Samenvatting

Graffiti has been linked in empirical studies to disorder, fear of crime, avoidance behavior, vandalism and delinquency. In most of those studies, graffiti is treated as an abstract and uniform concept: no distinctions are made between one graffiti or another. Policies based on this assumption hold a zero tolerance approach, meaning all graffiti is deemed undesirable and is or should be removed. This has been criticized by several (theoretical) studies. On the other hand however, ethnographic studies present graffiti as a multifaceted phenomenon, serving as a means of communication, resistance and protest or as an art form. The current study investigates the assumption that graffiti is perceived as a homogeneous and undesirable environmental feature. This article examines whether graffiti is actually perceived uniformly by Dutch citizens, and if not how people distinguish between different graffiti; which types of graffiti are perceived as disorder and whether different types of people exist based on their attitudes towards graffiti. An extensive questionnaire was designed, based on a thorough analysis of the literature and empirical pilot studies. A nationally representative sample responded to general questions with respect to graffiti and judged eighteen specific examples of graffiti on a reliable scale that measured perceived disorder. Results indicate that people vary enormously in their ideas and attitudes. Also, not every graffiti is the same, meaning graffiti is not a homogeneous, uniform phenomenon. Both type of graffiti and the location on which the graffiti is situated relate to the degree of perceived disorder. For example, tags, small scribbles, were considered a public nuisance more than pieces, large colorful images. Also, graffiti on a house or car is perceived much more as disorder than graffiti in a skatepark. The diversity in views necessitates a normative