**6. Conclusions**

It is not surprising that this study hardly obtained one or two individual initiatives which strongly influenced the dependent variables of reducing street crime and reducing the fear of crime. Cities exist in a dynamic, complex environment and securing their prosperity through protecting the population, assets, and reputation is a significant challenge [13]. Few strategies by guardian authorities are e ffective; however, they may not be total in curbing crime and fear of crime in the city. More strategies should be explored from the other actors such as victims/community and o ffenders. The Safe City Program works only when a combination of initiatives from all the perspective of guardians, victims, and o ffenders is integrated well.

There are several limitations to the present study. From a theoretical perspective, only routine activities and broken windows theories were selected for review. Other theories of crime opportunity such as rational choice, crime patterns, awareness, and crime opportunity theory might be explored in future studies to reveal evidence of fear and crime prevention items. From a methodological perspective, the data collection method is less likely to ascertain whether respondents were fully aware of all the measures included in the survey. This creates the potential for measurement bias if levels of familiarity relating to instrument items were not investigated. Further methodological limitations could arise from generalizing the e ffectiveness of the safe city program from the cross-sectional survey design at the occasion factor, although the respondents were asked to compare their perceptions of fear and street crime with the previous year.

From a practical point of view, this case study looked at only a part of (street crime in commercial area) the whole Safe City Program that integrates di fferent strategies. Therefore, all the initiatives from di fferent approaches and concepts need to be rethought to be more e ffective in reducing street crime and the fear of crime. Crime patterns are not static, and the Safe City Program needs to adapt its initiatives quickly to tackle new problems as they arise. In doing so, the Safe City Program aims to remain relevant to public concerns, thus alleviating the fear of becoming a crime victim.

The strength of the findings may depend on other factors beyond the scope of this investigation, such as the community's engagemen<sup>t</sup> and the o ffender's perspectives. CPSD is also notably a relatively young field of academic study, and it may take some time to learn how to execute the CPSD principles and obtain results. A suggestion for future research is to study the prevention strategies from community and o ffenders' perspective, the relationship between fear of crime, social interaction, and community configuration in di fferent types of study areas. An additional suggestion is to develop

and analyze longitudinal data from household structures or activities and to sugges<sup>t</sup> more locational or temporal specific crime prevention solutions for local contexts. This study focused on the factors of a Safe City Program from the perspective of pedestrians without detailing the CPTED and CPSD specifically. There may remain many undecided hurdles in the effort to identify effective ways to approach the multiplicity of risk factors connected to crime and victimization, not to mention the fear of crime.

**Author Contributions:** Writing—original draft preparation, S.B.L.; Conceptualization, methodology, and formal analysis, S.B.L. and C.K.Y.; software, investigation, resources, and data curation, C.K.Y.; supervision and validation, J.A.M. and M.F.M.J.; review and editing, A.H.A.; visualization and project administration, Z.T.; funding acquisition, M.F.M.J.; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** The Article Processing Charges (APCs) was funded by the Malaysia Prime Minister Department (grant number SK-2017-002). The funder was not involved in the planning, execution, write-up of contents of this article.

**Acknowledgments:** Part of this paper has been presented in the 2nd International Conference on Social Sciences and Education (2nd ICSSE), 12–14 May 2018, Bandung, Indonesia.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.
