IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/johsem/v3y2006i2p11n1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating the Societal Response to Antiterrorism Measures

Author

Listed:
  • Grosskopf Kevin R

    (University of Florida)

Abstract

Emergency managers, urban planners and building designers have embraced antiterrorism measures to create a human environment that is difficult to attack, resilient to the consequences of terrorist attack, and protective of its populations and assets. However, quick to adopt a "guns, guards and gates" posture following 911, it has become apparent that many antiterrorism measures may actually intensify and reinforce public perceptions of vulnerability and fear. Two studies conducted by the University of Florida in 2004-05 evaluated public perceptions of security measures within the contexts of traditional crime and terrorism. When presented with images of interior and exterior building spaces, respondents felt 3-6 times less vulnerable to theft, battery and sexual assault in areas having a visible security presence. Only a minority of respondents considered areas with a highly visible security presence to be unfriendly (6%), uninviting (12%) or uncomfortable (13%). In the context of terrorism however, respondents viewed many of the same visible security measures with suspiciousness, tenseness and fear. Such responses may be caused by a comparative lack of understanding of the nature and predictability of terrorism and a reluctance to accept measures that serve to reinforce feelings of vulnerability or danger.

Suggested Citation

  • Grosskopf Kevin R, 2006. "Evaluating the Societal Response to Antiterrorism Measures," Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, De Gruyter, vol. 3(2), pages 1-11, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:johsem:v:3:y:2006:i:2:p:11:n:1
    DOI: 10.2202/1547-7355.1170
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.2202/1547-7355.1170
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2202/1547-7355.1170?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:johsem:v:3:y:2006:i:2:p:11:n:1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.