Awareness towards cybercrime among
secondary school students: the role of
gender and school management
Mudit Kumar Verma and Shyam Sundar Kushwaha
Mudit Kumar Verma is
Research Fellow at Institute
of Education, Bundelkhand
University, Jhansi, India.
Shyam Sundar Kushwaha
is Associate Professor at
Department of Education,
V.M.L. Government Girls
Degree College,
Bundelkhand University,
Jhansi, India.
Received 31 July 2020
Revised 21 February 2021
Accepted 23 March 2021
PAGE 150 j SAFER COMMUNITIES j VOL. 20 NO. 3 2021, pp. 150-158, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1757-8043
Abstract
Purpose – The study aims to determine the cybercrime awareness among secondary school students
with reference to their gender and school management type.
Design/methodology/approach – For the purpose, a sample of 100 students from secondary schools
situated in Lucknow city, state of Uttar Pradesh, India was selected. To obtain initial data from the
respondents and to determine the cybercrime awareness categories a five-point Likert type cybercrime
awareness rating scale exclusively constructed to fulfil the purpose of this study was used to determine
the cybercrime awareness in five categories viz; excellent, high, above average, average, below average
and low cybercrime awareness. Further, ‘‘t’’ test was used to analyse the difference between the means of
groups.
Findings – Results revealed that gender (male and female) and type of school management
(government and self-finance) are not significant predictors of cybercrime awareness among secondary
school students.
Research limitations/implications – This study is limited to the government and self-finance English
medium schools of Lucknow city, state of Uttar Pradesh, India.
Practical implications – Policymakers, various societies involved in investigating cyber behavior/child
computer interaction/safer communities, etc. should consider that school management is not a predictor
of cybercrime along with gender and can look for other possible visible and latent factors affecting
cybercrime awareness among students while formulating a policy or designing a course/prevention
program for secondary school students.
Social implications – School administration should consider the existing gender and school
management roles of the present scenario to make effective policies for the students and providing them
effective cybercrime prevention programs and activities. Also, parents can adequately understand the
role of school management type and gender of their belongings to understand their cybercrime
awareness and take necessary measures accordingly.
Originality/value – The paper is focused on the cybercrime awareness of secondary school students
and how their gender and school management type affects their cybercrime awareness. To the best of
the authors’ knowledge, this study is first of its kind which investigates the role of school management in
cybercrime awareness of the students. As the education sector is depending more and more on the
cyber world, this paper is of the great significance for the safety of education sector, organizations and
communities involved in making the policies and designing the curriculum to avoid students being a
victim of cybercrime and to make education sector a safer community.
Keywords Cybercrime awareness, Gender, Secondary school, School management,
Government schools, Self-finance schools
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Education is the process of facilitating learning, or the acquisition of knowledge, skills
values, beliefs and habits. The futuristic aim of education is to prepare students to access
DOI 10.1108/SC-07-2020-0026
knowledge anywhere anytime and collaborate both locally and globally. This provokes the
importance of using the computer technology along with other modern technologies in
classroom teaching. Thanks to the computer, mobile and internet technology which is
integrated into every part of a new age school. It will not be the classrooms that will
change,; it is going to change every aspect of teaching and learning. The cyber world
provides all sorts of required information to the students, and it is a whole lot of knowledge
that a child can gain from the internet. The possible advantage of implementing the internet
in the classroom is as diverse as the services and tools offered by the network.
The internet also houses the controversial materials that many adults prefer not to have
available to the children for various reasons. Thus, they are at the verge of becoming a victim
of cybercrime, i.e. an easy target for cyber criminals committing various types of cybercrimes.
In some cases, it is also possible to unintentionally commit a cybercrime. Adolescence and
below adolescence students are more likely to be a target of cybercrime (Radnofsky, 2006).
Privacy of children on the Web is a major concern regarding their safety (Kumar et al., 2018).
Teenagers are not bothered by cybercrime because they are in conflict with law/school
regulations which led them to commit the piracy of school work and projects (Satarch, 2011).
Some children and adults who are not familiar with new technology unintentionally commit
cybercrime (Delgado, 2012). The elderly population is especially at risk when it comes to
fraudulent activity (Appelt, 2016). At the university level, undergraduate perceive cybercrime
as a tool for personal development (Igba, 2018). This usually happens because adolescence
students try to build their dominating personality against the existing system. Not only students
of younger age and adolescence adults and teachers are also soft targets for hackers since
they are often ill equipped to deal with cyber criminals (Turner, 2018). Tremendous growth in
the use of interned also increased global spam rate, malware rate and phishing rate rapidly,
bank account frauds as a cybercrime has also increased on a greater rate (Deshmukh and
Chaudhary, 2014). Denial of service increased in newbies joining the forums of internet based
services (Imperva, 2012). There is an integral socio technical approach to computer crime
problem. It needs to establish where the social and psychological lines are drawn between
normal and deviant and split into two polar groups between them there is mutual
incomprehension which led them to commit non ethical tasks (Sherizen, 1991). Traditional
crimes increasingly have a digital component (Leukfeldt, 2017). It is seen that in addition to
victims only there is a victim offender overlap for cybercrime and this could at least practically
be the result of overlapping risk factors that are related to the digital context in which both
male and female offending and victimization (Kranenbarg, 2019). Thus being a victim of
traditional crime is a significant predictor of cyber victimization (Mindrilla, 2015). This also
backs that increased levels of cyber victimization predicted higher levels of fear and avoiding
behaviors, heaving fewer friends, carrying a weapon and in turn engagement into physical
conflicts among students. This is usually because the students are not aware of any solution to
avoid cyber victimization other than the basic steps such as ignoring the bully or telling to
leave them alone (Woda, 2013). In schools cyberbullying between peers does exist with
approximately one in a six student is a victim of cyberbullied by the peers and it continues to
the adult life emerging adult cyberbullying (Wozencroft, 2015). It is important to raise
awareness of students, teachers, parents and school administrators about cyber security, and
there is a need to establish cyber security high schools (Tosun et al., 2020) and cybercrime
detection in text-based communications (Mbaziira, 2019) among students should be regularly
monitored by the authorities to overcome this situation. It is usually predicted that male
students are more internet addicts than that of female students (Shehzadi, 2017) but studies
showed higher prevalence of traditional victimization than cyber victimization for both genders.
The prevalence of being a victim of either type of victimization is significantly higher for boys
than girls (Ida, 2016). Girls reportedly being more involved in cyberbullying as victims than
boys while boys are reportedly more involved with cyberbullying as bullies than girls (Lapidot
and Dolev, 2014). These two studies contradicts in case of victimization and needs to be
further investigated in the current scenario to get a clear picture. In some cases usually levels

VOL. 20 NO. 3 2021 j SAFER COMMUNITIES j PAGE 151

 of cyber victimization do not differ by grade or gender, cyber victimization and traditional
victimization are distinct but related constructs and relationship between cyber victimization
and socio emotional outcomes vary by gender with girls suffering more than boys (Brown,
2014). Now the question arouse about the awareness among the students of both genders. Is
some gender holds a better understanding of cybercrime awareness or it is the same among
both? Do the school management government/self-finance which provide different facilities to
the students can affect their awareness about cybercrime? These questions needs to be
answered to provide a clear understanding about cybercrime awareness among students to
provide a clear picture regarding this aspect for policymakers engaged in framing policies for
students safety, facilitation program, peer awareness and effective treatment awareness plan
along with school administration, parents and students itself. Also when concerned the role of
school management in cybercrime awareness of the students there does not appear to be a
great deal of literature on the subject of educators and school management attitudes towards
cybersecurity and cybercrime awareness (D’Arcy and Lowry, 2017), though some blended
learning courses aimed at raising the awareness of the stakeholders (i.e. children, teenagers,
teachers and parents) based on theoretical background, practical experience is prepared
(Bele et al., 2014) still leaves the gap in literature concerning how different types of school
management affects the awareness of students towards cybercrime which is needed to be
investigated as in the upcoming time schools will be more dependent on cyber technologies
and in result will be on the target of cybercriminals as the school management is responsible
for managing the cyber facilities at schools. Thus this study aims to access the existing level of
cybercrime awareness among the students, the role of gender and school management in
affecting cybercrime awareness of the students. The problem undertaken for investigation will
be able to give the possible answer of the following questions.

Research questions

RQ1. What is the existing status of cybercrime awareness among senior secondary level
students?
RQ2. Is there any role of gender and school management influencing cybercrime
awareness among senior secondary level students?
RQ3. What are the possible effective solutions for reducing cybercrime among senior
secondary level students?

Objectives

䊏 To get an overview of the awareness towards cybercrime among senior secondary

level students.
䊏 To compare the awareness towards cybercrime between male and female students of
senior secondary level.
䊏 To compare the awareness towards cybercrime between students of government and
self-finance senior secondary schools.

Hypotheses

H1. There is no significant difference between the awareness towards cybercrime of

male and female senior secondary level students.
H2. There is no significant difference between the awareness towards cybercrime of
students of government and self-finance senior secondary schools.

PAGE 152 j SAFER COMMUNITIES j VOL. 20 NO. 3 2021

Methodology
In the present study the descriptive type survey method is opted to gather the initial data
from the respondents in the real time offline mode using a five-point Likert-type rating scale.
For the study, prior consent has been taken from the respondents, parents and school
administration with the bound to keep the personal data of respondents confidential and to
be used for this study only to avoid any ethical issue. In this study the dependent variable
awareness towards cybercrime was studied with reference to independent variables,
namely, gender (male and female) and type of school management (government and self-
finance). Both of the school management type in India provide different type of facilities to
the students for learning and curricular activities, variation in received funding’s and
personnel selection thus the school management as a variable along with gender is
investigated to get a clear picture of how the school type and gender affect the cybercrime
awareness of the students. A sample of 100 (50 male and 50 female) students studying in
the English medium secondary schools situated in Lucknow city, state of Uttar Pradesh,
India has been selected for the study. The selection of schools was performed by selecting
02 government English medium schools (SG1 – Kendriya Vidyalaya, Aliganj, Lucknow and
SG2 – Centennial Higher Secondary school, Kaisarbagh, Lucknow), 02 self-finance English
medium schools (SSFS1 – City Montessori School, Aliganj, Lucknow and SSFS2 – Bright Land
Public School, Aliganj, Lucknow) out of 84 government and 124 self-finance English
medium schools respectively by simple random sampling method. Further from these 04
schools a total of 100 students were selected from stratified random sampling method from
the strata of grade and stream for the study. Size of the sample and its break up on whom
the scale was administered is presented in the Table 1.
For the collection of data from the respondents a five point Likert type rating scale
Cybercrime awareness scale (Rajasekar, 2011) exclusively constructed to fulfil the purpose
of the setting as opted in this study was used to determine the cybercrime awareness in five
categories viz; excellent, high, above average, average, below average and low cybercrime
awareness. The scale consists of 36 statement items out of which 21 of them are positive
statements and 15 of them are negative statements regarding cybercrime awareness. Each
statement was set against five point scale, namely, strongly agree, agree, undecided,
disagree and strongly disagree and for scoring purpose weightage of 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 is given,
respectively, for the positive statements and the weightage is reversed for the negative
statements. An individual’s sum is the sum of all scores of the 36 items. Score in this scale
range from 36 to 180 in the direction of the very low cybercrime awareness to very high
cybercrime awareness. In initial testing the scale has found to have construct validity as
items are selected having “t” values  1.75. Its intrinsic validity was found to be 0.87. The
reliability of the scale established by the split half method was found to be 0.76. Therefore
the scale is reliable and valid for the target population. Further, the norms developed for
the interpretation of the z- scores and t- scores with respect to the structure of awareness
type are given in Table 2.
Further for the statistical analysis of data, the “t” test is used to analyse the difference
between the mean of groups.

Table 1 Size of the sample and its break up

Type of school Name of school Male Female Total

Government Schools (SGi) SG1 12 13 50

SG2 13 12
Self-finance Schools (SSFSi) SSFS1 13 12 50
SSFS2 12 13
Total 50 50 100

VOL. 20 NO. 3 2021 j SAFER COMMUNITIES j PAGE 153

 Table 2 Norms for interpretation of z-scores and t-scores
Raw score range Z-score range T-score range Grade Level of cyber-crime behavior

143þ 2.04 þ 70.37þ A Excellent Awareness

“A”
133–142 þ1.31 to þ1.96 63.06 to 69.63 B High Awareness
“B”
123–132 þ0.57 to þ1.23 55.75 to 62.32 C Above Average Awareness
“C”
108–122 0.52 to þ0.50 44.78 to 55.01 D Moderate/Average Awareness
“D”
99–107 1.18 to 0.60 38.20 to 44.05 E Below Average Awareness
“E”
88–98 1.98 to 1.25 30.16 to 37.47 F Low Awareness
“F”

Result and discussion

The data obtained from cybercrime awareness scale presents a clear overview of the
existing cybercrime awareness among senior secondary school students. The obtained
data from the total sample of senior secondary school students (N = 100) is classified into
five categories as shown in Table 3.
It is evident from the Table 3 that in the total sample 42% cases fall in the category of
excellent awareness, 41% in high awareness, 14% in above average awareness, 03% in
moderate awareness and none of the case lies in the category of below average awareness
and low awareness. This indicates that most of the senior secondary school students have
excellent and high level of awareness towards cybercrime. Further, for the male students
data indicates that 34% of the case falls in the category of excellent awareness, 46% in high
awareness, 16% in above average awareness, 04% in moderate awareness ,and none of
the case lies in below average awareness and low awareness category. This indicates that
male students have high awareness and at second excellent awareness towards
cybercrime. For female students 50% case falls in the category of excellent awareness,
34% in high awareness, 12% in above average awareness, 04% in moderate awareness
and none of the case lies in below average awareness and low awareness category. This
indicates that half of the female students pose excellent cybercrime awareness towards
cybercrime. This provides that the female students pose greater level of cybercrime
awareness than male students which is also confirmed by Brown (2014), but in this case
this does not interpret that male students have low cybercrime awareness, male students
also poses excellent cybercrime awareness towards cybercrime but have slight less
cybercrime awareness when compared to female students and the difference is not
significant which is also confirmed by Table 4. To make a comparison of awareness towards
cybercrime between the groups, namely: male-female and government-self finance
schools, “t” test was applied to test the significance of the difference between the means,
which are given in the Table 4.

Table 3 Category wise case representation

Total Male Female Govt. Schools Self-Finance Schools
Level of Awareness N = 100 N = 50 N = 50 N = 50 N = 50

Excellent “A” 42 (42%) 17 (34%) 25 (50%) 19 (38%) 23 (46%)

High “B” 41 (41%) 23 (46%) 17 (34%) 26 (52%) 15 (30%)
Above Average “C” 14 (14%) 08 (16%) 06 (12%) 04 (08%) 10 (20%)
Moderate/Average “D” 03 (03%) 02 (04%) 02 (04%) 01 (02%) 02 (04%)
Below Average “E” 00 00 00 00 00
Low “F” 00 00 00 00 00

PAGE 154 j SAFER COMMUNITIES j VOL. 20 NO. 3 2021

 Table 4 t- Ratio representation of groups
Groups N Mean (M) SD (s ) ‘‘t’’ value df Level of Significance

Male 50 139.32 10.83 0.85 98 Not significant at 0.05 level

Female 50 141.14 10.42
Government Schools 50 141.48 10.16 0.87 98 Not significant at 0.05 level
Self-finance Schools 50 139.58 11.59

Table 4 indicates that the t-value is found to be 0.85 for male and female with the mean values
of 139.32 and 141.14, respectively, which is not significant at 0.05 level of significance for df
98. It means that there is no significant difference between the cybercrime awareness of male
and female students. Thus, the null hypothesis that “There is no significant difference between
the awareness towards cybercrime of male and female senior secondary level students” is not
rejected. Further, between government and self-finance senior secondary schools, the t-value
is found to be 0.87 with mean values of 141.48 and 139.58, respectively, which is not
significant at 0.05 level of significance for df 98. It means that there is no significant difference
between the cybercrime awareness of students of government and self-finance schools. Thus,
the null hypothesis that “There is no significant difference between the awareness towards
cybercrime of students of government and self-finance senior secondary schools” is not
rejected. Also the average of excellent awareness category and high awareness category for
government schools is 22.50 and for self-finance schools is 19.00 which indicates that though
self-finance students poses high level of cybercrime awareness in excellent awareness
category but government school students poses high level of cybercrime awareness in high
average category. The average indicates that government and self-finance school students
poses a high level of cybercrime awareness and between them government school students
shown slight high level of cybercrime awareness than self-finance school students although
difference between them is not significant. A pictorial representation (vide Figure 1) of the
means of cybercrime awareness of the two groups also confirm this fact.
Further, for the first research question by the given data it is evident that the existing status of
cybercrime awareness among a major portion of students is found to be very high and rest of
them have moderate cybercrime awareness. The second research question resembles that
though female student’s poses slight high cybercrime awareness than male students but the
difference is not significant also the government school student’s poses slight high cybercrime
awareness than self-finance school students but the difference again found is not significant.
This implies that gender and school management type are not the predictors of cybercrime
awareness and in the present scenario contradicts to Ida (2016) and Lapidot and Dolev (2014).

Figure 1 Mean representation of groups

VOL. 20 NO. 3 2021 j SAFER COMMUNITIES j PAGE 155

 The third research question on the basis of given data and careful discussion with field experts
resembles that to provide possible effective solutions for reducing the risk of getting involved in
a cybercrime and to increase their awareness, there is a need to consider cyber ethics and
cyber values in the curriculum and frequent awareness sessions and cybercrime prevention
programs are needed at schools and in local societies to make them aware of the recent threats
in the cyber world and to prepare them to avoid being a victim of cybercrime.

Conclusion
In conclusion, provided by the data it is evident that the change in school management type
does not affect the cybercrime awareness of the student’s and school management is not a
predictor of cybercrime awareness also no major change regarding cybercrime awareness
is found due to gender difference among the students. Thus gender also is not a predictor
of cybercrime awareness. In the study, none of the students shown below average or low
average awareness towards cybercrime. In the study Slight differences in cybercrime
awareness between male and female groups and between government and self-finance
groups are found which is due to their involvement in various awareness activities provided
by the schools and from their social environment. Following this, there are various multiple
visible and latent factors which affect the cybercrime awareness of an individual, needs to
be further investigated.

Implications
Cybercrime among secondary school students plays a destructive role in their academic as
well as social life and will bring low integrity to the education sector if not being controlled
within time. Following measures on the basis of this study should be taking to avoid this
situation:
䊏 Policymakers, various societies involved in investigating cyber behavior/child
computer interaction/safer communities etc. should consider that school management
is not a predictor of cybercrime along with gender and can look for other possible
visible and latent factors affecting cybercrime awareness among students while
formulating a policy or designing a course/prevention programs for secondary school
students.
䊏 School administration should consider the existing gender and school management
roles of present scenario to make effective policies for the students and providing them
effective cybercrime prevention programs and activities. Also, Parents can adequately
understand the role of school management type and gender of their belongings to
understand their cybercrime awareness and take necessary measures accordingly.

Future scope
In this study, though the significant amount of information was gathered from the
respondents with respect to their responses on their awareness towards cybercrime and
the role of school management in determining the cybercrime awareness of the students
the study was limited in terms of sample size and region thus the present study opens
up the relevance of further research in this concerned area opting a large sample size and
including students from elementary, secondary and undergraduate levels in India and other
countries as well to make schools a safer place.

References
Appelt, L.C. (2016), Designing for the Elderly User: Internet Safety Training, University of Baltimore,
Baltimore. (ISBN- 978-1-3397-4479-7 ed.).

PAGE 156 j SAFER COMMUNITIES j VOL. 20 NO. 3 2021

Bele, J.L., Dimic, M., Rozman, D. and Jemec, A.S. (2014), “Raising awareness of cybercrime- The use of
education as a means of prevention and protection”, 10th International Conference Mobile Learning,
Madrid, Vol. 10, pp. 281-284.
Brown, F. (2014), “Cyber victimization in middle school and relations to social emotional outcomes”,
Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 35, pp. 12-21.
D’Arcy, J. and Lowry, P.B. (2017), “Cognitive-affective drivers of employees’ daily compliance”,
Information Systems Journal, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 43-69.
Delgado, J. (2012), Literature Analysis: Cybercrimes/Criminals Affecting US citizens, University of TX, TX,
pp. 1-11.
Deshmukh, J. and Chaudhary, S.R. (2014), “Cybercrime in Indian scenario- a literature snapshot”,
International Journal of Conceptions on Computing and Information Technology, Vol. 2 No. 2,
pp. 24-29.
Ida, R.S. (2016), “Emotional problems in traditional and cyber victimization”, Journal of School Voilence,
Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 114-131.
Igba, D. (2018), “Cybercrime among university undergraduates: implications on their academic
achievement”, International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, Vol. 13 No. 2,
pp. 1144-1154.

Imperva (2012), “Hacker intelligence initiative, monthly treat report 13: monitoring hackers forums ADC
monthly web attacks analysis October 2012”, available at: www.imperva.com/docs/HII_Monitoring_
Hacker_Forums_2012.pdf (accessed 15 January 2020).

Kranenbarg, M.W. (2019), “Offending and victimization in the digital age: comparing correlates of
cybercrime and traditional offending-only, victimization-only and the victimization-offending overlap”,
Deviant Behaviour, Vol. 40, pp. 40-55.
Kumar, P., Vitak, J., Chetty, M., Clegg, T.L., Yang, J., McNally, B. and Bonsignore, E. (2018), “Co-
designing online privacy-related games and stories with children”, Proceedings of the 17th ACM
Conference on Interaction Design and Children, pp. 67-79.
Lapidot, L.N. and Dolev, C.M. (2014), “Differences in social skills among cyberbullies, cybervictims,
cybercyberstanders and those not involved in cyberbullying”, Journal of Child and Adolescence
Behaviour, Vol. 2 No. 4, doi: 10.4172/2375-4494.1000149.
Leukfeldt, E. (2017), “Organized cybercrime or cybercrime that is organized? An assessment of the
conceptualization of financial cybercrime as organized crime”, European Journal on Criminal Policy and
Research, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 287-300.
Mbaziira, A.V. (2019), “Detecting and analyzing cybercrime in text-based communication of
cybercriminal networks through computational linguistic and psycholinguistic feature modeling”,
Doctoral thesis, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, available at: https://eric.ed.gov/?q=cybercrime&
ff1=subComputerþSecurity&id=ED579547 (accessed 14 January 2020).

Mindrilla, D. (2015), “Cyber-victimization and its psychological consequences: relationships with

behaviour management and traditional bullying”, Journal of Research in Education, Vol. 25 No. 2,
pp. 53-61.

Radnofsky, M.L. (2006), “Corporate and government computers hacked by juveniles”, The Public
Manager, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 50-55.

Rajasekar, S. (2011), Cyber Crime Awareness Scale, National Psychological Corporation, Agra.
Satarch, J. (2011), “Prevention of cybercrime in the primary and secondary school”, Education and
Healthcare, Vol. 21, pp. 259-266.
Shehzadi, N. (2017), “Cyber activities and crime among university students”, available at: www.medium.
com/@ns.nimra.shehzadi/cyber-activities-and-crime-among-university-students-3a779c2851b (accessed
14 January 2020).
Sherizen, S. (1991), “Warning: computer crime is hazardous to corporate health”, Corporate Controller,
Vol. 4, pp. 21-24.
Tosun, N., Altinoz, M., Cay, E., Cinlilic, T., Gulsecen, S., Yildirim, T., Aydin, M.A., Metin, B., Reis, Z.A. and
Unlu, N. (2020), “A swot analysis to raise awareness about cyber security and proper use of social media:
Istanbul sample”, International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, Vol. 12, pp. 271-294.

VOL. 20 NO. 3 2021 j SAFER COMMUNITIES j PAGE 157

 Turner, C. (2018), “Cyber attacks are one of the biggest threats that schools face”, available at: www.
telegraph.co.uk/education/2018/03/17/cyber-attacks-one-biggest-threats-schools-face-experts-warn/
(accessed 15 January 2020).
Woda, T. (2013), “Cyberbullying: children as victims and predators”, USA Today, Vol. 143 No. 2836,
pp. 25-30.

Wozencroft, K. (2015), “University students intentions to report cyberbullying”, Australian Journal of

Educational and Developmental Psychology, Vol. 15, pp. 1-12.

Corresponding author
Mudit Kumar Verma can be contacted at: muditkumarverma@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

PAGE 158 j SAFER COMMUNITIES j VOL. 20 NO. 3 2021