The street level and beyond: The impact of ethnic diversity on neighborhood cohesion and fear of crime among Dutch natives and nonnatives

《The street level and beyond: The impact of ethnic diversity on neighborhood cohesion and fear of crime among Dutch natives and nonnatives》

打印

作者: Iris Glas;Godfried Engbersen;Erik Snel

来源: JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS,Vol.41,Issue6,P.737-755

语言: 英文

关键字

作者单位: Erasmus University Rotterdam

摘要: Ethnic diversity is increasing in most Western societies. Research suggests that these increasing levels of diversity could result in less neighborhood cohesion and more fear of crime. In this article, we examine both hypothesized outcomes of ethnic diversity, using survey data of the Dutch Safety Monitor 2014 in combination with detailed register data. The effects of diversity on neighborhood cohesion and fear of crime are simultaneously assessed at 3 spatial levels: districts, neighborhoods, and streets. The results of the multilevel analyses show that ethnic diversity is modestly related to less neighborhood cohesion and more fear of crime at specific spatial levels. The patterns are largely similar for natives and nonnatives. We found, in addition, that recent increases in diversity are unable to explain differences in neighborhood cohesion and fear of crime. Altogether, our study provides a nuanced understanding of diversity effects in the Dutch context.IntroductionThe population of Western countries is becoming increasingly ethnically diverse (Crul, 2016 Crul, M. (2016). Super-diversity vs. assimilation: How complex diversity in majority–Minority cities challenges the assumptions of assimilation. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 42(1), 54–68. doi:10.1080/1369183X.2015.1061425[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Meissner & Vertovec, 2015 Meissner, F., & Vertovec, S. (2015). Comparing super-diversity. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 38(4), 541–555. doi:10.1080/01419870.2015.980295[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) and, as a consequence, an increasing number of people reside in ethnically diverse neighborhoods and streets. Ethnic diversity in the residential environment may lead to more mutual understanding between ethnic groups and a greater tolerance toward diversity (e.g., Townley, Kloos, Green, & Franco, 2011 Townley, G., Kloos, B., Green, E. P., & Franco, M. M. (2011). Reconcilable Differences? Human diversity, cultural relativity, and sense of community. American Journal of Community Psychology, 47(1–2), 69–85. doi:10.1007/s10464-010-9379-9[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Wessendorf, 2014 Wessendorf, S. (2014). Being open, but sometimes closed. Conviviality in a Super-Diverse London Neighbourhood. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 17(4), 392–405.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). Alternatively, researchers have argued that living in an ethnically heterogeneous environment may have certain negative consequences for its inhabitants. The current article focuses primarily on the latter. Negative effects of diversity include declining levels of social cohesion and rising levels of fear of crime.The claim that ethnic diversity harms cohesion has attracted widespread scholarly interest after the introduction of Putnam’s (2007 Putnam, R. D. (2007). E pluribus unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-first century the 2006 johan skytte prize lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30(2), 137–174. doi:10.1111/scps.2007.30.issue-2[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) “constrict hypothesis.” According to this hypothesis, ethnic diversity in the living environment challenges social solidarity and decreases social trust among all ethnic groups. The assumed detrimental effect of diversity on cohesion has been studied frequently, resulting in mixed findings (for overviews, see Portes & Vickstrom, 2011 Portes, A., & Vickstrom, E. (2011). Diversity, social capital, and cohesion. Annual Review of Sociology, 37, 461–479. doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-081309-150022[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Van der Meer & Tolsma, 2014 Van der Meer, T., & Tolsma, J. (2014). Ethnic diversity and its effects on social cohesion. Annual Review of Sociology, 40, 459–478. doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043309[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). Overall, the different studies tend toward the conclusion that ethnic diversity has negative effects on neighborhood-related indicators of cohesion in particular and not on other dimensions of cohesion, such as generalized trust and citizen participation (Morales, 2013 Morales, L. (2013). Assessing the effects of immigration and Diversity in Europe: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 23(3), 241–254. doi:10.1080/17457289.2013.809351[Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar]; Van der Meer & Tolsma, 2014 Van der Meer, T., & Tolsma, J. (2014). Ethnic diversity and its effects on social cohesion. Annual Review of Sociology, 40, 459–478. doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043309[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). Why and under which circumstances diversity deteriorates neighborhood relations is still unsettled (Koopmans, Lancee, & Schaeffer, 2015 Koopmans, R., Lancee, B., & Schaeffer, M. (2015). Social cohesion and immigration in Europe and North America: Mechanisms, conditions, and causality. London, UK: Routledge. [Google Scholar]).In addition to lower levels of cohesion, ethnic diversity is considered to be associated with a second negative consequence: increased levels of fear of crime. This line of reasoning suggests that living in close proximity to ethnic others induces fear (Merry, 1981 Merry, S. E. (1981). Urban danger: Life in a neighborhood of strangers. Urban life readings in the anthropology of the city. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. [Google Scholar]). Research on ethnic diversity and fear of crime has been conducted almost exclusively in the American context (Chiricos, Hogan, & Gertz, 1997 Chiricos, T., Hogan, M., & Gertz, M. (1997). Racial Composition of Neighborhood and Fear of Crime. Criminology, 35(1), 107–131. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1997.tb00872.x[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Covington & Taylor, 1991 Covington, J., & Taylor, R. B. (1991). Fear of Crime in Urban Residential neighborhoods: Implications of between- and within- neighborhood sources for current models. Sociological Quarterly, 32(2), 231–249. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.1991.tb00355.x[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Moeller, 1989 Moeller, G. L. (1989). Fear of criminal victimization: The effect of neighborhood racial composition. Sociological Inquiry, 59(2), 208–221. doi:10.1111/soin.1989.59.issue-2[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Pickett, Chiricos, Golden, & Gertz, 2012 Pickett, J. T., Chiricos, T., Golden, K. M., & Gertz, M. (2012). Reconsidering the relationship between perceived neighborhood racial composition and whites’ perceptions of victimization risk: Do racial stereotypes matter?. Criminology, 50(1), 145–186. doi:10.1111/crim.2012.50.issue-1[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). The relationship between these variables is underresearched in the European context of diversity. To our knowledge, only one study has explicitly analyzed the association between ethnic diversity and fear of crime (among Belgian natives) at a local European level (Hooghe & De Vroome, 2016 Hooghe, M., & De Vroome, T. (2016). The relation between ethnic diversity and fear of crime: An analysis of police records and survey data in Belgian communities. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 50, 66–75. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2015.11.002[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). This lack of research is surprising because feelings of unsafety experienced by residents of ethnically mixed neighborhoods are a major social and political issue in a range of Western European countries, including Sweden, France, Great Britain, and the Netherlands, which is the focus of this study (Müller & Fischer, 2015 Müller, T., & Fischer, T. (2015). Feeling Unsafe in a multicultural neighborhood: Indigenous inhabitants’ perspectives. British Journal of Criminology, 55(4), 790–810. doi:10.1093/bjc/azu113[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]).Ethnic diversity and the extent to which it affects social cohesion or fear of crime are generally studied separately; scholars focus either on cohesion or on fear of crime. These negative outcomes of diversity can, however, be explained by similar mechanisms (Van der Meer & Tolsma, 2014 Van der Meer, T., & Tolsma, J. (2014). Ethnic diversity and its effects on social cohesion. Annual Review of Sociology, 40, 459–478. doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043309[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). Accordingly, we will examine both cohesion and fear of crime and their associations with ethnic diversity. The overall aim of the study is to refine our understanding of the two diversity effects. We will use data of the Dutch Safety Monitor 2014 (N = 86,382) in combination with individual-level register data from Statistics Netherlands. The respondents to the Safety Monitor live across the entire Netherlands, in areas with varying levels of ethnic diversity. In total, approximately 80% of all districts (wijken in Dutch) and around 60% of the neighborhoods are included in the survey. On an index from 0 (total homogeneity) to 1 (total heterogeneity), these contextual units have an average diversity level of approximately 0.30.Our article aims to contribute to previous research in the following three ways. First, we will analyze whether the associations between ethnic diversity and the two outcome variables—neighborhood cohesion and fear of crime—are the same for both Dutch natives and nonnatives. Although this issue is not entirely unexplored (e.g., Lancee & Dronkers, 2011 Lancee, B., & Dronkers, J. (2011). Ethnic, religious and economic diversity in dutch neighborhoods: Explaining quality of contact with neighbors, trust in the neighborhood and inter-ethnic trust. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 37(4), 597–618. doi:10.1080/1369183X.2011.545277[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Tolsma, Van der Meer, & Gesthuizen, 2009 Tolsma, J., van der Meer, T., & Gesthuizen, M. (2009). The impact of neighborhood and municipality characteristics on social cohesion in the Netherlands. Acta Politica, 44(3), 286–313. doi:10.1057/ap.2009.6[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]), scholars generally assume that the effect of diversity—especially on cohesion—is negative both for natives and nonnatives (Demireva & Heath, 2014 Demireva, N., & Heath, A. (2014). Diversity and the civic spirit in british neighborhoods: An Investigation with MCDS and EMBES 2010 Data. Sociology, 48(4), 643–662. doi:10.1177/0038038513516695[Crossref] , [Google Scholar]). It has also been common practice for researchers to study the consequences of diversity based on samples composed only of native respondents. This has nevertheless led to generalizations of the effect of diversity in societies at large (Bécares, Stafford, Laurence, & Nazroo, 2011 Bécares, L., Stafford, M., Laurence, J., & Nazroo, J. (2011). Composition, concentration and deprivation: Exploring their association with social cohesion among different Ethnic Groups in the UK. Urban Studies, 48(13), 2771–2787. doi:10.1177/0042098010391295[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). It is, however, reasonable to expect that diversity effects are contingent on ethnic background: for the native majority, more diversity translates to living with fewer co-ethnics. For minorities, the reverse holds true (Schaeffer, 2013 Schaeffer, M. (2013). Can competing diversity indices inform us about why ethnic diversity erodes social cohesion? A test of five diversity indices in Germany. Social Science Research, 42(3), 755–774. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.12.018[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). Living with similar others may contribute to neighborhood cohesion and generate feelings of safety. We therefore examine to what extent the diversity effects on neighborhood cohesion and fear of crime are moderated by ethnic background. We distinguish between respondents with and without a migration background.Second, we will explicitly consider which spatial scale(s) is most appropriate to study diversity effects. Instead of focusing on one specific context, we will simultaneously assess the relationship between ethnic diversity on the one hand and neighborhood cohesion and fear of crime on the other hand at three spatial levels: districts, neighborhoods, and street segments. Although it is still unusual to include multiple contextual levels in the same analysis, such a multiscale approach is considered to be more appropriate to research contextual effects (Boessen & Hipp, 2015 Boessen, A., & Hipp, J. R. (2015). Close-Ups and the scale of ecology: Land Uses and The geography of social context and crime. Criminology, 53(3), 399–426. doi:10.1111/crim.2015.53.issue-3[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). The more common approach—looking exclusively at diversity within neighborhoods—ignores the potential eroding effect of ethnic diversity at lower or higher spatial levels. Omitting these levels may also result in overestimating the role of ethnic diversity at the neighborhood level and, consequently, misleading research conclusions (Opdenakker & Van Damme, 2000 Opdenakker, M., & Van Damme, J. (2000). The importance of identifying levels in multilevel analysis: An illustration of the effects of ignoring the top or intermediate levels in school effectiveness research. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 11, 103–130.[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). In addition, the street segments provide the unique opportunity to assess to which extent ethnic diversity in the microcontext (e.g. Dinesen & Sønderskov, 2015 Dinesen, P. T., & Sønderskov, K. M. (2015). Ethnic diversity and social trust: Evidence from the micro-context. American Sociological Review, 80(3), 550–573. doi:10.1177/0003122415577989[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) is associated with neighborhood cohesion and feelings of safety and to examine whether the effects of diversity are the strongest within smaller contexts.Our final contribution is that we further explore the conditions under which diversity has negative consequences by including a time dimension. More specifically, a dynamic measure of ethnic diversity will be added to the analyses to capture changes in the level of diversity. Rather than solely relying on a static measure of ethnic diversity, we will also consider how rapidly a context’s level of ethnic heterogeneity has changed. The underlying argument is that recent increases in ethnic diversity are more disruptive to cohesion and feelings of safety than stable levels of diversity (Pickett et al., 2012 Pickett, J. T., Chiricos, T., Golden, K. M., & Gertz, M. (2012). Reconsidering the relationship between perceived neighborhood racial composition and whites’ perceptions of victimization risk: Do racial stereotypes matter?. Criminology, 50(1), 145–186. doi:10.1111/crim.2012.50.issue-1[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Schaeffer, 2014 Schaeffer, M. (2014). Ethnic diversity and social cohesion. Immigration, ethnic fractionalization and potentials for civic action. Burlington, VT: Ashgate. [Google Scholar]).To sum up, our research examines two specific consequences of ethnic diversity and is aimed at gaining a more nuanced understanding of how diversity is related to fear of crime and neighborhood cohesion. More specifically, we investigate (a) to what extent the diversity effects are moderated by ethnic background, (b) at which spatial level the diversity effects are most prevalent, and (c) to what extent rapid increases in ethnic diversity are related to less neighborhood cohesion and more fear of crime.Theoretical frameworkThe current study builds primarily on literature that centers on the downsides of living in a diverse residential context. This literature suggests that ethnic homogeneity—as opposed to ethnic diversity—fosters cohesion and feelings of safety. In the next section, two mechanisms are presented that explain why diversity deteriorates neighborhood cohesion and generates feelings of unsafety.Local communities may, however, also benefit from diversity. We will briefly elaborate on these positive diversity effects. The beneficial consequences of diversity are often explained with reference to Allport’s (1954 Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books. [Google Scholar]) contact hypothesis, which posits that interethnic contact fosters social trust and solidarity between groups by diminishing stereotypes. Building on this hypothesis, community psychologists have suggested that inhabitants of diverse settings are more likely to develop respect for or tolerance toward diversity because ethnically diverse environments offer more opportunities to have contact with diverse others (Neal & Neal, 2014 Neal, Z. P., & Neal, J. W. (2014). The (In)compatibility of Diversity and Sense of Community. American Journal of Community Psychology, 53(1–2), 1–12. doi:10.1007/s10464-013-9608-0[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Townley et al., 2011 Townley, G., Kloos, B., Green, E. P., & Franco, M. M. (2011). Reconcilable Differences? Human diversity, cultural relativity, and sense of community. American Journal of Community Psychology, 47(1–2), 69–85. doi:10.1007/s10464-010-9379-9[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). In addition, ethnographic research conducted by Wessendorf (2014 Wessendorf, S. (2014). Being open, but sometimes closed. Conviviality in a Super-Diverse London Neighbourhood. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 17(4), 392–405.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) shows that interactions between different ethnic group members can lead to more mutual understanding and acceptance of difference, especially in superdiverse contexts where no majorities are present. It appears that whether diversity is considered as potentially beneficial or harmful to a local community depends on the phenomena under study. Because of our focus on neighborhood cohesion and fear of crime, we are more likely to find negative diversity effects. We will now expand on the two mechanisms that may underlie these effects.Anomie, social disorganization, and threatSince the introduction of Putnam’s (2007 Putnam, R. D. (2007). E pluribus unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-first century the 2006 johan skytte prize lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30(2), 137–174. doi:10.1111/scps.2007.30.issue-2[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) constrict hypothesis, numerous scholars have examined the supposed negative effect of diversity on social cohesion and a range of related phenomena within various countries, including the United States, Great Britain, and the Netherlands. In contrast, the relationship between ethnic (or racial) composition and fear of crime has mainly been studied in the context of American neighborhoods.To explain the detrimental consequences of diversity, Van der Meer and Tolsma (2014 Van der Meer, T., & Tolsma, J. (2014). Ethnic diversity and its effects on social cohesion. Annual Review of Sociology, 40, 459–478. doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043309[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) have explicated two mechanisms—the anomie mechanism and the threat mechanism—that are likely to underlie the negative diversity effects. The anomie mechanism emphasizes how diversity and its different facets—in terms of linguistic diversity and diversity in social norms—cause feelings of anxiety and uncertainty among inhabitants of ethnically diverse environments. Consequently, residents avoid interaction and hence socially isolate themselves from their (co-)residents. When an environment is increasingly perceived as unfamiliar, feelings of insecurity will increase as well—in the same way that the ability to interpret and order an environment improves feelings of safety (e.g., Blokland, 2008 Blokland, T. (2008). Oog voor elkaar : Veiligheidsbeleving en sociale controle in de grote stad. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.[Crossref] , [Google Scholar]). In an “orderly” environment, inhabitants know who to trust and what to expect. Disorder, by contrast, signals a loss of having such control. In these environments, residents will feel more vulnerable and thus more fearful (Covington & Taylor, 1991 Covington, J., & Taylor, R. B. (1991). Fear of Crime in Urban Residential neighborhoods: Implications of between- and within- neighborhood sources for current models. Sociological Quarterly, 32(2), 231–249. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.1991.tb00355.x[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]).The logic of the anomie mechanism shares similarities with social disorganization theory. Of particular importance in this regard is the work of Shaw and McKay (1942 Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency and Urban Areas. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]), who identified three structural factors, one of which is ethnic heterogeneity, that lead to disruption of community social organization and, ultimately, increases in crime and delinquency rates.11. The other two factors are residential instability and economic deprivation.View all notes The theory suggests that ethnic diversity hinders communication and interaction among inhabitants, thereby thwarting the ability of communities to maintain social order and control delinquent and other forms of deviant behavior. Shaw and McKay (1942 Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency and Urban Areas. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]) refer primarily to “urban areas” or “local communities” when discussing the forces of social disorganization. More recent formulations of social disorganization theory have introduced the concept of collective efficacy in order to improve our understanding of why crime rates vary within cities. Collective efficacy refers to the process of activating or converting social ties among neighborhood residents in order to achieve collective goals, such as control over crime (Sampson, 2010 Sampson, R. J. (2010). Collective Efficacy Theory. In F. T. Cullen & P. Wilcox (Eds.), Encyclopedia of criminological theory (pp. 802–805). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar]). Research showed that inhabitants are more willing to take collective action in contexts that are perceived as socially cohesive. This relationship is in particular strong in ethnically homogeneous neighborhoods (Collins, Neal, & Neal, 2016 Collins, C. R., Neal, Z. P., & Neal, J. W. (2016). Transforming social cohesion into informal social control: Deconstructing collective efficacy and the moderating role of neighborhood racial homogeneity. Journal of Urban Affairs, 39(3), 307–322. doi:10.1080/07352166.2016.1245079[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). Differences in collective efficacy are considered a major source of variation in crime, over and beyond structural characteristics of the neighborhood (Sampson, 2010 Sampson, R. J. (2010). Collective Efficacy Theory. In F. T. Cullen & P. Wilcox (Eds.), Encyclopedia of criminological theory (pp. 802–805). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar]). When collective efficacy is reduced, or inhabitants experience it as such, fear of crime could increase as well. Greenberg (1986 Greenberg, S. W. (1986). Fear and Its Relationship to Crime, Neighborhood Deterioration, and Informal Social Control. In J. Byrne & R. J. Sampson (Eds.), Social ecology of crime (pp. 47–62). New York, NY: Springer.[Crossref] , [Google Scholar]) labels this perspective the “social-control model” of fear of crime (p. 46). Environments that are judged as unpredictable, unfamiliar, and beyond the control of oneself or one’s community may generate a sense of disquiet and, ultimately, a feeling that “anything could happen” (Jackson, 2009 Jackson, J. (2009). A psychological perspective on vulnerability in the fear of crime. Psychology, Crime Law, 15(4), 365–390. doi:10.1080/10683160802275797[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar], p. 385). In such an unpredictable context, feelings of safety and neighborhood cohesion are negatively affected.The second mechanism is mainly inspired by so-called conflict theory and proposes that ethnic diversity fosters competition between ethnic groups over scarce goods such as jobs and housing and over nonmaterial resources such as morality and identity (Van der Meer & Tolsma, 2014 Van der Meer, T., & Tolsma, J. (2014). Ethnic diversity and its effects on social cohesion. Annual Review of Sociology, 40, 459–478. doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043309[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). This (perceived) competition and conflict translates into feelings of threat. Originally, the argument is primarily about an in-group versus an out-group and how the settlement of the latter group spurs competition between these groups and, at the same time, improves solidarity within a group (Blalock, 1967 Blalock, H. M. (1967). Toward a theory of minority-group relations. New York, NY: Wiley. [Google Scholar]; Quillian, 1995 Quillian, L. (1995). Prejudice as a response to perceived group threat: Population composition and anti-immigrant and racial prejudice in Europe. American Sociological Review, 60(4), 586–611. doi:10.2307/2096296[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). The presence of minority groups is also being associated with feelings of threat among the (native) majority and, thereby, is considered as a determinant of fear of crime (Hooghe & De Vroome, 2016 Hooghe, M., & De Vroome, T. (2016). The relation between ethnic diversity and fear of crime: An analysis of police records and survey data in Belgian communities. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 50, 66–75. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2015.11.002[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). In the case of diversity and in the light of the constrict hypothesis, it is expected that living in close proximity to ethnic others results in generalized negative effects—both within and between the different groups. A possible explanation might be that diversity intensifies the processes of competition and threat; the more dissimilarity in people’s direct surroundings, the more they feel that their status and habits are under threat (Scheepers, Schmeets, & Pelzer, 2013 Scheepers, P., Schmeets, H., & Pelzer, B. (2013). Hunkering down as disruption of community cohesion: Municipal-, neighborhood- and individual-level effects. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 72, 91–106. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.02.008[Crossref] , [Google Scholar]). These processes will result in general feelings of hostility and uncertainty, ultimately causing fear of crime and a hesitation to mingle with others.Prior researchPrevious studies testing Putnam’s (2007) constrict hypothesis have concluded that ethnic diversity is consistently associated with only certain components of social cohesion and, more specifically, with neighborhood-related indicators of cohesion (Morales, 2013 Morales, L. (2013). Assessing the effects of immigration and Diversity in Europe: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 23(3), 241–254. doi:10.1080/17457289.2013.809351[Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar]; Van der Meer & Tolsma, 2014 Van der Meer, T., & Tolsma, J. (2014). Ethnic diversity and its effects on social cohesion. Annual Review of Sociology, 40, 459–478. doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043309[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). In British studies in particular, it is found that more ethnic diversity in the neighborhood is related to less neighborhood cohesion (Bécares et al., 2011 Bécares, L., Stafford, M., Laurence, J., & Nazroo, J. (2011). Composition, concentration and deprivation: Exploring their association with social cohesion among different Ethnic Groups in the UK. Urban Studies, 48(13), 2771–2787. doi:10.1177/0042098010391295[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Laurence & Bentley, 2016 Laurence, J., & Bentley, L. (2016). Does ethnic diversity have a negative effect on attitudes towards the community? A Longitudinal analysis of the causal claims within the ethnic diversity and social cohesion debate. European Sociological Review, 32(1), 54–56. doi:10.1093/esr/jcv081[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Twigg, Taylor, & Mohan, 2010 Twigg, L., Taylor, K., & Mohan, J. (2010). Diversity or disadvantage? Putnam, Goodhart, ethnic heterogeneity, and collective efficacy. Environment and Planning A, 42(6), 1421–1438. doi:10.1068/a42287[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). A similar picture emerges when considering the outcomes of Dutch research that primarily examined the effect of ethnic heterogeneity on forms of citizen participation, on generalized or interethnic trust, and, most frequently, on indicators related to neighborhood cohesion. These results show that frequency of contact with neighbors is especially negatively influenced by ethnic diversity (Gijsberts, Van der Meer, & Dagevos, 2012 Gijsberts, M., Van der Meer, T., & Dagevos, J. (2012). “Hunkering down” in multi-ethnic neighborhoods? The Effects of ethnic diversity on dimensions of social cohesion. European Sociological Review, 28(4), 527–537. doi:10.1093/esr/jcr022[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Scheepers et al., 2013 Scheepers, P., Schmeets, H., & Pelzer, B. (2013). Hunkering down as disruption of community cohesion: Municipal-, neighborhood- and individual-level effects. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 72, 91–106. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.02.008[Crossref] , [Google Scholar]; Tolsma et al., 2009 Tolsma, J., van der Meer, T., & Gesthuizen, M. (2009). The impact of neighborhood and municipality characteristics on social cohesion in the Netherlands. Acta Politica, 44(3), 286–313. doi:10.1057/ap.2009.6[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Völker, Flap, & Lindenberg, 2007 Völker, B., Flap, H., & Lindenberg, S. (2007). When are neighborhoods communities? Community in dutch neighborhoods. European Sociological Review, 23(1), 99–114. doi:10.1093/esr/jcl022[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). Other dimensions of cohesion such as trust or volunteering seem to be unaffected by ethnic diversity (Lancee & Dronkers, 2011 Lancee, B., & Dronkers, J. (2011). Ethnic, religious and economic diversity in dutch neighborhoods: Explaining quality of contact with neighbors, trust in the neighborhood and inter-ethnic trust. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 37(4), 597–618. doi:10.1080/1369183X.2011.545277[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Tolsma et al., 2009 Tolsma, J., van der Meer, T., & Gesthuizen, M. (2009). The impact of neighborhood and municipality characteristics on social cohesion in the Netherlands. Acta Politica, 44(3), 286–313. doi:10.1057/ap.2009.6[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). It appears that the relationship between diversity and cohesion depends on the components under study. Moreover, Abascal and Baldassarri (2015 Abascal, M., & Baldassarri, D. (2015). Love thy neighbor? Ethnoracial diversity and trust reexamined. American Journal of Sociology, 121(3), 722–782. doi:10.1086/683144[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) argued—based on a replication of Putnam’s (2007) original analysis—that the association that Putnam found between diversity and generalized trust is spurious; levels of trust are better explained by individual differences and contextual economic disadvantage. Other scholars have shown that the association between ethnic diversity and contact disappears after controlling for the ethnicity of the neighbor an inhabitant may have contact with (Tolsma & Van der Meer, 2018 Tolsma, J., & Van der Meer, T. (2018). Trust and contact in diverse neighborhoods: An interplay of four ethnicity effects. Social Science Research, 73, 92–106. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2018.04.003[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]).In American studies on the relationship between ethnic diversity and fear of crime, diversity is generally equated with the (perceived) proportion of African American residents (Chiricos et al., 1997 Chiricos, T., Hogan, M., & Gertz, M. (1997). Racial Composition of Neighborhood and Fear of Crime. Criminology, 35(1), 107–131. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1997.tb00872.x[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Covington & Taylor, 1991 Covington, J., & Taylor, R. B. (1991). Fear of Crime in Urban Residential neighborhoods: Implications of between- and within- neighborhood sources for current models. Sociological Quarterly, 32(2), 231–249. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.1991.tb00355.x[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Moeller, 1989 Moeller, G. L. (1989). Fear of criminal victimization: The effect of neighborhood racial composition. Sociological Inquiry, 59(2), 208–221. doi:10.1111/soin.1989.59.issue-2[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Pickett et al., 2012 Pickett, J. T., Chiricos, T., Golden, K. M., & Gertz, M. (2012). Reconsidering the relationship between perceived neighborhood racial composition and whites’ perceptions of victimization risk: Do racial stereotypes matter?. Criminology, 50(1), 145–186. doi:10.1111/crim.2012.50.issue-1[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) and, to a lesser extent, Hispanics (Eitle & Taylor, 2008 Eitle, D., & Taylor, J. (2008). Are Hispanics the new “threat”? Minority group threat and fear of crime in Miami-Dade County. Social Science Research, 37(4), 1102–1115. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2008.05.005[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). Results indicate that the (perceived) racial composition in the living environment is associated with fear of crime. In particular, White residents living in a “Black” neighborhood are more likely to experience fear, presumably because Whites stereotypically associate the presence of Black residents with violence and crime (Pickett et al., 2012 Pickett, J. T., Chiricos, T., Golden, K. M., & Gertz, M. (2012). Reconsidering the relationship between perceived neighborhood racial composition and whites’ perceptions of victimization risk: Do racial stereotypes matter?. Criminology, 50(1), 145–186. doi:10.1111/crim.2012.50.issue-1[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Quillian & Pager, 2001 Quillian, L., & Pager, D. (2001). Black neighbors, higher crime? The role of racial stereotypes in evaluations of neighborhood crime. American Journal of Sociology, 107(3), 717–767. doi:10.1086/338938[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). Key in this hypothesis is the concentration of minority groups (in this case, of Black residents) and not the level of diversity.In the European context, cross-national research has shown that when inhabitants describe their neighborhood as an area where many migrants live, higher levels of fear of crime are reported (Semyonov, Gorodzeisky, & Glikman, 2012 Semyonov, M., Gorodzeisky, A., & Glikman, A. (2012). Neighborhood ethnic composition and resident perceptions of safety in European Countries. Social Problems, 59(1), 117–135. doi:10.1525/sp.2012.59.1.117[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). The actual size of the migrant population at the country level is, however, unrelated to fear of crime and feelings of safety in the neighborhood (Semyonov et al., 2012 Semyonov, M., Gorodzeisky, A., & Glikman, A. (2012). Neighborhood ethnic composition and resident perceptions of safety in European Countries. Social Problems, 59(1), 117–135. doi:10.1525/sp.2012.59.1.117[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Visser, Scholte, & Scheepers, 2013 Visser, M., Scholte, M., & Scheepers, P. (2013). Fear of crime and feelings of unsafety in European Countries: Macro and micro explanations in cross-national perspective. Sociological Quarterly, 54(2), 278–301. doi:10.1111/tsq.12020[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). More recently, Hooghe and De Vroome (2016 Hooghe, M., & De Vroome, T. (2016). The relation between ethnic diversity and fear of crime: An analysis of police records and survey data in Belgian communities. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 50, 66–75. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2015.11.002[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) concluded in their study on fear of crime in Belgian communities that the actual level of non–European Union nationals in municipalities—rather than the perceived composition—is positively related to fear of crime among Belgian natives.The role of ethnic backgroundWith few exceptions, scholars in the European context tend to assume that the hypothesized effects of diversity are similar for both the native majority and ethnic minorities (e.g., Gijsberts et al., 2012 Gijsberts, M., Van der Meer, T., & Dagevos, J. (2012). “Hunkering down” in multi-ethnic neighborhoods? The Effects of ethnic diversity on dimensions of social cohesion. European Sociological Review, 28(4), 527–537. doi:10.1093/esr/jcr022[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Scheepers et al., 2013 Scheepers, P., Schmeets, H., & Pelzer, B. (2013). Hunkering down as disruption of community cohesion: Municipal-, neighborhood- and individual-level effects. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 72, 91–106. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.02.008[Crossref] , [Google Scholar]; Völker et al., 2007 Völker, B., Flap, H., & Lindenberg, S. (2007). When are neighborhoods communities? Community in dutch neighborhoods. European Sociological Review, 23(1), 99–114. doi:10.1093/esr/jcl022[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) or only study the effects among native respondents (e.g., Dinesen & Sønderskov, 2015 Dinesen, P. T., & Sønderskov, K. M. (2015). Ethnic diversity and social trust: Evidence from the micro-context. American Sociological Review, 80(3), 550–573. doi:10.1177/0003122415577989[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Hooghe & De Vroome, 2016 Hooghe, M., & De Vroome, T. (2016). The relation between ethnic diversity and fear of crime: An analysis of police records and survey data in Belgian communities. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 50, 66–75. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2015.11.002[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Sluiter, Tolsma, & Scheepers, 2015 Sluiter, R., Tolsma, J., & Scheepers, P. (2015). At which geographic scale does ethnic diversity affect intra-neighborhood social capital? Social Science Research, 54, 80–95. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2015.06.015[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Tolsma & Van der Meer, 2017 Tolsma, J., & Van der Meer, T. (2017). Losing wallets, retaining trust? The relationship between ethnic heterogeneity and trusting coethnic and non-coethnic neighbors and non-neighbors to return a lost wallet. Social Indicators Research, 131(2), 631–658. doi:10.1007/s11205-016-1264-y[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]).22. Putnam (2007 Putnam, R. D. (2007). E pluribus unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-first century the 2006 johan skytte prize lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30(2), 137–174. doi:10.1111/scps.2007.30.issue-2[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) acknowledges that the impact of diversity is “definitely greater among whites.” At the same time, it is written that the effect of diversity “is visible as well among non-whites” (p. 54). No empirical evidence is provided for these claims.View all notes It is, however, reasonable to expect that the effects of living in diversity are different depending on whether an individual is a native or not. For members of the native majority, living in an area with high diversity means living among fewer co-ethnics and more minorities. For nonnatives, high diversity tends to translate to living with other minorities and their co-ethnics (Schaeffer, 2013 Schaeffer, M. (2013). Can competing diversity indices inform us about why ethnic diversity erodes social cohesion? A test of five diversity indices in Germany. Social Science Research, 42(3), 755–774. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.12.018[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). Because people are more likely to interact with similar others (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001 McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]), we expect that the negative diversity effects are less prevalent for ethnic minorities. To investigate this possibility, we will examine whether the effects on neighborhood cohesion and fear of crime are moderated by ethnic background.A multiscale approachIn addition to distinguishing between different ethnic backgrounds, we adopt a multiscale approach (e.g., Boessen & Hipp, 2015 Boessen, A., & Hipp, J. R. (2015). Close-Ups and the scale of ecology: Land Uses and The geography of social context and crime. Criminology, 53(3), 399–426. doi:10.1111/crim.2015.53.issue-3[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) aimed at producing a more complete and interdependent understanding of the diversity effects by including three different spatial levels (street segments, neighborhoods, and districts) in the same model. In previous research, scholars have often relied on neighborhoods to measure residential context. Perceptions of insecurity and neighborhood cohesion, however, do not necessarily align with how neighborhoods are administratively defined. These perceptions may also be affected by processes operating at lower or higher spatial scales. Because larger and smaller contexts are added to the analysis, we are able to examine at which spatial scale ethnic diversity has the strongest effect on neighborhood cohesion and fear of crime. The ways in which aggregation affects the results under study is a familiar issue in spatial statistics and is known as the modifiable areal unit problem (Oberwittler & Wikström, 2009 Oberwittler, D., & Wikström, P. H. (2009). Why small is better: Advancing the study of the role of behavioral contexts in crime causation. In D. Weisburd, W. Beransco, & G. Bruinsma (Eds.), Putting crime in its place (pp. 35–59). New York, NY: Springer.[Crossref] , [Google Scholar]).For theoretical and methodological reasons, we expect stronger diversity effects at a smaller spatial scale. Theoretically, it is often assumed that the negative effects of ethnic diversity are most pronounced in smaller contexts (Putnam, 2007 Putnam, R. D. (2007). E pluribus unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-first century the 2006 johan skytte prize lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30(2), 137–174. doi:10.1111/scps.2007.30.issue-2[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) because people spend most of their free time in their immediate residential surroundings (Öberg, Oskarsson, & Svensson, 2011 Öberg, P., Oskarsson, S., & Svensson, T. (2011). Similarity vs. homogeneity: Contextual effects in explaining trust. European Political Science Review, 3(3), 345–369. doi:10.1017/S1755773910000354[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). Inhabitants might thus be more aware of the ethnic composition of smaller contexts (Sluiter et al., 2015 Sluiter, R., Tolsma, J., & Scheepers, P. (2015). At which geographic scale does ethnic diversity affect intra-neighborhood social capital? Social Science Research, 54, 80–95. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2015.06.015[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). Consequently, we expect that streets and neighborhoods more accurately reflect people’s daily experiences with ethnic heterogeneity than larger contexts, such as districts. Researchers have frequently tested diversity effects within the context of neighborhoods because the neighborhood is in most cases the smallest unit of analysis available (for recent exceptions, see Dinesen & Sønderskov, 2015 Dinesen, P. T., & Sønderskov, K. M. (2015). Ethnic diversity and social trust: Evidence from the micro-context. American Sociological Review, 80(3), 550–573. doi:10.1177/0003122415577989[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Tolsma & Van der Meer, 2017 Tolsma, J., & Van der Meer, T. (2017). Losing wallets, retaining trust? The relationship between ethnic heterogeneity and trusting coethnic and non-coethnic neighbors and non-neighbors to return a lost wallet. Social Indicators Research, 131(2), 631–658. doi:10.1007/s11205-016-1264-y[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). Our data, however, allow us to examine the relationship on an even smaller scale: street segments (six position postal codes), which in most cases represent one street or one side of a street.For methodological reasons, it is also preferable to zoom in on smaller units of aggregation when studying contextual effects (Oberwittler & Wikström, 2009 Oberwittler, D., & Wikström, P. H. (2009). Why small is better: Advancing the study of the role of behavioral contexts in crime causation. In D. Weisburd, W. Beransco, & G. Bruinsma (Eds.), Putting crime in its place (pp. 35–59). New York, NY: Springer.[Crossref] , [Google Scholar]). At a smaller spatial level, areas tend to be more homogeneous in their structural characteristics. Increased homogeneity within these smaller contextual units will be reflected in enhanced statistical power to detect contextual effects (Hipp, 2007 Hipp, J. R. (2007). Block, tract, and levels of aggregation: Neighborhood structure and crime and disorder as a case in point. American Sociological Review, 72(5), 659–680. doi:10.1177/000312240707200501[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]).33. It should be noted that homogenous contexts could refer to heterogeneous characteristics, in our case ethnic diversity. Contexts could thus be “homogeneously heterogenic” within their area boundaries (Oberwittler & Wikström, 2009 Oberwittler, D., & Wikström, P. H. (2009). Why small is better: Advancing the study of the role of behavioral contexts in crime causation. In D. Weisburd, W. Beransco, & G. Bruinsma (Eds.), Putting crime in its place (pp. 35–59). New York, NY: Springer.[Crossref] , [Google Scholar], p. 56).View all notes When data are analyzed at a higher level of aggregation—lumping together areas with different levels of diversity—more subtle diversity effects will render insignificant because the degree of spatial homogeneity is watered down. This inconsistency caused by using different scales of aggregation is known as the scale problem, one of the subproblems of the modifiable areal unit problem (Wong, 2009 Wong, D. (2009). The modifiable areal unit problem (MAUP). In A. S. Fotheringham & P. A. Rogerson (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of spatial analysis (pp. 105–124). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.[Crossref] , [Google Scholar]).Given these theoretical and methodological considerations, we expect that the negative effects of ethnic diversity are larger at a smaller level (in our case the street segment) and weaker in larger contexts. Our expectations are in line with the findings of Dinesen and Sønderskov’s (2015 Dinesen, P. T., & Sønderskov, K. M. (2015). Ethnic diversity and social trust: Evidence from the micro-context. American Sociological Review, 80(3), 550–573. doi:10.1177/0003122415577989[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) study on the relationship between ethnic diversity and social trust, showing that ethnic diversity in the microcontext—measured by an 80-m radius around a respondent—is most strongly related to social trust.Although the diversity effects are more likely to be pronounced at the street segment and neighborhood levels, we expect that our two outcome variables are also affected by diversity in the larger district context. In two recent studies on respectively intra-neighborhood social capital and trust in neighbors, Dutch scholars observed that the impact of diversity is not necessarily stronger at a smaller spatial scale (Sluiter et al., 2015 Sluiter, R., Tolsma, J., & Scheepers, P. (2015). At which geographic scale does ethnic diversity affect intra-neighborhood social capital? Social Science Research, 54, 80–95. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2015.06.015[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Tolsma & Van der Meer, 2017 Tolsma, J., & Van der Meer, T. (2017). Losing wallets, retaining trust? The relationship between ethnic heterogeneity and trusting coethnic and non-coethnic neighbors and non-neighbors to return a lost wallet. Social Indicators Research, 131(2), 631–658. doi:10.1007/s11205-016-1264-y[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). Considerable diversity effects were found as well in spatial units larger than the neighborhood, suggesting that it is not only the smaller neighborhood context that matters. Because people’s daily activities generally take place in relatively large areas, ethnic diversity effects may be also detected in larger spatial contexts (Boessen & Hipp, 2015 Boessen, A., & Hipp, J. R. (2015). Close-Ups and the scale of ecology: Land Uses and The geography of social context and crime. Criminology, 53(3), 399–426. doi:10.1111/crim.2015.53.issue-3[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]).Changes in ethnic diversityLastly, we consider the role of dynamic ethnic diversity (i.e., increases or decreases in diversity in a certain period of time) compared to static levels of diversity (i.e., the level of diversity in a specific year). This allows us to examine the role of changing levels of ethnic diversity under the constrict hypothesis. Other researchers have argued previously that such a time dimension should be included when testing the constrict hypothesis (Hooghe, Reeskens, Stolle, & Trappers, 2009 Hooghe, M., Reeskens, T., Stolle, D., & Trappers, A. (2009). Ethnic diversity and generalized trust in Europe. Comparative Political Studies, 42(2), 198–223. doi:10.1177/0010414008325286[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Schaeffer, 2014 Schaeffer, M. (2014). Ethnic diversity and social cohesion. Immigration, ethnic fractionalization and potentials for civic action. Burlington, VT: Ashgate. [Google Scholar]). The underlying argument is that (rapid) increases in diversity generate more threat, social disorganization, and anomie than stable levels of heterogeneity. It might even be the case that these increases, as opposed to stable levels of ethnic diversity, drive down social cohesion and erode neighborhood ties. Most research on the constrict hypothesis has, however, focused on current levels of diversity rather than on changes in diversity over time. Although some cross-national studies include dynamic measures of ethnic diversity (Gesthuizen, Van der Meer, & Scheepers, 2009 Gesthuizen, M., Van der Meer, T., & Scheepers, P. (2009). Ethnic diversity and social capital in Europe: Tests of Putnam’s thesis in European countries. Scandinavian Political Studies, 32(2), 121–142. doi:10.1111/scps.2009.32.issue-2[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Hooghe et al., 2009 Hooghe, M., Reeskens, T., Stolle, D., & Trappers, A. (2009). Ethnic diversity and generalized trust in Europe. Comparative Political Studies, 42(2), 198–223. doi:10.1177/0010414008325286[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Kesler & Bloemraad, 2010 Kesler, C., & Bloemraad, I. (2010). Does immigration erode social capital? The conditional effects of immigration-generated diversity on trust, membership, and participation across 19 Countries, 1981–2000. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 43(2), 319–347. doi:10.1017/S0008423910000077[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]), these measures are rarely applied in within-country studies (for exceptions, see Dinesen & Sønderskov, 2012 Dinesen, P. T., & Sønderskov, K. M. (2012). Trust in a time of increasing diversity: On the relationship between ethnic heterogeneity and social trust in Denmark from 1979 until Today. Scandinavian Political Studies, 35(4), 273–294. doi:10.1111/scps.2012.35.issue-4[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Schaeffer, 2014 Schaeffer, M. (2014). Ethnic diversity and social cohesion. Immigration, ethnic fractionalization and potentials for civic action. Burlington, VT: Ashgate. [Google Scholar]). The same holds for research on fear of crime (for an exception, see Pickett et al., 2012 Pickett, J. T., Chiricos, T., Golden, K. M., & Gertz, M. (2012). Reconsidering the relationship between perceived neighborhood racial composition and whites’ perceptions of victimization risk: Do racial stereotypes matter?. Criminology, 50(1), 145–186. doi:10.1111/crim.2012.50.issue-1[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]).HypothesesWe derive four hypotheses from our theoretical framework: Hypothesis 1: In contexts with more ethnic diversity, people experience less neighborhood cohesion (1a) and more fear of crime (1b). Hypothesis 2: Ethnic diversity has a stronger effect on neighborhood cohesion for natives than for nonnatives (2a). The same holds for fear of crime (2b). Hypothesis 3: Ethnic diversity has a stronger effect on neighborhood cohesion in smaller contexts (3a). The same holds for fear of crime (3b). Hypothesis 4: In contexts with rapid increases in ethnic diversity, people experience less neighborhood cohesion (4a) and more fear of crime (4b).Other determinants of neighborhood cohesion and fear of crimeEthnic diversity and changing levels of diversity are obviously not the only determinants of neighborhood cohesion or fear of crime. There is a considerable amount of literature on other individual and contextual factors that may explain differences in cohesion and fear of crime. Rather than discussing all of these determinants at length, we will examine a selection.As for cohesion, some scholars consider economic disadvantage—instead of diversity—as the key element undermining neighborhood relations. Research has shown that deprivation damages the sense of community; being disadvantaged and living in a disadvantaged environment undermines the willingness to interact and engage socially, thereby decreasing the sense of belonging (Laurence, 2011 Laurence, J. (2011). The effect of ethnic diversity and community disadvantage on social cohesion: A multi-level analysis of social capital and interethnic relations in UK Communities. European Sociological Review, 27(1), 70–89. doi:10.1093/esr/jcp057[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Letki, 2008 Letki, N. (2008). Does diversity erode social cohesion? Social capital and race in british neighborhoods. Political Studies, 56(1), 99–126. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.2007.00692.x[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). Because ethnically diverse areas also tend to be the more disadvantaged areas, it is crucial to take the context’s level of deprivation into account. The same holds for deprivation at the individual level.Regarding fear of crime, the incidence of crime and individual differences regarding age, gender, ethnicity, and economic status are considered relevant predictors. Although the linkage between crime and fear of crime lacks consistent empirical support (Rountree, 1998 Rountree, P. W. (1998). A reexamination of the crime-fear linkage. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35(3), 341–372. doi:10.1177/0022427898035003005[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]), research has provided some evidence for a relationship between crime and fear of crime (Ferraro & Grange, 1987 Ferraro, K. F., & LaGrange, R. (1987). The measurement of fear of crime. Sociological Inquiry, 57(1), 70–97. doi:10.1111/soin.1987.57.issue-1[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Taylor, 2001 Taylor, R. B. (2001). Breaking away from broken windows. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. [Google Scholar]). The individual determinants relate to the so-called vulnerability hypothesis, which aims to explain why certain groups of individuals—the elderly, women, ethnic minorities, members of the lower class—report relatively high levels of fear without being victimized more often. The hypothesis posits that these groups feel more unsafe because they see themselves as more physically or socially vulnerable to victimization (Brunton-Smith & Sturgis, 2011 Brunton-Smith, I., & Sturgis, P. (2011). Do neighborhoods generate fear of crime? An empirical test using The British crime survey. Criminology, 49(2), 331–369. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2011.00228.x[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Eitle & Taylor, 2008 Eitle, D., & Taylor, J. (2008). Are Hispanics the new “threat”? Minority group threat and fear of crime in Miami-Dade County. Social Science Research, 37(4), 1102–1115. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2008.05.005[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]).Research designDataWe draw on data from the Safety Monitor 2014 and Statistics Netherlands. The Safety Monitor is a survey on crime-related feelings of insecurity and victimization. Its sample is drawn from the municipality population register. In total, 86,382 respondents (38.8% of the total sample) completed the self-administered questionnaires, either online (47.9%) or through a written questionnaire (52.1%; Statistics Netherlands, 2015 Statistics Netherlands. (2015). Veiligheidsmonitor 2014. Retrieved from http://download.cbs.nl/pdf/veiligheidsmonitor-2014.pdf [Google Scholar]). Because we want to track diversity levels over a 5-year period, we only include those respondents who live in districts and neighborhoods for which the diversity levels are available in the years 2009–2014. There are 67,446 respondents who meet this criterion. The smaller sample size can be explained by the frequent changes to how districts and neighborhoods are categorized, making it difficult to compare diversity scores across time. The selected respondents reside in 2,136 districts, 7,080 neighborhoods, and 67,446 street segments.Data from the Safety Monitor were merged with nonpublic individual register data (“microdata”) from Statistics Netherlands. Access to microdata is granted under specific conditions (Statistics Netherlands, 2017 Statistics Netherlands. (2017). Catalogue of services Microdata services 2018. Retrieved from https://www.cbs.nl/-/media/_pdf/2017/48/171201%20services%20catalogue%202018.pdf [Google Scholar]). The register data contain the ethnicity of all Dutch inhabitants and information on the economic situation of all Dutch households. The crime rate and changes in ethnic diversity were also derived from Statistics Netherlands and are publicly available at the district and neighborhood levels.Defining contextsWe include the following contextual units in our analyses: (a) street segments, (b) neighborhoods, and (c) districts. These administratively defined areas vary considerably in population size. Districts are, in terms of both size and population, the largest entity we distinguish in our article. The average population size of a district in the Netherlands is 6,157 inhabitants. Dutch districts are subdivided into several neighborhoods, which have an average size of 1,400 inhabitants. Street segments (or six position postal codes) are the smallest contexts we consider. This spatial unit represents in general a part of a street and has on average only 40 inhabitants.Neighborhood cohesion and fear of crimeIn our analysis, two outcome variables are distinguished: neighborhood cohesion and fear of crime. The former is measured through a set of six items. These items include the following: people in this neighborhood hardly know each other, people in this neighborhood socialize pleasantly, I live in a cozy neighborhood where people help each other out and do things together, I feel at home with the people living in this neighborhood, I am satisfied with the population composition of the neighborhood, and I have a lot of contact with other neighbors (answer categories: agree completely, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, and disagree completely). The first item—people in this neighborhood hardly know each other—was recoded to ensure that a higher score corresponds to a more positive view on the neighborhood. A factor analysis indicated that all six items load onto a single factor (see Table A1 in Appendix for details). The six items also appear to form a unidimensional scale, accounting for 59.77% of the variance. The scale is based on the average of at least four valid answers and is internally consistent with a Cronbach’s α of .86.There has been considerable debate on the appropriate operationalization of fear of crime. Although a clear consensus on its measurement is lacking, scholars agree that fear of crime is a multidimensional concept (Brunton-Smith & Sturgis, 2011 Brunton-Smith, I., & Sturgis, P. (2011). Do neighborhoods generate fear of crime? An empirical test using The British crime survey. Criminology, 49(2), 331–369. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2011.00228.x[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Ferraro & LaGrange, 1987 Ferraro, K. F., & LaGrange, R. (1987). The measurement of fear of crime. Sociological Inquiry, 57(1), 70–97. doi:10.1111/soin.1987.57.issue-1[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). Our measure of fear of crime combines three different dimensions and focuses on elements related to behavior, threat, and risk (Skogan, 1996 Skogan, W. G. (1996). Measuring what matters: Crime, disorder, and fear. In T. V. Brady (Ed.), Measuring what matters: Part One: Measures of crime, fear, and disorder (pp. 37–66). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice and the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. [Google Scholar]). More specifically, we construct a scale consisting of five items. Respondents were asked how often they do not answer the door during evening hours; avoid certain areas in their neighborhood, feel unsafe walking in their neighborhood or being home alone during the evening, and are afraid of being victimized (answer categories: seldom or never, occasionally, and frequently). A factor analysis resulted in one single factor (see Table A2 in Appendix for details). The items also proved to form a unidimensional and internally coherent scale, explaining 52.91% of the variance with a Cronbach’s α of .85. The fear of crime scale represents the average of at least three valid answers. A higher score on the scale indicates more fear of crime.(Changes in) ethnic diversityTo measure the static level of ethnic diversity, a Herfindahl-Hirschman index (HHI) was constructed for each context based on its ethnic composition in 2014. The HHI represents the probability that two randomly selected individuals within the same context are of a different ethnic background. Its value varies between the 0 (total homogeneity) and 1 (total heterogeneity). Most Dutch researchers measure diversity either by the percentage of non-Western migrants or an HHI based on the proportion of seven different groups (e.g., Gijsberts et al., 2012 Gijsberts, M., Van der Meer, T., & Dagevos, J. (2012). “Hunkering down” in multi-ethnic neighborhoods? The Effects of ethnic diversity on dimensions of social cohesion. European Sociological Review, 28(4), 527–537. doi:10.1093/esr/jcr022[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Lancee & Dronkers, 2011 Lancee, B., & Dronkers, J. (2011). Ethnic, religious and economic diversity in dutch neighborhood