1 NATIONAL EVALUATION OF CRIME PREVENTION STRATEGIES IN URBAN PARKS: USING RATIONA L CHOICE THEORY TO U NDERSTAND DECISIONS OF PARK DIRECTORS AND PROFESSORS By JOEL G. MCCORMICK A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2011
2 2011 JOEL GREGORY MCCORMICK
3 To my m om Eileen McCormick ; fiance Lauren Szydlo and my daughter, Savan nah McCormick
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank my committee chair and my committee for their support and guidance in writing of this dissertation. My dissertation committee consisted of Stephen Holland, (Chair) Bertha Cato, Richard Schneider, Rose Barnett, and Taylor Stein (External Committee Member). I owe a great debt of gratitude to Dr. Stephen Holland for the investment of time, energy, and intellectual guidance through this process. A special thanks to all of the individuals of my committee who were instru mental to my progression through this process. I would like to thank Kostas Karadakis and Kevin Cattinati for their assistance with the data analysis. Lastly, I would like to thank all my friends and family for their continued support during the last four years. I am especially thankful to my best friend and fiance Lauren whose encouragement and support has made all the difference.
5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 8 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 9 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 12 Initial Interest in this Topic ................................ ................................ ...................... 13 The Problem: Crime and Fear of Crime in Parks ................................ .................... 14 Urban Cities and Crime ................................ ................................ .................... 15 Crime in Urban Parks ................................ ................................ ....................... 16 Lack of Research ................................ ................................ ............................. 18 Fear of Crime as a Constraint to Park Usage ................................ ......................... 20 Gender and Fear of Urban Park Settings ................................ ................... 21 Age and Fear of Park Settings ................................ ................................ ... 21 Benefits of Parks ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 22 Rational Choice Theory ................................ ................................ .......................... 24 Park Directors, Rational Choice Theory, & CPTED ................................ .......... 26 2 MEASURING IMPLEMENTATION OF CRIME PREVENTION STRATEGIES IN URBAN MUNICIPAL PARKS ................................ ................................ .................. 32 Review of Literature ................................ ................................ ................................ 34 Incivilities ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 35 Uniform Law Enforcement ................................ ................................ ................ 37 Closed Circuit Television ................................ ................................ .................. 39 Lighting ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 40 Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design ................................ ........... 42 Analyzing Crime Data ................................ ................................ ....................... 44 Citizen Involvement ................................ ................................ .......................... 45 Research Questions ................................ ................................ ............................... 46 Methods ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 46 Participants ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 46 Procedures ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 47 Survey Development ................................ ................................ ........................ 48 Results ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 50 Implementation of CPTED Strategies and Rational Choice Th eory ........................ 55 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 56 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 64
6 3 CRIME PREVENTION THROUGH ENVIRO NMENTAL DESIGN AND URBAN PARKS: MOVING TOWARDS A RATIONAL CHOICE THEORY ........................... 79 Park Directors and Rational Choice Theory ................................ ............................ 80 Defining Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design ................................ .... 81 Natural Surveillance ................................ ................................ ......................... 82 Natural Access Control ................................ ................................ ..................... 83 Territorial Reinforcement ................................ ................................ .................. 84 Maintenance ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 85 Research Questions ................................ ................................ ......................... 85 Methods ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 86 Participants ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 86 Survey Development ................................ ................................ ........................ 86 Qualitative Procedures ................................ ................................ ..................... 88 Qualitative Analysis ................................ ................................ .......................... 88 Results ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 89 Respondent Characteristics ................................ ................................ ............. 89 Quantitative Results ................................ ................................ ......................... 89 Qualitative Results ................................ ................................ ........................... 90 Benefits ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 90 Costs ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 92 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 93 Themes Associated with Benefits of CPTED ................................ .................... 96 Themes Associated with Costs of CPTED ................................ ..................... 100 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 103 4 CRIME PREVENTION THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN (CPTED) EDUCATION OF PARK AND RECREATION STUDENTS: A RATIONAL CHOICE PERSPECTIVE OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS ................................ 108 CPTED, Parks & Recreation and Higher Education ................................ ....... 109 Curriculum ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 111 Accreditation ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 112 Technology in the Classroom & Rational Choice Theory ............................... 113 Methods ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 115 Sample ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 115 Survey Design ................................ ................................ ................................ 116 Quantitative Procedures ................................ ................................ ................. 117 Qualitative Procedures ................................ ................................ ................... 118 Qualitative Analysis ................................ ................................ ........................ 118 Results ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 119 Quantitative Results ................................ ................................ ....................... 119 Qualitative Results ................................ ................................ ......................... 121 Benefits ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 121 Costs ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 123 Reasons for Incorporating CPTED in the Classroom ................................ ..... 124 Reasons for Not Incorporating CPTED in the Classroom ............................... 124
7 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 125 5 CONCLUSIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 142 Other Areas of Future Research ................................ ................................ .... 149 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 150 Final Thoughts ................................ ................................ ................................ 151 APPENDIX A Pretest of instrument using Cronbach's Alpha ................................ ...................... 157 B Park Director Survey ................................ ................................ ............................. 159 C Professor Survey ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 166 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 171 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 184
8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2 1 Demographic information ................................ ................................ ................... 66 2 2 .......................... 67 2 3 Physical incivilities strategies employed ................................ ............................. 68 2 4 Personnel strategies employed ................................ ................................ .......... 69 2 5 Electrical/electronic strategies employed ................................ ........................... 70 2 6 Use of signs in parks ................................ ................................ .......................... 71 2 7 Collection and use of crime data ................................ ................................ ........ 72 2 8 Citizen involvement ................................ ................................ ............................ 73 2 9 Independent sample t test park managers ................................ ......................... 74 2 10 T test of perception of a crime problem and crime prevention strategies implemented ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 75 2 11 T test of training and implementation of crime prevention strategies .................. 76 3 1 Demographic information ................................ ................................ ................. 105 3 2 ................................ ................................ .... 106 3 3 Director initiated themes related to CPTED strategies ................................ ..... 107 4 1 Demographic information ................................ ................................ ................. 132 4 2 ................................ ................................ .... 133 4 3 ................................ ........... 134 4 4 Perceptions of crime and fear of crime in urban parks ................................ ..... 135 4 5 Comparison of perceived crime and fear of crime in parks ............................... 136 4 6 Professor initiated themes related to CPTED strategies ................................ ... 137 4 7 How professors learned about CPTED and teaching CPTED .......................... 138 4 8 Professors teaching CPTED by institution type ................................ ................ 139
9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1 1 Rational Choice Model ................................ ................................ ....................... 31 2 1 States colored in red represent at least one park director in this state responded to the survey (n=81; 48 unknown). States in yellow did not have a city in the 250 largest cities ................................ ................................ ............... 77 2 2 Distribution of the city population of known respondents (n=81; 48 unknown) ... 78 4 1 States colored in dark blue represen t all the states professors were sent the survey (n=100) ................................ ................................ ................................ 140 4 2 States colored in light blue represent at least one professor in this state responded to the survey (known school n=50; 16 unkn own schools) ............... 141 5 1 disagree (SD) to strongly agree (SA). ................................ ............................... 154 5 2 disagree (SD) to strongly agree (SA). ................................ ............................... 155 5 3 Use of guardians in the parks. ................................ ................................ .......... 156
10 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy NATIONAL EVALUATION OF CRIME PREVENTION STRATEGIES IN URBAN PARKS: USING RATIONAL CHOICE THEORY TO UNDERSTAND DECISIONS OF PARK DIRECTORS AND PROFESSORS By Joel G. McCormick May 2011 Chair: Stephen Holland Major: Health and Human Performance C rime and fear of crime is increasing in recreational settings ( Cha vez, Tynon, & Knap, 2004, Manning et al., 2001; Pendleton, 2000; Shore, 1994 ). However, research on the effectiveness of crime prevention programs in urban parks, rural parks, or national forest/park lands is scarce. This dissertation utilized a three pape r format to gain a more complete understanding of how Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles (observation, access control, territoriality and maintenance) are taught and applied in urban parks Paper one evaluates crime prevention strategies currently being employed by public park managers in the United States Paper two applies a combination of descriptive statistics and qualitative methods to investigate Rational Choice Theory as a decision making tool for implementing (CPTED) st rategies to reduce crime and fear of crime in urban parks The third paper examines whether and how CPTED is being taught at the college level. This paper also uses a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods to investigate cision s to teach CPTED using a Rational Choice framework
11 In papers one and two, a web based survey link was e mailed to the directors of municipal recreation and park agencies in the 250 largest cities in the United States. A total of 129 agencies resp onded ( 5 2 % ) In paper three a different web based survey link was e mailed to 100 college professors across the United States. A total of 72 professors responded The results indicate that 45% of park directors in the United S tate s have received training in crime prevention strategies A belief that t he occurrence of crime was not a problem in parks was reported by 66% of park directors However, when presented with is a priority of pa rk directors agreed Over two thirds of the professors agreed that crime in parks was a problem; even more agreed that fear of crime in parks was a problem, but only one third stated that they would make it a priority to do something about it Only 24% of professors in this study included CPTED strategies in their classes. The main reason T he re appears to be a need to bring awareness about fear of crime and strateg ies to the forefron t of the field. Park directors should increase their efforts to reduce crime opportunities in their parks and most increase their awareness and teaching of CPTED strategies to address problems that have real world applications Furthe r res earch in park safety for visitors is needed.
12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION This dissertation examines crime issues in urban municipal parks and the strategies used by upper level management of municipal park systems to combat crime in the 250 largest cities in the US, as well as an overview of how crime related education is conducted in park and recreation related disciplines as reported by college instructors throughout the US. This dissertation will be implementing a three paper format and each paper will examine an important aspect of crime prevention in urban municipal parks and strategies to alleviate incidences of crime in parks. The first paper will inventory the strategies that parks are currently using to reduce crime and fear of crime in their parks The second paper will examine upper level park managers attitudes towards a crime prevention strategy known as Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design or CPTED (pronounced sept ted) utilizing the Theory of Rational Choice. Paper three will also us e Rational Choice Theory to investigate college park management curriculum. These three papers will integrate to answer important questions relating to crime and fear o f crime in municipal parks. First, what strategies are currently being used to perceptions of crime in their parks? Are they aware of strategies such as CPTED principles and follo wing the precepts of the Theory of Rational Choice ; is it in their best interest to employ CPTED strategies to reduce crime and fear of crime in the parks that they manage? Thirdly, are CPTED principles being taught to students being trained by college and university parks and recreation management programs? This is an
13 important question because it will shed light on the academic perspective of crime and fear of crime in parks and it will establish a baseline for future academic research in the realm of cri me and fear of crime in urban municipal parks. Initial Interest in this Topic Studying fear of crime in parks was not an endeavor that I originally intended to pursue. I was working for a municipal park in the city of Lynchburg, Virginia. This city has a p opulation of about 70,000 people. I had little interest in fear of crime in parks until 2004. That is when the City of Lynchburg hired the National Research Center, INC to conduct The National Citizens Survey on the residents of Lynchburg. The purpo se of this survey was to gauge government service from police, fire and trash haul to animal control, planning and cemeteries. Many dimensions of quality of life were included such as feelings of safety and opportunities for dining, recreation and shopping as well as ratings of the overall quality of community life and the target community as a place to raise children and retire (National Research Center, 2004). The survey was sent to 1,200 rand omly selected households. The response rate from this survey was 431 residents for a 39% response rate. The questions were calculated on a 4 point Likert scale with the response options Responses were reported on a 100 point scale and the Natio nal Research Center, claimed a 95 % confidence interva l for all questions (2004). After a baseline of citizen responses were categorized, they were compared to based on population size, ethnic composition, educational status and income. It is in this comparison that Lynchburg scored extremely below the normal average, scoring only at the 19 th percentile. This suggested that of the
14 73 similar jurisdictions that we re compared to Lynchburg, 81% of them felt safer in their parks during the day than the citizens of Lynchburg reported feeling. These findings piqued my interest in this topic and as I explored it more, I found this type of fear is not just confined to the city of Lynchburg. Fear of crime in parks is not just a problem that is local, regional, or national. It is a global problem (Paulson & Robinson, 2004). Yet, in my initial searches I could find little academic reporting or even awareness of this major is sue and decided to make it my mission to explore it more. The Pro blem: Crime and Fear of Crime i n Parks According to number of given crimes in a given place), [however,] America does not have the highest lthough this is not a statistic to be proud of, it does at least imply that Americans are not afraid to report crimes and that the government is not afraid to admit that problems exist. It is through understanding that problems exist that facilitates the s olving of problems. There are two reasons it is important to focus on urban cities. One is, because roughly 75% of the US population lives in urban areas (Paulson & Robinson, 2004). Two, despite the fact that urban parks such as Central Park in New York r eceives millions more visitors a year than the most visited National Parks, research about the use of urban parks is relatively scarce in the literature ( Harnik 2006). According to Ousey (2000) a relationship between city size and the rates of street cri mes (homicide robbery, and burglary) exists His research suggests that the higher the population of a city, the higher the rate of street crime. Since crime rates are the
15 number of crimes divided by the number of citizens, the increased population should not be a rationale for an increased number of crimes. However, Paulson and Robinson Apparently there must be something that is causing these disproportionate levels o f crime in large urban cities; however, exploring that question is outside of the realm of this dissertation. What is relevant to this study is the assertion that crime is more of an issue in larger urban areas than in most rural areas. Urban Cities and C rime Previous research has suggested that murder rates and robbery rates are higher for large and medium cities are nearly identical (Paulsen & Robinson, 2004, p. 28 ). Robbery is associated with city size, with large cities of a million or more having the most robberies. Interestingly, the occurrence of burglary is highest in medium sized (250,000 to 499,999 residents) cities (Paulsen & Robinson, 2004). Furthermore, v iolent confirm that crime is more prevalent in larger cities. This is not to say that smaller communities do not have problems with crime. Nonetheless, these data support the proposition that more research is needed on crime prevention strategies in urban parks. For this dissertation, the author compares United State cities by populati on. The author decided to look at the 250 largest urban parks in the United States. The same strata that Ousey (2000) used to classify cities will be employed. Large cities are those with one million or more residents. Medium large cities are classified as those with 500,000 to 999,999 residents. Medium cities have 250,000 to 499,999 residents. Medium small
16 cities have 10,000 to 249,999 residents and small cities have less than 10,000 residents. Crime in Urban Parks Is crime and fear of crime a real probl and recreation official manages an urban vest pocket park or a campground in a national park or national forest, the interrelated problems of crime and vandalism pose a daily constraint to the provision of recreat ( United States Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service 1979, p. 177). This is as true today as it was thirty years ago when this quote was published in The Third Nationwide Outdoor Great Outdoors plan released in early 2011, crime and fear of crime is deterring young people from using parks and green rbage bins, and graffiti cloaked Salazar, 2011 p. 87) examine the newspapers of any major city. The 2008 New York D aily News reported 308 major crimes in the city's 20 largest parks within an eighteen month period and five of the major crimes were rapes and another five were murders ( R udish & Rouen 2008, p. 6). "I feel threat ened because the re's a lot there should be more security in the park." was a quote given by a sixteen year old female high school student ( R udish & Rouen 2008, p. 6). Unfortunately, crime rates seem to be rising in municipal parks. I n 2010, the New York Central Park has jumped by 45% this year especially in the number of grand larcenies (Fanelli, 2010, p. 5). The Manhattan
17 greenspace's police precinct r eported twenty eight more major crimes than the same time period last year (Fanelli 2010 ). The popular, long running fictional television program, Law and Order begins episodes every few weeks with a body being found in Central Park, and viewers seem not to be surprised or outraged. Drug trafficking in Pioneer Park, in Salt Lake City, Utah was so bad the police were receiving one thousand calls a year for service for that park alone (Morgan, 2009). Eventually the police installed four video surveillance cameras in plain view so park visitors knew th ey were being watched and drug related crime s seemed to move to another location (Morgan, 2009). These actions have reduced the number of drug arrest s in the park, park. T he city of Atlanta plans to install over five hundred video cameras throughout the city and even in the municipal parks as a crime prevention initiative (Garner, 2011). Even small cities such as Banning, California (85 miles east of Los Angeles), with a po pulation of fewer than thirty thousand residents have fears about their municipal parks. Recently a 13 year old girl was raped on the playground by her classmates in a municipal park in the city of Banning, California. A 12 year old girl was quoted that she sometimes goes there with her 8 and 9 year old brothers, but never alone 16 year old male responded that eople smoke marijuana in the park and it 's a place A sbury, S ears & W aldner 2011, p. A 1). It seems that the fea r of crime in municipal parks is warranted in major metropolitan areas and in small er cities also. Many parks are suffering financially, from national parks to municipal parks. In programs
18 have been suspended or eliminated, the monitoring of endangered species is being abandoned, poaching is on the rise, artifacts are being plundered, and crime in the Burton, 2004, p.177). This could start a downward cycle as urban parks become neglected, they are perceived as increasingly danger ous places; this reduces the number of people vis Madge, 199 7 p. 237). An other example of this evolving attitude is demonstrated in research conducted in Great Britain. A 91% of people b elieve that public parks and open spaces improve their quality of life. However, one in five peopl e thinks that it is not worth investing money in the upkeep and maintenance of local parks and public open spaces because they will just With declining park budgets, managers will have to make better decisions in m aximizing safety and minimizing costs. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) strategies could be a win win opportunity for park managers. CPTED strategies can be less expensive because they focus on the design and maintenance of natural par k environments. CPTED strategies are not reliant on expensive high tech equipment or highly trained security personnel. In fact, CPTED principles can be effectively employed by existing maintenance personnel, if they are properly trained in CPTED strategie s. Lack of Research Research on crime and fear of crime in parks and recreation areas is not abundant ( Chavez & Tynon, 2007 ; Manning et. al, 2001; Madge, 1997; Pendleton, 1998; and Westover, 1985 ) Part of the problem may be a lack of awareness or interes t in crime and fear of crime in the parks and recreation research community. However, Westover
19 suggests that n either park [law] enforcement divisions usually provide reliable, comparable empirical data demonstrating the nature, extent, location, or frequency of crime and incivility in re creation settings, thus little empirical evidence [exist] to indicate exactly how crime and incivility influence overall levels of park use, users' behavior within the park, or perceptions of par Historically research o n park crime and crime prevention concentrated on vandalism target shooting, carving, and graffiti ( Christensen & Clark 198 3 ; Samdahl & Christensen, 1985). Eventually crime research in parks began by inves tigating more serious which accounted for half of all park crime, followed by drug abuse and then violent crimes ( United States Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service 1979 p. 177) However, violent crim studied and a preoccupation with only violent crimes supported a belief that there was far less crime in parks than publicly assumed ( United States Heritage Co nservation and Recreation Service 1979 p. 177). Today, crime research and fear of crime in parks reveals that crimes committed in parks are the same as crime elsewhere throughout the world. Research has found that crimes in parks and recreational lands in clude: urban associated crime s (e.g., arson, body dumping, domestic violence, drive by shooting, gang activity, murder, rape and sexual assault, suicide); assault (e.g., personal assault, criminal property damage, threats against property); drug activity (e.g., marijuana cultivation, meth labs, meth chemical dumps, armed defense of crops); and takeover or violence perpetrated by members of extremist and nontraditional groups (e.g., satanic cults, white power groups, EarthFirst!, survivalists, militia/supr emacy grou ps). Later research at other USFS sites lent support to those findings (Tynon & Chavez, 2006 p. 154 ).
20 ed and the circumstances for the children ( Sousa & Kelling, 2009, p. 43). S imilar circumstances were occurring in virtually every city in Amer ica ( Sousa & Kelling, 2009 ). Recently, because of the interest in active living research and the availability of funding, research on fear of crime in parks is starting to appear in the literature The research is focusing on crime as a constraint to park use (McGinn et al. 2008; Loukaitous Sideris & Eck, 2007; & Gomez et al. 2004; Carter et al., 2003; C hiesura, 2004; Ching hua Ho et al., 2005; Chavez, Tynon, & Knap, 2004). Fear of Crime as a Constraint to Park Usage Recently some empirical studies hav e asserted that fear of crime has a direct lin k to reduced physical activity, especially in youth of low social/ economic backgrounds and minority populations (McGinn et al. 2008; Loukaitous Sideris & Eck, 2007; & Gomez et al. 2004) Health care professi onals have reported that minority parents were less like ly to take their children to parks to engage in physical activities because the y had safety concerns (Gomez et al., 2004) Research found that children were victims of crime in parks and playgrounds i n their own neighborhoods. Children minority and non minority, are mugged, assaulted, sexually harassed, raped, murdered and kidnapped by adults and other children in both urban and rural environments (Arenberg et al. 1984; Finkelhor 1984 ; Clemente & Kle iman, 1977; Covington & Taylor, 1991; Lagra nge & Ferraro, 1987; Liska & Warner, 1991; Skogan, 1987; Warr, 1990). Blakely reported that 28% of children age d 7 to 11 admitted that they were afraid of being hurt by another
21 person if they went outside of their homes (1994). Another 50% reported that they had been harassed when outside of their homes and 12% said that they were physically assaulted when they went outside of their homes (Blakely, 1994). Therefore, it is easy to understand why concerned parents ar e not allowing their children to visit parks to get the physical activity that they need. Gender a nd F ear o f U rban P ark Settings Research suggests that some women are afraid of municipal parks in urban areas (Shores, Scott, & Floyd, 2007). Gordon and Riger (1989) reported that urban parks were the second most feared environments, with streets and alleys seen as the most dangerous. Furthermore, another study asserted that 61 % of women living in the 26 largest U.S. cities reported feeling unsafe in ur ban env ironments (Gordon & Riger, 1989). Bialeschki and Hicks reported that women exercising in parks developed strategies such as: bringing a friend or dog; varying their times and locations of park usage; and informing others of where they are going and when th ey expected to return of respondents indicated that fear would influence where they would go in a park, 80% that these feelings of insecurity would change with time of day and 80% that perceptions of f ear would alter if 7 are urban, outdoor spaces, specifically public parks, but there is little research to date 118) Age and Fear of P ark Settings was the number one reason given by respondents 66 or older for why they did not use
22 similar results, finding that 49% of the were afraid or stated that they had concerns for their safety in the park (2007, p. 272). Scott and Jackson fo und one consistent agreement among all of the participants, Benefits of Parks The benefits of parks and green spaces can be found throughout the literature of a multitude of disciplines. Most of the benefits can be summarized into categories of economic, physical health, psychological health, community assets, environmental or a combination of these categories. Wolf, 2006 and McPherson et al., 2002, reported that millions of dollars are saved each year by trees and forests for storm water reduction, improved air quality, and the natural cooling benefits that trees provide through shade and transpiration. Other economic benefit s of parks and green spaces are the monies generated by commercial and retail business es For example, the sporting goods retail industry Across the nat ion, parks, protected rivers, scenic lands, wildlife habitat, and recreational open space help support a $502 billion tourism industry. Travel and tourism is the of the oyers, supporting 7 million jobs, including 684,000 executive jobs. At present rates of growth, the tourism/leisure industry will soon become the leading U.S. industry of any kind
23 Furthermore, Crompton has reported th at people are willing to pay more for homes located near parks or protected green spaces (2000). This willingness to pay more for land near parks generates increased revenues for the communities through higher property taxes. However, what some find more i mpressive is the positive correlation between quality of life and recreational opportunities or park availability. Research has found that people consider quality of life (i.e. recreation and park availability) as a major factor in where they decide to li ve, work, and retire (Crompton et al., 1997). Also retirees make a substantial contribution to the communities in which the y reside, without as high a drain on the tax base, and when they look for a place to retire recreational opportunities rate a clo se second to moving some place warm (Crompton, 2007). Evidence suggests that a healthy life style, including exercise, helps people live longer and happier lives. A study conducted by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) reported that only about 25% of adu lts and about 29% of high school students get the recommended amounts of physical exercise (CDC, 2001). Furthermore, other studies have suggested that spending time in nature, parks, and green spaces can lower blood pressure and cholesterol levels, help wi th various minor ailments, as well as help speed the recovery time for major medical ailments (Frumkin, 2001, 2003). Wang and Dietz found that having a place to exercise help s reduce obesity in children and therefore, this could translate into a savings o f around $125 million dollars annually in hospital costs for problems associated with overweight children (2002). Killingsworth, et al. (2003) reported that over 200,000 deaths a year could be attributed to living a sedentary life style, however, using pa rks and trail systems could provide people with the
24 recommended exercise needed to regain healthy lifestyle s Would the presence of a a 26% increase in exercise levels whe n they had new or improved access to parks (2001). The psychological benefits of parks and green spaces have also been well documented. Wells, 2000; Taylor, Kuo, & Sullivan, 2001; Frumkin, 2001; and Trancik & Evans 1995; all provide support that natural s ettings are beneficial for children, even children with ADD/ADHD. Research on teens with behavioral disorders, has found that contact with nature has produced s ignificant improvement s in their behaviors (Frumkin, 2001). Research in adult populations have s uggested that green spaces have numerous psychological benefits including: increased feelings of safety (Kuo, Bacaioa, (R. Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989; S. Kaplan, 1995; R. Kaplan, 2001); providing priva cy ( Hammitt, 1982; Hammitt & Brown, 1984; Hammitt & Rutlin, 1995; and Hammitt, 2002 ) and even reducing acts of aggression (Kuo & Sullivan, 2001). In all, there are many benefits to having parks and green spaces that people feel safe to use These benefits range from health to economics, improved community image, enhanced quality of life to protecting the ecosystems of the planet. But, people will not gain most of these benefits if they are afraid to use parks. Rational Choice Theory Over the last 20 years a substantial amount of criminological research has been conducted from the rational choice perspective ( Clarke & Cornish 1985; Grasmick & Bursik, 1990; McCarthy 2002 : Nagin & Paternoster, 1993; Paternoster, 1989; Paternoster, Saltzman, Waldo, & Chiricos, 1983; Piliavin, Thornton, Gartner, &
25 Matsueda, 1986; Piquero & Tibbetts, 1996; Tibbetts & Myers, 1999). Research in the fields of parks, recreation, and tourism is more limited; however, some studies were found in related fields. For example, travel resear ch (Bamberg & Schmidt 1998 ; and Davidov, 2007) fisheries management (Acheson 2004; Acheson & Gardner 2005) and organic farming (Best, 2009) were located using rational choice theory. The main premise of the Rational Choice Model is that an individual alwa ys s Snipes, 2002, p. 203). Rational Choice Theory as used in criminology today was Ap (Clarke, 1995, p. 98). This decision model approach explains criminal decision making things as money, status, sex, and excitement and meeting these needs involves the making of (sometimes quite rudimentary) decisions and choices, constrained as these are by limits of p. 98). Support for the Rational Choice Theory can be found in the research of incentives, approaches and selection process targets that criminals chose ( Walsh 1 980; Maguire 1982 ; Bennett & Wright 1984; Nee & Taylor 1988; Biron & Lado uceur 1991; Cromwell, Olson, We ster & Avary 1991; Walsh 1978; Car roll & Weaver 1986; Lejeune 1977; Feeney 1986 ; Kube 1988; & Nugent et al. 1989). An example includes the technological advancements i n communications. The introduction of Caller ID has
26 substantially reduced the occurrence of obscene and harassing phone calls (Clarke, 1990; Clarke, 1995). This technology facilitated the ability of abusers to be identified and convicted. Another example can be derived from studies of home burglary, because more women are in the work force, more homes are empty during the day and that makes them a less risky target. No one is home, therefore, the chance of getting caught is reduced and such residences are a more rational target than houses where people are obv iously at home (Clarke, 1995). According to Atlas 2008, offenders consider the following questions when deciding whether to commit a crime: 1 How easy will it be to enter the area? 2 How visible, attractiv e, or vulnerable do the targets appear? 3 What are the chances of being seen? 4 If seen, will the people in the area do something about it? 5 Is there a quick, direct route for leaving the site after the crime is committed? (Atlas, 2008, p. 55). Rational Choice Theory is about making decisions. The basic premise is that humans will make the choice that offers the most benefit for the least cost. This assumes that the decision maker is able to calculate the expected gains or benefits and weigh them against the pos sible losses of making this decision. If the perceived potential gains outweigh the perceived potential losses, then the person is more likely to choose the action. Park Directors, Rational Choice Theory, & CPTED Rational Choice Theory and criminal behavi or has been adequately addressed in the crime prevention literature (Atlas, 2008; Brantingham, & Faust, 1976 ; Clark, 1995;
27 Jeffery, 1971; Loukaitou Sideris, & Eck, 2007 ; Schneider & Kitchen, 2002 ; 2007 ) pective on decision making process t o ensure a safe park was found. According to Paternoster & Pogarsky (2009), Rational Choice Theory implies that decisions are based on considerations of the cost s and benefits and that this requires formation about those cost s and benefits, and a weighing of the cost s (2002) this does not imply that all people have the same level of cognitive reasoning, nor do they all have ac cess to the same levels of information or have the same mental dexterity in weighing cost s implicitly recognizes that decision making is both inherently natural and [a] highly of making decisions (Bouffard, Exum & Collins, 2010, p. 400). Rational choice theory has also been used in understanding city leader decision making ( Feiock 2007 ). Feiock makes the case that the context in which a rational choice is decided is as importa nt as any other variable of the decision (2007). Feiock elaborates that distributed asymmetrically and the structure of the situation may cause actors to view risk, uncertainty, information asy mmetries, and the actions attributes of other collaboration between the parks and the police can be seen as a benefit ; however, it could also be viewed as a cost where duplication of work is not cost effective. Therefore, the context of the situation and even the outcomes of the situation may affect the Rational Choice decision model.
28 Another complexity of using Rational Choice Theory is deciding what kind of benefits are being measured and compared? When considering Rational Choice Theory that are selfish, or that reflect their self (Schroeder, 1998, p. 4 0). For example, a ltruism, concern for the state of society, and additional other regarding values can be a source of such individual well being, often called psychic well (Schroeder, 1998, p. 40) Another form of fulfilling self interest could be assisting a specific person or group of people The warm feeling from helping someone you know or helping groups you know can be a benefit (Schroder, 1998). This differs from altruism in that the people being helped are known and the factor of reciprocity is a consideration. The last benefit option was discussed previously in this chapter and is the personal benefit of personal wealth, pleasure, gain or some other advantageous benefit for the individual making the decision(s) An upper level park manager ma king a decision to create an urban wildlife area because he/she is concerned about the environmental deterioration of ecosystems in his /her region may be acting in an altruistic manner. The same manager m a y award a construction contract to a friend for the construction of a new park. Here the manager may be making the decision based on the reward of reciprocity or the good feelings of helping a friend. In both of these examples the manager is receiving a benefit; however, it is not as clear or as easy to q uantify as doing it to add to personal wealth or the avoidance of a painful situation
29 The first goal of this dissertation is to identify the types of crime prevention strategies being used in urban municipal parks. Currently no data exist on crime prev ention strategies employed in urban municipal parks. This study will identify techniques being implemen ted in urban parks and this may be a baseline for future researchers interested in reducing crime and fear of crime in our parks. This will be the focus of chapter two ( paper 1) of this dissertation. information on CPTED strategies. Prior research suggests that less than half of the park directors surveyed in a statewide st udy of Florida municipal parks were knowledgeable of CPTED strategies (McCormick, et. al, 2010). It is important to know what information is available to park directors as they make decisions about reducing crime and fear of crime in the parks they manage. of benefits and cost s of implementing CPTED strategies in the parks they manage using Rational Choice Theory. Goals two and three will be addressed in chapter 3 (paper 2). The fourth goal is to ass and their attitudes and behaviors related to teaching these strategies to their students. Prior research suggests that less than 5% of the park directors surveyed in a statewide study of Florida municip al parks obtained training in CPTED from colleges or universities (McCormick, et. al, 2010). It is important to know what training options are available to park directors as they make decisions about reducing crime and fear of crime in the parks they manag perceptions of benefits and cost s of teaching CPTED strategies in the park management curriculum using Rational Choice Theory.
30 Finally, the last goal of this dissertation is to accumulate the acquired addit ional information about crime prevention strategies currently used in parks, attitudes of park directors towards using CPTED in their parks, attitudes of college professors teaching related to crime prevention and park management, and develop a base of kno wledge that will assist in reducing crime and fear of crime in urban parks.
31 Figure 1 1. Rational Choice Model
32 CHAPTER 2 MEASURING IMPLEMENTA TION OF CRIME PREVEN TION STRATEGIES IN URBAN MUNICIPAL PARKS C rime and fear of crime is increasing in rec reational settings ( Chavez, Tynon, & Knap, 2004, Manning et al., 2001; Pendleton, 2000; Shore, 1994 ). However, research on the effectiven ess of crime prevention strategies in urban parks, rural parks, or national forest/park lands is scarce. In 2006, Tynon and Chavez published an article entitled Crime in the national forest: A call for research In this article they proposed three questions: and what should we adopt for a successful crime (Tyron & Chaves, 2006 p. 154)? recommended the impor tance of getting citizens involved and addressing crime problems as they arise this is what Sampson and colleagues (Sampson & Raudenbush, 1999; Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997) refer to as collective efficacy. However, crime and fear of crime must be p erceived as a problem first, then and only then, will actions be taken to correct the problem. Although research specifically addressing the perceptions of crime and fear of crime, as it relates to upper level park management personnel and how it affects t heir decision making cannot be found in the literature ; a body of literature has focused on determining the characteristics associated with perceiving crime among neighborhood residents (Hipp,
33 2010; LaGrange & Ferraro, 1989; LaGrange, Ferraro, & Supancic, 1992; Robinson, Lawton, Taylor, & Perkins, 2003; Rountree & Land, 1996a; Wilcox, Quisenberry, & Jones, 2003). Furthermore, this body of literature suggests that perceptions of crime and fear of crime may differ from person to person within the same geograp hic area. relativity crime free and safe as compared to other neighborhoods in a city, regardless 4 p.42 43). Although no empirical studies could be found, it seems feasible that upper level park managers could also perceive their own parks as safe regardless of the actual crime Prior research ad dressing these incorrect perceptions of fear of crime has produced some interesting findings. Brantingham, Brantingham and Butcher (1986) found high associations between high levels of fear of crime and social incivilities (such as prostitution and panhand ling) as opposed to serious crimes Furthermore, research on the effect of labeling an area as unsafe due to a high crime rate indicates that such stigma can have negative consequences such as lowering property values and causing people to avoid such areas (Miller, 1999: Pyle, 1980). Therefore, some upper level park managers may think they park has a crime problem. They may fear that by admitting to the problem, the situation will only deteriora te. Finally, according to Pendleton and Thompson which park managers rely does not provide a comprehensive directive for national forest
34 recreational are lack of public the] managers we spoke to, who were not law enforcement officers or special agents, had little knowl 2000 p. in their parks could be found, it is logical to assume that their knowledge (or lack of awareness) ma y be similar to those of national forest managers. This study examines the attitudes of upper level park management decision makers who mana ge a municipal park system in the 250 largest parks in the United States T his research will provide insights in to current safety priorities and practices of park managers concerning crime preventio n strategies through specific research questions. The purpose of this study is to measure crime and fear of crime in the parks they mana ge, develop a baseline of crime prevention strategies reported to be currently used in urban parks and explore the factors affecting such implementation decisions by urban park and recreation administrators in metropolitan cities with populations above one hundred thousand residents. Review of Literature Empirical studies have suggested that fear of crime has a direct link to reduction in park usage ( Salazar, 2011 ; McGinn et al. 2008; Loukaitous Sideris & Eck, 2007; & Gomez et al. 2004; Carter et al., 200 3; C hiesura, 2004; Ching hua Ho et al., 2005; Chavez, Tynon, & Knap, 2004 ; Molnar et al. 2004; Scott & Jackson, 1996 ) Parents have refused to let their children attend parks and playgrounds because of crime concerns ( Clements, 2004; Gomez et al ., 2004; Louv, 2005; Molnar et al. 2004 ).
35 Women have reported that urban parks were the second most feared environments in the city ( streets and alleys were the most feared) ( Gordon & Riger 1989 ; Valentine, 1989 ) mentioned by respondents 66 or older for why they ent agreement among all Incivilities Research providing evidence for a significant relationship betwee n conditions of incivility (or aesthetics) and fear of crime and/or perception of risk for victimization is also well documented (Appleton, 1975; Box et al., 1988; Covington & Taylor, 1991; Gates & Rohe, 1987; Lewis & Maxfield, 1980; Lewis & Salem, 1986; S kogan, 1986; Samdahl & Christensen, 1986 ; Ibitayo & Virden, 1996 ; Budruk & Manning, 2006). I ncivilities can be categorized into two categories, physical and social incivilities. litter, vacant trash filled lots, unkempt lawns, yards or housing exteriors, abandoned cars and since the mid 1980 s, the conversion of houses or apartments to drug (Robinson et al 2003, p. 238). For parks, some of the most common inc ivilities would be discarded alcohol containers, drug paraphernalia, condoms, and graffiti or other destruction of park property. S ocial incivilities usually involve human behaviors such as hassles, neighbors fighting or arguing, late night noise or parties, prostitutes, and from the mid 1980s on, public drug sales and
36 2003, p. 238). Ferraro suggest that those who perceive m ore social or physical incivilities will report higher levels of perceived risk s and increased levels of fear of crime (1994). As the fear of crime increases, a spiral of behavior s are created which includes reducing time spent, especially at dusk and the evening, then, avoidance which in turn informal control over the public sp and this avoidance of the space encourages local delinquency, and signal s increased opportunities for delinquent behavior al. 2003, p. 39). Recent research that supports incivility theory includes but is not limited to Chiesura, 2004; Bodin & Hartig, 2003; Kuo, & Sullivan, 2001; Taylor, Kuo, & Sullivan, 2001; Hilborn, 2009; Hull, & Harvey, 1989; Kuo, Bacaicoa, & Sullivan, 1998; Chiesura, 2004, Michael, Hull, & Zahm 2001; Herzog & Miller, 1998 ; Bodin & Hartig, 2003. This research has been conducted across various disciplines including; parks and recreation; urban planning; landscape architecture; sociology; criminology and other academic fields. Budruk & Manning assert that incivilities in recreation settings are a major cause of concern for both park managers and visitors the effects of incivilities such as litter and graffiti suggests that tourist and park users are less like ly to frequent an area with incivilities (Budruk & Manning, 2006; Anderson & Brown, 1984; Christensen, 198 6 ; Heywood, Mullins, & Blower 1983; Ibitayo & Virden, 1996 ). Research conducted by Noe, Hammitt, & Bixler (1979) found litter to be more tolerated in urban settings (thoug h still not acceptable) than in nature settings and that
37 graffiti and vandalism were more common in urban parks, however, this behavior was not exclusive to urban areas. The literature suggests that park managers may be more sensitive to incivilities in pa rks than patrons ( Budruk & Manning 2006; Heywood, Mullins, & Blower 1983; Ibitayo & Virden, 1996 ) Many visitors seem to develop a norm or expectation of seeing litter and graffiti in small amounts, without impacting them especially in urban areas (Budru k & Manning, 2006). As litter and graffiti becomes the norm or expectation, it is tolerated by those who live in or visit those settings. However, according to Wilson & Kelling (1982) (authors of the Broken Windows Theory) this is a dangerous pathway to he ad down because disorder and crime are thought to be inextricably linked Budruk & Manning (2006) is a good place to start but their findings have the meanings behind the litter and the gr affiti their research. A few soda cans and a pizza box sends a different message than beer cans, hypodermic needles, and a broken crack pipe. A heart with the initials of two lovers carved in a tree or spray painted on a bolder sends a different message th MS 13 p ainted on a building. Budruk & Manning recommends that future research in ther avenues include[ing] visitor perceptions of litter and graffiti impacts based on type of litter [and] message conveyed by graffiti (2006 p. 21 ). Uniform Law Enforcement Other research has concentrated on law enforcement aspects of park management Pendleton (1998) suggests that an increase in crime may persuade park personnel to adopt a hard law enforcement persona; making arrests and issuing citations instead of giving warnings and other softer approaches. Some researchers
38 areas is necessary for people to feel s afe ( Harnik, 2006 p. 30). Others argue that a police presence in the park just leads to more fear of crime. The park visitor assumes that if there is a need for a park police officer, then there must be a lot of crime in this park. Some studies suggest tha t standard police patrol s or rapid response to police calls for service had little impact on crime or on fear of crime in communities (Kelling et al. 1974; Spelman & Brown 1981 ). ps: those cities with armed park police and those with unarmed park rangers (in radio contact with For those parks that choose to utilize armed, uniformed police or park rangers, there are advantages and disad vantages. Advantages include quicker response times in times of emergency and a stronger focus on criminal activities Some disadvantages include; increased financial burdens, higher training costs, sometimes a pro blem with park police moral e ; because park police usually do not earn the same magnitude of salary as other police officers, but encounter many of the same problems as city or county police ( Harnik, 2006 p. 30).This disparity in pay sometimes results in pa rk police officers taking higher paying jobs in other police departments as soon as an opening occurs. One advantage to having uniformed police or rangers is the uniform itself. In an subjects consistently ranked the police uniform as the one most likely to induce feelings of safety models were consistently rated as more competent, reliable, intelligent, and helpful when pictured in a police uniform than they were in casual street clothes lated that having other
39 providing an additional sense of presence and authority ( Harnik, 2006 p. 30). Closed Circuit Television Another form of crime prevent ion is Closed Circuit Television or CCTV. CCTV has been used for decades in banks, convenience stores, and retail stores. CCTV is viewed as a technique of formal surveillance enhance [ing] or take [ing] the place of security personnel ( Welsh & Farrington 2002 p. 1 ). Although research on CCTV has concluded that CCTV had a significant desirable effect on crime, although the overall reduction in crime w ( Welsh & Farrington 2002 p. 41 ). CCTV has b een found to be cost effective. the single most heavily funded non criminal justice crime prevention measure. Over the three year period of 1999 through 2001, the British government has made available $170 million for CCTV schemes in town and city centers, car parks, crime hot spots and residential Furthermore, Welsh and Farrington (2003) found the benefit to cost ratio to be 3.5 to 1, in that the criminal justice syste m saved 3.5 pounds in court cost s and incarceration cost s to every pound spent in running the CCTV programs. of CCTV may give people a false sense of security and cause them to s top taking precautions that they would have taken in the absence of this intervention, such as not ( Welsh & Farrington, 2003, p. 111). Crime displacement is another argument associated with CCTV. The argument of
40 displacement is not whether cameras are preventing crime s ; rather they may just be moving crime s to other location s where no camera s are watching. Closed circuit television has been implemented in US urban parks. One example is Pioneer Park, in Salt Lake City, Utah. The main complaint was drug dealing in the park so police installed four video surveillance cameras in plain view so park visitors knew they were being watched and the drug related crime moved to another location (Morgan, 2009). The city of Atlanta plans to install over five hundred video cameras throughout the city including in the municipal parks as a crime prevention initiative in 2012 (Garner, 2011). As the technology evolves and the price becomes more reasonable, the occurrence o f CCTV in recreational areas is likely to increase (Koskela, 2000) Lighting Improving lighting is one of the most common suggestions in reducing crime and fear of crime (Atkins et al., 1991; Lab, 1997). However, research in London suggests that there is l ittle empirical evidence that improved street lighting actually reduces crime and inconclusive results on if lighting had any effect s on feelings of safety (Atkins et al., 1991). However, Blbaum and H unecke most important factors in perception of safety in an environment (2005). Furthermore, lighting is often regarded as the easiest physical feature that could be improved in a given situation ( Blbaum & H unecke 2005, p. 480). Atlas makes irrelevant ; light enables you to take in information from the environment and then make a choice. Lig ht allows one to see that another person is walking the trail coming towards
41 appropriate actions depending on your processing of the information (Atlas, 2008, p. 383). Acco rding to Atlas, if you want to use a space at night, then the minimum lighting (2008, p 401) to be effective In 2005 Cozens, Saville, and Hillier published an arti cle titled Crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED): a review and modern bibliography article, they addressed findings in the literature on crime and fear of crime concerning research on lighting. Below are their conclusions. In the UK, lighting studies in Hammersmith and Fulham (Painter, 1991a) and the North West of England (Painter, 1991b) reported reductions in crime and disorder. A Home Office funded study (Atkins et al., 1991) conducted in Wandsworth found no effect on crime, as did a review by Ramsay (1991) although it did suggest improved street lighting could reduce the fear of crime. Other studies in Cardiff (Herbert and Moore, 1991), Hull (Davidson and Goodey, 1991), Leeds (Burden and Murphy, 1991) and Strathclyde (Ditton et al., 1993) produced inconclusive findings (Painter and Farrington, 1997). Bainbridge and Painter (1993) studied which despite the col lection and analysis of some additional social survey data, also proved inconclusive. Methodological inadequacies have raised serious doubts about the validity of many of these exploratory studies (Painter and Farrington, 1997). (Cozens et al., 2005, p. 23 4 235). Atlas also asserts that darkness can be an effective safety strategy (2008). One example of this dark out prevent people from playing basketball at night (Atlas, 2008, p. 407). The entire school and grounds are dark to discourage use and police and neighbors know if they see ).
42 Therefore, in this case the absence of light is a psychological deterrent to use of an area Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design or CPTED (pronounced: sep Ted) is an approach that has evolved over the last four decades. An operational definition of CPTED includes Defensible Space Theory (Newman, 1970), Eyes on the Street ( Jacobs, 1961) and situational crime prevention (Clarke, 1995). While there are subtle differences in each theory and technique, f or the purposes of this research, CPTED will be used as the umbrella concept encapsulating environmental design aspects of crime prevention. According to the National Crime Prevention Council, CPTED is the design and use of the environment that directly af fects human behavior, which in turn, influences both fear of crime and opportunities for crime and ultimately affects quality of life (1997). Brantingham & Faust stated that (CPTED) is focused on "identifying conditions of the physical and social environme nt that provide opportunities for or precipitate criminal acts and the alteration of those conditions so that no crimes occur" ( p.289, 1976 ). This approach was dramatically different than traditional criminological theories of the time because its aim was reactive and largely failing strategies employed by police, courts, and correctional p. 23, 1980). CPTED today, can best be defined as design principles that decrease or remove opportunities for crime and encourage legitimate and positive social interactions in commercial, resi dential, and other environments (Macdonald & Kitteringham, 2004). CPTED principles provide legitimate users a g ood and safe feeling while at the same time
43 signaling but discreetly (Blue, p. 46, 2000). The four main components of CPTED are: Natural Observation (removing hiding spots and maintaining clear sight lines), Natural Access Control (using pathways, vegetation, gates or bollards to direct and control travel), Territoriality (identifying park property with signage, vegetation, or other positive markings), and Maintenance (clean, w ell maintained parks indicate that someone cares about the space and the elimination or reduction of physical incivilities). These four components overlap and work together in many situations. One of the ways that CPTED differs from situational crime preve whereas situational crime prevention may use CCTV or laser motion detection. A CPTED approach might use a bench to help encourage natural observation of a playground or add a hedge of thorny Pyracantha (firethorn) to discourage walking into an area that managers would like to protect, for example. One area of CPTED that this paper will explore is the use of signage. Signage is included in the territoriality component of CPTED because it usually communic ates that is critical for achieving compliance and reducing the facilitators of crim When rules are ambiguous, criminals have a talent for creating excuses. Good signage eliminates excuses (Atlas, 2008). Signs can also help give directions and may even include maps. In this function, signage and maps also act as access co ntrol devices, another component of CPTED.
44 Analyzing Crime Data Harnik asserts that precise collection of crime data within parks and within neighborhoods surrounding parks is essential to formulating a crime prevention strategy (2006) However, according nly about half the surveyed agencies currently collect this data and, of those that do, most have no strategy to use the information ( Harnik, 2006 p. 29). One way of analyzing this information is crime mapping and hot spot analysis. This can be done using geographic information system s (GIS) or even as low tech as using push pins in a paper map of a park on a bulletin frequent that it is highly pr edictable [and that the crime areas are] spatially closer than identified on a map, that area can be investigated and appropriate strategies implemented to reduce crime in that area. For example, a study in Minneapolis found % of the street kinds of crimes are being committed and exactly where they are occurring in the park, ineffective Previous research on hot spots includes homicides in Chicago; (Block & Christakos, 1995; Block & Block, 1998) drug crimes; (Green, 1995; Weisburd, 1995) and burglary (Robinson, 1998) Research suggests that some women are afraid of municipal parks in urban areas (Shores, Scott, & Floyd, 2007). Gordon and Riger (1989) reported that urban parks were the second most feared environments, with streets and alleys s een as the most dangerous. Furthermore, another study asserted that 61% of women living in the 26 largest U.S. cities reported feeling unsafe i n urban environments (Gordan & Riger,
45 1989). nother valuable piece of information is the ratio of ma le to female users in each park since a low rate of female users is a very strong indication of a park which feels unsafe ( Harnik, 2006 p. 29). Therefore, knowing the ratio of women visiting each park can be a good indicator of how safe the general public considers a park. Citizen Involvement Research has suggested that safe and healthy places have similar characteristics including citizen participation (Atlas, 2008; Checkoway & Finn, 1992; Saville & Clear, 2000) community discussion and mutual working re lationships (Atlas 2008; Barton, 1993; National Institute of Justice, 1996) and opportunities for residents to work together developing crime prevention strategies (Atlas, 2008; Gilligan 2001; & Wekerle & Whitzman, 1995). This has also been defined as seco nd generation CPTED. A become more holistic relative to acknowledging connections between management and use of physical environment s ; that is, the link between physical and so cial factors. (Schneider & Kitchen, 2002, 2007). Second social factors to accompany the original four physical components of CPT ED. Social Cohesion (the concept working together towards a common goal ; would be an example), Connectivity (participatory park planning with the community is an example), Community Culture (having a large presence of females in the p arks shows that the area is safe and that women feel safe in this environment), and Threshold Capacity (keeping things in balance, maximizing diversity, keeping things socially stable such as through o rganizing a neighborhood park clean up, which might
46 red uce the incidence of incivilities). In Second Generation CPTED one is focusing on developing a sen se of community and involvement (Atlas, 2008). With increasing urbanization, higher unemployment and declining park budgets, interest in increasing public u se of parks for active living or public support reasons is accelerating; but highly publicized examples of crimes in parks, still act as a deterrent for some citizens. Given the apparent minimal implementation of crime prevention strategies in many parks, a study was undertaken to better understand the awareness and interest in crime prevention strategies among upper level park managers as it relates to park settings. Research Questions 1 Do urban park managers consider crime and fear of crime as a problem in the municipal parks they manage? 2 What kinds of crime prevention strategies are they utilizing ? 3 Do managers implement CPTED in a manner consistent with what rational choice theory would predict? Methods Participants Upper level managers were recruited by identifying the 250 largest cities in the United States by census data and then going to the cities official website s and obtaining the name and email address of the head decision maker of the parks and recreation department. If the information was not av ailable on the website a phone call was made to the park and recreation department requesting the name and email of the highest level department decision maker.
47 Procedure s An e mail letter with a URL to a web based survey w as sent to 250 directors of muni cipal recreation and park agencies of the largest cities in the United States A web based survey approach was selected for several reasons. First according to Czaja & to gain important information abou the beliefs and behaviors of urban park managers across the United States (2002) related to applications of crime prevention strategies to reduce crime and fear of crime in their park systems. This is not a large sample, for example previous research reported that a lone (Spengler et al 2002). However, according to Schuman, it is not the size of the sample but the representativeness of the sample (2002) that is important. In other words, it is more informative to have a sample that represents the population being st udied than just having a large sample. Another reason data was collected via a survey method is because this topic is a relatively new area of study in the field of parks and recreation. No previous research has established a national baseline of data on specific practices of park of crime prevention strategies (McCormick et al., 2010 ). According to Czaja & Blair, email surveys are not very reliable and have low response rates, however, web based surveys are more like mail surveys and therefo re considered more reliable (2005). Some of the advantages of offering a web based survey are: a professional contact letter can be sent as an email or attached to an email at no cost; second, follow up email post cards or reminders can be sent at no cost; third,
48 responses are automatic and can be formatted to automatically be delivered in a spreadsheet, so time is saved in collecting and coding data, and response rates can be as high as mailed surveys if proper techniques are employed (Czaja & Blair, 2005) The limitations of web based surveys are similar to mail surveys. The possibility of having the wrong address can lead to non response. Nevertheless, most e mail systems will inform of non deliverable e mails. For the potential respondent, i t is easy t o hit the delete button, but it is also easy to throw a survey into the trash can. However, "the biggest disadvantage of Internet surveys is that a large proportion of the U.S. adult his was not a problem because all of the park directors were emailed directly to their work email address. Work email addresses were obtained by visiting the park department's website address. Survey Development T he CPTED literature provide s a starting point and recommendations from CPTED practitioners have identified characteristics of safe parks and have provide d a foundation to build on Specifically for this study, i nformation from the Virginia Crime on CPTED Guidelines was accessed to assist with the formulat ion of survey questions (2005). Questionnaire de velop ment was based upon a literature review which identified previous related studies. Multiple c hoice, dichotomous choice and Likert scale items were the primary response formats. A test of content validity was conducted by a panel of five university professors and three experts in crime prevention and law enforcement. The panel members were asked t o examine the questionnaire in terms of item
49 relevance, representativeness, and clarity. A few word changes and refinements were made in response to their suggestions. The questionnaire was pretested on all of the municipal park directors in the state of F lorida. An e mail survey was sent to all 178 directors of municipal recreation and park agencies in Florida. A total of 91 directors responded, achieving a return rate of 50%. A Cronbach's Alpha test of reliability was calculated using SPSS 15 and indica ted a reliability coefficient based on the average covariance among items of 0.810. Because none of the items was below 0.70 all items were kept (Ap pendix A). Additional questions were added to the questionnaire after analysis of the pilot study to impro ve the validity of the study by seeking additional information on some topics The final survey consisted of 68 questions ; though some items were conditional based on earlier responses, so the length of the survey varied depending on how respondents answer ed certain questions. The survey was submitted, reviewed and approved by IRB. The survey was formatted and converted to a web format using the Q ualtrics survey program ( Appendix B ) The survey (D illman, 2007). An e mail includ ing a cover letter, and a URL link to a web based questionnaire was sent to the directors of municipal recreation and park agencies of the largest 250 cities in the US Reminder emails were sent out every 2 weeks over a 12 we ek period. SPSS 15.0 for Windows (SPSS, 2008) was used to conduct statistical analyses. Descriptive statistics were calculated for the directors' uses of crime prevention strategies. This method of data collection and interpretation is consistent
50 with lit erature on crime and parks ( Chavez, Tynon, & Knap, 2004; Chavez & Tynon, 2000). Results Responses were obtained from 129 park directors indicating a return rate of 52 % (one city in Colorado was transitioning its park leadership staff and had no upper level administrators, thus, in effect, 249 was the reachable population) Males were 73 % of the respondents. Caucasians comprised 93%, African Americans comprised 4% and Hispanics represented the remaining 3% of the responding managers A total o f 95% of the r grees The mean age was 54 years ( T able 2 1). All responses were collected between December 2010 and February 2011. A total of 81 park directors identified their city and state, while 48 directors chose not to name their city or state Of the 81 park directors who identified their locations 32 states were represented ( F igure 2 1). The geographically identified members of the sample (n=81) were rep resentative of the population (F igure 2 2). As indic ated in Table 2 2, most of the park directors (66%) did not agree that the occurrence of crime was a problem in the parks they managed. A total of 4% neither agreed nor disagreed and 31% agreed that the occurrence of crime in their parks was a problem. W r agreed nor disagreed (Table 2 the park that I man age is a priority agreed nor disagreed (Table 2 2).
51 Table 2 3 reports results related to strategies against physical incivilities such as litter and graffiti. When asked about emptying their trash bins befor e they overflowed, 65% of the directors indicated doing this in all of their parks, 32% reported doing it in three quarters of their parks, 2% said this only happened in half of their parks and 1% said this happened in only one quarter of their parks (Tabl e 2 had no problems with litter in all of their parks; 32% said that they had no problems with litter in three quarters of their parks and 16% repor ted no problems in half of their parks. 24% reported they had no problems with litter in one quarter of their parks and 22% reported that they had problems with litter in all of their parks. em with 34% of the sample reported three quarters of their parks had no problems with graffiti. 15% were able to report that half of their parks had no problems wi th graffiti and 35% reported a quarter of their parks had no problems with graffiti. 14% reported that they had problems with graffiti in a ll of their parks (Table 2 3). When asked about the time frame to remove graffiti in the parks, 40% reported graffiti removal within 24 hours and 48% reported graffiti removal within 48 hours. 8% reported remov al of graffiti within 5 days; 1 reported removal within 14 days and 3% reported graffiti removal within 31 days. When asked if their park system had a written graf fiti removal policy, 72% responded yes; 22% responded no and 6% responded that t hey did not know (Table 2 3).
52 Table 2 4 reported results related to the types of personnel providing guardianship or security within parks. Armed uniformed park police with the authority to make arrest s were reported to be stationed in all of the parks by 15% of the directors; 3% reported uniformed police in three quarters of the parks; 4% in half of the parks; and 8% in one quarter of the parks. Armed uniformed park police in pa rks with the authority to make arrests are absent in 70% of the parks in responding cities. Unarmed uniformed park rangers with the ability to contact the police in all parks was reported by 13% of the cities ; three quarters of the parks by 4%; half of the parks by 13% of the cities; and in one quarter of the parks in 21% of the cities. A complete absence of uniformed rangers was reported in 56% of the responding cities. None of the directors reported having organized volunteers in all of their parks; 5% re ported such volunteers in three quarters of their parks; in half of the parks by 8%; and in one quarter of the parks by 23%. A total of 64% of the responding cities reported an absence of park watch volunteers in their parks (Table 2 4). The next set of qu estions was on electrical and electronic crime prevention strategies (Table 2 5). 1% of the responding cities used CCTV in three quarters of their parks; 9% used CCTV in half of their parks and 38% used CCTV in one quarter of their parks. CCTV was not used at all in 52% of the responding cities. Emergency call boxes parks for 3% of the cities; half of the parks in 3% and one quarter of the parks for 15% of the respon ding cities. Emergency call boxes were not used at all in 78% of the responding cities. Lights in all of the parks was reported in 15% of the cities; 37% of the cities reported having lights in three quarters of their parks; 29% reported having lights
53 in half of their parks and 19% reported having lights in one quarter of their parks (Table 2.5). Keeping the lights on to encourage night time use in all of their parks was reported in 9% of the cities surveyed. 12% of the cities kept lights on in three quar ters of their parks; 29% in half of the parks and 42% of the cities kept them on in one quarter of their parks. A total of 8% of the cities reported not keeping the lights on in any of their parks to encourage night time use (Table 2 5). Keeping the lights turned off at night time to discourage night time use in all of their parks was reported in 3% of the responding cities. 26% of cities kept the lights off in three quarters of their parks; 20% did so in half of the parks; and 15% in one quarter of the par ks. A total of 36% of the cities reported that they did not turn off the lights in any of their parks to discourage use. Table 2 6 reports responses about the use of signage and other territorial reinforcements. 82% of respondents reported having signage i dentifying all of their parks; 14% identifying three quarters of their parks and 4% reported signs identifyi ng half of their parks (Table 2 6). Signage indicating who maintained the parks was present in all of the parks for 63% of the cities. Such signage was present in a quarter of the parks for 14% of the cities; half of the parks for 8%; and in one quarter of parks for 2% of the cities. Signage indicating who maintains the parks was absent in all of the parks for 13% of the responding cities. Park rules were posted in all of the park s in 48% of the cities (Table 2 6). 25% of the cities had park rules posted in three quarters of t heir parks; 12% of the cities had rules posted in half of their parks and 15% had park rules posted in one quarter of their
54 par ks. Maps that showed visitors where they were and where they could go were present in every park in 2% of the cities Maps present in three quarters of the parks were reported by 2% of the cities; 11% had such maps in half of their parks; and 59% had them in one quarter of the parks. No maps were posted in any of the parks for 26% of the cities (Table 2 6). A qualifying question was asked, did they have trails that led into secluded areas ? If the answer was no, the next question was skipped ; if the answer w as yes the directors were asked if their parks had trails that led patrons into secluded areas, and, were there signs or maps that warned patrons that they were entering a seclude d area. A total of 22% of the cities reported that they provided such warnin gs in all of their parks. 9% of the cities provided a warning in three quarters of their parks; 7% of the cities provided such warnings in half of their parks; and 10% provided warning s in a quarter of their parks. A total of 52% of the cities reported pro vided no warning at all that a patron would be entering a secluded area by walking a trail (Table 2 6). Table 2 7 reports results related to what type of crime related data the park directors archived. Data on the type of crime committed was collected in 5 5% of the cities surveyed; in 3% of the cities the director did not know if crime data was collected; and in 42% of the cases crime data was not collected. The c ollected crime data were available to the public in 71% of cities; were not available to the public in 20% of the cities and the director did not know if the information was available to the publ ic in 9% of the cities (Table 2 7). Data on the location of cri mes within the parks were col lected by 47% of the cities; were not collected by 46% of the cities and 7% did not know if the locations of crimes in their parks were collected. D ata on crime locations was available to the public in 81% of the cities that arch ived such data; were not available in 12%
55 those cities; and 7% did not know if this infor mation was available to the public. When asked how often their staff conducted face to face interviews with the public, 18% responded never; 8% responded once a year; 18% responded two three times a year; 8% responded monthly; 13% responded weekly; a nd 17% responded daily (Table 2 7). When asked if they knew on a park by park basis the ratio of males to females in each park, 98% responded no and 2% responded yes (Table 2 7). Table 2 8 indicates the level of community involvement in parks managed by the vari ous cities. The use of citizen safety committees was reported by 10% of the cities; whereas 85% of the cities did not have a citizen safety committee and 5% did not know nt in 44% of the cities; 55% of the sample did and 1% responded that they did not know (Table 2 8). Implementation of CPTED Strategies and Rational Choice Theory Under the precepts of rational choice theory, ma ngers would be expected to act in ways that maximize benefits and minimize costs Although the data available here are rather basic and descriptive, a test can be conducted. First, it would be expected under RCT that those managers who thought crime was a problem in their park systems would be more likely to implement CPTED strategies compared with those who did not t hink it was a problem (Table 2 10 ). The reciprocal way that same test could be phrased is whether those managers who did not think crime was a problem in their parks, are the managers who had already implemented CPTED strategies more than managers than who did think crime was a problem. Secondly, it would also be expected that those managers with CPTED training would be more likely to implement CPTED strategies compared with those who did not have training (Table 2 11 ). As can be seen in
56 reviewing the t tests presented in these tables; generally, the results were not consiste nt with what RCT would predict. Discussion Are the upper level managers accurate? Collectively they suggest that crime is not a problem in their parks. Only 2% strongly agree; 5% agree; and 23% somewhat agree that crime is a problem. This equals a 30% agreement that crime is a problem in their parks. Similarly, only 32% of upper level park managers responded that fear of crime was a problem in their parks. This was a lower percentage than would have been expected considering the research on park constraints and fear of crime in parks ( Salazar, 2011 ; McGinn et al. 2008; Loukaitous Sideris & Eck, 2007; & Gomez et al. 2004; Carter et al., 2003; C hiesura, 2004; Ching hua Ho et al., 2005; Chavez, Tynon, & Knap, 2004 ; Molnar et al. 2004; Scott & Jackson, 1996 ) However, when upper level managers were asked if reducing fear of crime in their parks was a priority, 55% agreed that it was a priority. Previous research in assessing the safety of neighborhoods suggests that residents will rate their neighborhood safe no matter how unsafe their neighborhood actually may be (Paulson & Robinson, 2004). Could this be the same distortion of reality occurring in upper level managers of large municipal park and recreation departments? These results seem to at least raise this as a possibility. Th e next section concentrated on the physical incivilities of the parks, namely trash and graffiti. A total of 97% of the cities reported that they emptied all of the trash receptacles in all to three fourths of their parks before the trash receptacles overf lowed. This suggests that ample trash receptacles are present or maintenance crews are proficient in their duties or both. However, when asked what percentage of their parks
57 they could honestly say had no problems with litter, only 6% of the upper park man agers could claim that 100% of their parks were free from problems with litter. Conversely, 22% of the upper management admitted that none of their parks were free from problems of litter in their parks. Results were similar with graffiti. Only 2% of the s ample was able to say that 100% of their parks were graffiti free or had no problems with graffiti. Although graffiti was reported as a problem in 98% of the cities surveyed, 88% of the cities reported a 48 hour (2 day) graffiti removal strategy. This is a n important the graffiti was visible and eliminates the opportunity for a rival gang to leave their rthermore, 72% of the cities stated that they had a written graffiti policy. Having a written policy helps the organization clarify their position on the problem, informs employees of when and how to address the problem, and helps establish a graffiti insp ection procedure. Of the upper level managers surveyed, 70% reported not using armed uniform police in any of their parks and 15% used armed uniformed police in all of their parks. The remaining 15% of the directors had the police covering different perce ntages of their parks, likely presuming that areas that were deemed less safe and needed police presence were covered and those areas that were perceived safe did not need a police presence. One reason that 70% of the cities may have opted not to use armed uniformed police in the parks is the additional cost. Harnik reported that armed police in the parks usually cost 20%
58 However, 56% of the managers surveyed did not use unarmed rangers in any of their parks either. Furthermore, 64% of the managers did not even utilize volunteer groups ha d reasons other than economic when deciding to use personnel as a crime prevention stra tegy for their park s Further research should be conducted on the use of park police, unarmed park perspective and the park visitor perspectives would be informative. The us e of electrical devices such as closed circuit television (CCTV) and emergency call boxes was relatively low, however, as technology improves and prices decrease their use will likely increase as trends in the use of red light cameras and urban street mon itoring are already showing. Only 1% of the cities sampled employed emergency call boxes in all of their parks and no cities reported installing CCTV cameras in all of their parks. The data seems to suggest that CCTV and emergency call boxes were only inst alled in crime hot spots; 38% of the cities reported installing CCTV and 15% reported installing emergency call boxes in a quarter of their parks. These one quarter of the parks response category. The use of lighting section was the most complex results to interpret. For example, one question asked in what percentage of your parks are lights turned on at night to encourage nighttime use and 8% of the cities responded that they did not k eep their lights on in any of their parks to encourage night time use. However, when asked in what percentage of your parks are the lights turned off to discourage nighttime use, only 3% of the cities reported turning off the lights in all of their parks t o discourage use.
59 This is only a discrepancy of 5%, but why is there a discrepancy at all? If the lights are not turned on in 8% of the cities, it is dark in those parks at night. If the lights are turned off, it is dark in those parks at night also. Perha ps the discrepancy is due to not having lights in all of the parks. One upper level park manager emailed comments about their concerns about the survey. This manager explained that their park had a lot of urban natural areas and these areas were not lit an d therefore he could not answer that 100% of his parks had lights because he had to account for the 50% of his park areas that were urban wildlife areas. A follow up email was sent to all 250 upper level managers asking them if they would like to elaborate on the lighting section or elaborate on any other section of the survey. No other responses were received. Future research on lighting in parks should make it clear whether the researcher is interested in lighting in all parks, including wildlife areas, s ports fields and athletic areas. This researcher was interested to find out if parks in large cities were open 24 hours a day. Instead of asking the question that way, the question was asked if lights were turned on at night to encourage night time use. Th e largest response was that 42% turned their lights on to encourage night time use in one quarter of their parks (Table 2 4). The use of signage in parks is essential to establishing territoriality. The findings that only 82% of the sample had all of thei r parks identified with a sign was surprising. These are the 250 largest cities in the US and some of the parks did not even have a sign identifying them as a park or who managed the park When asked about the presence of signs identifying who maintains th e park, only 63% of the cities provided
60 such signs in all of their parks. Atlas (2008) stresses social cohesion and community connectedness, but how can a community help a park if they do not know who to contact or how to contact them? Atlas (2008) stated that signage stating the rules was essential for preventing crime. However, only 48% of the sample posted rules in all of their parks. Rules are necessary for removing excuses, maintaining order and reducing crime (Atlas, 2008). Harnik asserts that excell ost big city park agencies have a legislative mandate and a mission statement, but research confirm ed that 52% of city parks do not post rules for their patrons. What was even more surprising was that only 2% of the cities provided a map in all of their parks. It might be understandable if the park was very small, like a neighborhood pocket park, but, many urban parks are large covering several or more acres. Providing a map of where visitors are in a park and where they can walk or bike to, provides users with a better understanding of how they can enjoy the park. Furthermore, if any areas of the park are secluded, this map can potentially inform patrons and help them make better decisions in using specific areas, e specially after dark. A question on the survey specifically asked if any of the parks had trails that led visitors into secluded areas. Those who selected yes were given a follow up question asking if visitors were warned they were going to be entering a s ecluded area and 52% of the respondents reported that none of their parks with secluded areas warned their
61 visitors. Research conducted by Fisher and Nasar suggests that people are fearful of areas that provide hiding spots, areas where people are out of v iew of others and areas that restrict avenues of escape (1992). All three of these conditions could be true of a secluded trail. The point that the author was making is that with minimal cost, the parks clude d effect so visitors can make an informed decision on whether to use the trail or not. This paper started with the premise that crime and fear of crime must be perceived as a problem first, then and only then, will managers take actions to correct this perception. Collecting data of the numbers and type of crimes that occur in a park system is one of the best ways to acknowledge the problem or a way of confirming that there is no problem. Among the responding cities, 55% con firmed collect ing data on the crimes co mmitted in their parks (Table 2 6). Furthermore, 71% of the parks that collected crime information, made the crime information available to the public. Similarly, 47% of the cities collected data on the locations of c rime in their parks and 81% of these parks made the locations of crime a vailable to the public (Table 2 6). Collecting data on types and locations of crimes committed in parks is a step towards preventing those crimes. Crimes are rarely random and studies confirm that small segments of the population and certain areas (hot spots) are subjected to crimes disproportionately (Paulson & Robinson, 2004). By collecting this data and analyzing it, analysts can see the formation of patterns and hot spots. Once the hot spots have been identified, then appropriate actions to eliminate the problem can be implemented. For example, suppose a number of robberies have taken place at a certain spot on a trail. When managers investigate the area of the robberies, it becomes obvious that the
62 landscape is overgrown and the area provides lots of hiding places for potential robbers. In response, park administrators can direct the maintenance crew to modify the physical environment by raising the crown of trees t o 7 feet and prun e bushes down to 36 inches to remove at least some of the hiding places. Programming is also prescribed to be increased on this trail; for example a walking club may be established and suggested to use this trail on a regular basis to get more eyes in the area Local law enforcement could be invited to practice their mountain bike training on this trail. Contacting a local Boy Scout troop to conduct interpretive nature walks on the trail may be another option to increase programming and more visitor presen ce in this area. Installing lighting or and there are no one size fits all answers. However, before one can even consider finding answers, they must first understand th e problem. Collecting data is a vital step in understanding the problem. Finally, no city can have a truly great park system without a strong network private organizations that serve as both supporters and watchdogs of the departme nt. Ideally, a city will have one or two organizations with a full city wide orientation, assuring that the system as a whole is well run and successful, and also scores of groups that focus on an individual park and its surrounding neighborhood concentrat ing on everything from cleanliness, safety, and quality to programming, signage, and special fundraising (Harnik, 2006, p. 20). This research found that 44% of the cities had a city organization (Table 2 7). This was surprisingl y low, especially with the economic follow up with in future research. Developing cohesiveness between the citizens and their parks is a plus for the parks. But, the biggest surprise in all of this research was the
63 low occurrence of citizen safety committees. A total of 85% of the cities did not use citizen safety committees in their pa rks and another 5% did not know if they had one or not. Only 10% of the responding park managers knew that they had a citizen safety committee and that the committee members were made up of residents who lived in close proximity to the park in which they s erved as a committee member. That upper level park management may have a different perception of safety in their parks than the users and that they may not see crime and fear of crime as a problem may be one of the strongest findings of this study If the upper level park management met with a safety committee who were made up of residents who lived in close proximity to the park, they would likely gain important information about what is happening in their parks. The people who know what is going on are l ikely to be the people who live in the area. Furthermore, if the people who live in the area are empowered, by being invited to serve on a safety committee, then some will really care about what is going on in their park(s) and they will probably assist in creating solutions to these problems. Parks need to form partnerships with the citizens they serve. Citizen groups can be a valuable resource in a variety of circumstances. As for the inability to square the results comparing those managers who thought cr ime was a problem or who had CPTED training with those who did not think crime was a problem with what RCT might predict; it is likely that the intervening variable of the cost s of implementing CPTED strategies might have been a factor. Especially in rece nt years, it has likely been especially difficult for park managers to implement any new park modifications due to declining city budgets (even though the case has been
64 made that if fear of crime was reduced, it likely would increase visitation and probabl y political and economic support). Summary T his research takes steps towards answer ing some important questions that are missing in the literature. The first important question answered is whether the upper level managers of parks in some of the 250 larges t cities believe that crime and fear of crime is a problem in their parks? The findings of this research indicate that only about a third of the upper level managers consider crime or fear of crime to be a concern. Two thirds of the upper level managers do not consider crime or fear of crime to be a problem in their parks. Past research in constraints and fear of crime in parks indicates that citizens are concerned about crime and fear of crime. This discrepancy between the citizens who use parks and the up per level managers who run the parks is missing from the literature in previous studies. Possible explanations include previous studies that suggest that people perceive their own neighborhood to be safe regardless of the actual crime levels (Paulson & Ro binson, 2004). Furthermore, Brantingham, Brantingham and Butcher found high associations between high levels of fear of crime and social incivilities (such as prostitution and panhandling) as opposed to serious crimes (1986). The citizens who use these par ks may be afraid of these social incivilities, however, upper level management may see these social incivilities as more of a nuisance than a generator of fear of crime. Future research should consider investigating upper level park s of panhandling and prostitution in their parks. To be clear, this paper did not survey citizens in the responding cities for a direct comparison of the
65 congruence between park managers and citizens; but a disparity is suggested by comparing results acros s several studies of citizens and these results.
66 Table 2 1 Demographic information Description N Possible Responses Percent Gender 85 Male 73 Female 27 Race 78 Caucasian 93 African American 4 Hispanic 3 Highest level of educ ation 86 Some college / no degree 3 Associate Degree 2 Bachelor Degree 40 Master Degree 55 Doctorate 0 Mean Age 73 54* *Mean Age is not a percentage but the mathematical mean of the ages
67 T able 2 2 Directors me and fear of crime as a problem Description N Possible Responses Percentage Actual occurrence of crime is a problem 129 Strongly Disagree 15 Disagree 35 Somewhat Disagree 16 Neither Agree nor Disagree 4 Somewhat Agree 23 Agree 5 Fe ar of crime is a problem Reducing the fear of crime is priority 129 129 Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree or Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Disagree Som ewhat Disagree Neither Agree or Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree 2 8 35 19 6 22 8 2 6 17 9 13 27 18 10
68 Table 2 3 Physical incivilities strategies employed Description N Possible Responses Percent What % of my parks empties all t rash 89 100% of my parks 65 containers before they overflow 75% of my parks 32 50% of my parks 2 25% of my parks 1 0% of my parks 0 What % of my parks can I say have no 90 100% of my parks 6 problems with litter 75% of my parks 32 50 % of my parks 16 25% of my parks 24 0% of my parks 22 What % of my parks can I say have no 90 100% of my parks 2 problems with graffiti 75% of my parks 34 50% of my parks 15 25% of my parks 35 0% of my parks 14 Time frame to re move graffiti 90 24 hours (1 day) 40 48 hours (2 days) 48 3 to 5 days 8 6 to 14 days 1 15 to 31 days 3 Do you have a written graffiti policy 90 Yes 72 No 22 I do not know 6
69 Table 2 4 Personnel strategies employed Descript ion N Possible Responses Percent Parks have armed uniformed 96 All of my parks 15 police with authority to make Three quarters of my parks 3 Arrests Half of my parks 4 One quarter of my parks 8 None of my parks 70 Parks have unarmed uniformed 94 All of my parks 13 police who can contact the police Three quarters of my parks 4 Half of my parks 6 One quarter of my parks 21 None of my parks 56 Organized volunteers e.g., Park Watch 92 All of my parks 0 Three quarters of my parks 5 Half of my parks 8 One quarter of my parks 23 None of my parks 64
70 Table 2 5 Electrical/e lectronic strategies employed Description N Possible Responses Percent Closed circuit television CCTV 93 All of my parks 0 re cording areas of the park Three quarters of my parks 1 Half of my parks 9 One quarter of my parks 38 None of my parks 52 Emergency call boxes to contact 93 All of my parks 1 the police Three quarters of my parks 3 Half of my parks 3 One quarter of my parks 15 None of my parks 78 Lights in the parks 88 All of my parks 15 Three quarters of my parks 37 Half of my parks 29 One quarter of my parks 19 None of my parks 0 Lights kept on at night to encourage 91 A ll of my parks 9 night time use Three quarters of my parks 12 Half of my parks 29 One quarter of my parks 42 None of my parks 8 Lights turned off at night to 90 All of my parks 3 discourage night time use Three quarters of my parks 26 Half of my parks 20 One quarter of my parks 15 None of my parks 36
71 Table 2 6 Use of signs in parks Description N Possible Responses Percent Signage to identify park 93 All of my parks 82 Three quarters of my parks 14 Half of my parks 4 One quarter of my parks 0 None of my parks 0 Signage to identify who maintains 92 All of my parks 63 the park Three quarters of my parks 14 Half of my parks 8 One quarter of my parks 2 None of my parks 13 Posted park rules 91 All of my parks 48 Three quarters of my parks 25 Half of my parks 12 One quarter of my parks 15 None of my parks 0 Maps to show where you are & 91 All of my parks 2 where you can go Three quarters of my parks 2 Half of my p arks 11 One quarter of my parks 59 None of my parks 26 Parks that had trails that led to 77 All of my parks 22 secluded areas, do you use signs Three quarters of my parks 9 or maps to inform users they are Half of my parks 7 about to ente r a secluded area One quarter of my parks 10 None of my parks 52
72 Table 2 7 Collection and use of crime data Description N Possible Responses Percent Do you collect data of types of crimes that 90 Yes 55 occur in your parks No 42 I d o not know 3 Is this data available to the public 49 Yes 71 No 20 I do not know 9 Do you collect data on the location of crimes 89 Yes 47 that occur in your parks No 46 I do not know 7 Is this location data available to the pub lic 42 Yes 81 No 12 I do not know 7 How often does your staff do face to face 89 Never 18 Interviews with park users to ensure they are Less than once a year 18 Having a good experience Once a year 8 2 3 times a year 18 Every month 8 Every week 13 Daily 17 Do you know on a park by park basis your 88 Yes 2 ratio of male to female park users No 98
73 Table 2 8 Citizen involvement Description N Possible Responses Percent Do you have a citizens safety committee 8 8 Yes 10 No 85 I do not know 5 Do you have a city wide friends of the park 88 Yes 44 organization No 55 I do not know 1
74 Table 2 9 Independent s ample t t est p ark m anagers Question CPTED N M ean T Sig Actual crime in the parks you manage is a problem Yes 60 3.07 .364 .716 No 69 3.17 F ear of crime in the parks you manage is a problem Yes 60 3.47 1.107 .079 No 69 3.16 Reducing fear of crime in the parks you manage is a Yes 60 4.38 .328 .744 priorit y No 68 4.28
75 Table 2 10. T test of perception of a crime problem and crime prevention strategies implemented Question Crime Problem N Mean T P Value Signage posting park rules No 61 9.02 1.0770 0.2846 Yes 25 8.33 Using CCTV No 62 1.90 0.9027 0.3692 Yes 26 1.48 Using emergency call boxes No 62 1.85 1.4744 0.1440 Yes 26 1.19 Benches to discourage sleeping No 60 3.52 0.3224 0.7480 Yes 25 3.76 Maintain low vegetation < 36 inches No 59 7.15 0. 4462 0.6566 Yes 25 6.80 Maintain canopy above 7 feet No 59 8.05 1.2481 0.2155 Yes 25 7.12 Empty trash receptacles before overflow No 59 10.22 0.2705 0.7875 Yes 25 10.12 Written graffiti policy No 59 1.32 0.5647 0.5738 Yes 25 1.40 Mean s that implement each strategy
76 Table 2 11 T test of training and implementation of crime prevention strategies Question CPTED Training N Mean T P Value Signa ge posting park rules No 52 8.31 1.3480 0.1811 Yes 39 9.15 Using CCTV No 53 1.83 0.2927 0.7704 Yes 40 1.75 Using emergency call boxes No 53 1.30 1.6425 0.1039 Yes 40 1.90 Benches to discourage sleeping No 51 3.61 0.0888 0.9294 Yes 39 3.67 Maintain low vegetation < 36 inches No 50 6.62 1.0934 0.2773 Yes 39 7.38 Maintain canopy above 7 feet No 50 7.58 0.7872 0.4333 Yes 39 8.10 Empty trash receptacles before overflow No 50 10.00 1.6944 0. 0938 Yes 39 10.54 Written graffiti policy No 51 1.43 1.7844 0.0779 Yes 38 1.21 strategy.
77 Figure 2 1. States colored in red represent at least one park director in this state responded to the survey (n=81; 48 unknown) States in yellow did not have a city in the 250 largest cities.
78 Figure 2 2. Distribution of the city population of known respondents (n=81; 48 unknown)
79 CHAPTER 3 CRIME PREVENT ION THROUGH ENVIRONM ENTAL DESIGN AND URB AN PARKS: MOVING TOWARDS A RAT IONAL CHOICE THEORY Crime and fear of crime is a global problem affecting every country, every city, and every neighborhood (Paulson & Robinson 2004). Moreover, t he literature suggests t hat crime and fear of crime is even increasing in recreational settings (Chavez, Tynon, & Knap, 2004, Manning et al., 2001; Pendleton, 2000; Shore, 1994 ). Nevertheless, research on this topic is relatively scarce Directors and managers of parks and recrea tional areas need good information if they are expected to make intelligent de cisions concerning park safety. This paper seeks to explore the application of rational choice theory to a study of s. Although no previous studies were found specifically investigating park directors decision making choices in crime prevention strategies, rational choice theory has been applied to similar fields such as travel (Bamberg & Schmidt, 1998; Davidov, 2007) fisheries management (Acheson, 2004; Acheson & Gardner, 2005) and farming (Best, 2009). Therefore, it is reasonable to investigate if an application of rational choice theory will provide insight s into park managers' decision making processes entailing sa fety issues. In previous research, scholars have attempted to measure rational choice through using hypothetical scenarios and having participants rate the cost s and benefits of ult, only the uniform set of consequences provided by the researchers are included in the wise, in
80 impact of the manner in which information is presented, on the way it is perceived and urgery, participants who were given a 40% chance of survival favored the surgery; however, when participants were presented with a 60% chance of death they did not favor surgery (Bouffard, 2002). The odds of survival were exactly the same in both framing s of the scenarios, however, the perceptions and decision making was influenced by the way the odds were communicated. In other words, the framing of the information can According to Paternost er & Pogarsky (2009), rational choice theory implies that s and benefits of both crime and non crime, that this required collection of information about those cost s and benef its, and a weighing of the cost/benefits before making a criminal and non criminal decisions (Paternoster & Pogarsky, 2009). However, as noted by McCarthy, (2002) thi s does not imply that all people have the same level of cognitive reasoning, nor do they all have access to the same levels of information or have the same mental dexterity in weighing cost s and benefits. Therefore, within the he rational choice perspective implicitly recognizes that Collins, 2010, p. 400). Park Directors and Rational Choice Theory Rational Choice Theory is about the process of making decisions. The basic premise is that park directors will make the choice s that offer the most benefit for the least cost. This assumes that the park directors are able to calculate the expected gains
81 or benefits and weigh them against the possibl e losses or cost s when making decisions. Decisions are made on the premise that the potential gains or benefits outweigh the potential losses or costs. In this study the goal is to identify perceived risks and benefits of the Crime Prevention Through Envi ronmental Design (CPTED) theory by upper level urban park managers. Because this topic has limited previous research and because to understand the park managers thought processes, a method to elicit their specific cost/benefit perceptions is needed ; open ended questions will be administered (Bouffard, 2002). By utilizing open ended questions, the researcher will allow individualized perceptions of cost s and benefits to emerge. Defining Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design e proper design and effective use of the built environment [that] can lead to a reduction in the fear and incidence of crime, and an improvement in Brantingham & Faust state d that (CPTED) is focused on "identifying conditions of the physical and social environment that provide opportunities for or precipitate criminal acts and the alteration of those conditions so that no crimes occur" (p.289, 1976). This approach was dramati cally different than traditional criminological theories of the time reactive and largely failing strategies employed by police, courts, and correctional facilities in the Ame p. 23, 1980). CPTED today, can best be defined as design principles that decrease or remove opportunities for crime and encourage legitimate and positive social interactions in commercial, residential, and oth er environments (Mac D onald & Kitteringham, 2004). CPTED
82 principles provide legitimate users good and safe feelings while at the same time but discreetly (Blue, p. 4 6, 2000). CPTED is a largely scientifically by Jane Jacobs (1961) Schlomo Angel (1968), C. Ray Jeffery (1971) and Oscar Newman (197 2 ) A number o f variations and refinements of the basic CPTED approach have been offered throughout the short history of CPTED; however, it has essentially remained the same, focusing on the environments in which crimes transpire and on techniques for reducing the susce ptibility o f these environments (Taylor & CPTED theory developed in the last decade which has become more holistic by acknowledging connections between management and use of the physical environment; that is, the li nk between physical and social factors (Atlas, 2008; Schnei der & Kitchen, 2002, 2007). CPTED has evolved several strategies or areas of focus to implement a higher perception of safety and decrease the probability and opportunities for crime Natural Sur veillance Natural surveillance provides many opportunities, based on the design of the site, guardians (e.g. police or security personnel). The fundamental idea is that misbehavior or crime may be mitigated or prevented when people are easily seen. The potential criminal may choose not to commit a crime because the risk of being observed and caught is too great. Natural surveillance works much the same way for legitimate users of a space, who usually don't mind being easily seen. In fact, legitimate users prefer k nowing that they can be easily observed or monitored and knowing that they can be
83 seen create s a sense of safety for legitimate users (National Crime Prevention Council, 1997). urban parks using photographs to measure perceptions of safety. Schroeder and sc enic quality might also be achieved by reducing shrubs and raising tree canopies to results were echoed in the work of Fisher and Nasar (1992) who asserted that we have developed a preference for landscapes that provide prospect (the ability to look over the environment) and refuge needed) as survival mechanisms On the other hand, i ronically, places that offer p rospect and refuge are places that a potential o Nasar, p. 37, 1992). In other words, environments that provide good hiding places and good observation areas are places that the good guys and bad guys would both like. Herzog & Kutzli research suggested the same results as Fisher and Nasar ; that people were most influenced by prospect, refuge, and escape no matter if the environment was urban or natural (2002). In parks, shrubbery being maintained at a height of twenty four to thirty two inches high and tree canopies being at least seven feet high to remove hiding places and maintain open areas for observation are typical recommendations (Atlas, 2008) Natural Access Control Natural access control guides people entering and l eaving a space through the placement of entrances, exits, bollards, gates, fences, landscaping, signage and lighting. Access control can decrease opportunities for criminal activity by denying
84 criminals easy access to potential targets and creating a perce ption of risk for would be offenders. Natural access control can be as much of a psychological control as a physical control. Using thorny shrubs can be effective in discouraging someone from entering a private or restricted area (Colquhoun, 2004). Alterna tively, using attractive pavement or asphalt surfacing on a trail will invite users to follow the intended trail. Water elements are excellent for access control because they draw people in their direction while at the same time they act as a passage barri er. Finally, natural access control will make someone look very conspicuous trying to go somewhere they should not be going. For example, someone walking across a grass lawn may not attract attention. However, if the same person walks through a well mainta ined flower bed or hedge row, they likely will appear conspicuous and attract attention. Territorial Reinforcement Physical design can create a sphere of territorial influence that can be perceived by, and may deter, potential offenders. Thus, territorial signals as enviro nmental cues may provide real, as well as psychological spheres of influence and control. Territorial reinforcement can be created using landscaping, pavement designs, decorati ve gateways, signs, and fences (Atlas, 2008). In a park environ ment, maps and signage can be some of the most important territorial reinforcements. Signage not only conveys ownership, it can also establish rules and provide s information to park users on whom to contact if a problem is encountered Atlas suggests that legitimate users of spaces (p. 487, 2008). More
85 importantly, maps and signs provide legitimate park users with important information about how to safely use and enjoy p ark environment s Maintenance Kelling described in 1982. Wilson and Keeling suggest ed that deteriorated or unkempt property conveys the impression that nobody is concerned about the property or controls it (1982) This can become part of an environmental behavioral chain that can lead to a variety of misbehaviors. Some researchers have suggested that this can include property offenses (such as vandalism and criminal damage) and as we ll as more serious personal crimes (Wilson & Kelling, 1982). Thus, efforts to remove graffiti, fix broken windows or doors and have functional trash cans will promote a different image than a park that has thes e issues. Some elements such as sign s can act as natural access control s (telling people which way to walk on a trail) and act as territorial reinforcement s (conveying who owns and maintains the property). The same may be true for landscaping, water elements, fences, and many other elements typically used in park design. CPTED is a critical thinking tool for designing or retrofitting a park and not just a checklist. CPTED is a set of principles to be considered somewhat skeptically when working with natural environment s and is not a quick fix for ever y location. Research Questions 1. What percentages of upper level park managers have received training in CPTED? 2. What are the interest levels in CPTED training?
86 3. What do upper level park managers perceive as costs and benefits of implementing CPTED strategies in urban parks? Methods Participants Upper level managers were recruited by identifying the 250 largest cities in the United States by census data and then going to the cities official website s and obtaining the name and email address of the head decis ion maker of the parks and recreation department. If the information was not available on the website a phone call was made to the park and recreation department requesting the name and email of the highest l evel decision maker. Survey Development Questio nnaire development was based upon concepts and variables identified through a literature review which identified previous related studies. Multiple choice, dichotomous choice Likert scale items and open ended questions were the primary response formats fo r the descriptive characteristics questions A test of content validity was conducted by a panel of five university professors and three experts in crime prevention and law enforcement. The panel members were asked to examine the questionnaire in terms of item relevance, representativeness, and clarity. A few word changes and refinements were made in response to their suggestions. The questionnaire was pretested on all of the municipal park directors in the state of Florida. For the pretest, an e mail sur vey was sent to all 178 directors of municipal recreation and park agencies in Florida. A total of 91 directors responded, achieving a return rate of 50%. A Cronbach's Alpha test of reliability was calculated using SPSS 15 and indicated a reliability coef ficient based on the average covariance among items of
87 0.810. Because none of the items was below 0.70 all items were kept. ( Ap pendix A). Additional questions were added to the questionnaire after analysis of the pilot study to improve the validity of the study by seeking additional information on some topics. The survey was submitted, reviewed and approved by IRB. The final survey consisted of 68 questions ; though some items were conditional based on earlier responses, so the length of the survey varied depending on how respondents answered certain questions. The survey was formatted and converted to a web format using the Qual t rics survey program (Ap pendix B ) Not all of the items are utilized in this paper. Procedures The survey was administered accord (Dillman, 2007). An e mail includ ing a cover letter, and a URL link to a web based questionnaire was sent to the directors of municipal recreation and park agencies of the largest 250 cities in the US Reminder emails w ere sent out every 2 weeks over a 12 week period. Open and closed ended questions were employed to collect demographic information such as: age, gender, highest level of education, race/ethnic background, job title, acreage of park land, population of city and name of city. Closed ended ir parks were also measured. SPSS 15.0 for Windows (SPSS, 2008) was used to conduct statistical analyses. Descriptive statistics were cal culated for the directors' uses of crime prevention strategies. This method of data collection and interpretation is consistent with literature on crime and parks ( Chavez, Tynon, & Knap, 2004; Chavez & Tynon, 2000).
88 Qualitative Procedures Park directors we re presented with two open ended questions. The first open ended question ask ed using the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design or CPTED model to reduce fear of crime in your parks? (Ple cost s or disadvantages you can think of from using the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design or CPTED model to reduce fear of crime in your parks? (Please list all tha Qualitative Analysis Content analyses along with descriptive statistics were the methods of data analysis. The technique employed here has been explained in Bernard (2000) for inductively deriving themes in qualitative data. The anal ysis of text begins with several thorough readings of the material and then the highlighting of key phrases. Bernard ocular scan method otherwise known as eyeballing 445) In this method, one get s a feel for the text by reviewing the data multiple times. we know of to begin hunting for patterns in qualitative data (Bernard, 2000, p.445). Different themes were highlighted in differe nt colors and a key was developed for the theme/color. Inductive analysis began with the author and two assistants independently reading the data. The three coders then identified preliminary themes based on repeated concepts and similar ideas occurring i n the data. At this point, the coders discussed the identified themes and refined the preliminary inductive categories until they concurred
89 that the refined themes were logical, comprehensive, and inundated in data (Fitch, 1994). Results Respondent Charact eristics Responses were obtained from 129 park directors indicating a return rate of 52 % (one city in Colorado was transitioning its park leadership staff and had no upper level administrators, thus, in effect, 249 was the reachable population) Males we re 73 % of the respondents. Caucasians comprised 93%, African Americans comprised 4% and Hispanics represented the remaining 3% of the responding managers. A total of 95% of the respondents had a grees The mean age was 54 years (Table 3 1). Quantitative Results Descriptive statistics illustrate that 4 5 % of responding park directors had received training in c rime prevention strategies (T able 3 2 ). L aw enforcement agencies provided the training for 79% of those directo rs who received training. Because directors received training from multiple agencies, the results are based on multiple percentile scales; therefore if all of the percentages are summed, the total excee ds one hundred percent (Table 3 2). Directors who wer e trained in CPTED were surveyed about their interest in additional training in CPTED; 45% responded they had an interest in additional CPTED training; 25 % responded they may be interested in additional CPTED training ; and 30% indicated that they were not interested in add itional CPTED training (Table 3 2). Directors who were not currently trained in CPTED were surveyed about the ir interest in training in CPTED; 41% responded they had an interest in CPTED training; 42 %
90 responded they may be interested in CP TED training ; and 17% indicated that they were not interested in CPTED training (Table 3 2). Qualitative Results The coders derived 13 content themes for the data and divided them into two groups. The first group is the benefits that the upper level manage rs conceived of using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) strategies for reducing fear of crime and crime in their parks. The second group consisted of the costs the upper level managers thought of when considering CPTED strategies to red uce fear of crime an d crime in their parks (Table 3 1). Benefits Public Relations & Marketing The upper level park managers indicated that employing CPTED strategies would be good public relations and marketing for their l methods to eliminate or reduce crime would be a benefit to our community. Residents would be greatly appreciative for this effort principals in our designs when speak Sense of Pride and Accomplishment The managers related that implementing CPTED strategies had a positive effect on their staff and their community. One park g you're trying to do your gives park staff the sense that we can manage these issues they are not intractable action results in visible changes in the parkscape users see change and action can have real impact on safety and on the
91 Increased Park Usage Several upper level managers asserted that by initiating CPTED principles park use would loitering and criminal activity; beautification; increase in feeling of security in residents = decreasing crime are alway effective tools to reduce fear of crime in parks are those that bring more people into parks and this is a self perpetuating cycle in that people who have a positive experience in a program are likely to return to the parks on their own. More people in parks = safer Education of the P ublic and Staff W as the next theme that was identified. A eas are designed as with staff and the community that design standards were implemented which should assist in reducing the opportunity for criminal activity within the pa rk system. Staff have also learned how to plan new or renovation projects in our parks to reduce the potential the staff. Improved Surveillance CPTED prescribes inc reased use of sight lines and the CPTED has allowed us to look at redesign of existing parks to allow for easier monitoring of the parks by PD, Park Rangers, and the c ommunity as a whole. New
92 Economic This theme was addressed in several ways. One way proposed the (and thus, costs) Lastly, CPTED can save money in the long run. One manager said that CPTED s Reducing Crime and the Fear of C rime advantages and benefits of Crime Prevention via environmental design is that it does work. It helps your users feel safe with better lighting, placement and design of park elements, low or no tall thick brush, etc. Also elements like plant placement and color choices can help reduce graffiti fear of crime emerged as consistent. Costs Monetary Expense The most common theme by upper level park managers was the money it would cost to implement CPTED strategies. Some of the most common done elec tronically and scholarships are provided. Training budgets have been s in salaries, equipment, an d materials. Loss of Ascetics creativity of Designers and Architects. Can lead to repetitive features. Play value and
93 of primary complaint is that our parking facilities are much more noticeable from the road due to changes in buffering plants (which assists Police, but does not necessaril y improve the viewshed Political Opposition This was only mentioned by one upper level manager who pol itical overseers or financially influential people are against or do not understand CPTED principles? A final theme identified was False Sense of Security from applying CPTED strategies. This was only mentioned once. This point has been mentioned in the li terature involving CCTV, however, it was not previously found in the CPTED literature (Welsh and Farrington, 2003). Discussion Some of the findings of upper level park managers receiving training in CPTED were consistent with the results of the pretest. In this study, a total of 45% of the sample had received some training in CPTED and the pretest found that 43% of the park directors in Florida were CPTED trained. Since there is no CPTED standardized course for parks and recreational professionals, the l evel of CPTED training these upper level park managers received cannot be evaluate d One of the open ended questions asked how many hours of CPTED they received? The responses ranged from 1 hour to 40 hours. However, as with many open ended questions; addi tional information was Recreation & Park Association) 4 hours, ASLA (American Society of Landscape
94 A rchitects that this upper level manager is interested in CPTED. Another upper level manager reported attending ng, but then discussed what they had learned with others. The upper level managers who received training in CPTED were also asked if they were interested in additional training in CPTED and responded yes in 45% of the cases; 25% reported that they may be i nterested in additional CPTED training and 30% responded that they would not be interested in additional CPTED training. This data illustrates that 70% of the upper level managers would at least consider additional training in CPTED strategies to improve t he safety of their parks. These results are interesting because when asked what were the costs or disadvantages of using CPTED strategies to reduce crime and fear of crime, the training costs were reported several cannot think of a disadvantage other than cost of training and our organization is committed to training and keeping up with best ne electronically and scholarships are Nonetheless only 30% of the upper level managers reported that they were not interested in additional training in CPTED strategies. Even in tough econ omic times when budgets have been cut and training dollars must be allocated carefully, 70% of upper level managers who have been trained in CPTED being interested in additional CPTED training is one of the highest percentage responses of this study.
95 Th e upper level managers who had not received training in CPTED were also asked if they were interested in CPTED training, and 41% of the sample responded yes; 42% of the sample reported that they may be interested in CPTED training and 17% responded that th ey would not be interested in CPTED training. This data indicates a higher percentage and potentially a majority of untrained upper level managers being interested in CPTED training. These data seem to strongly support the premise that upper level urban p ark managers are interested in learning CPTED strategies to reduce crime and fear of crime in the parks they manage. After establishing this, the study attempted to understand the benefits and costs of implementing CPTED strategies in parks To answer this question, the open ended methodology suggested by Bouffard, Exum and Collins (2010) was utilized to allow individualized perceptions of cost s and benefits to emerge. These individualized perceptions were then organized into themes. The themes reported he re illustrate the perceptions of benefits (Public Relations & Marketing, Sense of Pride and Accomplishment, Increased Park Usage, Education, Improved Surveillance, Economic Improvement and Reducing Crime and the Fear of Crime) and the perceived costs (Mone tary Cost, Loss of Aesthetics, Political Opposition, and Creating a False Sense of Security) that upper level management of urban parks must consider when making a decision on whether to implement CPTED strategies in the parks they manage. Upper level park managers must weigh the costs verses the benefits of all the information available and select the appropriate choice depending on a cost / benefit analysis (Paternoster & Pogarsky 2009). This process is known as Rational Choice Theory. The purpose of this paper was not to weigh the choices, but to
96 identify the perceived cost s and benefits of implementing CPTED strategies in some of the urban park systems of the 250 largest cities in the US. Themes Associated with Benefits of CPTED In utilizing the methods suggested by Bouffard, Exum and Collins (2010), several themes emerged that were unexpected and were not present in the literature, however, the existing literature of CPTED strategies and park management is extremely limited. One of the unexpected themes elaborate on this statemen t. This theme may be similar to recent research on gated communities. The research suggests that gated communities are no safer than non increase the real estate value of t 258). CPTED could be used as a marketing strategy to improve the feeling of safety of the park with a parallel effect of improving property values. Furthermore, CPTED strategies could be used as politi cal marketing. A politician could talk about how they reduced crimes (or the likelihood of crimes) in a park(s) using CPTED principles. A similar theme emerged involving a Sense of Pride and Accomplishment Another upper level manager stated that usi [a] sense that we can manage these issues they are not intractable action results in visible changes in the parkscape users see change and action [we] can have real impact on safety an on the perception collective efficacy, or people working together to solve problems (Paulson & Robinson, 2004 & Atlas, 2008). People need to believe that they can make a difference in their
97 neighborhoods. Atlas discusses this a generation CPTED, as people work together to achieve a common goal (Atlas, 2008, p. 83). This second generation CPTED strives to merge the environmental components of first generation CPTED together with the soc ial components of social cohesion, connectivity, community culture, and threshold capacity (Atlas, 2008, p. 81). Basically, people have to care about their neighborhood, they have to want to make a difference, and they have to believe that they can make a difference. According to the data collected in the current study, the theme of sense of pride and accomplishment provides support that CPTED is helping to bring about a sense of community and a sense of accomplishment in some parks. Future research in this area is suggested. Increased Park Usage was an expected theme. The more people use the park for its intended purposes, the safer people will feel in the park. One upper level re will be against patrons; prevent property crimes, increase user ship; increase the positive perception that parks, trails, and green spaces are safe spaces to occupy; in crease political support that will then increase additional financial support for maintenance and reduce fear of crime in parks are those that bring more people to the that more people in a location, make it safer, can be traced back to the writings of Jane Jacobs and her book The Death and Life of Great American Cities (1961) The theme of was one that was not anticipated. One director re ported
98 who have been trained and certified including several on our own staff and the entire capitol (sic) projects design teams. Such departments as Police, Neighbor hood Services, Capitol (sic) Projects managers, and our Parks and Recreation Departments are the main departments who participate in doing CPTED reviews of our parks to make that CPTED is a vital training (education) for numerous departments. He advocates that crime prevention is not just the responsibility of the police department, but, the responsibility of many departments and that many departments working together as a tea m can make a difference. Another director stated that public education of CPTED park h ad beautiful, mature azalea bushes that made areas for homeless people to sleep under and areas that provided privacy for prostitution to occur. Therefore, the azaleas were removed and the public was upset that the beautiful flowering plants were gone. How ever, once the CPTED principles were explained, the public was a little more understanding of the plant removal s renovation projects in our parks to reduce the potential be one of the goals of all park directors. Park professionals can design the most interesting park designs imaginable, but if no one uses it because they are afraid of crime, then what good was the interesting design? A rchitecture learned a similar lesson with the building of Pruitt Igoe Igeo was praised as the urban design of the future and won numerous awards; however, the
99 crime and decay became so rampant that Pruitt I geo was demolished less than 20 years after it was first opened ( Schneider & Kitchen, 2007) Pruitt Igeo is an example that innovative design without proper consideration to crime prevention can be a costly mistake. Improved was another expe cted theme. Natural surveillance is a and Park Rangers job of monitoring the parks easier Another park director responded goal of CPTED. Economic improvement was another theme derived from the data. One park as a benefit of safe pa rks This has been studied with gated communities and how property values have increased in gated and surrounding communities (Atlas, 2008) and in a variety of urban parks (Crompton 2004). Another ers necessity for onsite staff meaning that the people in the space look out for one another. If good CPTED principles are applied and the users have a sense of community, then natural observation should be able to help reduce the number of staff needed to safeguard a park. Lastly, CPTED can save money in the long run. One director said that CPTED her
100 design process with crime prevention as a desired goal before construction, the future expense of alterations can be reduced or eliminated. Finally the theme of ed ucing Crime and the Fear of will be discussed. fear of crime is much greater than the actual crime, [furthermore], we did a lot of work on our own with our Pol ice Department and my landscape designers [and] we [have] that it does work. It helps y our users feel safe with better lighting, placement and design of park elements, low or no tall thick brush, etc. Also elements like plant placement and color choices can help reduce graffiti The major goal of CPTED is to reduce crime and the fear of cri me, but in a way that is aesthetic, unobtrusive, and cost effective. Themes Associated with Costs of CPTED mentioned when asked to list all of the costs they could think of associated with implementing CP TED strategies in urban parks. The first theme that emerged is onetary One director stated is a problem because] Surprisingly, a number of directors acknowledged the increased cost s but then justified the cost s current landscapes worth it
101 spending the money applying CP TED principles is a good investment. The next theme derived from the cost of implementing CPTED was restriction to design or of A esthetic add[s] expense to a development, and are you sacrificing an effective design at the expense of crime imits creativity of designers and architects. It can lead to repetitive features. Play value and appeal could be removal of some landscaping and some landscaping be modified through maintenance practices such as trimming low shrubs to a of twenty four to thirty two inches high and tree canopies being at least seven feet high to reduce hiding places and open up sight lines (Atlas, 2008). This line of thinking is reminiscent o f the debate over playground safety reform. People opposed to playground safety reform stated that safety improvement would remove the creativity from playgrounds ( Barton, 2006). Barton argues that tort reform actually inspired playground manufactures to d esign safer and more creative playground equipment for children (2006). Would CPTED strategies restrict park landscaping and park design to the extent that park visitors would lose interest in visiting park s ? Or, would using CPTED principles inspire park d esigners to create new and creative parks in much the same way playgrounds have been improved? And, will the minor loss of some aesthetic natural beauty be offset by the enhanced perception
102 (and possible reality) of increased safety, resulting in more pe ople visiting park s or extending their stays, adding benefits more than offsetting that loss? The next theme associated with the cost s of implementing CPTED strategies is This was only mentioned by one upper level manager; however, it some of the most politically powerful people (usually women) can be found in u rban garden clubs, a trend that started in the late 19 th and early 20th century (Kaufman 2006; Merchant 1984). They may develop a garden plan for a park and they want it implemented and they want it done their way. This is where a strong partnership with p olice, urban planners, landscape architects and other city entities concerned with public safety is very important. Lastly, the theme that CPTED may create a alse Sense of only occurred once but it may be a concern for some. Similar concerns ha ve been raised sense of security and cause them to stop taking precautions that they would have taken in the absence of this intervention, such as not wearing jewelry or walking in groups problem with any type of security measure. Another director makes a good point stating s not effective or CPTED was never intended to replace other types of security and safety measures, but to be used as a preventive tool to enhance security and safety.
103 Summary Crime and fear of crime is a concern in urban parks. Upper level decision makers must make decisions concerning the safety and security of the parks they manage. Rational Choice Theory is about making decisions. The basic premise is that park direc tors will make the choice that offers the most benefit for the least cost. This assumes that park directors are able to calculate the expected gains or benefits and weigh them against the possible losses or cost when making decisions. Decisions are made on the premise that the potential gains or benefits outweigh the potential losses or cost. There were three research questions examined in this paper. The first posed the question; what percentages of upper level managers have received training in CPTED str ategies. The answer was 45% of the upper level manages have received training in CPTED strategies. This finding was consistent with an earlier pretest and there are no other known studies of this question to compare to. However, closer examination revealed that the hours of training ranged from one hour to forty hours. There are likely also questions about the quality of training. One upper level manager reported to have completed twelve hours of training from three different professional entities Several s and others reported attending a forty hour CPTED certification program. Other managers who reported having been trained, provided no details on that training. It is a safe assumption that they d id not all receive the same level of training. The next question measured the level of interest in CPTED training. The results suggest that 70% of those with previous training would be open to additional training and 83% of those who had not received train ing in CPTED would be open to receiving
104 training in CPTED strategies. This is another indication that the past level s of training received may not have been in depth or adequate. The final purpose of this paper was to identify the potential benefits and t he potential costs associated with implementing CPTED strategies in urban parks. This is relevant because no previous research was found using Rational Choice Theory as it relates to the decision making of upper level park managers. The themes of potential benefits were: public relations & marketing; sense of pride and accomplishment; increased park usage; education; improved surveillance; economic improvements, and reducing crime and the fear of crime. The themes of potential costs were: monetary cost; res triction to design or loss of a esthetic s; political opposition; and creat ing a false sense of security. One significance of identifying these themes is that they provide a foundation for future research addressing CPTED and Rational Choice Theory. With the foundation of perceived benefits and cost s identified here, future research can address measuring the influence that each benefit and cost can have on making the final decision to implement or not implement CPTED strategies in urban parks.
105 Table 3 1 De mographic information Description N Possible Responses Percent Gender 85 Male 73 Female 27 Race 78 Caucasian 93 African American 4 Hispanic 3 Highest level of education 86 Some college / no degree 3 Associate Degree 2 Bac helor Degree 40 Master Degree 55 Doctorate 0 Mean Age 73 54* *Mean Age is not a percentage but the mathematical mean of the ages
106 Table 3 2 Description N Possible Responses Percent Have you re ceived any specialized training in 126 Yes 45 modifying the environment to prevent crime or No 55 CPTED training Who provided the training (Check all that apply) 57 NRPA 37 College / University 14 State NRPA Affiliate 25 Law Enforceme nt 79 Private Instructor 25 Other 11 Directors who had already received CPTED 51 Definitely Not 6 were asked if they would be interested in Probably Not 24 additional training in CPTED Maybe 25 Probably Yes 39 Definitely Yes 6 Directors who had not received CPTED Definitely Not 5 were asked if they would be interested in Probably Not 12 CPTED training Maybe 42 Probably Yes 27 Definitely Yes 14
107 Table 3 3 Director initiated themes related to CPTED strategies B enefits Costs Public Relations & Marketing Monetary Cost Sense of P ride and Accomplishment Restriction to D esign or Loss of A esthetics Increased Park Usage Political Opposition Education False Sense of Security Improved Surveillance Economic Imp rovement Reducing Crime and the Fear of Crime
108 CHAPTER 4 CRIME PREVENTION THR OUGH ENVIRONMENTAL D ESIGN (CPTED) EDUCATION OF PARK AND RECREATION STUDENTS: A RATIONAL CHOICE PERS PECTIVE OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR S We live in an age of specialists. This is good, for it allows subject matter to be probed and applied in depth. But specialization has its drawbacks as well, since many disciplines have become so specialized, implications frequently cannot be understood by people in related fields. As a result experts are often isolated from the potential contributions of others. (Molnar & Rutledge, 1986, p. 1) Many park and recreation professionals, landscape architects and park planners can trace their occupational family tree s back to a common ancestor, Fre derick Law Olmsted (Molnar & Rutledge, 1986). However, over time there seems to be more distance from the roots of the profession and the focus of departments and colleges has become increasingly specialized. Bok asserts that red into a kaleidoscope of separate academic specialties with far too little effort to integrate the the information from different academic perspectives ( 2006, p. 2). This fragmentation may have c aused some academicians in the field of parks and recreation to become somewhat myopic in their research on parks and therefore miss the bigger picture This paper focuses on Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) strategies and Rational Choice Theory. Rational Choice Theory is based on the premises that people make decisions based on a cognitive cost verses benefit type analysis (Paternoster & Pogarsky, 2009; Bouffard, 2002; Bouffard, Exum, & Collins, 2010; Bamberg & Schmidt, 1998; Davido v, 2007; Acheson, 2004; Acheson & Gardner, 2005; and Best, 2009). Examples of Rational Choice Theory and student decision making are numerous in the literature ( Breen & Goldthorpe, 1997; Breen & Yaish, 2006; Need & De Jong, 2000; & Davies et al., 2002). St
109 risk s Careers that offer more benefits (such as higher pay and prestige) also have higher risk s of failure. Students make rational choices in education attainment to assure of educational attainment, which will guarantee entry to a class position at least as good as that of their parents; students set Goldthorpe, 1997, p. 284). In p revious research, scholars have attempted to measure rational choice through using hypothetical scenarios and having participants rate the perceived cost s and benefits of choices selected by the researcher (Bouffard, Exum & Collins, 2010). However, in these scenar ios, Bouffard, Exum and Collins argue that the participant is just selecting a choice from a list and not truly communicating their rational thought process (2010). Therefore, this research is following the Bouffard, Exum and Collins model and providing co llege professors with open ended questions to reveal the perceptions of the costs and benefits of teaching CPTED strategies to their students (2010). CPTED, Parks & Recreation and Higher Education It is unquestioned that the fear of crime in parks is a maj or issue for park managers ( Salazar, 2011 ; Chavez & Tynon, 2000; 2004; Pendleton 1996; 1998) and park users ( McGinn et al. 2008; Loukaitous Sideris & Eck, 2007; & Gomez et al. 2004; Carter et al., 2003; Chiesura, 20 04; Ching hua Ho et al., 2005). Over the last thirty years Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design or CPTED (pronounced sep Ted) is becoming one of the leading crime prevention strategies used in many countries worldwide including the United States, New Zealand, Austral ia, the
110 United Kingdom, Europe, Canada, South America, and, South Africa (Schneider & Kitchen, 2007). Even though CPTED is very applicable to parks, little is known about its effectiveness in parks because research on its implementation or efficacy does no t appear in the literature. Furthermore, it is unknown if park and recreation professionals even know about CPTED principles. Previous research (McCormick et al., 2010 ) suggested that in the state of Florida, less than 50% of park directors and less than 3 5% of their staff received any training in CPTED. Conversely, when these same directors were asked if they would be interested in attending training in CPTED, almost 90% said they would be interested in training for themselves and over 97% said they would be interested in CPTED training for their staff. In a national study of park directors (McCormick 2011) 55% reported not receiving any training in CPTED. McCormick, et al. ( 2010 ) also report that park directors in Florida are not receiving training in CPT ED from universities and colleges. Universities and colleges only accounted for 5% of the training directors reported receiving in CPTED principles. In contrast, law enforcement agencies accounted for over 46% of the training received by park and recreatio n professionals. ne of the main deterrents to realizing a more responsive and progressive higher education environment appears to be the tenacity by which the academic community holds on to fundamental values and shared beliefs ab out teaching and learning, in spite of the evidence that suggests that there might be better ways of doing things academics whose academic futures are assured and who have grown accustomed to influence and prestige Barnett
111 suggests that we need to prepare our students for an assumptions are challenged daily and where changing standards and the globalization o f problems dislodge any felt ( 2000, p. 157). In other words, if park and recreation students are expected to make a difference in the future, they need to be taught to look at the big picture and not to be afraid to th ink outside of the discipline. Curriculum In college education, a curriculum is the required academic classes, the academic course work and the body of knowledge of a specific discipline offered at a university. hich a person, organization, or other entity is (2009) knowledge is one of those things that you either have or you do not have Knowledge can be derived the sudd accumulated through repetition of learning materials (Romiszowski, 2009, p. 203). According to Stark and Lattuca, (1997) a curriculum is an academic plan to guide teaching and learning at various levels including class, departmental, and college wide. the current needs of the profession and the curriculum should also plan for the foreseeable future (Stark, 1999). One way that curriculum decisions are made to meet the needs of a profession is through the process of specialized accreditation. Specialized accreditation uses specific standards knowledge required for entry level employment in a specified profession (Council for
112 Higher Education Accreditation, 2002). A curricul um may be partly or entirely determined by these ext ernal specialized accreditors (this will be discussed further in the accreditation section). Accreditation Every profession needs colleg e graduates that are up to date on the latest technologies and theories and are well educated in both hard and soft ski lls. This has been the goal since the 1930s (Sessoms, 1990, p. 33). Today entry level standards are revealed in the Professional Competencies (Series Standard s 8.00) of the Standards of Evaluative Criteria for Baccalaureate Programs in Recreation, Park Resources and Leisure Services (National Recreation and Park Association [NRPA], 200 4 ). These standards include: conceptual foundations; leisure services profess ion; leisure services delivery systems; programming strategies; assessment, planning and evaluation; administration and management; legislative and legal aspects; and field experience (internship) (NRPA, 2000). However, these standards are broad, vague, an d are very open to interpretation. Past research in park and recreation competencies suggested that college graduates were lacking the skills wanted and needed by employers (Hulverson, 1979; Henderson, 1982; Hurd, 2004 & Hurd, 2005). Hurd asserts that comp etencies are important to university curriculum development, however, it seems that the communication between the professionals and the academics could be improved (2005). For example, both the 1978 Urban Recreation Study and the 1979 Third Outdoor Recreat ion Plan made specific recommendations that crime in parks were a priority, however, crime prevention strategies are not mentioned in the competencies (Competency 8.27 : Understanding the principles and practices of safety,
113 emergency, and risk management re lated to recreation, park resources, and leisure services. Content to consider: Components of risk management planning; emergency procedures; safety/law enforcement ) comes closest to addressing crime prevention strategies, however, risk management, emergen cy, safety and law enforcement is a very broad category and able to encompass a lot of different interpretations. Furthermore, this competency does not specifically highlight crime prevention approaches, which seemingly would be a significant issue for ne w potential park managers to be aware of. How are accreditation standards attained ? Should academics set the standards? Should it be the professionals and a professional organization? One view is that, currently appears to be a discrepancy among the views of educators and practitioners as to what is the critical education undergraduates need in order to become successful Sessoms, 1989, p. 23). Given the lack of attention directed at crime prevention by even more recent accreditation s tandards; that observation seems as warranted today. Technology in the Classroom & Rational Choice Theory makers, cognitively evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of textbooks, power point presentations and other tea ching materials available to be used in their classes. Although this author was unable to find literature on implementing Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) theory into parks and recreation courses, literature was available on attitudes towards incorporating technology into the col lege class room. In 2002, 80% of all four year public colleges had installed technological equipment in their c lass rooms; however, only 20% of the professors were taking advantage of these technologies (Lynch, Altschuler, & McClure,
114 2002). Moser asserted that this problem was not limited to public intuitions, but was a problem across all US intuitions (2007). Yu et al. summed up the frustration succinctly the 25 years it took to get Why does change in the college system move slowly? Applying a Rational Choice Model, one must consider both the benefits and cost s of making de cisions. One of the biggest costs in applying new technologies is the cost of time. Professors have to learn the new technologies for themselves and they must learn it to a point that they can in turn teach it to their students (Moser, 2007). The process i s probably similar for developing new course content, such as new ideas about crime prevention. Moser into his/her classroom teaching evaluations went down, and I need to get tenure before I start doing more off the beaten tenure track faculty were echoed by Tortatzky & Klein (1982 ). According to Paternoster & Pogarsky (2009), rational choice theory implies that s s and benefits, and a weighing of the cost s all people have the same level of cognitive reasoning, nor do they all have access to the same levels of information or have the same mental dexterity in weighing cost s a nd benefits (2002). To date, research in the realm of competencies of park and recreation
115 directors is scarce (Hurd, 2005). Furthermore, research on specific training delivered on crime prevention strategies for parks is nonexistent in the literature. Uni versities are unique and complex organizations. In contrast to businesses, universities have less control over their operations in that there are more revenue and opportunity constraints and many different stakeholders. In addition, there is a greater need for participation by staff in decision making, and often universities have complex governance structures, high workloads and no single center responsible for implementing organization wide change initiatives (Eckel and Kezar 2003; Rowley, Lujan and Dolenc e 1997; Sharp 2002). Within this context, bringing about change of any kind can be problematic. Yet, transformational change represents the scope of change needed for [crime prevention strategies in parks] ( Harpe & Thomas, 2009, p. 76 77). Professors have many factors to consider when developing a course for their students. In this study, the goal is to identify perceived risks and benefits of the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) approach by college and university professors. Because th is topic has limited previous research and because to cognitive cost/benefit perceptions is needed, open ended questions will be administered (Bouffard, Exum & Collins, 2010). Through utilizing open ended questions, individualized perceptions of cost s and benefits should emerge. Methods Sample The sample frame was constructed as a purposive non probability sample by sending emails to the listserv SPRENET ( the Society of Park & Recreation Educators Network; a branch of the National Recreation and Park Association) hosted by the University of Georgia. Subscribers to this listserv consisted of self selected parks and recreation faculty a nd some doctoral students from around the world, though most are from the US and Canada Membership is free and a request to the listserv manager is
116 usually sufficient to be added to the li stserv. The listserv manager said there are about 960 subscribers t o SPRENET, with most of them (unknown number) being academics. The e mail asked professors and/or instructors who taught classes in facility management, park planning, or related classes and were willing to help in research related to the level of knowledg e and the attitudes towards crime prevention strategies in parks to submit their names and e mail addresses to the researcher. One hundred professors responded that they met these criteria. An e mail message with a URL to a web based survey w as sent to th e 100 self selected professors teaching classes in park design, facility management, park administration and similar course titles A total of 72 professors responded; a return rate of 72 % however, 6 of the respondents were eliminated from the sample beca use they reported in the survey that they did not teach courses in park maintenance, park design, facility maintenance or similar courses The recalculated response rate was 70% based on a revised effective sample of 94. Males were 69 % of the respondents. Caucasians comprised 92% of the respondents, African Americans comprised 4%, Asians comprised 2% and other represented the remaining 2% (T able 4 1). Survey Design Questionnaire development was based upon a literature review which identified previous relat ed studies. Multiple choice, dichotomous choice Likert scale items and open ended questions were the primary response formats. A test of content validity was conducted by a panel of five university professors and three experts in crime prevention and law enforcement. The panel members were asked to examine the questionnaire in terms of item relevance, representativeness, and clarity. A few word changes and refinements were made in response to their suggestions to improve the validity of the
117 study by seeki ng additional information on some topics. The survey was submitted, reviewed and approved by IRB. The final survey consisted of 49 questions ; though some items were conditional based on earlier responses, so the length of the survey varied depending on ho w respondents answered certain questions. The survey was formatted and converted to a web format using the Q ualt rics survey program ( Appendix C ) The survey (Dillman, 2007). An e mail includ ing a cover letter, and a URL link to a web based questionnaire was sent to the 100 professors Reminder emails were sent out every 2 weeks over a 12 week period. SPSS 15.0 for Windows (SPSS, 2008) was used to conduct statistical analyses. Descriptive statist ics were calculated for the professor s' knowledge and teaching of crime prevention strategies. This method of data collection and interpretation is consistent with literature on crime and parks ( Chavez, Tynon, & Knap, 2004; Chavez & Tynon, 2000). Quantitat ive Procedures prevention strategies. The professors were asked to respond on a strongly disagree to strongly agree (7 point scale) on the effectiveness of nine crime prevention strategies: removing litter within 24 hours (1 day); clear sight lines and vegetation pruned; removing graffiti within 24 hours (1 day); unarmed, uniformed park rangers; park watch volunteers; armed, uniformed park police with arrest authority; emergency call boxes; closed circuit television (CCTV); and signage conveying park rules. The mean score was used to order the choices in tables presenting results The professors were also questioned about their perceptions of crime and fear of crime in urban parks on three
118 items using a strongly disagree to strongly agree (7 point scale) Closed ended parks were also included. Open and closed ended questions were employed to collec t demographic information such as: age, gender, level of teaching institution, race/ethnic background, and name of institution. Qualitative Procedures Professors were presented with four open ended questions. The first open ended ll of benefits or advantages you can think of from using the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design or CPTED model to reduce fear of are all of the costs or di sadvantages you can think of from using the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design or CPTED model to reduce fear of crime in parks? hy do you choose to incorporate CPTED into your co urses? The fourth question was hy do you choose not to incorporate CPTED in your courses? Qualitative Analysis Content a nalyses along with descriptive statistics were utilized to summarize the data The technique cited in Bernard (2000) for inductivel y deriving themes in qualitative data was followed The analysis of text begins with several thorough readings of the 45). In this method, coder get s a feel for the text by reviewing the textual
119 patterns in qualitative data (Bern ard, 2000, p.445). Different themes were highlighted in different colors and a key was developed for each theme. Inductive analysis began with the author and two assistants independently reading the data. Then preliminary themes based on repeated concept s and similar ideas evolved from the data. At this point, the three coders discussed the themes each coder identified and refined the inductive categories and labels until there was agreement among the three coders that the derived themes were logical, in clusive, and saturated by the data (Fitch, 1994) and that the labels applied were the best descriptors Results Quantitative Results Descriptive statistics illustrate that 27 % of responding p rofessors were familiar with CPTED strategies (T able 4 2 ). F urthermore, 24% reported incorporating CPTED strategies into their classes. When questioned about their knowledge of the CPTED scientific literature, 57% responded that they had no knowledge of the literature and 33% reported that they had poor to fair kno wledge of the CPTED literature (Table 4 2). When asked if another department on campus (such as Criminology, Urban Planning, or Landscape Architecture) taught a class in CPTED, 53% reported that they did not know, 42% reported n o, and 5% reported yes (Tabl e 4 2). Next professors were questioned about their perception s of the effectiveness of crime prevention strategies on a seven point scale (Table 4 3). These crime prevention strategies were ranked in descending order from the highest mean score to the lo west in presenting the results The highest was r emoving litter within 24 hours (1 day) ; followed by, c lear ing sight lines and vegetation pruned ; removing graffiti within 24 hours (1 day); unarmed, uniformed park rangers; park watch volunteers; armed, unif ormed
120 park police with arrest authority; emergency call boxes; closed circuit television (CCTV) ; and signage conveying park rules was ranked last (Table 4 3). Next the professors were questioned about their perceptions of crime and fear of crime in urban parks. A total of 68% responded that they (somewhat to strongly) agreed that the actual occurrence of crime was a major problem in urban parks (Table 4 4). Furthermore, 80% of the professors responded that they (somewhat to strongly) agreed that the fear of crime was a major problem in urban parks. However, only 33% responded that they (somewhat to strongly) agreed that reducing the fear of crime in all park s was a priority (Table 4 4). Additionally eptions of crime and fear of crime across urban, rural, state, and national parks. The means were based on scoring the strongly agree as a 7 and the strongly disagree as a 1.The highest mean for crime was 4.83 with a standard deviation of 1.43, for urban p arks. The highest mean for the fear of crime was also urban parks with a mean of 5.26 and a standard deviation of 1.37 (Table 4 5 ) Table 4 7 by level of university (for those profe ssors who reported that). A bit surprisingly, the mode response was from the survey conducted for this research! The next most common response was from working with professionals Table 4 7 reports results teach CPTED strategies in class on how they learned about CPTED. For those who teach CPTED in class, the most frequent sources were working with professionals, self study and at a conference. For
121 and third source). Table 4 8 by level of university. The results did not va ry much but the highest proportion of professors who do teach CPTED were in research 1 level universities. Qualitative Results The coders derived 15 content themes from the textual data and segmented them into four groups. The first group is the benefits t hat professors conceived of using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) strategies for reducing f ear of crime and crime in parks. The second group consisted of the costs the professors thought of when considering CPTED strategies to reduce f ear of crime and crime in parks The third group was the benefits of implementing CPTED strategies into their classrooms. The fourth group was the cost s experienced by implementing CPTED strategies into their classroom (Table 4 6 ). Benefits Of the 63 res pondents, a total of 29 responded to the open ended question s however, only 17 were able to mention benefits. The remaining 12 explained that they had no knowledge of CPTED or wrote n/a. Of the 17 who mentioned benefits the following themes were derived. Increased Park Usage Several professors expressed the opinion that by initiating f we want the community to utilize our parks to their potential, people first need to experience a sense of safety ncrease s the number of users
122 enhances their experience and provides a safe place to play for children Reducing C rime and the Fear of Crime One professor stated that CPTED wareness of how design can impact park op erations and cause an actual reduction of crime e can reduce, but not completely remove the fear of crime in our parks, however, CPTED has the potential to alleviate this fear I believe it helps reduce the occurrence of crime Improving the Quality of Life better health community development econ omic development outdoor education opportunities and environmental awareness in more people gaining enrichment from [the] park experiences than would have otherwise ncreased benefits to the constituents of the organization and the community at large Improved Maintenance CPTED prescribes the removal of incivilities such as litter and graffiti and the proper maintaining of vegetation resulting in the improvement of proper maintenance would reduce potential areas of concern and woul d correct areas that people fear to go into or through Public Relations & Marketing Several professors indicated that employing CPTED strategies would b e good public relations and marketing for urban parks. One
123 initiatives in place and h elps provide information for marketing of the park Other professors simply stat Economic It was only mentioned once, but it is an important theme. The cost effective way to increase visitation numbers and diversity of visitation while r educing the fear of crime and promot ing place attachment Economics is always an important factor. Costs Of the 63 respondents, a total of 27 respo nded to the open ended question. H owever, only 18 mention ed costs. The remaining 9 respondents explained tha t they had no knowledge of CPTED or wrote n/a. Monetary Costs The most common theme mentioned by professors was the money it would cost to implement, market, and maintain CPTED strategies. Some of the maintenance Another response is the cost s of maintaining CPTED strategies; cost s in to commit to CPTED, it is comprehensive not just an ad hoc approach, thus provide CPTED is not a onetime qui ck fix but a long term strategy requiring funding to keep it going. Difficulty of Finding Qualified Contractors One professor stated it was hard professionals are familiar w
124 Time The next theme was time. One professor simply stated that implementing a CPTED program takes time. Time is needed for training, planning, and maintenance of CPTED strategies. Reasons for Inc orporating CPTED in the Classroom Thirteen professors provided reasons for incorporating CPTED principles into their classes. Four themes were derived. The first theme was that CPTED is a Valuable Management Tool luable management tool that Complete Understanding of Park and Facility Design students to gain a complete understanding of park and facility design professor commented tha managers to consider in designing and planning of areas for facilities Positive Effective on Crime & Crime Prevention One professor stated that Cost Effectiveness Lastly, cost effectiveness was derived as a theme. It was only mentioned on one occasion ; however, it is still an important theme. The p rofessor Reasons for Not Incorporating CPTED in the Classroom Fourteen respondents were able to suggest reasons for not introducing this content into the classroom. The primary theme mentione d by most professors for not incorporating CPTED into their classes was Lack of Knowledge of this moment I was not aware of it; I am now and will follow up for next Spring
125 relatively new to me A related but somewhat different se condary theme mentioned by some professors was that they may be nterested in f inding out m ore about CPTED One professor said Another professor said ure Another theme that surfaced was ack of t ime One professor said they had a mention it but do not heavily focus on it Discussion In 1961 Jane Jacobs p American Cities Through Environmental Design The concept of manipulating the environment to reduce crime and the fear of crime has been around for over 40 years. However, the majority of professors in this study (59%) responded that they are not familiar with CPTED. When asked if they incorporated CPTED strategies into their classroom, 76% responded no. When asked why they did not in corporate CPTED principles into their more anticipated response might have been; there is little empirical evidence suggesting that CPTED is effective in reducing crime and f ear of crime. One professor This is a more
126 may have become so specialized that the academic park and recreation profession has lost touch with its roots, the park itself. attitudes toward crime prevent ion strategies found on table 4 3 are quite interesting. The first, second, and third highest mean scores are all CPTED strategies. However, the fourth CPTED strategy (signage displaying the park rules) was ranked the lowest, ninth out of nine. Most components of CPTED rely on the natural environment and not security personnel, electronics, or target hardening devices such as locks or anti theft packaging. CPTED relies on natural surveillance, the ability to see others and be s een in the environment. This is often accomplished by controlling the growth of vegetation to remove hiding spots. Natural access control, that is, pathways, landscaping materia ls and even water works nicely in a park. Signage can be a territorial reinforcement that indicates someone owns and cares about this space. Lastly, maintenance ties together aspects of territoriality and natural surveillance. Keeping vegetation well maint ained reduces hiding places and demonstrates that the area is cared for. Removing trash and graffiti are both important components of maintenance and CPTED. These are just some of the highlights of CPTED and are not a complete list of available strategies. The information in T able 4 4 is very interesting. A total of 68% of the professors agree that crime is at least somewhat of a major problem in urban parks. Furthermore, 80% stated that fear of crime was at least somewhat of a problem in urban parks. Howev er, when asked if reducing the fear of crime was a priority of theirs, only 33% at
127 least somewhat agreed. Why the disparity between recognition of a problem and interest in addressing it? Over two thirds of the professors agreed that crime was a problem ; e ven more agreed that fear of crime was a problem, but only one third stated that they would make it a priority to do something about it. Why do professors teach students, conduct, analyze, and then publish research? Is not at least one major reason to solv e problems? Furthermore, as professors in parks and recreation, who has a better opportunity to imbed ideas that will lead to changes in parks? Professors train future park managers and directors. Professors control the content of journal literature throug h the refereeing of academic journals. Professors contribute much of the content and topics at many academic and professional conferences. A pathy towards finding a solution might be better understood if there was ignorance of the problem, but, most profess ors responding to this study reported being aware of the problem. Given the lack of mention of CPTED in parks and recreation journals, textbooks and conference topics, these findings were not entirely unexpected, along with the recognition that crime and f ear of crime has been generally unreported in this discipline for over 30 years, however, it is hoped that the increased awareness of potential methods to address crime will lead to change. The information in (T able 4 5 ) reconfirms the statements above. Cr ime and fear of crime is more prevalent in urban parks according to the professors taking part in this study. This is backed up by the current literature ( Salazar, 2011; Sousa & Kelling, 2009 ; McGinn et al. 2008; Loukaitous Sideris & Eck, 2007; & Gomez et al. 2004; Carter et al., 2003; C hiesura, 2004; Ching hua Ho et al., 2 005).
128 Now that it is established that the majority of the professors responding to this study do not teach CPTED strategies to their students, the next question is why? Applying the R ational Choice framework established by Bouffard, Exum & Collins (2010) might provide some guidance. The first benefit theme was increasing park usage The safer people perceive the park the more they will use it. The more people use the park, the safer o thers will perceive the park (Harnik, 2006). This is especially true of female users. Harnik asserts that (2006, p. 29). Increasing park usage is a benefit and it was the most common one The next benefit derived from responses to the question was the reduction of crime and fear of crime One professor stated that I believe it [(CPTED)] hel ps reduce the occurrence of crime e can reduce, but not completely remove the fear of crime in our parks, however, CPTED has the potential to alleviate this fear This is a pithy, yet true statement. One thing to remember is that crime and fear of crime are two different things. A park can have a very low occurrence of crime (a very low crime rate) and still have a lot of citizens who are fearful of crime in this park. In other words, crime rates are the statistics which r epresent reality, but fear of crime is the perception, or how safe potential or actual visitors feel. Although these are two professors making two independent statements, together they encapsulate the goals of CPTED, to reduce crime and the fear of crime i n the built and natural environment.
129 The other themes identified as benefits were improved quality of life, improved maintenance, public relations & marketing, and economic improvements The author acknowledges that all of these benefits are important ind ividually, however, they do not need to be explained or elaborated on here, as they are self explanatory. Perceived costs of implementing CPTED, were also requested from the professors. The first theme identified was monetary costs One professor stated management needs to commit to CPTED, it is comprehensive not just an ad hoc approach, thus provide continued resources (i.e. budget) several good points. First, CPTED is not a onetime fix. It is an ongoing strategy that requires con tinued maintenance and continued resources. Second, it must be included in the budget for supplies and for man hours. It is often argued that supporting CPTED maintenance is more cost effective in the long run, but, it is not without costs. Lastly, it requ ires planning, training, and implementation and all of these components transfer into m an hour and financial costs. The next cost theme derived was problems finding qualified contractors and workers The market drives the qualifications. If CPTED was in de mand and only CPTED trained contractors were hired, then the market would respond. The next cost was time Change does require time. It requires time for training, implementation, and the physical changes made to the park. But, it also takes time for the c itizens to learn to accept that the park is safer. Next the costs of implementing CPTED in the academic curriculum should be ended questions were along two themes. One was lack of knowledge of CPTED strate gies and the second was lack of
130 time Both of these overlap, so they are discussed together. Why are these themes rai sed by the professors? Tables 4 4 and 4 5 clearly show that the professors are aware that crime is a problem in urban parks. These professo park maintenance, facility design, and other similar courses; therefore, park safety almost certainly is included in their class content somewhere. Urban parks such as Central Park in New York and Lincoln Park in Chicago, both receive millions of more visitors yearly than the most visited national parks (Harnik, 2010). However, crime and fear of crime in urban parks is basically ignored by most academics in the parks and recreation field who teach park management and design related courses. Even the citizens, acknowledges that some Americans are afraid of parks because of crime ( Salazar 2011). Referring back to the opening comments in this paper the field, perhaps, has become too specialized and closed off from related academic disciplines. Park managers could probably learn much about managing parks from taking a class in landscape architecture, planning, or even criminology. Conversely, profes sors of parks and recreation could likely increase the benefits to their students from expanding their perspective s of park management. Park and recreation park management and design textbook writers are advised to expand the content in their books. Parks and recreation is a very multi disciplinary academic subject, and professors are advised to take more of a multi discipline approach to teaching park design related content. This paper has addressed many issues regarding CPTED and has taken the initial ste ps in understanding the reasons for the lack of implementation of CPTED strategies
131 in park management and design curriculums. Furthermore, this paper has used the Rational Choice framework suggested by Bouffard, Exum and Collins (2010) utilizing open ended questions and allowing individualized perceptions of costs and benefits to emerge. The researcher acknowledges that identifying the themes was crucial, but, only the first step in understanding the role that Rational Choice Theory plays in the decision ma king process of professors teaching in the fie ld of parks and recreation. Suggestions for future research would be taking the qualitative research component a step further by conducting semi structured face to face interviews and explore these themes more in depth to gain further understanding. Additionally, seeking more information about what might be the best ways to familiarize busy academics with CPTED principles and strategies (i.e., what methods would they seek out and use (e.g., textbooks, vid eos, co nference sessions, etc.) from those who are unaware of CPTED would be useful to know to assist in resolving at least some of the ignorance about this topic.
132 Table 4 1 Demographic information Description N Possible Responses Percent Gender 55 Male 69 Female 31 Race 50 Caucasian 92 African American 4 Asian 2 Other 2 Last time you taught a class in park 56 This year 71 Within the last 5 years 21 Over 5 years ago 7 What level of academic institution do you 53 Research 1 26 Teach Research 2 23 Teaching University 43 Community College 0 Other 8
133 Table 4 2 Professors knowledge of CPTED Description N Possible Responses Percent Are you familiar with Crime Prevention 63 Yes 27 Through Environmental Design Maybe 9 No 59 Incorporate CPTED strategies into your 62 Yes 24 Classes No 76 Your knowledge of the scientific literature 58 No Knowledge 57 on CPTED Poor 19 Fair 14 Good 2 V ery Good 5 Excellent 2 Extremely Knowledgeable 2 Do other departments on your campus 62 Yes 5 teach CPTED courses? 53 No 42
134 Table 4 3 ranking of crime prevention strategies Description N Mean Standard D eviation Removing litter within 24 hours (1 day) 59 5.50 1.40 Clear sight lines and vegetation pruned 59 5.42 0.95 Removing graffiti within 24 hours (1 day) 59 5.39 1.27 Unarmed, uniformed park rangers 59 5.15 1.19 Pa rk Watch volunteers 59 5.15 1.19 Armed, uniformed park police with arrest authority 59 4.98 1.46 Emergency call boxes 59 4.73 1.39 Closed circuit television (CCTV) 59 4.41 1.64 Signage conveying park rules 59 3.73 1.54
135 Table 4 4 Perceptions of crime and fear of crime in urban parks Description N Possible Responses Percent Believe crime in urban parks is a major 63 Strongly Disagree 0 Problem Disagree 10 Somewhat Disagree 14 Neither Agree nor Disagre e 8 Somewhat Agree 24 Agree 41 Strongly Agree 3 Believe fear of crime in urban parks is a 62 Strongly Disagree 0 major problem Disagree 6 Somewhat Disagree 8 Neither Agree nor Disagree 6 Somewhat Agree 24 Agree 43 Strongly Agree 13 Reducing the fear of crime in all parks is a 63 Strongly Disagree 6 major priority of mine Disagree 19 Somewhat Disagree 10 Neither Agree nor Disagree 32 Somewhat Agree 14 Agree 13 Strongly Agree 6
136 Table 4 5 C omparison of perceived crime and fear of crime in parks Description N Mean Standard Deviation Crime in urban parks is a major problem 63 4.83 1.43 Crime in rural parks is a major problem 63 3.86 1.35 Crime in state parks is a majo r problem 63 3.83 1.45 Crime in national parks is a major problem 63 3.84 1.52 Fear of crime in urban parks is a major problem 62 5.26 1.37 Fear of crime in rural parks is a major problem 63 3.84 1.49 Fear of crime in state parks is a major problem 62 3.89 1.56 Fear of crime in national parks is a major problem 62 3.79 1.60
137 T able 4 6 Professor initiated themes related to CPTED strategies Benefits Costs Increased Park Usage Monetary Cost Reducing Crime and the Fear of Crime Problems Finding Certified Workers Improved Quality of Life Time Improved Maintenance Public Relations & Marketing Economic Improvement In the Academic Setting In the Academic Setting Valuable Management Tool Requires m ore knowledge Complete Understanding of Park and Facility Design Requires more time Positive Effective on Crime & Crime Prevention Cost Effectiveness
138 Table 4 7 How professors learned about CPTED and teaching CPTED How did I Learn about CPTE D N Teach CPTED Do Not Teach CPTED Self Study 4 75% 25% This Survey 10 0% 100% Working with P rofessionals 5 100% 0% Textbook 2 100% 0% College Class 3 66.6% 33.3% Colleagues 2 0% 100% Conference 4 50% 50% Did not respond 32 3% 97%
139 Table 4 8 Professors teaching CPTED by institution type Type of University N Teach CPTED Do Not Teach CPTED Research 1 14 36% 64% Research 2 12 25% 75% Teaching University 22 18% 82% Other 4 25% 75%
140 Figure 4 1. States colored in dark blue represent all the states professors were sent the survey (n= 100 )
141 Figure 4 2. States colored in light blue represent at least one professor in this state responded to the survey ( known school n=50 ; 16 unknown schools )
142 CHAPTER 5 C ONCLUSIONS At the end of the introduction chapter five goals for this dissertation were listed. The first goal was to identify the types of crime prevention strategies being used in urban municipal parks. Previous to th is dissertation, no empirical data was found related to crime prevention strategies utilized in urban municipal parks. This study identified the types of crime prevention techniques and the frequency of application of these crime prevention techniques empl oyed in urban parks. These results will fill a gap in the literature and help direct future research in park safety enhancement. Hopefully, this will add to the body of knowledge and will be a baseline for future researchers interested in understanding how park systems are attempting to reduce crime and fear of crime in our parks. Each of strategies: addressing i ncivilities, uniform personnel law enforcement and non law enforcement closed circuit television, l ighting, c rime prevention through environmental design, collecting crime data, and citizen involvement could be individual areas of future research in urban park safety and crime prevention. Each of these strategies were explored for their level of use in urban parks. However, upper level park manager s perceptions of their effectiveness were not studied. This would be an additional avenue of research to address in the future. U rban parks are a unique and a rich environment for future research. Research in the area of crime and crime prevention in urb an parks has been relatively rare in the research agenda focused on crime and violence on national forests is necessary, it is overdue, and it should be an essential part of the purpose o
143 crime prevention research to include all types of park and recreation areas. The next important question that this dissertation answered is whether upper level managers of parks in larger and medium size U S cities believe that crime and fear of crime is a problem in their parks? The findings of this research suggest that only about a third of the upper level managers consider cr ime or fear of crime to be a concern. Past research in constraints and fear of crime parks indicated that citizens are concerned about crime and fear of crime (Scott & Jackson, 1996; Shores, Scott, & Floyd, 2007 ; McGinn et al. 2008; Loukaitous Sideris & E ck, 2007; & Gomez et al. 2004 ; and Jorgensen & Anthopoulou, 2007). This discrepancy between the views of the citizens who use the parks and the upper level managers who manage the parks is missing from the literature in previous studies. Why is this impor tant? This study focused on the perceptions of the upper level managers of urban parks because these are the decision makers of the organization. Before an upper level park manager will take actions to address crime and fear of crime, he/she must perceive crime and fear of crime as a problem, then and only then, will he/she take actions to correct this problem. Why do about two thirds of the upper level managers report that they are not concerned with crime and fear of crime in their parks? Possible expla nations include previous studies that suggest that people perceive their own neighborhood to be safe regardless of the actual crime levels (Paulson & Robinson, 2004). Furthermore, Brantingham, Brantingham and Butcher found high associations between high le vels of fear of crime and social incivilities (such as prostitution and panhandling) as opposed to
144 serious crimes (1986). Citizens who use urban parks may be afraid of these social incivilities; however, upper level management may see these social incivili ties as more of nuisance than a generator of fear of crime. Future research should investigate upper prostitution) in their parks. Physical incivilities such as graffiti, litter and vandalism have been addressed in the literature, but not from the perspective of the upper level park manager. It would be interesting to investigate how upper level park management interprets physical incivilities; as generators of fear of crime or as a nuisance or both? An extension of such a study might include a ranking or rating of the gravity of various crimes that are semi common in parks from perspective of park managers. Another explanation for lower percentages of park managers acknowled ging crime as a problem is based on research on the effect of labeling an area as unsafe or a high crime area can have negative consequences such as lowering property values and causing people to avoid such areas (Miller, 1991; & Pyle, 1980). Therefore, up per level park managers may think they that a park has a crime problem. They may fear that by admitting to the problem, the problem will only deteriorate. This would also be an interesting proposition to investigate. Possibly, a series of questions could be asked of upper level park management if they would consider denying a crime problem to avoid the consequences associated with being labeled as a high crime area. Further research on this topic is su ggested. However, research on crime in national parks and national forests suggest that management often does not understand the extent of crime happening within their
145 A lack of public awareness of criminal activities and domestic terrorism on the forests reveals one communication gap. We also found that many managers we spoke to, who were not law enforcement officers or special agents, had little knowledge of the Chavez & Tynon, 2000 p. 407). Alt their parks could be found, it is logical to assume that it may be similar to those of the national forest managers. The next goal of this dissertation was to evaluate urban park d information on CPTED strategies. Prior research suggested that less than half of the park directors surveyed in a statewide study of Florida municipal parks were knowledgeable of CPTED strategies (McCormick, et. al, 2010). This research supported those preliminary findings and found that 45% of the upper level managers had training in CPTED or similar crime prevention strategies. It is important to know what information is available to upper level managers and to what extent they are tak ing advantage of training opportunities as they make decisions about reducing crime and fear of crime in the parks they manage. Although 45% of the upper level managers responded that they had training in CPTED or similar strategies, upon closer examinatio n of the data, it was revealed that not all of the training was equal. The hours of training ranged from one to forty hours of training. There are also questions about the quality of training. One upper level manager reported to have completed four hours o f training with the Florida Recreation and Park Association, four hours with the American Society of Landscape A rchitects, and four
146 attending a one hour workshop, and others reported attending a forty hour CPTED certification program. Other managers, who reported having been trained, provided no details about the training. It is logical to speculate that they did not all receive the same level of training. Furthermore, because there is no standardized park crime prevention strategies curriculum, like there is for playground safety and aquatic facility management, the level of training the upper level managers receive appears to vary from short courses to more extensive t raining. Future research should explore the number of hours of CPTED or crime prevention training that are needed to get a good level of understanding of those topics and compare that to the actual levels of training park administration and workers in th e field are actually receiving. What level of crime prevention should an upper level manager have? What level should a maintenance worker have? Who should conduct the training? Should it be the National Recreation and Park Association? Should it be city g o vernment? The of implementing CPTED strategies in the parks they manage through an application of Rational Choice Theory. No previous research was found using Rational Choice T heory related to the decision making of upper level park managers. The survey utilized in this dissertation encouraged upper level managers to utilize open ended questions to share individualized perceptions of costs and benefits to emerge. These costs and benefits were then analyzed and categorized into themes. The themes of potential benefits were: public relations & marketing; sense of pride and accomplishment; increased park usage; education; improved surveillance; economic improvements, and reducing cr ime
147 and the fear of crime. The themes of potential costs were: monetary costs; restrictions to design or loss of a esthetic s; political opposition; and creating a false sense of security. The significance of identifying these themes is that they can provide a foundation for future research addressing CPTED and using Rational Choice Theory. With the foundation of perceived benefits and costs identified here, future research can address measuring the influence that each benefit and cost can have on making the final decision to implement or not implement CPTED strategies in urban parks. One suggested direction of research would be to test these themes with face to face semi structured interviews of upper level park managers. The author suggests that these themes may be useful in quantitative research designs measuring decisions to implement CPTED in municipal parks. and their attitudes towards teaching these strategies to their student s. Prior research suggests that less than 5% of the park directors surveyed in a statewide study of Florida municipal parks obtained training in CPTED from colleges or universities (McCormick, et. al, 2010). In the course of doing the present research, it was also learned that park administrators across the country report that only 14% learned about CPTED in college. It is important to know what information is available to park directors as they make decisions about reducing crime and fear of crime in the p arks they manage. Another the benefits and costs of teaching CPTED strategies in the park management
148 curriculum and apply those findings within Rational Choice Theory to see if it assisted in understanding the results. The majority of professors in this study (59%) responded that they were not familiar with CPTED. When asked if they incorporated CPTED strategies into their classroom, 76% responded no. When asked why they d id not incorporate CPTED the subject A total of 68% of the professors agreed that crime is at least somewhat of a major problem in urban parks. This seems to be more in line with what the public thinks and less in line with what the majority of urban park managers reported. Furthermore, 80% stated that fear of crime was at least somewhat of a problem in urban parks. However, when asked if reducing fear of crime was a priority of theirs, only 33% at least somewhat agreed. Why the disparity between recognition of a problem and interest in addressing it? Over two thirds of the professors agreed that crime was a problem; even more agreed that fear of crime was a problem, but only one third stated that they would make it a priority to do something about it. Why do professors teach students, conduct, analyze, and then publish research? Is not at least one major reason to solve problems? Furthermore, as professors in parks a nd recreation, who has a better opportunity to imbed ideas that will lead to changes in parks? Professors train future park directors. Professors control the content of journal literature through the refereeing of academic journals. Professors contribute m uch of the content and topics at many academic and professional conferences. The apparent apathy towards working on the crime problem might be better understood if there was
149 ignorance of the problem, but, most professors responding to this study reported b eing aware of the problem. Given the lack of mention of CPTED in parks and recreation journals, textbooks and conference topics, these findings were not entirely unexpected, along with the recognition that crime and fear of crime has been generally unrepor ted in this discipline for over 30 years; however, it is hoped that the increased awareness of potential methods to address crime in parks will lead to change. Other Areas of Future Research Although this dissertation focused on CPTED strategies i n parks, other crime prevention techniques were examined and future research ideas were derived. One area of future research is perception of crime in parks. This dissertation found a difference in the perception of crime and fear of crime between park dir ectors (Figure 5 1) and professors teaching classes in park management and related classes (Figure 5 2) Future research should explore these differences in perceptions and try to establish a reason for the discrepancy. Another area of future research is t he use of guardians in urban parks. This dissertation found there to be only a small percent of parks using police, rangers or volunteers as guardians in the parks. Most parks did not use park police, park rangers or volunteers in any of their parks (Figur e 5 3). The reductions in budgets and increase costs in park operations may account for less police and rangers; however, it would not explain the lack of using volunteers. Future research in this area is suggested. Lastly, people need to have confidence in that they can make a change in their generation CPTED, as people work together to achieve a common goal (Atlas, 2008, p. 83). This second generation CPTED strives to merg e the environmental components of
150 first generation CPTED together with the social components of social cohesion, connectivity, community culture, and threshold capacity (Atlas, 2008, p. 81). Essentially, people have to care about their community and they h ave to want to make a difference in their community. According to the data collected in the dissertation, the theme of sense of pride and accomplishment provides support that CPTED is helping to bring about a sense of community and a sense of accomplishmen t in some parks. Future research in this area is suggested. Limi t ations One of the limitations was a poorly worded question on the survey utilized in chapter two. The intention of the question was to measure the number of cities who kept their parks open 2 4 hours a day. This would be accomplished by providing lights during the night time hours. The researcher posed the question, in what percentage of your parks do you leave the lights on at night to encourage use The question was followed up with the oppos ite question, what percentage of your parks do you turn the lights off at nig ht to discourage night time use. In analyzing the data the researcher speculates that he may have confused the participants with these questions. In future research the research er suggest s that the questions are reworded to ask in how many of your parks do you leave the lights on to encourage 24 hour usage of the park The next question should be reworded to ask what percentage of your parks are kept completely dark to discourage night time use In addition, in the future, there should be more specificity related to lighting as it applies to sport fields, non sport open areas and urban wildlife areas. A limitation of the survey of university professors was limiting the sample to professors who taught in park design, park maintenance, and facility operations type
151 courses. It is possible that professors who teach risk management courses and possibly other courses, could teach CPTED or similar crime prevention strategies in their co urses. The first question on the web based survey asked if they taught a park maintenance related course. If the response was no, they were excluded from the taught park desi gn, park maintenance, and facility operations type courses were asked to reply. Professors who taught risk management or camp administration courses were not invited to participate. This was an oversight and this researcher suggests that future research in crime prevention strategies include a wider variety of academic respondents. Upon further consideration, it may have also been ill advised to have attempted to categorize recreation professors in the first place. A professor may teach crime prevention str ategies for parks in an introductory class, a current trends class, or even in a philosophy class. Crime prevention strategies could be taught in a number of parks, recreation, tourism, or sport management courses. In trying to be specific in narrowing the sample, some professors who taught CPTED related strategies may have been inadvertently excluded. For future research, it is suggested that a random sample of all recreation, tourism, and sport management professors be surveyed. Final Thoughts This d issertation addressed many issues regarding CPTED and has taken the initial steps in understanding the reasons for the lack of implementation of CPTED strategies in park management and design curriculums and in urban parks. Furthermore, this dissertation u sed the Rational Choice framework suggested by Bouffard, Exum and Collins (2010), utilizing open ended questions and allowing
152 individualized perceptions of costs and benefits to emerge. The researcher acknowledges that identifying the themes was crucial, b ut, only the first step in understanding the role that Rational Choice Theory plays in the decision making process of professors teaching in the field of parks and recreation and park managers managing urban parks. Suggestions for future research would be taking the qualitative research component a step further by conducting semi structured face to face interviews and exploring these themes more in depth to gain further understanding. Salazar 2011) based on input from thousands of citizens, acknowledges that some Americans are afraid of parks because of crime and fear of crime is encouraging to the belief that this topic may now receive more attention. The field may be ready for a crime and f ear of crime in parks and recreation areas research agenda, and some of the ideas presented above for future research could guide that agenda. In conclusion, this dissertation has identified many of the strategies employed in urban parks to reduce crime a nd fear of crime. Furthermore, the research also quantified the implementation of these crime prevention strategies. Neither the strategies nor the level of implementation of these strategies were found in the literature. Next the research identified theme s relating to the perceived benefits and costs of implementing CPTED strategies in urban parks. T he Rational Choice framework suggested by Bouffard, Exum and Collins (2010) to illuminate individualized perceptions of costs and benefits of crime prevention strategies was applied Then the same process was repeated surveying professors who taught park management, park design, facility management or similar type courses. Themes of perceived cost s and
153 benefits for both groups were identified and this informati on will be valuable to understanding why upper level park managers and professors choose to use or not to use CPTED in their professions. A prime purpose of park and recreation areas is to facilitate the ability of citizens and tourists to enjoy life, conn ect with their families, friends and neighbors, pursue exercise, allow children to play and strengthen and explore their abilities, physical and mental, and to add to the quality of life overall; especially in urban areas where opportunities to pursue such endeavors outdoors are typically limited. Crime and fear of crime act as a constraint and impediment to achieving such ambitions. It is hoped that the information uncovered and reported in this dissertation will contribute to the training of future and cu rrent park managers to reduce opportunities for parks to be used as settings for crime and to increase the opportunities of the public to fully enjoy the heritage of natural and developed recreation areas that city leaders and park and recreation advocates have lobbied for across the centuries.
154 Figure 5 1 P ark from stron gly disagree (SD) to strongly agree (SA).
155 Figure 5 from strongly disagree (SD) to strongly agree (SA).
156 Figure 5 3. Use of guardians in the parks.
157 APPENDIX A PRETEST OF INSTRUMEN T USING CRONBACH'S ALPHA Case Processing Summary N % Cases Valid 82 90.1 Excluded( a) 9 9.9 Total 91 100.0 a Lis twise deletion based on all variables in the procedure. Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items .810 .825 20 Item Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N SIGNS 10.2439 1.73960 82 OWNERSHI 9.5854 2.55290 82 RULES 8.5366 2.57814 82 MAPS 3.0732 3.03388 82 SECLUDED 2.4268 2.84162 82 ENTERANC 5.9512 3.55869 82 RESTROOM 7.4024 2.59563 82 STAFFRR 4.9756 3.24313 82 PGROUND 7.1829 2.48516 82 STAFFPG 4.5488 3.02725 82 BENCH 9.5488 2.17251 82 BENCH PG 8.2683 2.91886 82 BENCHDV 2.9390 2.84300 82 SHRUB24 6.5366 3.39642 82 TREE7FT 8.6585 2.64444 82 PATHWAY 6.9390 3.26730 82 PARKLOT 7.6098 3.34353 82 TRAIL10FT 5.9146 4.08007 82 TRASH 10.0732 1.83774 82 GRAFFITI 9.9512 2.10761 82
158 Item Tot al Statistics Scale Mean if Item Deleted Scale Variance if Item Deleted Corrected Item Total Correlation Squared Multiple Correlation Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted SIGNS 130.1220 674.923 .399 .623 .802 OWNERSHI 130.7805 671.309 .273 .535 .807 RULE S 131.8293 679.650 .206 .290 .810 MAPS 137.2927 674.432 .193 .307 .812 SECLUDED 137.9390 697.638 .055 .224 .818 ENTERANC 134.4146 641.382 .333 .248 .805 RESTROOM 132.9634 658.530 .366 .502 .802 STAFFRR 135.3902 662.908 .243 .747 .810 PGROUND 133.1829 648.299 .470 .601 .797 STAFFPG 135.8171 657.608 .304 .802 .806 BENCH 130.8171 647.978 .554 .693 .795 BENCHPG 132.0976 618.410 .600 .679 .789 BENCHDV 137.4268 673.655 .219 .180 .810 SHRUB24 133.8293 623.526 .465 .439 .796 TREE7FT 131.7073 627.543 .60 0 .633 .790 PATHWAY 133.4268 604.445 .615 .690 .786 PARKLOT 132.7561 611.915 .549 .656 .790 TRAIL10FT 134.4512 635.140 .302 .398 .809 TRASH 130.2927 653.074 .613 .594 .794 GRAFFITI 130.4146 654.320 .512 .606 .797
159 APPENDIX B PARK DIRECTOR SURVE Y The actual occurrence of crime in the parks that you manage is a major problem. Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree Fear of crime in parks that you manage is a major problem. St rongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree Reducing the fear of crime in parks that you manage is a major priority. Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree So mewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree Have you received any specialized training in modifying the environment to prevent crime? (Any of the these listed: Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED), Secure By Design, Defensible Space, Environmental Criminology, or other). Yes No Please tell us who provided the training (note, if training was given by more than one source, please check all that apply). NRPA Workshop or Conference College or University courses State NRPA Affiliate Law Enforcement Agency Private Course or Private Instructor/Consultant Other If you selected other, please describe the training. Who conducted it? How many hours of training did you receive? Have any members of your agency received any specialized training in modifyi ng the environment to prevent crime? (Any of the trainings listed here: Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED), Secure By Design, Defensible Space, Environmental Criminology, or other). Yes No
160 Please tell us who provided the training for your staff (note, if training was given by more than one source, please check all that apply). NRPA Workshop or Conference College or University courses State NRPA Affiliate Law Enforcement Agency Private Course or Private Instructor/Consultant Other I f you selected other, please describe the training. Who conducted it? How many hours of training did they receive? (This question was asked only to those who marked yes on Have you received any specialized training in modifying the environment to preve nt crime?) Would you be interested in additional training in Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) for yourself? Definitely not Probably not Maybe Probably yes Definitely yes (This question was asked only to those who marked no on Hav e you received any specialized training in modifying the environment to prevent crime?) Would you be interested in training in Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) for yourself? Definitely not Probably not Maybe Probably yes Definitely y es (This question was asked only to those who marked yes on Have any members of your agency received any specialized training in modifying the environment to prevent crime?) Would you be interested in additional training in Crime Prevention Through En vironmental Design (CPTED) for your staff? Definitely not Probably not Maybe Probably yes Definitely yes (This question was asked only to those who marked no on Have any members of your agency received any specialized training in modifying the environ ment to prevent crime?) Would you be interested in a training program in Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) for your staff? Definitely not Probably not Maybe Probably yes Definitely yes What percentage of your parks have armed unifor med park police officers with authority to make arrests patrolling the park? (Park Police not City, County, or State Police) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
161 What percentage of your parks have unarmed uniformed park rangers who can contact the police if needed? 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% What percentage of your parks have organized volunteer observers (i.e. "Park Watch" volunteers)? 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% What percentage of your parks have closed c ircuit television cameras (CCTV) recording areas of the park? 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% What percentage of your parks have emergency call boxes? 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% What percentage of your parks have signage? 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% What percentage of your parks have signage that clearly conveys who maintains the park? 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% What percentage of your parks has signage that clearly conveys the park r ules? 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% What percentage of your parks have maps that provide users with a sense of where they are and where they can go? 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Do you have trails in your park that will t ake park users into secluded areas? Yes No Of the parks that have trails with secluded areas, what percentage of parks have signage or maps that informs users if they are going to enter a secluded area? 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
162 Wh at percentage of your parks have benches? 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% What percentage of your parks have benches with seat dividers which discourage sleeping or skateboarding? 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% What percentag e of your parks do your maintenance crews maintain low ground cover and shrubbery at a maximum of 24 to 36 inches in height to facilitate clear sight lines and reduce potential hiding spots? 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% What percentage of your parks do your maintenance crews maintain high canopied trees branches clean trimmed to a height of at least seven feet to facilitate clear sight lines and reduce potential hiding spots? 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% What percentage o f your parks actually have lights? 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% What percentage of your parks do you turn the lights on at night to encourage night time use? 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% What percentage of your parks do you keep dark at night to discourage use? 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% What are your thoughts on providing lights for night time usage of parks? What percentage of your parks empty trash receptacles before they overflow? 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% What percentage of your parks can you honestly say have no problem with litter? 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% What percentage of your parks can you honestly say have no problem with graffiti? 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
163 On average, what is the time frame from graffiti being reported to removal in your parks? 24 hrs 48 hrs 3 5 days 6 14 days 15 31 days 1 2 months 3 4 months 5 6 months 7 12 months More than 12 months Does your park have a written graffiti policy? Yes No I do not know Does your staff collect data on the types of crimes that occur in your parks? Yes No I do not know Is this information about the type of crime available to the public? Yes No I do not know Does your staff collect data on the locations of crimes in your parks? Yes No I do not know Is this information about the location of the crimes available to the public? Yes No I do not know What other ways do you receive feedback or suggestions from your p ark users? Do your parks have citizen's safety committees? Yes No I do not know Are these citizen safety committees made up of residents who live in the immediate vicinity of the parks they server as members? Yes No Do you have a city Yes No I do not know
164 How often does a member of your staff do systematic face to face interviews with park users to ensure that the users are having a good experience? Never Less than Once a Year Once a Year 2 3 Times a Year Every Month Every Week Daily Do you know on a park by park basis your ratio of male to female users? Yes No What is the park by park ratio of male to female users? What are all of benefits or advantages you can think of from using Crime Preventi on Through Environmental Design (CPTED) to reduce fear of crime in your parks? (Please describe all that come to mind.) What are all of cost or disadvantages you can think of from using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) to reduce fear of crime in your parks? (Please describe all that come to mind.) What do you think is the most effective method of reducing fear of crime in your parks? What do you think is the most cost effective method of reducing fear of crime in your parks? What i s your age? What is your race / ethnic background? What is your gender? Male Female What is your highest level of education? High School or GED Some college but no degree Associate Degree Bachelor Degree Degree Doctorate Counting this year as a full year, how many years have you worked in your current position? What is the total estimated acreage of your park system? What is the estimated population of the community your agency serves? What is your job title?
165 Name of City and State (For statistical purposes only, no cities will be associated with your responses, all information is confidential.) Is there anything that you would like to tell us that was not covered in the questions listed above?
166 APPENDIX C P ROFESSOR SURVEY Do you curr ently or have you in the past, taught undergraduate or graduate level courses in park maintenance, park design, facility maintenance or design, park management, facility management, or similar course? Yes No I believe that crime in urban parks is a ma jor problem. Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree I believe that crime in rural parks is a major problem. Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree I believe that crime in state parks is a major problem. Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree I believe that crime in national parks is a maj or problem. Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree I believe that fear of crime in urban parks is a major problem. Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree nor Di sagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree I believe that the fear of crime in rural parks is a major problem. Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree
167 I believe that the fear of c rime in state parks is a major problem. Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree I believe that the fear of crime in national parks is a major problem. Strongly Disagree Disagree Som ewhat Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree Reducing the fear of crime in all parks is a major priority of mine. Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly A gree Are you familiar with Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED)? Yes No Maybe How did you first learn about CPTED? (A class in recreation? A class in another department? A conference? Self study?) Do you incorporate CPTED strategies into your classes on park design, park maintenance, etc...? Yes No About how many hours of CPTED principles do you incorporate into your classes? What is the name of the class or classes that you incorporate CPTED principles into? Do you include fi eld trips to parks to look at CPTED design principles? Yes No Why do you choose not to incorporate CPTED in your design / management courses? Why do you choose to incorporate CPTED in your design / management courses? Do you teach a course just on c rime prevention? Yes No What is the title of this course just on crime prevention?
168 How would you rate the quality of the scientific literature on CPTED? Very bad Bad Poor Neither good or bad Fair Good Very good How would you rate your knowledge of the scientific literature on CPTED? No knowledge Poor Fair Good Very good Excellent Extremely knowledgeable How effective is CPTED? Very Ineffective Ineffective Somewhat Ineffective Neither Effective nor Ineffective Somewhat Effective Effective Very Ef fective Do other departments on your campus teach CPTED courses? Yes No I do not know These courses offered in other departments in CPTED are ______ in your degree recommended curriculum. Required An Elective Not listed as an Elective What was t he title of the last class you taught on park management, park design, facility planning, etc...? I believe that armed uniformed park law enforcement officers with authority to make arrest are a very effective way to reduce fear of crime in parks. Strong ly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree I believe that unarmed, uniformed park rangers who can contact the police if needed, patrolling the park are a very effective way to reduce fear of cr ime in parks. Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree I believe that having closed circuit television cameras (CCTV) recording areas of the park is a very effective way of reducing fe ar of crime in parks. Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree
169 I believe that having organized volunteer observers (i.e. "Park Watch" volunteers) is a very effective way to reduce fear of crime in parks. Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree I believe that having emergency call boxes is a very effective way of reducing fear of crime in parks. Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree I believe that having signage that clearly conveys the park rules is a very effective way of reducing fear of crime in parks. Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree I believe that having clear sight lines and vegetation pruned to reduce hiding places is a very effective way of reducing fear of crime in parks. Strongly Disagree Disagree Somew hat Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree I believe that removing graffiti within 24 hours (1 day) of discovering it is a very effective way of reducing fear of crime in parks. Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disa gree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree I believe that removing litter and trash within 24 hours (1 day) of discovering it is a very effective way of reducing fear of crime in parks. Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Di sagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree Is there anything that you would like to tell us that was not covered in the questions listed above? What is your race / ethnic background?
170 What is your gender? Counting this year a s a full year, how many years have you taught college classes? What is your age? How is your department classified? (For example Tourism, Recreation & Sport Mgt; Forestry; Kinesiology; Urban Planning; Natural Resource Management; etc...) When was the last time you taught a class on park management, park design, facility planning, etc...? This year Within the last 5 years Over 5 years ago What level of academic institution do you teach at? Research 1 Research 2 Teaching University Community College Other How many courses do you normally teach in a nine month academic year? Name of College / University and State?
171 LIST OF REFERENCES Acheson, J. M. 2004. Strategies, Conflict, and the Emergence of Territoriality: The Case of the Maine Lobster Indus try. American Anthropologist 106 296 307. Maine Lobster Industr y. Rationality and Society 17, 309 341. Altman, I. (1975). The Environment and Social Behavior: Privacy, Personal Space, Territory, Crowding. Monterrey, CA : Brooks/Cole Anderson, D H., & Brown, P. J. (1984). Th e displacement process in recreation. Journal of Leisure Research, 16, 61 73. Angel, S. (1968). Discouraging Crime Through City Planning. Berkeley, C A : Center for Pl anning and Development Research. Appleton, J. (1975). The experience of landscape. London : Wiley Arenberg, G.S. Bar tirnole C.R., & Bartixnole, J.E. (1984). Preventing Missing Children Hollywood, Florida: Compact Books. A sbury, J., Sea rs, J. & Waldner, E. (2011, February 13). Matter of park safety arises again. The Press Enterprise, pp. A1. Atkins, S., Husain, S., & Storey, A. (1991). The influence of street lighting on crime and fear of crime. London: Home office. Atlas, R.I. (2008). Crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) needed to address evolving crime in the 21st century. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Atlas, R. (1999). The Alchemy of CPTED: Less Magic, More Science. Paper presented at the International CPTED Association Convention. Retrieved from the website http://www.cpted security.com/cpted8.htm Bamberg, S., & Schmidt. P. (1998). Changing Travel Mode Choice as Rational Choice:Results From a Longitudinal Intervention Study. Rationality and Society 10, 223 252. Barnet t, R. (2000). University knowledge in an age of supercomplexity Higher Education 40, 409 422. Barton, B. H., (2006). Tort Reform, Innovation, and Playground Design, Florida Law Review, 58, 265 304 Bernard, H. R., (2000) Social Research Methods: Qualita tive and Quantitative Approaches Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
172 Best, H, (2009). Organic farming as a rational choice: Empirical investigations in environmental decision making. Rationality and Society, 21, 197 225. Bialeschki, M. D. (2005). Fear of violence: Contested constraints by women in outdoor recreation activities. In E.L. Jackson (Ed.), Constraints to leisure (pp. 103 114). State College, PA: Venture Publishing. Bialeschki, M. D., & Hicks, H. (1999). "I refuse to live in fear": The influence of fear of violence on women's outdoor recreation activities. Paper presented at the 1999 NRPA Leisure Research Symposium, Nashville, TN, 20 24 October. Retrieved from http://www.unc.edu/depts/recreation/LSAfea Biderman A., Johnson, L., McIntryre, J., & Weir, A. (1976). Report on a pilot study in the D istrict of C olumbia on victimization and attitudes toward law enforcement. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. an environment 11, 20 35. Blue, D., (2000). Safety by design. Principle Leadership: High School Ed 1, 44 47. Bodin, M., & Hartig, T., (2003). Does the outdoor environment matter for psychological restoration gained through runnin g. Psychology of Sport and Exercise 4, 141 153. Bok, D. C. (2006). Our underachieving colleges: A candid look at how much students learn and why they should be learning more Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press. Box, S., Hale, C., & Andrews, G. (1988 ). Explaining fear of crime. British Journal of Criminology 28, 340 356. Brantingham, P. J., & Faust, F. L. (1976). A conceptual model of crime prevention. Crime and Delinquency 22, 284 296. Breen, R., & Goldthorpe, J. H. (1997). Explaining Educational D ifferentials Towards a Formal Rational Action Theory. Rationality and Society 9 275 305. Breen, R. & Yaish, M. (2006). Testing the Breen Goldthorpe Model of Educational Decision Making. In Stephen, L., Grusky, D. B. and Fields, G. S (Eds), Mobility and Inequality: Frontiers of Research from Sociology and Economics Stanford: Stanford University Press, 323 358. Budruk, M. & Manning, R. (2006). Indicators and standards of quality at an urban proximate park: Litter and graffiti at Boston harbor islands nat ional recreation area. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 24, 1 23
173 Carter, S.P., Carter, S.L. & Dannenberg, A.L., (2003). Zoning out crime and improving community health in Sarasota, Florida: Crime prevention through environmental design. Americ an Journal of Public Health 93, 1442 1445 CABE Space (2004). Decent parks? Decent behaviour? The link between the quality of parks and user behaviour. Retrieved from the website http://www.cabe.org uk/AssetLibrary/2274.pdf CDC, (2001) Increasing physical activity Increasing Physical Activity: A Report on Recommendations of the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5018al.htm. Chavez, D.J. & Tynon, J.F. (2000), R esearch : T riage law enforcement: S ocietal impacts on national forests in the west. Environmental Management, 26 ( 4 ) 403 40 7. Chavez, D. J., Tynon, J. F., & Knap, N. E. (2004). Reducing crime and violence on public lands: Case stu dies in the USDA forest service. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration, 22 (3), 22 38. Chiesura, A. (2004) The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and Urban Planning 68, 129 138. Ching hua Ho, Sasidharan, V., Elmendorf, W., Willi ts, F. K., Graefe, A., & Godbey, G. (2005). Gender and ethnic variations in urban park preferences, visitation, and perceived benefits. Journal of Leisure Research, 37 281 306. Christensen (1986 ). Vandalism and depreciative behavior. A Literature Review. Th e o n American Outdoors. Washington, D C: U.S. Government Printing Office Christensen, H., and Clark R ( 1983 ) Increasing public involvement to reduce depreciative behavior in recreation settings. Leisure Sciences, 5, 359 78. C larke, R. V. (1995). Situational crime prevention. building a s afer s ociety: Strategic a pproaches to c rime p revention, Crime and Justice, 19 ; 91 150. Clements, R. 2004. An investigation of the status of outdoor play. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 5, 68 80. Coley, R. L., Kou, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (1997). Where does community grow? The social context created by nature in urban public housing Environment and Behavior 29 468 494. Colquhoun, I. (2004) Design out crime: creating safe and sustain able communities. Burlington, MA: Architectural Press.
174 Cornish, G., and Clarke, R.V. (1986) The Reasoning Criminal: Rational Choice Perspectives on Offending. New York: Springer Verlag. Council for Higher Education Accreditation Institute for Research and Study of Accreditation and Quality Assurance. (2002). Specialized accreditation and assuring quality in distance learning. CHEA Monograph Series 20 02, No. 2. Retrieved from http://www.chea. org/pdf/mono_2_specaccred_ 02.pdf?pubID=246. Covington, J., & Tay lor, R. B. (1990). Neighborhood structure, neighborhood change, and fear of crime (Working Paper 19). Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University, Center for Urban Policy Research. Crompton, J. L. (2000). The Impact of Parks and Open Space on Property Values and th e Property Tax Base Ashburn, Va.: National Recreation & Park Association, Crompton, J. L. (2004). The proximate principle (2 nd Ed). National Recreation and Park Association: Ashburn, VA. Crompton, J. L. (2007). Competitiveness: Parks and open space as fa ctors shaping a deBrun, C. T., (Eds.) The Economic Benefits of Land Conservation Retrieved from http://www.tpl.org/content_documents/econbens_landconserve.pdf Crompton, J. L., Love, L. L., & Moore T. A. (1997). Characteristics of companies that considered recreation/open space to be important in relocation decisions. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 15, 37 58. Crowe, T.D. (2000) Crime prevention through environment al design (2nd Ed). Burlington, MA: Butterworth Heinemann. Czaja, R. & Blair, J. (2005). Designing surveys a guide to decisions and procedures. Thousand Oaks, Pine Forge Press. Mode Rationality and Society 19(3): 315 334. Davies, R., Hein esen, E. & Holm, H. (2002). The Relative Risk Aversion Hypothesis. Journal of Population Economics 15 683 713. Dillman, D.A. (2007). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. 2 nd ed. 2007 Update with new internet, visual, and mixed mode guide. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Eckel, P.D. & Kezar A ( 2003 ) Key Strategies for Making New Institutional Sense: Ingredients to Higher Education Transformation, Higher Education Pol icy 16 39 53.
175 Fanelli, J. (2010, October 30). Crime is growing in centr al park. The Daily News, pp. 5. Feiock R. C. (2007). R ational choice and regional Governance Journal of Urban Affairs, 29, 47 63. Felson, M., & Clarke, R.V. (1998) Opportunity Makes the Thief. London: The Home Office Policing and Reducing Crime Unit Research, Development and Statistics Directorate. Ferraro, K. F. ( 1994). Fear of c rime: Interpreting v ictimization r isk SUNY Press, Albany. Finkelhor, D. (1984 ). Child s exual a buse: New t heory and r esearch New York: The Free Press. Fisher, B. S., & Nasar, J. L. (1992). Fear of crime in relation to three exterior site features: Prospect, refuge, and escape. Environment and Behavior 24, 35 65. Fletcher, J. E. (1984). The effect of contr olled access and entrance fees on park visitor safety and security. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 2, 13 23. Frumkin, H, (2001). "Beyond toxicity: The greening of environmental health American Journal of Preventative Medicine 20, 234 240. Frumkin, H, (2003). Healthy places: Exploring the evidence American Journal of Public Health 93, 1451 1456. Garner, M. K. (2011, February 14). Police to multiply eyes, ears citywide new level of surveillance: Video hub to cull footage from security came ras. The Atlanta Journal Constitution, pp. A1 Gates, L., & Rohe, W. (1987) Fear and reactions to crime a revised model. Urban Affairs Quarterly 22, 425 453. Gordon, M. T., & Riger S ( 1989 ) The female fear. New York: Free Press. Gomez, J.E., Johnson, B.A., Selva, M. & Sallis, J.F. (2004). Violent crime and outdoor physical activity among inner city youth. Preventive Medicine 39 ( 5 ), 876 881. Grasmick, H. G., & Bursik, R. J. (1990). Conscience, significant others and rational choice: Extending the dete rrence model. Law and Society Review, 24, 837 861. Hammitt, W.E. (1982). Cognitive dimensions of wilderness solitude. Environmental Behavior ,14, 478 493. Hammitt, W.E. (2000). The relationship of being away and privacy in urban forest recreation environmen ts Environmental Behavior 32, 521 540. Hammitt, W.E. (2002). Urban forest and parks as privacy refuges. Journal of Arboriculture 28, 19 26.
176 Hammitt, W.E., & Brown, G. (1984). Functions of privacy in wilderness environments. Leisure Science s 6, 151 166. Hammitt, W.E. &. Rutlin, W., M, (1995). Use encounter standards and curves for achieved privacy in wilderness. Leisure Science s 17 245 252. Harnik, P. (2006). What makes it great and h ow to g et t here: Excellent c ity p arks Report. The Trust for Public La nd, San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from http://www.tpl.org/ content_documents/excellentcityparks_2006.pdf H arpe B. & Thomas, I. (2009). Curriculum c hange in u niversities c onditions that f acilitate e ducation for s ustainable d evelopment Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 3 75 85 Heywood, J. L., Mullins, G. W., & Blower, S. (1983). A user orientation to managing vandalism. Trends, 21 (1), 25 27. Henderson, K.A. (1982). A survey of the continuing education nee ds and interests of leisure services professionals. Journal of Leisure Research 14, 183 194. Herzog, T.R., & Kutzli, G.E., (2002). Preference and perceived danger in field/forest settings. Environment and Behavior, 34, 819 835. Hilborn, J. (2009) Dealing with crime and disorder in urban parks. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Hipp, J. R. (2011 ). Assessing crime as a problem: The r elationship b etween p erception of c rime and o fficial c rime r ates o ver 25 Years Crime & Delinquency, 20, 1 33. micro neighborhood effects? Criminology 48 475 508. Home Office Policing and Reducing Cr ime Unit (2001). Invitation to t ender: Evaluation of CCTV i nitiatives. Unp ublished document. London: Author. Hull, R. B., & Harvey, A. (1989). Explaining the emotion people experience in suburban parks. Environment and Behavior 21, 323 345. Hulvershorn, J. K. (1979). Career development: Continuing education needs. Journal of Ph ysical Education and Recreation Leisure Today, 50 (4), 26 27. Hurd, A. R. (2004). Competency development for board members in public park and recreation agencies. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration, 22 43 61. Hurd, A. R. (2005). Competency develo pment for entry level public park and recreation professionals. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration, 23 45 62.
177 Ibitayo, O., & Virden, R. J. (1996). Visitor and manager perceptions of depreciative behaviors in urban park settings. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 14 36 51. Jacobs, J. (1961). The d eath and life of g reat American c ities, New York, NY : Vintage Books. Jeffery, C.R. (1971), Crim e p revention t hrough e nvironmental design. Beverly Hills, CA : Sage Publications Johnson, R. R (2001). The psychological influence of the police uniform. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 70 27. Kaufman, P. W. (2006). National parks and the woman's voice: A history New Mexico, University of New Mexico Press. Kelling, G Pate, T. Dieckman D. & Brow n C ( 1974 ) The Kansas City preventive patrol experiment: Technical report Washington, DC: Police Foundation. Killingsworth, R., James, K., & Morris, H. (2003). Promoting Active Living Why public health needs parks and recreation. National Recreation an d Park Association Retrieved from http://www.nrpa.org/story.cfm?story_id=1401&departmentID=18& publicationID=1 Koskela H. (2000). The gaze without eyes : V ideo surveillance and the changing nature of urban space Progress in Human Geography 24: 243 265 K renichyn, K. (2004). Women and physical activity in an urban park: Enrichment and support through an ethic of care. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24 (1), 117 130. Kuo, F. E., Bacaicoa, M., & Sullivan, W. C. (1998). Transforming inner city landscapes : Trees, sense of safety and preference. Environment and Behavior 30, 28 59. Kuo, F., & Sullivan, W. (2001). Environment and crime in the inner city: Does vegetation reduce crime. Environment and Behavior 33, 343 367. Lab, S. P. (1997). Crime prevention. Approaches, practice and evaluations (3rd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson. LaGrange, R. L., & Ferraro, K. F. (1989). Assessing age and gender differences in perceived risk and fear of crime. Criminology 27 697 719. LaGrange, R. L., Ferraro, K. F., & Supan cic, M. (1992). Perceived risk and fear of crime: Role of social and physical incivilities. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency 29 311 334.
178 Lewis, D. A., & Maxfield, M. G. (1980). Fear in the neighborhoods: An investigation of the impact of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 17, 160 189. Lewis, D.A. & Salem, G. ( 1986) Fear of crime New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. Loukaitou Sideris, A., & Eck, J. E. (2007) Crime prevention and active living. American Journal of Health Promot ion 21, 380 389. Louv, R. (2005) Last Chil d in the Woods. Chapel Hill NC: Algonquin Press Lueddeke, G. R. (2003). Professionalising teaching practice in higher education: A study of disciplinary variation and Studies in Higher E ducation 28, 213 228. Lynch, D., Altschuler, G., & McClure, P. (2002). Professors should embrace technology in courses and colleges must create technology plans. Chronicle of Higher Education 48, 15 18. Macdonald, k. & Kitteringham, G., (2004). A case of rogue gatherings and other CPTED tales: Find out how Calgary (Canada) police service has spread the word on CPTED and translated it into action. Security Management 48 129 133 Madge, C. (1997). Public parks and the geography of fear. Tijdschrift Voor Eco nomische En Sociale Geografie, 88 (3), 237 250. security on the Appalachian Trail. Parks and Recreation July. Maxfield, M., (1987 ). Incivilities and fear of cr ime in E ngland and W ales and the U nited S tates : A comparative analysis. A paper presented to the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology. McCarthy B. (2002). New e conomics of s ociological c riminology Annual Rev iew of Sociology 28, 417 442. McCormick, J., Holland, S., Stein, T., & Spengler, J. ( 2010 ). Measuring Implementation Municipal Parks. Unpublished manuscript. McGinn, A. P., Evenson, K. R., Herring, A. H., Huston, S. L., & Rodriguez, D. A. (2008). The association of perceived and objectively measured crime with physical activity: A cross sectional analysis. Journal of Physical Activity & Health, 5 (1), 117 131. McPherson, E.G., Maco, S. E., Simpson, J. R. Peper, P. J X iao, Q.. VanDerZanden, A. M & Bell, N. (2002 ). Western Washington and Oregon Community Tree Guide: Benefits, Costs, and Strategic Planting Silverton, OR: International Society of
179 Arboriculture, Pacific Northwest Chapter. Retrieved from http://cufr.ucdavis .edu/ guides.asp? Action=search&Search Area=products&Product Types=20 Merchant, C. (1984). Women of the p rogressive c onservation m ovement: 1900 1916 Environmental Review 8, 57 85. Michael, S.E., Hull R.B. (1994). Crime and urban parks: An annotated bi bliography. Pullman, WA. Unpublished report. 103 p Michael, S.E., Hull R.B. & Zahm, D.L.,. (2001). Environmental factors influencing auto burglary: A Case Study. Environment and Behavior, 33, 368 388 Midtveit, E. (2005). Crime prevention and exclusion: F rom walls to opera music. Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention 6, 23 38 Molnar B E Gortmaker S L Bull F C & Buka S L : (2004) Unsafe to play? Neighborhood disorder and lack of safety predict reduced physical activity among urban children and adolescents. American Journal of Health Promotion ; 18 378 386. Moser, F. (2007). Faculty adoption of educational technology. Educause Quarterly 30, 66 69. Nagin, D., & Paternoster, R. (1993). Enduring individual differences and rational choice theories of crime. Law and Society Review, 27, 467 496. Nasar, J. L., & Fisher, B. S. (1992). Design for vulnerability: Cues and reactions to fear of crime. Sociology and Social Research 76, 48 58. National Crime Prevention Council (1997). Designing safer communities: a crime prevention through environmental design handbook, Washington DC. National Recreation and Park Association. (2004). Standards and evaluative criteria for baccalaureate programs in recreation, park resources and leisure services. Ashburn, VA: Author. Need, A. & De Jong, U. (2000). Educational Differentials in the Netherlands Testing Rational Action Theory. Rationality and Society 13 71 98. Newman, O. (1972). Defensible Space: Cri me Prevention Through Urban Design. New York: Macmillan. Noe, F., Hammitt, B., & Bixler, R. (1997). Park user perceptions of resource and use impacts under varied situations in three national parks. Journal of Environmental Management, 49, 323 336.
180 Parnaby, P. F., (2006). Crime prevention throu gh environmental design: Discourses of risk, social control, and a neo liberal context. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice 1 30. Paternoster, R. (1989). Decisions to participate in and desist from four types of common delinquency: Deterr ence and the rational choice perspective. Law and Society Review, 23, 7 40. Paternoster, R., Saltzman, L. E., Waldo, G. P., & Chiricos, T. G. (1983). Perceived risk and social control. Law and Society Review, 17, 457 479. Paulsen, D. J., & Robinson, M. B., (2004). Spatial aspects of crime: theory and practice. Boston, Pearson Education. Pederson, D.M. (1997). Psychological functions of privacy. Journal of Environmental Psychology 17, 147 156. Pederson, D.M. (1999). Model for types of privacy by privacy fu nctions. Journal of Environmental Psychology 19, 397 405. Pendleton, M. R. (1996). Crime, criminals and guns in natural settings: Exploring the basis for disarming federal rangers. American Journal of Police XV, 3 25. Pendleton M. R. (1998). Policing the Park: Understanding soft enforcement. Journal of Leisure Research 30, 552 571. Pendleton, M. R. & Thompson, H. L. (2000). The criminal career of park and recreation hotspots. Parks & Recreation 35, 56 63 Piliavin, I., Thornton, C, Gartner, R., & Matsue da, R. L. (1986). Crime, deterrence, and rational choice. American Sociological Review, 51, 101 119. Piquero, A., & Tibbetts, S. (1996). Specifying the direct and indirect effects of low self control and situational factors in offenders' decision making: T oward a more complete model of rational offending. Justice Quarterly, 13, 481 510. Presser, S., Couper, M. P., Lessler, J. T., Martin, E., Martin, J., Rothgeb, J. M. (2004). Methods for testing and evaluating survey questions. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 68 (1), 109 130. Rowley, D.J., Lujan H. D., & Dolence M. G. ( 1997 ) Strategic Change in Colleges and Universities San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Robinson, J. B., Lawton, B. A., Taylor, R. B., & Perkins, D. D. (2003). Multilevel longitudinal impacts of incivi lities: Fear of crime, expected safety, and block satisfaction. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 19 237 274.
181 Robinson, M. & Mullen, K., (2001). Crime on campus: A survey of space users. Crime Prevention and Community Safety: An International Journal 3 33 46. Rountree, P. W., & Land, K. C. (1996a). Burglary victimization, perceptions of crime risk, and routine activities: A multilevel analysis across Seattle neighborhoods and census tracts. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency 33 147 180. Rudis h, K. & Rouen, E. ( 2008, March 27). After central park, thugs like F lushing Daily News (New York), p p. 6 Salazar, K. (2011 ) Great Outdoors: A Promise to Future Generations. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office Samdahl, D. M., & Christe nsen, H. H. (1985). Environmental cues and vandalism: An exploratory study of picnic table carving. Environment and Behavior 17 (4), 445 458 Sampson, R. J., & Raudenbush, S. W. (2004). Seeing disorder: Neighborhood stigma Social Psychology Quarterly 67 319 342. Sampson, R. J., Raudenb ush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science 277 918 924. Schneider R., & Kitchen. T. (2002) Planning for Crime Prevention: A TransAtlantic Perspective London: Routledge. Schneider R., & Kitchen. T.(2007) Crime Prevention and the Built Environment London: Routledge. Schroeder,C. R. (1998). Rational choice versus republican moment -explanations for env ironmental laws, 1969 73. Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum, 9, 29 60. Schroeder, H. W., & Anderson, L. M. (1984). Perception of personal safety in urban recreation sites. Journal of Leisure Research 16, 177 194. Schuman, H. (2002). S ense and nonsens e about surveys. Contexts, 2, 40 47. Sessoms, H.D. (1990). On becoming a profession: Requirements and strategies. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 30, 38 50. Sessoms, H.D. (1998). The national curriculum conference on parks and recreation. Par ks and Recreation 33, 22 24. Sharp, L. ( 2002 ) Green Campuses: The Road from Little Victories to Systemic Transformation. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 3, 128 45.
182 Shores, K. A., Scott, D., & Floyd, M. F. (2007). Constraints to outdoor recreation: A multiple hierarchy stratification perspective. Leisure Sciences, 29 227 246. Sheatsley, P. (1983). Questionnaire Construction and Item Writing. In Handbook of Survey Research, ed. Peter Rossi, James Wright, and Andy Anderson, pp. 195 230. New York: Academic Press. Skogan, W. G. (1986). Fear of crime and neighborhood change. In A. J. Reiss & M. Tonry (Eds.), Communities and crime (pp. 203 229). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Sousa, W. H. & Kelling, G. L. (2009). Police and the reclamation of public places: a study of MacArthur Park in Los Angeles International Journa l of Police Science & Management, 12, 41 54. Spelman,W & Brown D. K ( 1981 ) Calling the police: A replication of the citizen reporting component of the Kans as City response time analysis Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum. Spengler, J.O, Connaughton, D. P, Zhang, J. J., & Gibson, H. (2002). An analysis of park agencie s. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 30, 38 50. Stark, J. S., and Lattuca, L. R. (1997). Shaping the College Curriculum: Academic Plans in Action Needham Heights, Allyn & Bacon. Sudman, S. (1983). Applied Sampling. In Handbook of Survey Resea rch, ed. Peter Rossi, James Wright, and Andy Anderson, pp. 145 194. New York: Academic Press Taylor, R. B., & Harrell, A. V. (1996) Physical environment and crime. National Institute of Justice Research Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. Tibbetts, S. G., & Myers, D. L. (1999). Low self control, rational choice, and student test cheating. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 23, 179 200. Tornatzky, L. G., & Klein, K. J. (1982). Innovation characteristics and innovation adoption implement ation: A meta analysis of findings. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 29, 28 45. Trancik A. M., & Evans G. W. (1995). Space fit for children: Competency in design of daycare center environments. 311 319. Trust for Pu blic Land, (1996). Boosting Tourism: Open space boosts local economies by attracting tourists and supporting outdoor recreation. Retrieved from http://www.tpl.org/tier3_cd.cfm?content_item_id=1195&folder_id=727
183 Tynon, J. F. & Chavez, D. J. (2006) Crime in national forests: A call for research. Journal of Forestry 104, 154 157. United States Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, & United States National Park Service. (1978). National urban recreation study: Executive report Washington; Dept. of the Interior, Heritage Conservation and Recreation Serv ice. United States Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service. (1979). The third nationwide outdoor recreation plan: The assessment. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service Valentine, G. (1989). The g Area 21 ( 4 ) 385 390. Virginia Crime Prevention Association, (2005). CPTED guidelines. http://www.illinoislighting.org/resources/VCPA%20CPTED%20Guidelines.pdf Wallis, A., & Ford, D. (Eds.). (1980). Crime prevention through envi ronmental design: An operational handbook. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Justice, National Institute of Justice. Wang, G., & Dietz, W. H. (2002). Economic burden of obesity in youths aged 6 to 17 years: 1979 1999. Pediatrics 109 5. Welsh, B. C., & Farrin gton, D. P. (2002). Crime prevention effects of closed circuit television: A systematic review London: Home Office. Welsh, B. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2003). Effects of closed circuit television on crime. The Annals of the American Academy of Political an d Social Science, 587 (1), 110 135. Welsh, B., C., & Farrington, D. P. (2004). Surveillance for crime prevention in public space: Results and policy choices in Britain and America. Criminology & Public Policy 3, 497 526. Westover, T. N. (1985). Perceptions of crime and safety in three midwestern parks. Professional Geographer, 37 (4), 410 420. W ilson, J. Q., & Kelling, G. L. (1982). The police and neighborhood safety: Broken windows. The Atlantic Monthly 29 38. Wolf, K. (2005). Civic nature: Valuation: Ass essments of human functioning and well being in cities, Proceedings of the 3rd Biennial Conference of the U.S. Society for Ecological Economics Tacoma, WA
184 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Joel McCormick attended Appomattox County High School, in Appomattox, Virgini a. In 1989 he joined the United States Navy and served in Operation Desert Storm aboard the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower CVN 69. After an honorable discharge in 1993, he enrolled at Christopher Newport University in Newport News, Virginia and pursued a double major in Psychology and Philosophy. During the summers of 1996, Base in the Florida Keys. It was these experiences that influenced Joel to pursue a graduate degree in recr eation and parks In the fall of 1998 Joel attended George Williams College of Aurora University and completed a M aster of Administration of Recreation in 1999. Joel started a job working with adjudicated teen males at a residential group home in Lynchb urg, Virginia. He then progressed to the facility manager position with the Parks and Recreation Department in the City of Lynchburg, Virginia. While working full time, Joel attended Longwood University pa rt time and completed a second M aster of Science in Sociology, with an emphasis in Criminal at risk and with park management helped in shaping his interest in crime prevention. In July 2007, he entered the Natural Resource Recreation Ph.D. program in th e College of Health and Human Performance at The University of Florida.