1. Significance of the Research and Analysis Method

A. Significance of the Research

According to the Population and Housing Census from the National Statistical Office, the percentage of single-person households in Korea has rapidly increased from 6.7% in 1985 to 27.2% in 2015. Additionally, such number is predicted to increase to 31.9% in 2015.
Pursuant to such a rapid increase in the number of single-person households, safety-related issues are surfacing as a policy agenda. However, such safetyrelated issues are subjects of only a small number of researches when compared to other research subject matters related to single-person households. Expansion of the subject matters and methodology is necessary. This research seeks to adopt the existing research trends, while also enhancing the access from the perspectives of criminology, perpetrator, legal policy, and spatial statistical analysis.

B. Research Scope and Method

This research expands the scope of research, which was previously limited to single-person “households” to single-person household “concentration areas.”
Aside from the official statistical data from the National Statistical Office and the National Police Agency, this research secured diverse data sources for analysis by adding the National Victim Survey collected three times over six-year period, door-to-door surveys conducted in 5,076 households within Seoul, Incheon, and Gyeonggi Province, and seven in-depth interviews of target groups. After confirming the general characteristics of single-person households through the aforementioned data sources, the correlation between the density of single-person households and crimes was analyzed and the level of fear of crime and the status of crime prevention policies within single-person households and single-person household concentration areas were uated.
Regarding case studies for five regions, spatial analysis was conducted for specific autonomous districts together with the on-site investigations through classification of single-person households. Hence, the aforementioned case studies showed the common and unique issues for each region and the type of policy proposal that should be considered to resolve such issues.
Above all, with cooperation from the Ministry of Justice, the behavioral characteristics of criminals from single-person households were analyzed. Moreover, by researching the legislative field, the Korean policy on single-person households was overviewed and new policy measures were considered.

2. Status and Characteristics of Single-Person Households

A. Trend in Domestic Single-Person Households

Notwithstanding the decline in overall population, the percentage of singleperson households relative to the entire households is rapidly increasing. Such increase has been consistent since 1990.
From 1990 to 2017, the number of single-person households at least tripled, and it is estimated to quadruple in the period between 1990 and 2045.

B. Demographic Characteristics of Single-Person Households

Gender: In the past, the ratio of females in single-person households exceeded that of males in single-person households. Recently, such ratio is not much different from the total population.
Age: The ratio of senior citizens in the age group between seventy and older from single-person households was found to be significantly higher. The ratio of female senior citizens in the age group between seventy and older in singleperson households was found to be the highest. The ratio of male single-person households was higher than that of female single-person households at the age group between twenty and fifty, which encompasses young adults and middleaged adults.

C. Sociological Characteristics of Single-Person Households

Occupation and economic activities: similar distribution to the occupation distribution of the entire population.
Income distribution: The ratio of persons in absolute poverty was 2.6 times that of multi-person households.
Education level: While approximately 70% of the entire population received high school education or higher, only approximately 65% of single-person households received high school education or higher. Even the population that did not receive any education within the single-person households was double the number of uneducated population in the entire population.
Marriage status: At least 40% of the single-person households were unmarried singles (approximately 55% of the total population had a spouse). Widows/ widowers and divorcees accounted for a higher percentage among single-person households than among the entire population. In the case of male single-person households, the ratio of unmarried persons was higher, while female singleperson households exhibited the highest ratio of widows. For young adults, unmarried singles represented the highest ratio. For middle-aged adults, divorcees accounted for the highest percentage. Finally, for senior citizens, widows and widowers accounted for the highest percentage among single-person households.
Types of constraints in activity: Compared to the entire population, constraints in activity, if any, were exhibited twice as frequently in single-person households. Majority of such constraints stemmed from difficulties in mobility, and manifested most frequently in the forms of physical and mental obstacles among the young adults and difficulties in mobility, Alzheimer’s disease, and cerebral apoplexy among the senior citizens. Constraints in activity were most frequently exhibited among females in the age group between sixty and older.

D. Residential Characteristics of Single-Person Households

Residential types of single-person households: The highest percentage of single-person households was shown to reside in a standalone house (this is the case since the residential form called “one-room” is included in the scope of a standalone housing form). Compared to the entire households, the percentage of single-person households residing in an apartment building was low. Moreover, compared to the entire households, the percentage of single-person households residing in residential forms other than houses, including Officetel, was higher.
Housing occupancy form and characteristics of single-person households: Housing ownerships among single-person households were approximately 20% lower than the entire households. The percentage of single person households paying monthly rents was higher than that of the entire households. The percentage of single-person households residing in small houses was higher than the average among the entire households. The average residential period of single-person households was shorter than that of multi-person households.
Single-person household’s satisfaction with housing environments: Overall, single-person households had lower satisfaction level than multi-person households. However, such satisfaction level was not particularly low.

E. Spatial Distribution and Characteristics of Single-Person Households

Distribution of single-person households by each administrative districts and characteristics thereof: The highest percentage of single-person households was exhibited in Gangwon Province, Jeollanamdo Province, and Jeollabukdo Province. The lowest percentage was exhibited in Incheon Metropolitan City, Gyeonggi Province, and Daegu Metropolitan City.
Distribution of single-person households by gender for each administrative district: Ulsan Metropolitan City had the highest percentage of male single-person households. Jeollanamdo Province had the highest percentage of female singleperson households.
Distribution of single-person households by age for each administrative district: Single-person households of young adults in their 30s were most numerous in Seoul and Sejong. Single-person households of middle aged adults in their 40s and 50s were most numerous in Ulsan, Incheon, and Gyeonggi Province. Singleperson households of senior citizens in their 60s or older were most numerous in Jeollanamdo Province, Jeollabukdo Province, and Gyeongsangbukdo Province.
Distribution of single-person households pursuant to residential forms for each administrative district: In Seoul other metropolitan cities, and special autonomous city, the percentage of standalone housing was less than 60%. In each autonomous provinces other than Gyeonggi and Jeju province, the ratio of standalone housing was 60% or higher.
Distribution of single-person household concentration areas: Administrative dongs [Korean term for administrative subdivisions] containing single-person household concentration areas were most numerous in Seoul. There were 43 administrative dongs nationwide where 55% of their total population was single-person households.

3. Characteristics of Single-Person Households in National Victim Survey and Actual Conditions of Crime Victimization

A. Overview of Analysis

Analysis by aggregating the data on the actual conditions of single-person households at the national level, the fear of crime, and the National Victim Survey collected from 2010, 2012 and 2014

B. General Characteristics of Single-Person Households

Frequency of single-person households: 23.4% with margin of error within 3% relative to the single-person household percentage calculated by the National Statistical Office.
Gender: The percentage of males in single-person households is higher than the percentage of females in single-person households.
Age: Urban areas tend to have higher percentage of single-person households of persons under their 30s. Areas other than urban areas tend to have higher percentage of persons in their 60s and older comprising single-person households.

C. Characteristics of Daily Lives of Single-Person Households

Lifestyle: Single-person households tend use public transportation, return home late, return home drunk, and leave the house empty at a higher rate. These lifestyle choices are exhibited more frequently in urban areas.
Life habits: The percentage of single-person households that wear expensive garments or accessories, or use products from famous brands was lower. Access to criminal contents and conversation of such crimes was also low. In particular, such access and conversation was even lower in areas other than urban areas.

D. Efforts in Crime Prevention by Single-Person Households

Crime prevention activities: Single-person households are more indifferent to crime prevent activities than multi-person households. Residents were even more indifferent to such activities in non-urban areas.
Crime prevention environment: Single-person households exhibited low level crime prevention environment. Such environment was even lower level in non-urban areas.

E. Residence of Single-Person Households and Characteristics of Its Surroundings

Residential forms: Many single-person households reside in standalone houses in urban areas.
Environment of single-person households and their neighbors: Single-person households tend to exhibit characteristics of high physical and social disorder, low neighbor relationships and participation levels, and high level of trust in the police.
In many instances, adult entertainment establishment concentration areas or conventional marketplaces were located within a 100-meter radius of singleperson household residential areas. The percentage of such areas was even higher in urban areas.

F. Fear of Crime and Crime victimization Injuries in Single-Person Households

The fear level was generally highest among female residents in their 30s or younger who reside in housing forms other than apartments or standalone houses in urban areas.
In the case of home invasions, experience of injuries from such crimes was highest among female residents in their 30s or younger.
Property damages or personal criminal injuries were more frequent among male residents in their 60s or older. Fear was not exhibited as being high in apartments, row houses, or multiplex houses.

G. Factors that Affect Fear and Crime victimization of Single-Person Households

Gender and fear: Daily fear and fear of crime for female residents were both high. In the case of female single-person households, the fear was the greatest. Single-person households in non-urban areas, the fear levels were the lowest for both genders.
Gender and crime victimization: Female single-person household had experienced high percentage of injuries from home invasions. Experience of injuries from non-home invasion crimes was more frequent among male residents.

H. Age Group of Household Representatives, Fear and Crime Victimization

Age group and fear: The younger the age, the higher the level of fear.
Age group and crime victimization: Single-person households represented by persons in their 30s or younger experienced the highest percentage of injuries from crimes in majority of crime types.
Among persons in their 60s or older who reside in non-urban areas, injuries from home invasions were the most frequent. However, conversely, they had the lowest fear of crimes.

I. Housing Types, Fear and Crime victimization

Fear level was the lowest in apartments and standalone houses. Fear level was the highest in the following order: non-residential housing, other housing forms, row houses, and multiplex houses.
Victimization from household-related crimes were the most frequent in standalone houses. Personal crime victimization were the most frequent in row houses and multiplex houses. Property damages were experienced more frequently in apartments.

J. Comprehensive Analysis of crime victimization, Crime Prevention Activities, and Fear of Single-Person Households

In the case of daily fears and fear of crime, gender and age were the key factors even within the single-person households as they affected the level of fear.
Being a single-person household does not have a key impact on vulnerability to crime victimization and individual crime victimization prevention activities.
Being a single-person household does not have a direct connection to criminal injuries.

4. Actual Conditions and Characteristics of Crimes that Occurred in Single-House Household Concentration Areas According to the Official Statistics of the National Police Agency

A. Crime rates in single-person household concentration areas and non-concentration areas

Single-person household concentration areas tend to show double or triple crime rates compared to non-concentration areas.
Crime rates were different between single-person household concentration areas and non-concentration areas in Seoul; however, there was no difference in crime rates in Gyeongsangnamdo Province.
Based on comparison upon dividing the entire nation into metropolitan areas and non-metropolitan areas, crime rates exhibited obvious differences between single-person household concentration areas and non-concentration areas. However, in non-metropolitan areas, there was no difference in crime rates.

B. Relationships among Percentage of Single-Person Households, Crime Rates, and Population-Social Factors

The higher the percentage of single-person households, the higher the rates of occurrence of five major crimes. Diverse population-social factors, such as population composition factors, social characteristics factors, and residential environment factors, had correlation with the crime rates.
Through the correlation between ratio of single-person households and other population-social factors, the population-social characteristics of areas with high percentage of single-person households were confirmed.

C. Forecast of Crime Rates Through Percentage of Single-Person Households and Population-Social Factors

The percentage of single-person households had independently forecasted crime rates; however, once the duplicative effects of other population-social factors are removed, the effects of the percentage of single-person households were not meaningful other than for rape and forcible indecent act.
When the effects of the factors are viewed comprehensively, the effects of the percentage of single-person households or the population composition factors were not significant; rather, the percentage of criminal record holders and residential environment factors were the key factors that predicted the crime rates.
In order to understand the criminal phenomena in the single-person household concentrated areas and establish a response strategy thereto, the relationships with other environmental characteristics should be considered.

5. Characteristics Related to Dwelling and Fear of Crime in Single-Person Household Concentration Areas

A. Emphasis on Access to Public Transportation

Characteristics in housing preference of a single-person household exhibit substantial difference from that of a multi-person household. Due to such difference, safety of the surroundings of the residence is either not considered or set aside as a secondary issue.
The factor that a single-person household considers as a priority in selecting the home that such household is currently occupying is the distance to work/ school and convenient transportation (i.e., access to public transportation). Only 3.7% (78 households) of the single-person households answered that they considered safety of the surroundings as the top priority. During in-depth interviews, a single-person household that resided in single-person household concentration area exhibited an attitude that became increasingly insensitive to safety issues as such person acclimated to the relevant area.
However, when examined by dividing the single-person households by gender and by age, single-person households composed of female residents belonging to age groups of 20s and 30s tended to emphasize the safety of the surroundings, such as closeness to police stations, as much as the access to public transportation or cheap rental costs. Hence, the foregoing group tended to exhibit difference behaviors from single-person households of other genders and age groups.

B. High Residential Mobility

Another residential characteristic that is commonly discovered among single-person households is the high residential mobility. While more than have of multi-person households had not moved for the past five years, at least half of single-person households had moved at least once in the same period.
Single-person households have relatively unstable dwelling compared to multi-person households. It has been observed that the total dwelling period at the current dwelling is shorter for single-person household concentration areas.

C. Relatively Poorer Dwelling Conditions

Higher percentage of single-person households lived in Officetel, basement units, semi-basement units, rooftop units, or rooftop houses than multi-person households. Moreover, the percentage of single-person households that lived in the same building as the homeowner was higher than that of multi-person households. In the case of non-single-person household concentration areas, approximately 1/3 (35.4% ; 770 households) of the multi-person households resided in apartment buildings. Conversely, the ratio of single-person households residing in apartment buildings was a mere 13.2% (155 households).
The most frequent form of occupancy of the current residence by a singleperson household was on a monthly-rent basis with security deposit (semi-lease), which represented approximately half of the single-person households subject to investigation (57.6%; 1,207 households). Conversely, multi-person households that reside in the current residence in a monthly-rent basis without security deposit accounted for only eight households among the entire households subject to investigation, which was a significant difference from single-person households.

A. Level of Fear of Crime in Single-Person Household Concentration Areas
Possible Victimization of crimes, such as house breaking or robberies, are not considered as significantly difficult issues to the majority of single-person households when compared to other issues that are directly related to survival, such as economic difficulties, loneliness, meals, or doing house works.
Female single-person households are somewhat an exceptional group as the percentage of households that are concerned about possible crime-induced injuries from home invasions or robberies was high, which was distinctive from male single-person households. Hence, the gap in fear of criminal injuries dependent on gender is meaningful. Accordingly, the fear of criminal injuries is mainly prominent among female single-person households-in particular, those households composed of females in their 20s and 30s.
More so among multi-person households than single-person households, and more so in non-single-person household concentration areas than in concentration areas, the residents perceived that their neighborhood or the surrounding areas of their residences were safe from crimes. In the case of non-single-person household concentration areas, while they believed that there were many areas that they though were not safe from crimes at night, they perceived that their neighborhood or surrounding areas of their homes to be safe from crimes. Hence, such residents in non-single-person household concentration areas tended to psychologically separate the space with high crime risk and their own residences.
Overall, the group with the highest perception that they resided in areas that are safe from crimes was the multi-person households residing in non-singleperson household concentration areas. Moreover, single-person households indeed had lower percentage of residents perceiving that they were safe from the relevant crimes than multi-person households in both single-person household concentration areas and non-concentration areas. In the case of single-person households within concentration areas, the safety perception from monetary crimes that do not directly harm life, such as forcible deprivation of money or goods including pickpocketing, snatch-and-grab, and robbery, or Criminal damage cars and Car theft and being subject to unwanted physical contacts, was the lowest.

B. Factors Affecting Fear of Crime
Direct and indirect Crime victimization: A single-person household within concentration areas has a relatively higher percentage of personal experience with assault and blackmailing as well as sexual harassment among the different types of crimes when compared to other groups.
In particular, a single-person household within a single-person household concentration area had experienced home invasion burglary or robbery of his/her acquaintances more frequently than other households. A single-person household within a single-person household concentration area had higher chance of receiving assault and/or blackmail from someone; moreover, such household was also identified as having a higher likelihood of having family members or acquaintances in the surrounding areas that suffered injuries from assault and blackmail than other groups.
Disorder in residential areas: Single-person households responded at a higher percentage that they had observed disorderly appearances near their residential areas than multi-person households. Additionally, by minimizing the frequency of contacts with neighbors, single-person households had assumed the passive attitude of securing their own safety. For single-person households that needed to secure their own safety, they were more attentive in observing the disorder in their surroundings and perceive more sensitively to any disorderly appearance.
Ties with neighbors: Compared to non-single-person household concentration areas, single-person household concentration areas had more strained relationships among neighbors and, hence, the single-person households therein had the least interactions with neighbors in their residential surroundings and showed behaviors that desired to live independently free from the events in their neighbors’ lives. Moreover, single-person households also lacked broad relationship networks in their residential surroundings compared to multi-person households, regardless of whether they lived in single-person household concentration areas or not, which made them lack in the personal resources to request help in the event of crisis.

6. Crime Prevention Activities and Safety Policy for Residents in Single-Person Household Concentration Areas

A. Perception of Police and Voluntary Crime Prevention Group in the Residential Areas

Single-person households tend to uate the visibility of patrol and ness of mobilization by the police less favorably than multi-person households. 42% of single-person household respondents could not identify the locations of the police stations and substations in their areas. They further failed to sufficiently utilize police resources by not reporting even when such reporting was necessary.

Multi-person households residing in non-single-person household concentration areas had the highest awareness, the most favorable uation of the effectiveness of, and the intent to participation in voluntary crime prevention group activity, which is a representative example of resident- participation crime prevention activity. Single-person households in single- person household concentration areas did not show positive or active attitudes toward voluntary crime prevention group activities.

B. Awareness in Characteristics and Effectiveness of Physical Crime Prevention Activities

Among the residents in single-person household concentration areas, the single-person households live in residential environments that feature relatively insufficient access control devices compared to multi-person households.
Single-person households also have relatively weaker tendency of affirmatively equipping their residences with crime prevent devices. Conversely, multi-person households in single-person household concentration areas were shown to be a group that has the highest rate of access control device installations, such as crime prevention windows.
Based on the investigation on the awareness in effectiveness of physical crime prevention measures, the overall residents perceive crime prevention devices related to access control such as crime prevention windows and locks as being more effective than measures for improving surveillance.

C. Awareness in Characteristics and Effectiveness of Active Crime Prevention Activities

Effectiveness of crime prevention activities through actions was uated as being less than physical crime preventions. In particular, with respect to the effectiveness of securing crime prevention through evasive actions in the areas near the residences, most of the respondents stated that such prevention was not effective.
In fact, female residents took crime prevention activities at a far higher percentage, but their perceptions of such activities’ effectiveness were more negative than male residents. In particular, female residents in single-person household concentration areas took crime prevention activities in large numbers, but they did not actually feel that such activities made them safer. This hints the need to improve the feeling of safety through establishing additional policies.
Results of Investigation on Desire for Crime Prevention-Related Safety Policy.

A. Crime Prevention Measures and Public needs of Safety Policy
Result of the survey showed that 85.9% of the entire respondents answered that they have crime prevention measures that they want to add. Moreover, the group with the highest percentage of desire for crime prevention measures was multi-person households residing in single-person household concentration areas.
Residents in single-person household concentration areas feel stronger need for crime prevention through enhancement of surveillance, mitigation of social disorder, response measures against emergency situations, and enhancement of policing activities compared to the residents in non-single-person household concentration areas.

B. Necessity of Operation of Customized Policy for Vulnerables to Crimes
Female residents in non-single-person household concentration areas feel that evacuation from crisis or crime prevention resources that can be utilized in emergency response are more effective in securing safety. In order for female safety zone or female safe passage home policy to prevent crime more effectively and improve the feeling of safety, they have to be placed closed to the residential areas of classes vulnerable to crimes so that the residents in the relevant area can utilize them.
In order to increase the utility level of safe parcel delivery service policy by single-person households, such parcel delivery service policy has to be placed at the right place pursuant to the characteristics and demand of the residents of the relevant areas, such as the inclusion of installation of unmanned parcel delivery boxes in the CPTED guidelines used when obtaining permit for new buildings by considering the convenience of the residents of the single-person household concentration areas.

C. Necessity of developing Safety Policy for Niche Group Placed in the Blind Spot
Male groups residing in single-person household concentration areas have lower fear of crimes including direct material power exercised on human body in contrast to female single-person households, but, conversely, have fear for safety accident risk such as fire due to the characteristics of residential environment of the single-person household concentration areas. Moreover, such fear leads to fear of arson crimes.
Male residents of single-person household concentration areas have insecurity or interest level for safety; however, when considering the fact that they compose group with high risk of being exposed to home invasion crimes in their absence or crimes that accompany drunkenness, policy incentives for relaxing the risk of criminal harm for these groups, which had been outside the policy interest thus far, have to be searched.
Groups with the lowest level of awareness for safety-related policies were multi-person households residing in single-person household concentration areas and single-person households residing in non-single-person household concentration areas. Based on these results, residents with socio-demographic characteristics that are somewhat outside of the characteristics of each area may likely be placed in the blind spot of safety-related policies. Accordingly, there may be a need to develop policy and promotion efforts that mainly target the niche groups for which vulnerability to crime may be aggravated.

7. Spatial/Physical Environmental Characteristics of Single-Person Household Concentration Areas

A. Selection of Case Regions:

Based on the single-person household ratio data from the National Statistical Office, the concentration areas in Seoul and its metropolitan area are first selected. Subsequently, through discussions on single-person household compositional reasons, the types are classified with a focus on occupations and demographic and sociological characteristics.

B. Type Classification Phase:

First Step - Classify into workers (laborers), college students, and job applicants pursuant to occupation.
Second Step - Types are established upon demographically and sociologically dividing by gender, age, and nationality.
Worker single-person household concentration area (Guro-3-dong), college student single-person household concentration area (Imun-doing), job applicant single-person household concentration area (Noryangjin-1-dong), female senior citizen single-person household concentration area (Shindang-dong), and foreigner single-person household concentration area (Jungwang-bon-dong), were selected.

C. Subjects of On-Site Investigation

94 streets, 267 standalone houses, 46 stores, and one park in the entire case regions.

Results of the Investigation on Status of Streets are as follows:

A. Street Structure

In single-person household concentration areas, straight-line street structures for 86.2% of the entire streets.
The average length of the entire streets was 79.6m and alleyways accounted for 44.7%.
Street structure is related to the timing of the recent establishment of residential form in the single-person household concentration area. The older the area formation, the more they had curved streets, which had shorter lengths and had higher percentage of alleyways.

B. Street Lightings

The percentage of night lighting installations in the streets was 95.7%, and the average intensity of illumination directly under the streetlights was 116.7lux.
The average gap between the streetlights was 21.5m and the operational rate of streetlights was 98.6%

C. Status of CCTV Installation:

CCTV installation percentage is 30.9% and the gap between installations was 1.1 CCTVs per 1km. The percentage that can surveillance the entire surroundings from the CCTV’s surveillance range was 75.9%.
CCTV’s perception ratio was 79.3% and direction sign was attached to all CCTVs. The recognition rate of the direction sign was 86.2%.

D. Street Control Facilities

Passageways between buildings adjacent to the streets in the case regions existed in 16% of the streets. Among them, 46.7% had control facilities, which is relatively high.
Among the streets, only 4.3% had boundary facilities, such as fences or flowerbeds, for the purpose of demarcating pedestrian road and card road.
Another 4.3% only demarcated pedestrian road and car road without actual boundary facilities. The remaining 91.5% did not demarcate pedestrian road and car road.
Only 11.7% of the streets had area direction signs, which is extremely insufficient

E. Resting Space in the Streets

Among all streets, only eight streets (8.5%) had resting spaces. If such resting spaces were to be categorized by their types, three streets (3.2%) had a park or a playground. Five streets (5.3%) only had resting spaces such as benches or small pavilions.
Majority of case regions where single-person households reside in concentration, resting space or resting facilities were severely lacking. Only Jungwang-bon-dong had parks and playground facilities in 33.3% of their streets, while other regions did have benches in their streets, but in a very insufficient number.

F. Cleanliness of Streets

Streets with places where trash were illegally thrown away accounted for 34.0% of all streets.
Streets installed with recycling trash facilities accounted for 31.9% of all streets, while 68.1% of the streets were not installed with such recycling trash facilities.

A. Marking Territoriality
Among individual buildings, 43.8% of the buildings marked boundaries (territoriality) with walls, flowerbeds, and fences, while 56.2% lacked any marked boundaries.
Internal surveillance was possible in 48.7% of the buildings with boundaries (transparent materials), and impossible in 51.3% of such buildings (non-transparent materials).
Among the individual buildings, 80.9% had gas pipes exposed externally on the outer wall of the buildings.
Surveillance equipment for monitoring the entrance to the buildings were installed on the outer wall of the buildings or boundary plane of 33% of all buildings, while 25.9% of the buildings had installed crime prevention windows in all floors. 42.1% of the buildings only had some floors installed with crime prevention windows. Hence, 67.6% of the individual buildings in single-person household concentration areas installed crime prevention windows.

B. Entrance Crime Prevention Facility Status
Among the buildings in the entire investigated regions, 44.2% of the buildings were equipped, while 55.0% were not equipped.
Mirror sheets were installed in the building entrance in 19.5% of the buildings and private security stickers were attached on the front door in 18.0% of the buildings. Buildings with operational security lights installed accounted for 56.0%.
Merely 5.2% of the buildings had security personnel, which were mainly commercial buildings or large buildings among accommodations for exam takers.

C. Building Parking Lot Status
43.8% of the buildings had parking lots and 96.6% of such parking lots were aboveground parking lots.
59.8% of the parking lots had surveillance equipment; 11.1% of such surveillance equipment was CCTV, 18.8% was security light, and 29.9% had both CCTV and security light.
Vehicle barriers were only installed in 16.2% of the parking lots, which showed extremely weak control over entrance to parking lots.

D. Store Status
54.3% of the stores had only one employee at a given point in time; 32.6% had two employees, 8.7% had three employees, and 4.3% had at least five employees.
Surveillance of store entrance and store window: 71.7% of the stores had visible interior from outside, and 41.3% of the stores had cash counters visible from the outside.
71.7% of the stores had CCTV inside the store, while only 10.9% of the stores had reflector inside the store. 43.5% of the stores had CCTV installation and police patrol signs attached inside the store.

8. Spatial Analysis of Dongjak-gu Town Crime Occurrence Characteristics

A. Analysis Overview

Analysis of spatial pattern and crime occurrence conditions in the single-person household concentration areas with a focus on Dongjak-gu Town, Seoul .
Data related to single-person household by each aggregate district within Dongjak-gu, data of crime occurrence within Dongjak-gu, and various types of socio-economic and environmental variables related to crime occurrences were considered.

B. Exploratory Spatial Mapping Analysis

Three to four single-person household concentration areas were identified within the case regions.
About five to six crime hot spots were found for each type of five major crimes and slight discrepancies existed for each type of crime.
Single-person household concentration areas and number of crimes generallyshowed clear spatial correlation.
Convenient stores, transportation facilities, and adult entertainment facilities were identified as variables that have spatial correlation with single-person household percentage and crime occurrences.

C. In-depth statistical analysis among crime occurrence factors, single-person household density, and criminal patterns.

Single-person household ratio showed meaningful correlation with not only the entire crimes, but also various types of crimes.
The correlation between single-person household ratio and crimes was shown differently depending on the average age, standard publicly notified land price, adult entertainment establishment, transportation facilities, and convenient stores.
As results of comparative analysis of grid-base analysis (single-person household concentration area (at least 60%) and non-single-person household concentration area (less than 20%)), correlation between adult entertainment establishment and crime and correlation between publicly notified land price and crime were shown to differ pursuant to the single-person household density.

D. Multiple Regression Analysis

Single-person household ratio was identified to have statistically meaningful quantity of influence on the overall number of crimes and number of all types of crimes. Moreover, the analysis turned up the result that showed the lower the ratio of residents with college education or higher, the higher the number of adult entertainment establishments, the higher the number of convenient stores, and the lower the population density, the higher the risk of crime.

9. Quantitative Analysis between Residential Characteristics and Recidivism

A. Need for Discussions on Residential Characteristics of Criminals

From the criminology’s perspective, an individual’s single-person household living form has an extremely complex meaning, such as an increase in social pathological problem behavior, increase in the vulnerability to exposure to criminal injuries, and increase in fear for criminal injuries.
In particular, perpetrators of some of the bizarre cases (Gangnam Station Murder, Etc.) that occurred recently show that single-person household or person with unstable residential condition commit social pathological problem behavior, which desperately calls for consideration of the possible recidivism from such persons.
Whether single-person household criminals’ resilience and other possible “social adjustment” and “social return” from micro and macro-perspectives pose higher recidivism than multi-person household requires consideration.
It is necessary to review whether delinquent daily activities and other usual daily activities of single-person household criminals increase problem behaviors and increase recidivism.

B. Relationship between Single-Person Household and Recidivism among High-Risk Criminals (Subject of Electronic Monitoring)

Based on the comparison between high-risk criminal group that committed a repeat crime and group that did not commit such repeat crime, 4.3% of multi-person household criminals became repeat offenders, while 5.6% of single-person household criminals became repeat offenders, which showed statistically meaningful gap.
As a result of the comparison in recidivism between multi-person household criminal and single-person household criminal based on marriage, 9.6% of the recidivist group was married, while 90.4% was unmarried single.

C. Comparison in Recidivism between Unmarried Single Sex Offender Group and Married Sex Offender Group

The relationship between single-person household and recidivism exhibited in unmarried sex offender group model, when all variables are controlled, showed that multi-person household criminals exhibited higher recidivism than single-person household criminals.
Contrary to the research hypothesis, two or more persons’ household was confirmed as a risk variable that causes crime, rather than a single-person household.
Meanwhile, in the married sex offender group model, the characteristics of single-person household did not appear to affect recidivism.

D. Comparison of Timing of Recidivism between Single-Person Household and Multi-Person Household

From recidivism’s perspective, multi-person household appeared to be riskier crime factor than single-person household. Despite such result, from the timing of recidivism, contrary result was exhibited: from the first three months, multi-person household criminal appeared to have lower survival rate than a single-person household criminal.
Then, around twentieth month, multi-person household and single-person household exhibited survival rates in similar pattern.
In other words, as electronic device attachment time elapses, the gap between multi-person household and single-person household narrowed. After the fifty-seventh month, the death rate for multi-person household ceased, and recidivism did not occur. However, in the single-person household group, even after fifty-seventh month and even to the eightieth month, the survival rate declined and recidivism occurred continuously.

10. Case Studies in Residential Characteristics and Crimes

A. Investigation Overview

Subject of Analysis: Total of ten subjects, including five criminals that committed sex crimes while attached with an electronic anklet and five sex offenders that were scheduled to be attached with electronic anklets.
Two two-person investigation teams conducted record investigation and open in-depth interview with the interviewees currently imprisoned

B. Analysis Result

Among the ten subjects, five were from single-person households, while the other five were from multi-person households.
By exhibiting the phenomenon of overlap in space of daily activities and crime scenes, both single-person household criminals and multi-person household criminals confirmed the fact that daily activity theory can also be applied to criminals.
Single-person household criminals tend to commit the offense near their residences. Moreover, since they lacked cohabiting family or relatives who play the role of handler, they were free to plan and commit the crimes.

C. Implications

In the case of single-person household criminals, they showed social maladjustment and difficulty in forming smooth personal relationships. Meanwhile, they had higher possibility of planning and implementing crimes freely without any handler.
Furthermore, in the case of single-person household criminals, they were different from multi-person household criminals in the sense that they can utilize their own residences as scene of the crime.
Researches on the correlation between single-person household criminals’ social adjustment and the occurrence of crime, correlation between the absence of a handler and the occurrence of crime, the effective management plan for a person likely to commit crime in the single-person household, and the case study and response plan for crimes where single-person household residence was used as scene of crime, are anticipated.

11. Comparative Analysis of Domestic and Overseas Legislations Related to Single-Person Household Safety Support

A. Comparison of Domestic Legislation Applicable to Single-Person Household Safety

Analysis and uation of domestic and overseas legal systems related to the support of single-person household safety contribute to deriving policy plan for enhancing the safety level of concentration area of the classes that are vulnerable to safety issues, which are represented by single-person households, together with empirical analysis related to factors that affect the achievement and limitation of the existing safety-related policy.
Under domestic legislations, civil law definition and regulation of single-person household are blank.
Under the social welfare laws, in the case of support for residentially vulnerable, the realization of residential support fitting the characteristics of single-person household is not currently the focus.

B. Regulations related to Building Safety Stipulated by the Building Act

Regulations related to safety are classified into three types: safety at the construction phase, structural safety when the building was completed, and safety related to maintenance and management when the building is used.
On-site safety at the time of the building construction, structural safety related to earthquake-resistance, regulations related to building maintenance and management, regulations related to evacuation and arson, safety of users regarding materials, safety regarding socially vulnerable, and regulations related to the building’s crime prevention are stipulated in the Building Act.
Moreover, other statutes stipulate crime prevention-related regulations as exemplified in the stipulations in the “Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents” and the “Special Act on the Promotion of Urban Renewal,” which require the installation of facilities necessary for crime prevention so that the residents’ safety can be secured.

C. Countermeasures for the Safety of Female Single-Person Household

In the case of female single-person household, the fact that income sensitivity is high depending on the changes in employment conditions is a policy consideration. However, in essence, whether the current support legislation contributes to the economic safety of the female single-person household requires examination and uation.
Under the current legislation, which composes welfare system with a focus on family, systematic consideration for unmarried female single-person household is further required.
In particular, female single-person households live in high numbers in outer regions of cities or one-room concentration areas where residential conditions are vulnerable due to economic difficulty the risk for residential safety is even larger.
Single-person household crime prevention countermeasures that consider the characteristics of gender, such as supply of female safety houses, are required.

D. Central Government and Local Government’s Legislations Related to Single-Person Household Safety

Development of legislations specialized in the safety and welfare of singleperson households by Seoul, Busan, and Gyeonggi regional local governments has shown continuous advancement and specific achievements.
National Assembly’s legislation related to single-person household safety agenda and the central government’s establishment of policy must be progressed and uated with cooperation and communication with the local governments and single-person household residents in the region.
Characteristics of the current legislations related to the safety of single-person households and the future developmental direction can be examined in detail from the ordinances from the local governments.
In order to comprehensively and deliberately carry out the improvement in welfare of single-person households, Seoul has enacted the 2016 Basic Ordinance to Support Single-Person Household for Realization of Social Family City in Seoul Special City.
Busan enacted 2016 Ordinance on Support of Busan Metropolitan City Single-Person Household and Ordinance on Support of Live-Alone Elderly in Busan Metropolitan City in September 2017.

E. Safety Policy Implications Following Analysis of Legislations Related to Safety of Single-Person Households

In order to improve the single-person household safety-related legislation, the focus has to be on low-income single-person households; but, simultaneously, the building regulations and private fund utilization legislation have to be reorganized so that the existing facilities can be reused.
Rather than relaxation of administrative regulations, welfare improvement through safety has to be comprehensively and systematically implemented as a legislative task from social policy and safety policy perspectives.
The direction of enactment and amendment of legislations related to the safety of single-person households is to secure safety, minimize social conflict, and ultimately social integration.
Currently, female safety has to be the primary focus in the legislations related to safety of single-person households “Notification on Crime Expectation Building Standard” and “Guidelines for Crime Prevention Design of Buildings” under the Building Act have to be inspected so that such notification and guidelines can be quantitatively rather than qualitatively amended. Moreover, it is recommendable to expand the buildings subject to the application of the foregoing standards.
When considering the changes in the Korean society in the long-term, legislative policy considering the safety of middle-aged and senior citizen single-person safety has to be prepared.

12. Policy Measures

A. Basic Direction of Policy Development

Development policy that considers the density level of single-person household and the regional characteristics Reexamination and aggregation of existing policy to improve dwelling condition in the single-person household concentration area and to decrease fear of Crime in female single-person household, and to develop safety policy for niche group placed in the blind spot are necessary.

B. Policy through Legislative Improvement

Maintaining the amendment of Notification on Crime Prevention Building Standard and reorganization of ordinances on city design for crime prevention are demanded.

C. Policy for Individual Regions

Expansion of residential policy for single-person households, strategic support of private CPTED, enhancement of support for participation of residents in regional safety issues, and safe return home ride services are necessary.
Lstening to information related to safety when making a moving-in notification and expansion of support for living and cultural settlement program for foreigners.

D. Development of Policy Related to Single-Person Household by Criminal Justice Agencies

The enactment of the tentatively named “Basic Act on Crime Prevention Policy”.
Covers diversification of patrol system, operation of police power for resolution of disorder issue, and stimulation of regional governance.
Systemization of management of single-person household high-risk crime groups also shuld be Considered.