Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Procedia Environmental Sciences 14 ( 2012 ) 226 – 236

Landscape, Environment, European Identity, 4-6 November, 2011, Urban (in) security and assessment of extreme poverty: perception referring to homelessness in Bucharest

Mirela Paraschiv*

Faculty of Geography, University of Bucharest, Bucharest 010041,

Abstract

In the current global economic situation, poverty stands out as a growing concern with multiple territorial aspects. Poverty is to be found both in developing and developed countries with certain differences of classification, typology, magnitude, importance, but nevertheless with some fundamental common characteristics. Homelessness represents the most extreme manifestation of poverty in urban areas. The perception of the community referring to homeless people was evaluated through 150 social surveys among residents in 18 pre-identified areas in Bucharest. security and local reasons of insecurity are used as a perception differentiation instrument in the analysis. Results reflect that homelessness has a high territorial visibility in Bucharest. The phenomenon is recognized as continuously increasing, referring to territorial distribution and affected urban areas, depth and effects on different categories of population and need for more specifically directed policies and action.

© 20112012 Published Published by Elsevierby Elsevier B.V. SelectionLtd. Selection and/or peer-review and peer-review under responsibility under responsibility of University of of ICELEI Bucharest 2011 , Faculty of Geography, Department of Regional Geography and Environment, Centre for Environmental Research and Impact Studies. Keywords: Urban poverty; (in) security; extreme poverty; perception; homelessness; Bucharest, Romania

1. Introduction

Urban environments are complex systems with complicated phenomena, numerous relations between the components and multiple interactions with the territorial frame [1, 2]. Poverty is one of these complicated phenomena and its study needs a multidimensional approach [3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. Individual and social well-being [8, 9] and the inability to meet basic needs [10] as a result of insufficient resources [5, 10] should be the main focus points. In this regard, poverty represents a multiple deprivation [4, 9, 11, 12] in relation to income, housing, education, health and community participation [10]. Cities are seen as

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +4-021-313-8410; fax: +4-021-313-8410. E-mail address: [email protected].

1878-0296 © 2011 Published by Elsevier B.V. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of University of Bucharest , Faculty of Geography, Department of Regional Geography and Environment, Centre for Environmental Research and Impact Studies. doi: 10.1016/j.proenv.2012.03.022 Mirela Paraschiv / Procedia Environmental Sciences 14 ( 2012 ) 226 – 236 227 factories of exclusion [13] [14], because it supposes also housing insecurity and social exclusion [4, 9, 10] besides food poverty. Territorially confined, but with ascending dynamic, urban aspects of poverty are associated mostly with extreme poverty. As opposed to standard poverty (consumption poverty), extreme poverty tends to be permanent and independent of economic trends [15], with the major effect of threatening life itself [16]. Homelessness is acknowledged as the most extreme expression of urban poverty [17, 18] and it is approached in a variety of studies as a complex phenomenon [19] based on its conceptual definitions [18] and territorial manifestation [20]. Trying to improve policy approaches and data collection on homelessness, the European Federation of National Organisations Working with the Homeless developed the European Typology on Homelessness and Housing Exclusion [19]. There have been identified four categories of homeless people [19]: a) rooflessness b) houselessness (temporary sleeping in institutions or shelters), c) insecure housing (facing insecure tenancies, eviction or domestic violence), and d) inadequate housing (in caravans on illegal campsites, in unfit housing, in extreme overcrowding). Romania has no official approach to defining homelessness, but the legislation refers to homeless persons, street people and street children [17], as equivalent to the concept of rough sleeping [18]. Homelessness has a greater social and territorial extension in Romania compared to the other European Union countries, due to its high poverty level based on unsuitably managed effects of the ancient communist regime, of the transition period [21] or more recently of the global financial crisis. As for data collection on homelessness, the quantitative study conducted in 2004 by the Governmental Anti-Poverty and Social Inclusion Commission, confirmed by the Research Institute for Quality of Life and the National Institute of Statistics, estimated a number of 14000 - 15000 homeless people in Romania [21]. Generally, homelessness is directly self perception on the phenomenon [22, 23, 24, 25]. Depending on the main dependent variable analysed (group age, gender, health, reason of becoming homeless), conducted surveys on the homeless reflect variations in terms of social and urban environmental effects and territorial extension, but also complexity to be considered in differentiated alleviating strategies. Simultaneously, homelessness is often incidentally addressed in studies related to neighbourhood quality [26, 27, 28], insecurity and fear of crime perception [29-35], as the phenomenon is considered a social disorder component [30, 35]. objective is the evaluation of homelessness at neighbourhood and city level in Bucharest and related feeling of (in) security.

2. Methodology

2.1. Study area

Political, economical and social changes of the Romanian society after 1990 determined the expansion of urban poverty and homelessness [21]. The international NGO Medécins sans Frontières appreciated 5000 persons living on the streets in Bucharest [21] and registered the data collected about the adult homeless people assisted at their medical centre for the period 1997-2003 [36]. The target group of 1986 persons [36] was predominantly composed of men (78.9%), who became homeless because of different familial conflicts (main reason of homelessness for 27% of men and 39.5% of women). According to the study [36], the level of vulnerability to becoming homeless, because the majority has at least secondary education (77% of the men and 52% of the women), but the poor professional qualification represents a triggering factor (35% men and 70% women have no

228 Mirela Paraschiv / Procedia Environmental Sciences 14 ( 2012 ) 226 – 236

qualification). As for accommodation, 24% of the homeless in Bucharest [36] shelter in the interior of apartment buildings and 32% of them are sleeping into stations, sewer canals or improvised shelters. One of the studies [37] conducted through ARAS (Romanian Association against AIDS) projects made an assessment of the homeless identifying 28 places where homeless concentrate in Bucharest. There were surveyed 236 homeless people of whom 62% are men and 38% are women. Data collected showed that 54% of the homeless are former foster homes residents and they usually live in improvised shelters (23% of them) or inside underground sewerage system structures of the city (14% of interviewed homeless). The homeless in Bucharest make some income doing different activities as daily workers (41% of them) or by begging (47% of them) in high traffic areas.

2.2. Homelessness perception assessment

After regrouping the previously spotted homeless places [37], the perception of the community referring to homelessness was assessed based on 150 social surveys conducted among residents of 18 pre-identified areas in Bucharest (Figure 1). The questionnaire was applied using the face-to-face interviewing method to a simple random sampling basis. Respondents were predominantly women (56.67% of the total), falling within the age group of 18-35 years old with a proportion of 41.33%. The survey developed from August to November 2011 included both closed-ended and open-ended questions, with a single or multiple response (Table 1). Besides identifying problem areas at neighbourhood and city level, respondents were questioned about homeless people and their local presence, different socio-demographic data about them and problems they are confronting.

Fig. 1. Homeless areas referred to

Mirela Paraschiv / Procedia Environmental Sciences 14 ( 2012 ) 226 – 236 229

The questionnaire focused also on ommunity involvement while trying to find solutions for reducing homelessness. Data collected through mentioned surveys were compiled using descriptive statistics such as frequency rrelation coefficient as a non- parametric method to test the relational significance between data like gender, age, educational status, income and feeling of insecurity. For the present study, the critical alpha level taken into consideration was 0.05. As perception, the analysis focuses on revealing differences in homelessness perception of residents with or without feelings of insecurity.

Table 1. Homelessness percepti

Question Answers Homelessness presence in the 1. Yes / 2. No / neighbourhood Homelessness places at local level 1. Park / 2. Inside block of flats / 3. Around block of flats / 4. Railway station / 5. A certain street / 6. Subway / 7. Store / 8. Marketplace / 9. Gas station Homelessness number - Homelessness age 1. 0-17 years old / 2. 18-30 years old / 3. 31-60 years old / 4. Over 61 years old / 5. All ages Homelessness gender 1. Women / 2. Men / 3. In equal proportions Feeling of security 1. Yes / 2. No / 3. Relatively Reasons of insecurity 1. Delinquency / 2. Stray dogs / 3. Homeless people / 4. Strangers / Threatening area 1. Abandoned buildings / 2. Vacant land / 3. Stray dogs / 4. Homeless people / 5. Darkened areas / 6. Waste deposits / 7. All of them / 8. None

Feeling threatened by the homeless 1. High / 2. Moderate / 3. Low / 4. Not at all

Problems generated by the homeless in 1. Affected neighbourhood image / 2. Delinquency / 3. Public order disturbing / the neighbourhood 4. Lack of hygiene / 5. Begging / 6. Prostitution / 7. Drug traffic / 8. Disease transmission / 9. All of them / 10. None /

Motivation for homelessness presence in 1. High traffic area / 2. Shopping area / 3. Opportunity to shelter / the neighbourhood Homelessness presence at city level 1. Markets / 2. Railway stations / 3. City centre / 4. Parks / 5. Periphery / 6. A certain area / 7. Everywhere / 8. Anywhere / Homelessness problems 1. Poor health / 2. Insecurity / 3. Poor diet / 4. Alcohol and drug addiction / 5. Depression and suicide predisposition / 6. Family absence / 7. All of them /

Alleviating homelessness measures 1. Authority actions / 2. NGO actions / 3. Church actions / 4. Housing / 5. Shelters / 6. Jobs / 7. Insurance system / 8. Education / 9. Urban poverty alleviation / 10. Counselling / 11. No solution / 1. Male / 2. Female 1. 18-35 years old / 2. 36-65 years old / 3. Over 65 years old Resident 1. Primary school / 2. Middle school / 3. Vocational school / 4. High school / 5. Post-secondary school / 6. University degree / 7. Postgraduate degree 1. Less than 1000 lei (230 Euro) / 2. 1000-2000 lei (230-460 Euro) / 3. 2001-3000 lei (460-690 Euro) / 4. Over 3000 lei (690 Euro)

230 Mirela Paraschiv / Procedia Environmental Sciences 14 ( 2012 ) 226 – 236

3. Results

The survey conducted among the Buch identified three situations in which respondents find themselves in relation to neighbourhood safety: security (58% of total answers), relative security (24% of them) and insecurity (18% of the people questioned). For further analysis, data associated with respondents in relative security and in state of insecurity were put together in order to be compared with residents feeling secure related results. Collected data shows that awareness of residents about presence is rather important, as 68% noticed them in their neighbourhood. There is a significant differentiation as only 20.62% of the residents with feeling of insecurity at local level compared to 40.23% of the residents living in security that identify such places. Respondents indicate that the homeless can be found especially inside or near metro stations (16.67% of total answers), in parks (14% of them) and around their blocks of flats (12% of all answers). The homeless perceived in the study areas are predominantly men, as considered by 63.73% of the respondents. A majority of 58.86% of the questioned people appreciate that the homeless in their neighbourhood are aged between 31 and 60 years old, but there are noticed significant proportions of the young adults (45.10% of the answers) and children (21.57% of the total) as well. Generally, the respondents recognize the presence of less homeless people than surveyed (Table 2) in previous studies [37], as it is the case for areas like Gara de Nord, , , Grozavesti or Piata Victoriei. But there are also situations of great homelessness awareness, as for residents living in Universitate, Piata Unirii, Eroii Revolutiei, Constantin Brancoveanu, Cismigiu or Piata Gorjului areas.

Table 2. Perception of insecurity in Bucharest homeless areas

Homeless area Insecurity Homeless number (% of respondents) Present study Similar studies [37]

1. Gara de Nord 9.33 4 71 2. Universitate 2.00 4 3 3. Piata Unirii 2.67 8 6 4. 1.33 3 7 5. 0.67 3 3 6. Dristor 2.00 0 17 7. Baba Novac 0.67 2 5 8. Eroii Revolutiei 3.33 7 1 9. Obor 2.00 5 10 10. Piata Victoriei 0.67 0 25 11. Cismigiu 0.67 4 3 12. 2.67 0 1 13. Grozavesti 2.00 0 27 14. Regie 2.00 2 9 15. Piata Romana 4.00 4 12 16. Timpuri Noi 2.67 0 3 17. Constantin Brancoveanu 0.67 5 1 18. Piata Gorjului 2.67 5 1

Mirela Paraschiv / Procedia Environmental Sciences 14 ( 2012 ) 226 – 236 231

Statistically, Spearman's rank correlation coefficient [38] brings out a weak inverse correlation between the security level and the number of homeless people (rs = -0.25, p = 0.01). A proportion of 41.27% of the residents feeling insecure consider homelessness as a main reason of local insecurity, in Gara de Nord, Obor, Universitate, Piata Unirii and Grozavesti areas. Secondary reasons of insecurity are mentioned to be factual delinquency, as 34.92% of the residents feeling insecure mention it particularly in Gara de Nord, Colentina and Piata Romana areas, and stray dogs (for 14.29% of the residents feeling insecure, mostly in Universitate and Grozavesti areas). The degree of threat related to homelessness presents that Bucharest residents have a low level (36% of them) of feeling totally unaffected by the But, related to feeling of (in) security, there is significant differentiation (Table 3). Respondents feeling insecure in their neighbourhood consider the homeless an important threat, in a proportion of 17.46%, but predominantly a moderate threat 39.68%. Only 5.75% of the residents feeling secure in their neighbourhood make the same strong connection between homelessness and threatening and, predominantly, in a proportion of 45.98%, they are not at all threatened by the homeless. Overall main complaints referring to homelessness presence in the neighbourhood are lack of personal hygiene, as for 56.86% of all respondents (especially in Gara de Nord, Piata Romana, Universitate, Piata Unirii Universitate, Piata Unirii and Piata Gorjului areas). Bucharest residents having insecurity issues report also delinquency, in a proportion of 34% (Gara de Nord, Eroii Revolutiei, Piata Romana, Piata Unirii), prostitution (22% of the residents feeling insecure in Gara de Nord, Dristor, Piata Romana) and drug traffic (20% of the residents feeling insecure, Gara de Nord, Dristor). There is also a concern that homeless presence is affecting the image of their neighbourhood, as for 21.57% of the respondents in Gara de Nord, Universitate and Cismigiu areas.

Table 3. (In) Security perception results referring to homelessness in Bucharest

Question Answer Insecurity Security Frequency (%) Homelessness presence Yes 79.36 59.77 No 19.04 34.48 1.60 5.75 Homeless age 0-17 years old 28.00 16.33 18-30 years old 58.00 34.69 31-60 years old 50.00 67.35 Over 61 years old 14.00 12.23 All ages 4.00 8.16 Homeless gender Women 4.00 5.77 Men 70.00 57.69 In equal proportions 22.00 30.77 4.00 5.77 Homelessness threat High 17.47 5.75 Moderate 39.68 18.39 Low 20.63 29.88 Not at all 22.22 45.98

alcohol or drug addiction, along with poor diet (22%), poor health (19.33%) and family disruption (19.33%) are the most important issues. Locally, homelessness presence in certain places is explained by finding opportunities to shelter in those areas (42.16% of total answers) or by the attraction of high traffic areas offering better convenience to obtain some income, as acknowledged by 41.18% of the residents. At city level, 18% of the respondents associate higher presence of the homeless with railway stations (Gara de Nord, Gara Obor)

232 Mirela Paraschiv / Procedia Environmental Sciences 14 ( 2012 ) 226 – 236

and others with markets (4%) and parks (4%). Bucharest city center (Piata Unirii, Universitate, Piata Romana) was mentioned by 18% of the residents as the most important area where the homeless concentrate to access different money opportunities. The residents make also connections between homelessness and neighbourhoods considered poor, mentioning (7.33% of them periphery (8% of answers) in this regard. For all that, good perception of extreme poverty at city level remains a concern, as 24% of the respondents are not aware of any other homelessness areas in Bucharest. Perception of security and feeling of insecurity are considered to be determined by multiple individual social, demographic and economic particularities [39, 40]. In this regard, we have statistically analysed eventual correlations between safety and variables as gender, age, education and income. Results bring out that there is no statistically significant correlation between the level of threat related to homelessness or their age. However, safeness and education (rs = 0.21, p = 0.01) or income (rs = 0.19, p = 0.02) are positively correlated in a weak manner. Along with increased educational and economic status, self security in the living neighbourhood is perceived at a better level [32]. The relation s = 0.20, p = 0.02) confirms that men are generally in a higher state of security than women [29]. At the same time, 68.25% of the respondents declaring insecurity issues were females. In this connection, the degree of insecurity is particularly influenced by individual variables and exterior factors, as the perception of safety is also highly influenced by socioeconomic [41] and physical characteristics of the urban space [42, 43]. When facing certain neighbourhood particularities, only 11.33% of the Bucharest residents remain in a state of safety. Generally, insecurity is experienced in areas morphologically and configurationally particularised by abandoned buildings (16.67% of answers), vacant land (8% of the total) or waste deposits (for 13.33% of the residents). Nonetheless, the social component has a greater impact on perception of security so that 43.33% of the respondents are affected by the presence of stray dogs and 24.67% by the homeless. To all these, darkened areas in the city represent an important reason of insecurity for 30.67% of the residents. When analysing the degree of threat induced by the territorial presence of the homeless, situation appears different. Age, educational and income level are not significantly correlated with feeling endangered by the homeless, so that there are other personal reasons involved, as experiences lived in that specific urban area. Only gender remains valuable (rs = 0.18, p = 0.03) and reveals that women have a higher fear of crime related to the homeless, even though general crime rates are inverse and males are affected more [39, 40]. Referring to alleviating homelessness, 30% of the sponsibility and action in ensuring shelters (30.67%) and jobs (14%). To this low valued community involvement is added a low solution awareness, as 15.33% of the residents do not find any way to reduce homelessness and other 12% are sure that homelessness alleviation is impossible.

4. Discussion

Urban (in) security is associated with a range of environmental, socio-demographic and personal characteristics of an area and of the local community [39, 42, 44, 45]. As it is acknowledged that social aspects primarily influence the feelings of insecurity [38, 45], the study based on correlates between safety and perception of the homeless reports differences in terms of homelessness magnitude. Residents feeling insecure have a greater awareness on the phenomenon as considering it a major factor of influence in their state of safety. Meanwhile, respondents with any issues of insecurity refer to the homeless in a more moderate manner, perceiving them especially as people in need. At the same time, respondents feeling generally secure in their neighbourhood have comparable awareness on homelessness at city level with the residents being in insecurity.

Mirela Paraschiv / Procedia Environmental Sciences 14 ( 2012 ) 226 – 236 233

When trying to assess the process of homelessness in Bucharest, the typology of places where the homeless shelter is significant, making the difference between visible and invisible homelessness. For example, the homeless in Gara de Nord area are largely acknowledged among Bucharest residents, while Timpuri Noi homelessness is only locally spotted. On one hand, the homeless people in Gara de Nord are living in improvised sheltering placed within some abandoned cars or in the park in front of the railway station. On the other hand, the homeless in Timpuri Noi live inside blocks of flats, at the basement or on the hallways of the collective residential buildings. In some other neighbourhoods, homeless can be found for the reason that they prefer isolated areas to avoid conflict with other homeless people (as being the case in Timpuri Noi and Dristor areas) or because they had chosen to remain in the neighbourhood of their former home (for example, Rahova). A strong seasonal differentiation must be considered in terms of scale, visibility and distribution of attractiveness while being the capital, the most populated and the best developed urban area in Romania, there is a migration phenomenon from counties located nearby to Bucharest. People in poverty at their home urban or rural localities come to Bucharest in search for summer work. Usually, a great part of this people finds only some daily jobs or ends up begging on the streets, because it is a money resourceful activity. They not affording or having any place to accommodate. As it is also the case for the permanent local homeless people in Bucharest, urban parks [46] represent the main area attractive for seasonal homelessness. In this way, homelessness becomes more visible in the summer, being specifically distributed in parks and other urban green spaces with benches, grass and trees which facilitate different improvised sheltering. For a geographical perspective, the specific territorial distribution of the homeless reveals important correl High traffic areas with a concentration of population and commercial or social activities are places to find homeless people living in groups. Mostly this kind of grouped homelessness is to be considered a danger by Bucharest inhabitants. So, there is a decrease in the feeling of safety along with an increase of the homeless presence in the neighbourhood. and actions. Visible improvised sheltering, signs of lacking personal hygiene, delinquency, including aggressive behaviour with the locals or with other homeless people, robbery and controversial working (like directing cars seeking for parking space), drug and alcohol addictions manifested in public, are reasons for increasing residents insecurity referring to homelessness. With all these, there is a certain community involvement as residents are aware of difficulties the homeless encounter. In certain areas (Tineretului, Baba Novac, Timpuri Noi, Piata Gorjului, for example), inhabitants help the homeless by offering them food, little amounts of money or even some work to do. as well degrees of perception [45]. Wherever homeless people are more numerous and active on the streets or frequented places (railways, subways, markets, parks), inhabitants have a greater awareness and are capable of acknowledging a homeless area at city level. perception of related poverty processes and (in) security in urban spaces [39, 43]. Bucharest residents often associate peripheral areas of the city, poorer neighbourhoods or even an entire district (District 5) with increasing homelessness, sometimes without having a personal knowing about the real situation. Along with urban poverty, homelessness has a high territorial visibility in Bucharest, it is a continuously increasing process (as considered by 76% of the Bucharest residents) and related to the territorial distribution and affected urban areas, depth and effects on different categories of population, but also to the need for more specifically directed policies and action.

234 Mirela Paraschiv / Procedia Environmental Sciences 14 ( 2012 ) 226 – 236

For the moment, R (insufficient in number and territorial expansion for actual needs) and social aid (financial) destined to different population categories in risk, but there is a requirement for new efficient solutions. Principal limitations of the study are correlated with goals for future research. In order to have a more significant and complex approach on homelessness in Bucharest, surveys need to be extended to a larger residents group. There should be also included new areas of investigation and particularly the peripheral neighbourhoods of the city. Forthcoming analysis may focus on covering the entire Bucharest area to identify homelessness places and their particularities. Referring to homelessness visibility and a certain survey activity also in winter. Homelessness assessment represents a challenging process due to its complexity and variety of forms so that results depend on the variables taken into consideration. It is difficult to evaluate homelessness in

limitations related to direct approach. Generally, residents have a good perception of homelessness reality, referring to multiple aspects and possible related components to analyse. In this regard, the present research major findings may be important due to the perspective, because there is a lack of assessing homelessness from the other point of view and with an emphasis on homelessness effects at territorial level.

5. Conclusion

Homelessness represents an extreme form of urban poverty, having an increasing and active dynamics nowadays. Housing insecurity and social exclusion are the main factors generating the phenomenon. Urban poverty constitutes an intriguing subject in geographical research due to its interactions with other economic and social disciplines, various methods of analysis and critical approach. In this regard, studying homelessness is valuable in terms of emphasizing both its relation with affected population and territory. General feeling of (in) security stands for a significant concern particularly at urban level where homeless related determinants are more complex. Bucharest homelessness is specific at country level in some characteristics. The magnitude of homelessness, referring to number of population involved, territorial distribution and degree of impact on the other residents, is greater so that Bucharest represents the concentration urban area of this poverty phenomenon in Romania. The present conducted research on was developed taking into account the hotspots of homelessness in Bucharest, so that results be relevant for the study area. The general applicability of the study findings is correlative to the decision factors need to have a better awareness of both facets of the same problem. Policies and actions should be concentrated to alleviating homelessness both for the good of the directly affected people, but also for all the inhabitants and the quality of urban life in Bucharest. Research on other Romanian cities should consider and adapt the methodology applied in order to obtain significant perspective on the territory in discussion. Then, comparative approaches between Bucharest and other urban areas would increase geographical knowledge on homelessness and urban poverty.

Acknowledgements

The research was funded by the European Social Found within the Sectorial Operational Program Human Resources Development 2007-2013 through the strategic grant POSDRU 107/1.5/S/80765, I would like to thank Cristi , for their meaningful comments and discussion of an earlier draft of this article.

Mirela Paraschiv / Procedia Environmental Sciences 14 ( 2012 ) 226 – 236 235

References

[1 Sisteme teritoriale. O abordare geografic Dinamica urban (Aplica ii la ora ul i sistemul urban românesc) [3] Alkire S, Santos ME. Multidimensional Poverty Index: 2010 Data. Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative. Available at: www.ophi.org.uk/policy/multidimensional-poverty-index/; 2010. [4] Dewilde C. Individual and institutional determinants of multidimensional poverty: A European comparison. Social Indicators Research 2008; 86: 233-256. [5] Fukuda-Parr S. The Human Poverty Index: A multidimensional measure. UNDP Poverty in Focus 2006; 9:7-9. [6] Ruggeri LC, Saith R, Stewart F. The Human Poverty Index: A multidimensional measure. UNDP Poverty in Focus 2006; 9:10- 11. [7] Wagle UR. Multidimensional poverty: An alternative measurement approach for the United States? Social Science Research 2008; 37:559 580. [8] Edward P. The ethical poverty line: a moral definition of absolute poverty. UNDP Poverty in Focus 2006; 9:14-16. [9] Kakwani N. Poverty and wellbeing. UNDP Poverty in Focus 2006; 9:20-21. [10] Preece J. Widening participation for social justice: poverty and access to education. In: Oduaran A, Bhola HS, editors. Widening access to education as social justice, Netherlands: Springer; 2006, p. 113-126. [11] Chambers R. What is poverty? Who asks? Who answers? UNDP Poverty in Focus 2006; 9:3-4. [12] Townsend P. What is poverty? An historical perspective. UNDP Poverty in Focus 2006; 9:5-6. [13] Cunha A, Leresche JPh, Vez I. Pauvreté urbaine. Le lien et les lieux. Lausanne: Réalités sociales; 1998. [14] Institutul www.iccv.ro; 2006. 2001.

[16] Oriahi CI, Aitufe AO. Education for the eradication of poverty. Current Research Journal of Social Sciences 2010; 2(6): 306- 310. [17] Popescu L. Street homelessness eradication strategies. Comment paper Romania. London: www.peer-review-social.inclusion.net; 2004. [18] Vranken J. The English rough sleeping strategy in a European Context. A synthesis report. London: www.peer-review-social.inclusion.net; 2004. [19] FEANTSA. The Norwegian strategy to prevent and tackle homelessness 2005-2007, Oslo: www.peer-review-social.inclusion.net; 2006. [20] Hwang SW, Dunn JR. Homeless people. In: Galea S, Vlahov D, editors. Handbook of urban health: populations, methods and practice, New York: Springer Science+ Business Media Inc; 2005, p. 19-41. [21] Dima AJ, Manu C. The homeless phenomenon in Romania. National strategy to prevent and tackle homelessness. Comment paper Romania. Oslo: www.peer-review-social.inclusion.net; 2006. [22] Cheng L-C, Yang Y-S. Homeless problems in Taiwan: looking beyond legality toward social issues. City, Culture and Society 2010; 1:165-173. [23] Gwadz MV, Gostnell K, Smolenski C, Willis B, Nish D, Nolan TC et al. The initiation of homeless youth into the street economy. Journal of Adolescence 2009; 32:357-377. [24] Iwata M. New landscape of homelessness in Japan: the role of NPOs and landscape of the problem. City, Culture and Society 2010; 1:127-134. [25] Rukmana D. Where the homeless children and youth come from: a study of the residential origins of the homeless in Miami- Dade County, Florida. Children and Youth Services Review 2008; 30:1009-1021. [26] Greenberg M, Crossney K. Perceived neighborhood quality in the United States: measuring outdoor, housing and jurisdictional influences. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 2007; 41:181-194. [27] Pampalon R, Hamel D, De Koninck M, Disant M-J. Perception of place and health: differences between neighbourhoods in the Québec City region. Social Science & Medicine 2007; 65:95-111. [28] Weden MM, Carpiano RM, Robert SA. Subjective and objective neighborhood characteristics and adult health. Social Science & Medicine 2008; 66: 1256-1270. [29] Aiello A, Ardone RG, Scopelliti M. Neighbourhood planning improvement: physical attributes, cognitive and affective evaluation and activities in two neighbourhoods in Rome. Evaluation and Program Planning 2010; 33:264-275. [30] Ceccato V, Lukyte N. Safety and sustainability in a city in transition: the case of Vilnius, Lithuania. Cities 2011; 28:83-94. [31] Foster S, Giles-Corti B, Knuiman M. Neighbourhood design and fear of crime: a social-ecological examination of the correlates Health & Place 2010; 16:1156-1165. [32] Kamphuis CBM, Mackenbach JP, Giskes K, Huisman M, Brug J, Lenthe FJ. Why do poor people perceive poor neighbourhoods? The role of objective neighbourhood features and psychosocial factors. Health & Place 2010; 16:744-754.

236 Mirela Paraschiv / Procedia Environmental Sciences 14 ( 2012 ) 226 – 236

[33] Perkins DD, Wandersman A, Rich RR, Taylor RB. The physical environment of street crime: defensible space, territoriality and incivilities. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1993; 13:29-49. [34] Robin M, Matheau-Police A, Couty C. Development of a scale of perceived environmental annoyances in urban settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2007; 27:55-68. [35] Scarborough BK, Like-Haislip TZ, Novak KJ, Lucas WL, Alarid LF. Assessing the relationship between individual characteristics, neighborhood context, and fear of crime. Journal of Criminal Justice 2010; 38:819-826. [36] Badea V, Constantin ME [37 Prevenirea in . Raport de cercetare. . [38] Walford N. Practical statistics for geographers and earth scientists. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2011. [39] Kullberg A, Karlsson N, Timpka T, Lindqvist K. Correlates of local safety-related concerns in a Swedish community: a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health 2009; 9:221-231. [40] Kristjánsson ÁL. On social equality and perceptions of insecurity. A comparison study between two European countries. European Journal of Criminology 2007; 4(1): 59 86. [41] Nae MM. Urban (in) security: between appearance and reality in Bucharest. Human Geographies 2008; 2:61-72. [42] Aalbers M, Bielewska A, Chignier-Riboulon F, Guszcza A. Feelings of insecurity and young people in housing estates. In: Kempen R, Dekker K, Hall S, Tosics I, editors. Restructuring large housing estates in Europe, Bristol: Policy Press; 2005, p. 275-298. [43] Reis A, Lay MC, Muniz L, Ambrosini V. Perception of security, visual connections, children and adolescents behaviour in open spaces. Perception (TU Delft) 2005; 1:437-449. [44] Berk MG. The concept of neighbourhood in contemporary residential , Delft, The Netherlands; 2005. [45] Lindström M, Lindström C, Moghaddassi M, Merlo J. Social capital and neo-materialist contextual determinants of sense of insecurity in the neighbourhood: a multilevel analysis in Southern Sweden. Health & Place 2006; 12:479-489. [46] Ioj I planning sustainable urban parks in Bucharest, Romania. Landscape and Urban Planning 2011; 103:74 82.