil-
ity are important cues to consider in policies of fear of crime reduction.

13
 I. Guedes et al.

Besides the study of environmental features, we observed that the affective

measures (valence and arousal) were strongly correlated with fear of crime and
perceived risk of victimization ratings. Moreover, the strength of the correlations
was higher across the groups of fear. Specifically, fear of crime was positively
correlated with arousal and negatively correlated with valence. Previous studies
are consistent with these results (e.g. Hanyu, 2000; Michalowski et al. 2017). For
example, Wong and Domroes (2005) found that the most unpleasant stimuli for
the subjects presented a common set of characteristics, such as poor management
of the place, disorganization, and perceived insecurity. Therefore, the evaluation
of places as pleasant might be important in the perception of safety.

Limitations

In spite of the importance of this study’s findings, a set of limitations must be

taken into consideration. The present dataset is composed of naturalistic pic-
tures to be used in experimental and laboratorial studies. One of the caveats that
might be pointed out is that pictures overlook dynamic aspects, such as noise and
odours. Nevertheless, several authors argue that static pictures are appropriate
stimuli to obtain reactions to a variety of places (e.g. Herzog & Kutzli, 2002;
Nasar, 2008). For instance, through a meta-analysis, analysing 40 studies cover-
ing 1001 environments and 5301 respondents, Stamps (1990) showed that prefer-
ences for places in colour photos highly  correlated with on-site preferences for
the same places. For the constitution of the present dataset, we chose to use natu-
ralistic pictures instead of manipulated images. While external validity increases
with the use of the former, since they are closer to real contexts, some cautions
are needed to ensure internal validity (Nasar, 2008). In order to increase internal
validity, we avoided the presence of people and commercial areas and maintained
similar lighting conditions while obtaining pictures. In future studies, it would be
important to manipulate aspects such as the amount and type of vegetation and
the presence or absence of incivilities (litter or graffiti).
An additional limitation is the fact that the USID is exclusively composed of
pictures representing the city of Porto which might raise some debate about the
generalization to other contexts with different characteristics in terms of land-
scaping. Therefore, replications and cross validations in other countries are
crucial.
Lastly, two more limitations need to be pointed out. The first is related to the
sample, which is mainly composed of university students. This can be explained by
the fact that the survey was distributed across three main universities in Portugal.
Although the scientific community tends to rely on the use of students to constitute
their samples (e.g. Marchewka et  al., 2014), we believe it would be important to
diversify the sample to other population to increase the external validity of USID.
Other limitation is the number of pictures constituting the USID (49 images). It
would be relevant to add more images in the future including, for instance, pictures
from other cities and countries in order to increase the capacity of generalization.

13
The Urban Security Image Database (USID): development and…

Conclusions and future directions

Although several image datasets already exist, USID offers a novel way to explore
the relationship between fear of crime and environmental cues. Researchers will be
able to select, according to their design, the most suitable pictures from the data-
base, rated for fear of crime, arousal, valence, and perceived risk of victimization.
In a laboratorial context, researchers can measure physiological reactions to the dif-
ferent environments depicted by the pictures or record eye movements directed to
the pictures through eye tracking techniques. Moreover, as previously mentioned,
replication is highly recommended both to generalize and compare results across
different populations and contexts.
Overall, USID provides important material for innovative studies dealing with the
relationship between fear of crime and the characteristics of urban spaces.

Acknowledgements  We would like to thank Mariana Machado for the valuable insights during the revi-
sion process.

Funding  The first author was funded by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology through
a doctoral grant, financed by national funds of the Portuguese Ministry of Science, Technology and
Higher Education and the European Social Fund through the Human Capital Operational Programme.

References
Andrews, M., & Gatersleben, B. (2010). Variations in perception of danger, fear and preference in a simu-
lated natural environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 473–481.
Bishop, I. D., & Rohrmann, B. (2003). Subjective responses to simulated and real environments: A com-
parison. Landscape and Urban Planning, 65(4), 261–277. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0169-​2046(03)​
00070-7
Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1994). Measuring emotion: The Self- Assessment Manikin and the seman-
tic differential. Journal of Behavioral Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 25, 49–59.
Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (2007). Emotion and motivation. In J. T. Cacioppo, L. G. Tassinary, & G.
G. Berntson (Eds.), Handbook of psychophysiology (pp. 581–607). Cambridge University Press.
Castro-Toledo, F. J., Perea-García, J. O., Bautista-Ortuño, R., & Mitkidis, P. (2017). Influence of envi-
ronmental variables on fear of crime: Comparing self-report data with physiological measures in an
experimental design. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 13(4), 537–545.
Chiang, Y., & Nasar, J. (2014). Influence of visibility and situational concern on appraisals of forest trails.
Landscape & Urban Planning, 125, 166–173.
Crosby, F., & Hermens, F. (2019). Does it look safe? An eye tracking study into the visual aspects of fear
of crime. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(3), 599–615.
Dan-Glauser, E. S., & Scherer, K. R. (2011). The Geneva Affective PicturE Database (GAPED): A new
730-picture database focusing on valence and normative significance. Behavioural Research, 43,
468–477.
Deák, A., Csenki, L., & Révész, G. (2010). Hungarian ratings for the International Affective Picture Sys-
tem (IAPS): A cross-cultural comparison. Empirical Text and Culture Research, 4, 90–101.
Doran, B., & e Lees, B. . (2005). Investigating the spatiotemporal links between disorder, crime and the
fear of crime. The Professional Geographer, 57(1), 1–12.
Farrall, S. D., Jackson, J., & Gray, E. (2009). Social order and the fear of crime in contemporary times.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ferraro, K., & LaGrange, R. (1987). The measurement of fear of crime. Sociological Inquiry, 57(1),
70–97.

13
 I. Guedes et al.

Ferraro, K. F. (1995). Fear of crime: Interpreting victimization risk. Sunty press.

Fisher, B., & Nasar, J. (1992). Fear of crime in relation to three exterior site features: Prospect, refuge,
and escape. Environment and Behavior, 24(1), 35–65.
Fisher, B., & Nasar, J. (1995). Fear spots in relation to micro level physical cues - Exploring the over-
looked. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 32(2), 214–239.
Gabriel, U., & Greve, W. (2003). The psychology of fear of crime: Conceptual and methodological
Perspectives. British Journal of Criminology, 43(1), 600–614.
Guedes, I., Fernandes, P., Agra, C., & Cardoso, C. S. (2015). Studying the contextual cues associated
with fear of crime through eye tracking techniques. An exploratory research. In C. Agra, C. S.
Cardoso, J. de Maillard, C. O’Reily, P. Ponsaers, & J. Shapland (Eds.), Criminology, security
and justice. Methodological and epistemological issues. GERN Research Paper Series n°3. Ant-
werpen/Apeldoorn/Portland: Maklu.
Hanyu, K. (2000). Visual properties and affective appraisals in residential areas in daylight’. Journal
of Environmental Psychology, 20(3), 273–284.
Herzog, T. R., & Kutzli, G. E. (2002). Preference and perceived danger in field/forest settings. Envi-
ronment and Behavior, 34, 819–835.
Innes, M. (2004). Signal crimes and signal disorders: Notes on deviance as communicative action.
The British Journal of Sociology, 55(3), 335–353.
Jackson, J. (2004). Experience and expression: Social and cultural significance in the fear of crime.
British Journal of Criminology, 44, 946–966.
Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (2001). Environment and crime in the inner city. Does vegetation reduce
crime? Environment and Behavior, 3(33), 343–367.
Lang, P. J., Greenwald, M. K., Bradley, M. M., & Hamm, A. O. (1993). Looking at pictures: Affec-
tive, facial, visceral, and behavioral reactions. Psychophysiology, 30, 261–273.
Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. (1997). International Affective Picture System (IAPS):
technical manual and affective ratings (pp. 39–58). Gainesville: NIMH Center for the Study of
Emotion and Attention.
Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. (2008). International Affective Picture System (IAPS):
Affective ratings of pictures and instruction manual (Technical Report No. A-8). Gainesville:
University of Florida, Center for Research in Psychophysiology, University of Florida.
Lorenc, T., Petticrew, M., Whitehead, M., Neary, D., Clayton, S., Wright, K., Thomson, H., Cummins,
S., Sowden, A., & Renton, A. (2013). Fear of crime and the environment: Systematic review of
UK qualitative evidence. BMC Public Health, 13, 496.
Marchewka, A., Żurawski, Ł, Jednoróg, K., & Grabowska, A. (2014). The Nencki Affective Picture
System (NAPS): Introduction to a novel, standardized, wide-range, high-quality, realistic picture
data- base. Behavior Research Methods, 46, 596–610.
Michałowski, J. M., Droździel, D., Matuszewski, J., et  al. (2017). The Set of Fear Inducing Pic-
tures (SFIP): Development and validation in fearful and nonfearful individuals. Behav Res, 49,
1407–1419.
Mogg, K., McNamara, J., Powys, M., Rawlinson, H., Seiffer, A., & Bradley, B. P. (2000). Selective
attention to threat: A test of two cognitive models of anxiety. Cognition & Emotion, 14, 375–399.
Nasar, J., & Jones, K. (1997). Landscapes of fear and stress. Environment and Behavior, 29(3),
291–323.
Nasar, J. (2008). Assessing perceptions of environments for active living. American Journal of Preventive
Medicine, 34(4), 357–363.
Noon, M. S., Beaudry, J. L., Schier, M. A., & Knowles, A. (2019a). Eyes wide open: Exploring men’s
and women’s self-reported and physiological reactions to threat and crime. Journal of Experimental
Criminology, 15, 1–28.
Noon, M. S., Beaudry, J. L., & Knowles, A. (2019b). The Crime and Threat Image Set (CaTIS): A vali-
dated stimulus set to experimentally explore fear of crime. Journal of Experimental Criminology,
15(2), 227–242.
Odgers, C., Avshalom, C., Bates, C., Sampson, R., & Moffitt, T. (2012). Systematic social observation of
children’s neighborhoods using Google Street View: A reliable and cost-effective method. Journal
of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 53, 1009–1017.
Painter, K. (1994). The impact of street lighting on crime, fear and pedestrian use. Security Journal, 5,
116–124.
Prada, M., & Garcia-Marques, T. (2006). Normas da valência as imagens do Ficheiro de Imagens Multi-
categoriais (FIM). Laboratório De Psicologia, 4, 109–137.

13
The Urban Security Image Database (USID): development and…

Solymosi, R., Buil-Gil, D., Vozmediano, L., & Guedes, I. (2020). Towards a place-based measure of
fear of crime: A systematic review of app-based and crowdsourcing approaches. Environment and
Behavior, 53(9), 1013–1044.
Stamps, A. (1990). Use of photographs to simulate environments: A meta-analysis. Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 71(3), 907–913.
Talbot, J., & Kaplan, R. (1984). Needs and fears: The response to trees and nature in the inner city. Jour-
nal of Arboriculture, 10, 222–228.
Vila, S., Sánchez, M., Ramírez, I., Fernández, M. C., Cobos, P., Rodríguez, S., & Moltó, J. (2001). El
Sistema Internacional de Imágenes Afectivas (IAPS): Adaptación espanõla. Segunda parte. Revista
De Psicología General y Aplicada, 54, 635–657.
Vrana, S. R., Cuthbert, B. N., & Lang, P. J. (1986). Fear imagery and text processing. Psychophysiology,
23, 247–253.
Warr, M. (1990). Dangerous situations: Social context and fear of victimization. Social Forces, 68(3),
891–907.
Warr, M. (2000). Fear of crime in the United States: Avenues for research and policy. In D. Duffee (Ed.),
Criminal justice 2000: Vol. 4. Measurement and analysis of crime and justice (pp. 451–490). Wash-
ington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
Weinberg, A., & Hajcak, G. (2010). Beyond good and evil: The time-course of neural activity elicited by
specific picture content. Emotion, 10, 767–782.
Welsh, B. .C. ., & Farrington, D. .P. . (2007). Improved street lighting and crime prevention: A systematic
review. Stockholm: Swedish: National Council for Crime Prevention.
Westermann, R., Spies, K., Stahl, G., & Hesse, F. W. (1996). Relative effectiveness and validity of mood
induction procedures: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 557–580.
Wessa, M., Kanske, P., Neumeister, P., Bode, K., Heissler, J., & Schönfelder, S. (2010). EmoPics: Subjek-
tive und psychophysiologische Evaluationen neuen Bildmaterials für die klinisch-biopsychologische
Forschung. Zeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie, 39(Suppl 1/11), 77.
Wilson, J. Q., & Kelling, G. (1982). Broken windows: The police and neighborhood safety. Atlantic
Monthly, 249(3), 29–38.
Wong, K., & Domroes, M. (2005). The visual quality of urban park scenes of Kowloon Park, Hong Kong:
Likeability, affective appraisal, and cross-cultural perspectives. Environment and Planning b: Plan-
ning and Design, 32, 617–632.

Publisher’s note  Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published
maps and institutional affiliations.

13