Scores are global-scale research estimates. R marks work in progress; none are travel advice.
Found a hotel? Check the area around it before booking.
Search sends your query and selected city to OpenStreetMap Nominatim. Don't enter private addresses or sensitive information. Search policy
Know before you roam
Compare Kyoto's 11 wards using official theft records, resident populations and a source-linked safety research estimate.
Safrom's citywide research estimate is 88/100. Higher scores mean safer on the model's scale. Evidence as of . Confidence: C.
11 areas with estimates. Area evidence as of .
seven_selected_recorded_theft_categories_per_1000_residents · 2025 recognition-year release.
Local property variation uses seven recorded theft categories, not all theft or scams. Bicycle and vehicle theft dominate the ward aggregate. Per-resident rates include crimes involving visitors and commuters; central commercial wards need this context. City property input compares like-for-like category rates to the existing Tokyo research anchor. Five non-crime inputs retain the existing Japan calibration; homicide uses the 2023 country observation. Only the property component varies between wards. Day/night profiles are unavailable.
Download the scored safety layer and calculation evidence (GeoJSON)
Local property variation uses seven recorded theft categories, not all theft or scams. Bicycle and vehicle theft dominate the ward aggregate. Per-resident rates include crimes involving visitors and commuters; central commercial wards need this context. City property input compares like-for-like category rates to the existing Tokyo research anchor. Five non-crime inputs retain the existing Japan calibration; homicide uses the 2023 country observation. Only the property component varies between wards. Day/night profiles are unavailable.
Boundaries: Japan MLIT · Kyoto administrative wards, 2025 (CC BY 4.0).
Local property variation uses seven recorded theft categories, not all theft or scams. Bicycle and vehicle theft dominate the ward aggregate. Per-resident rates include crimes involving visitors and commuters; central commercial wards need this context. City property input compares like-for-like category rates to the existing Tokyo research anchor. Five non-crime inputs retain the existing Japan calibration; homicide uses the 2023 country observation. Only the property component varies between wards. Day/night profiles are unavailable.
alerts are not long-term baseline risk; event footprint may not equal traveler exposure; alert severity cannot be copied directly into Safrom score
country-level only; humanitarian risk framing differs from traveler exposure; composite inputs can overlap Safrom dimensions; current event conditions require separate signals
0.2 per 100,000; a country prior for personal violence, not a city rate.; Uses the existing research homicide curve (0→0, 1→10).
Seven published theft types; excludes shoplifting, most pickpocketing, fraud and violence.; Resident population does not include visitors and commuters; centre-city rates reflect this difference.; No individual incident addresses or times are included in this aggregate.; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/; Ward aggregation and research transformation by Safrom.
resident_register_including_foreign_residents; Residents include foreign residents; visitors and commuters are not a denominator.
country-level only; availability does not measure emergency accessibility; latest year differs by country; distribution within a country is hidden
country-level only; collection is not annual for every country; some values are modeled estimates; resident exposure differs from traveler exposure
犯罪発生情報（年計）、東京都・警視庁、CC BY 4.0; aggregated by Safrom; https://portal.data.metro.tokyo.lg.jp/terms/; Calibration reference only; nine records with no municipality are excluded.; Reference population: 9,953,160, 2025 preliminary census. https://www.my.metro.tokyo.lg.jp/w/003-20260529-257352507
U.S.-traveler perspective; Level 1 is a broad country advisory and cannot represent Tokyo neighborhood variation; advisory level is not an absolute safety score
country-level only; modeled perceptions rather than traveler incidents; cannot represent neighborhood variation or current events; confidence intervals must not be discarded