m «1“ ..- -

‘¥—I

in: '

.M q‘urW;

 

‘ .4:- .1

            
       

'M-leml 37;” ~19 ,.

      
 
  

  
  
    
  
 
  

 
       
   

        
   
     
 

    

     
 
 

 
 
 

  

      

 

y“ {[11 ‘0‘ d 2 ‘
.w up M MW\M M . Muwm w
~ 3 3‘3 ‘3‘ MM: MM}; 3'! 31* MM“ ' ""‘MM'M‘MM 3...; ..~ M *LMMM“33“‘M.~3M““5343 ”MM
‘ 3333 F3333 ‘3‘! 3“. 3‘1 M3332“ M33"; ll 1“ M . ["3 M: m 31334133333 ”3333‘ ' ' '3 ‘1'
MuhfifMirwmeMM“”M%@%M
. M . z M ’3‘“ .MMMM'; MM ‘2‘ M 3
TM" 3 3313333333334332M311311333135; ‘F‘ 23‘ ‘ ME ‘6‘? 3'
'" . .‘ ‘33'1‘33‘513‘133‘3“.u!“‘“““M “5 :‘ M' 5 “‘3‘
"‘ I} 33333.“: 1‘3“!“ 3" .“31‘3‘3‘ - I ' - .. “3"; x14.
,' {7339232333321 8311!! 1;: {31in fig; ‘.

.2:-

00—...

  

     
 
 

, -::41::.'...

. ' ”do-:-

1 000‘

   

M
m
E:
“a
m..- -

       
        
 
 

            
      
 
 
 
 

 
   

   

M' I'.‘ 5 x;
f "u . ~' E“ ' z
- 3 . .. I}E:_M.;€q“§£t.-
' v‘ . 13"‘5‘33335
is '1" 3 [1‘1“ "3
"‘3 "{3}“ ‘
it

Jig. 'uv< v... .

O 6 N...
Lfifg’;

 
  
 

“:‘rtfif-M -

.
My
‘4.

. .
|.I

 
  
  

 

 
 
 
 

.4.

a

a? a 5,.- i};
Han"
w:
{#51 {‘1}

.
.
v
,4 can r- 3."
.4 5..-..."
’ 1' .‘ nor-ca

 
  

 
   

 
 

u
--o-
u

   

’4’
,-
.wo-

    

   

-......

..
. m
.o.a - ‘~ fl
' Lo.v—ao-
. o .
ov

 

 

 

 

 

l"l- -)-‘a1 v— A

    
 
     
  

   

N“; .‘

:.;}M;,..':té-, \ ‘. -
.h M' : M "M .
I“ ' 31““ "In "t.

W“
:M‘

        
 

‘3‘ I"M

I . .
4":1': *" "“3”“ . _..~ ‘91:
‘33?! h- 53:!“1..g,‘1u :. ' .

3 film! “3.431 I :3‘ fit? ‘éifg' .th M.“ [N ;: ..."‘ gird-r; -. .5

‘ '
:1...
.113
|
In

  

   

Tu.

 

     
    

   
  

     
  
 
 

    
     
  
   

   
    
 

  
  

 
  

 

l M Mm, zi l w ‘ ;

5 ‘9; ’i‘r‘ M! {13:13 3‘1"? 333,131} ‘33 ‘& M193“; ‘ *H .- 32:1? :1“

3 7? ”f”. "‘ 3‘3 M 13;“ M M‘s aw? ., «'3‘ :3; a": M

“‘M 1““ 3"13‘33‘3‘1‘13“: ‘lvaii 1‘31“ 133.3“ ‘3‘“ “"333 PM if!“ 'I‘W’H‘MMqW'“ 'MM

3 “3.3M“!33313;,Mizligmggg ‘ H“M'MUM1uM‘hwgdhg.‘Hymnfi’ MMHMMJHN “.331533- 13-33 .333
331;. 3333 1133.333! 3 ‘3 {5‘3“ {M3333 3‘3“ {‘3‘ {33“}‘3‘333 smug} «bun.» 1Mh‘3‘1i_ M. ,2! 3 ‘3‘: .3313}:
““H !m3if‘ir‘W‘iiifidfl3‘33;3331- 1.333323 3311 MM 3313;.“ ...; WMMMMMM alt:g3l3333gM-uMJM
l , ’33. 11}3£13‘f1‘3"1d.}t‘:‘. ' . ”(3111‘ #41“va | xi, ‘3 :. mm.“n‘"‘r"1'
MN MflWMMM3MwWWWMWMWW3“M 1333

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ill '\ \ irimmmmnmi

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

PERCEPTIONS OF CRIME AND
CONFLICT IN URBAN PARKS AND
FORESTS

presented by

THERESA N. NESTOVER

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph . D. degree in Geography

 

 

,1 $74 W4kaf22§1

a jor pro‘essor

Mic/:92.

Date

 

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0- 12771

_____———__-‘. _ __ _ _ . _

PLACE N RETURN BOX to roman thb checkout from your mood.
TO AVOID FINES Mum on or Moro dot. duo.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

.55? 2 5 1295

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU I: An Affimmivo Adlai/Equal Opportunity Induction
WMMHJ

/5/<7-/7/7

Pa

PERCEPTIONS OF
CRIME AND CONFLICT IN
URBAN PARKS AND FORESTS

By

Theresa N. Westover

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Geography

1982

ABSTRACT

PERCEPTIONS OF
CRIME AND CONFLICT IN
URBAN PARKS AND FORESTS
by

Theresa N. Westover

Research related to environmental perception has revealed the
importance of the "images" of places in shaping interactions between
people and their environment. Recently, park settings have been in-
vestigated to determine their "images," as well as the kinds of
behavior, activities, and social atmosphere people expect to encounter.
Because one aspect of park environments of special concern to park
agency personnel is antisocial behavior, park users' perceptual and
behavioral responses to antisocial behavior in district level parks
are examined in this study.

Face-to-face structured interviews of randomly selected park
visitors were conducted in three Midwestern district level parks. The
relationships between respondents' perceptions of personal safety in
the park and their individual characteristics and reported behavior
are examined with the use of simple proportions and nonparametric
measures of association, statistical significance, and proportional

reduction in error.

Study results indicate that district level parks are
generally perceived to be safe environments. Evenings are considered
less safe than days in the parks. Only gender is strongly associated
with both perceptions of safety and reported avoidance behavior.
Female respondents are much more likely than males to report feeling
unsafe in the park and to report avoidance behavior due to concerns
about safety. Mbre generally, there is also a fairly strong and
significant association between perceptions of park safety and
reported avoidance behavior.

Study results have implications both for the park manager or
planner wishing to improve recreation provision for his or her clien-
tele and for research addressing spatial decision-making, behavior,
and perceptions of public spaces. These data also indicate that
perceptions of safety directly influence behavior in the park.
Confirmation of this relationship, however, requires detailed

observation of park users' on-site behavior.

Dedicated to Ron Hodgson;
my first and favorite mentor,

for his belief in my ability and
his persistence in convincing me to try.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

It is both traditional and appropriate to begin acknowledgements
by thanking the members of the dissertation committee. I feel a par-
ticular debt of gratitude to my committee, Gary Manson, Joe T. Darden,
Joseph Fridgen, and Robert Wittick, for their guidance and assistance
during the dissertation process and for the many lessons they have
taught me about research, writing, and academic excellence. Special
thanks go to my major advisor, Gary Manson, for his patience,
concientious attention, and many valuable contributions to all phases
of my academic development at Michigan State University. These few
pages of acknowledgement are the only ones in this manuscript that
have not had the benefit of his careful, word-by-word review. Dan
Stynes and Bruce Pigozzi also deserve a special vote of appreciation
for their many hours of help and encouragement during the research
process and for their patient guidance through the thickets of
statistical methods and analytical thinking.

Primary financial support for this research was provided by a
grant from the Urban Forest Recreation Research Project, North Central
Forest Experiment Station in Chicago, Illinois. Additional funds were
provided by the Pacific Northwest Forest Experiment Station in Seattle,
Washington. In addition to their assistance in providing financial

support, personal thanks are much deserved by John Dwyer, Project

iii

Leader in Chicago, and Chris Christensen, Research Scientist, in
Seattle for their deeply appreciated and frequently sought advice,
encouragement, and interest throughout the research process. Thanks
also go to Mike Chubb for his role in grant administration and data
collection.

The data collection process involved the assistance and cooper-
ation of many people. Bob Callecod and his research staff in the
Hennepin County Parszeserve District devoted many hours and much care-
ful attention to collecting data in Coon Rapids Dam and Elm Creek Park
Reserves. Their assistance and cooperation in the project were crucial
to its completion and their patience and help are very much appreciated.
Data collection would not have been possible in Potter Park without the
cooperation of Lansing Park and Recreation Department Director, Doug
Finley, and Potter Park Manager Gerald Miller and his staff. Many
thanks are also due the research staff who helped collect data in
Potter Park -- Cindy Studer, Lori Indenbaum, Wrick Dunning, and Joe
Thome. Their cheerfulness, energy, and care in the face of frequently
tedious data collection and coding tasks were always appreciated. Of
even greater personal value, however, are the bonds of friendship and
affection that were built among us during that long, hot summer in the
park.

Less clearly defined, but equally valuable, are the contributions
of friends and family during the last several years. Thanks must go,
first, to my family in California for their patience, support and
encouragement during our long separation. I am sorry for the many times

I should have been there to share their joys and sorrows and was not.

iv

Heartfelt thanks also are due to Joe and Cynthia Fridgen and Bonnie,
Dan, and Colin Stynes for providing a much needed sense of "family"

in Michigan. Special thanks go to Bonnie Stynes, who always found the
time to share both the discouraging and anxious times as well as the
joys of the past few years. The only regrets I have in finally com-
pleting this phase of my academic career are the miles now separating
me from my East Lansing "family" and those that continue to separate
me from my California home.

Last, but far from least, I wish to acknowledge my endless
gratitude to my husband, Joe Thome. He has been deeply involved in
all phases of the dissertation.' He collected data, helped type early
drafts, and spent many hours drafting maps, including the final copies
in this manuscript. While it was this research project that initially
brought us together, Joe's friendship, encouragement, and support were
instrumental in its final completion. Thanks, Joe, for being a partner

in every sense of the word.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION .

The Geographic Context: Identifying an Investigative
Framework .

Perceptions of Park Safety and Behavioral Response .
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW .

Introduction .

Parks as Behavior Settings .
Perception and Behavior in Recreation Settings .
Summary .

Crime and Conflict in Park Settings .
Geography of Crime and Perceptions of Crime .

Identifying and Measuring Depreciative Behavior
in Parks .

Crime and Conflict in Rural Parks: Probelms
and Perceptions .

Crime and Conflict in Urban and Suburban Parks:
Problems and Perceptions .

Behavioral Response to Park Crime and Conflict .
Summary .
Defining the Investigative Questions .
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY .
Study Park Settings .

Park User Survey .

vi

11

11

13

19

. 24

. 26

. 26

28

. 39

44

SO

. 53

S4

57

. S7

67

CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS
Relative Park Safety .

Association of Park Users' Individual Characteristics
with Safety Related Perceptions and Behavior .

Age, Gender, Familiarity, and Perceptions of Safety .

Perceived Social Homogeneity and Perceptions of
Safety .

Experiences with Antisocial Behavior in the Parks
and Perceptions of Safety . '

Safety Perceptions and Avoidance Behavior .
Personal Characteristics and Avoidance Behavior .

Experiences with Antisocial Behavior in the Parks
and Reported Avoidance .

Reasons for Avoidance Behavior .

Summary of Acceptance or Rejection of Study Hypotheses .

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .
Summary and Discussion of Results .

Relative Park Safety .

Association of Park Users' Individual Characteristics
. 111

with Safety Related Perceptions and Behavior .
Association of Exposure to Antisocial Behavior in
the Parks and Safety Related Perceptions and

Behavior . . . . . . . . .

Association of Perceptions of Safety with
Avoidance .

Study Limitations .
Future Research .
Theoretical Implications .

Implications and Recommendations for Park.Planning
and Management . . . . . . . . . .

REFERENCES .

vii

72

72

78

78

82

. 84

. 90

. 96

96

. 104

106
109

109

. 109

. 113

116

117

119

121

. 127

133

LIST OF TABLES

Physical and Managerial Aspects of Park Settings:
The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum . .

The Perceptual and Behavioral Environments of‘
Park Settings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Demographic Characteristics of Park User Survey Sample .

Measures of Interviewer Bias: Park User Survey .
Park Safety During Day and Evening .

Relative Park Safety . . . . .

Fear Index Scores .

Association of Respondents' Personal Factors with
Fear Index Scores .

Age and Gender of Respondents Who Report Feeling Unsafe

in the Parks .

Residential Proximity and Park Visit Frequency of Respondents

Who Report Feeling Unsafe Alone in the Parks .

The Association of Perceptions of Social Homogeneity with

Perceptions of Park Safety .

Association of Witnessing Antisocial Behavior in the Park

with Perceptions of Safety .

The Experience of Respondents Who Report Feeling Unsafe

Alone in the Park with Crime, Alcohol Consumption,
and Drugs in the Parks. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.10 Association of Age with Witnessing Antisocial Behavior in

the Parks and Frequency of Park Visitation..

.11 Frequency of Experiencing Serious Crime, User Behavior
Problems, and Park Visitation for Each Age Category .

viii

. 17

. 25

69

7O

73

74

. 77

. 8O

81

83

85

87

. 88

89

. 91

.12

.13

.14

.15

.16

.17

.18

.19

.20

.21

Association of Perceptions of Safety and Avoidance
Behavior .

Proportion of Respondents Who Report Avoidance Behavior
and Their Fear Index Scores .

Association of Safety Related Perceptions and Behavior
and Reported Evening Visitation . . . . . . . . . . .

Association of Respondents' Personal Characteristics and
Perceptions of Park Social Homogeneity with Avoidance
Behavior .

PrOportion of Male and Female Respondents Reporting
Avoidance Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Association of Witnessing Antisocial Behavior with,
Reported Avoidance Behavior .

The Experience of Respondents Reporting Avoidance Behavior
with Crime, Litter, Vandalism, Rowdy Behavior and Traffic
Violations in the Park .

Reports of Antisocial Behavior WitneSsed in the Parks .

Reasons for Avoiding the Park or Park Areas .

Who Causes Problems in the Park? .

ix

. 92

94

9S

. 97

. 98

99

.101
. 103

. 105

107

1.0

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

LIST OF FIGURES

Sonnenfeld's Behavioral Classification of Environment .

Potter Park .
Elm Creek Park Reserve .
Elm Creek Study Area .

Coon Rapids Dam Regional Park.

60

62

64

65

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

An important goal of research in human geography is to better
understand how people interact with the environment. Pattison identifies
this as the "man-land tradition" in geography [1]. This quest for
understanding has led geographers into many different avenues of inquiry.'
Some have concentrated on people-environment interactions in particular
types of settings such as urban locales, workplaces or recreation sites.
Others have chosen to pursue insights into the spatial pattern, causes,
and effects of particular behaviors such as migration, home or recreation
location choice, crime, innovation diffusion, or human response to
various hazards [2,3,4,S,6,7].

Many geographic inquiries into human-environment interaction are
pursued within the conceptual framework of "environmental perception."
This approach stresses the importance of peoples' "images of .
surroundings as a key to unraveling the nature of mansland transactions"
[2,p.ii]. Thus, the social meanings that people attribute to different
components of the environmental setting shape their behavioral responses
to and within that setting.

The present study of fear of crime in urban and suburban district
level parks focuses on perceptions of particular behaviors within a
particular setting. While organized within the conceptual framework of

environmental perception, this study also draws from and contributes to

the subfields of recreation geography and the geography of crime, as
well as the interdisciplinary field of leisure study.

Crime and conflict, ranging from controversies over nude sunbathing
to violent crimes, are increasingly pervasive and costly problems in
recreation settings [8,9,10,11,12,13]. Surveys of recreation agency
personnel repeatedly reveal vandalism, litter, and other user problems
to be high priority management concerns [9,14,15]. The National Park
Service reports a 7.2 percent increase in felony crimes between 1975 and
1978 and estimates Operating costs due to vandalism have more than
doubled between 1974 and 1978 [16]. Some urban area park managers report
vandalism costs as high as $1000 a week [17]. In addition to the
direct costs of increased maintenance and enforcement, many indirect
costs are also incurred. Recreation opportunity is decreased through
restrictions and reductions in facilities and programs. Users, particularly
in urban areas, may modify their visitation patterns or stay away
entirely due to fear of conflict or criminal attack [18]. Overall,
antisocial behavior problems, together with the anxieties and expecta-
tions they produce, serve to decrease the satisfaction of both park users
and employees.

This study examines the extent to which selected park settings
are considered threatening or conflict laden by park users. In addition,
the behavioral responses of park users to both perceived and observable
characteristics of selected park environments are identified. The
specific research questions examined are:

(1) Do park users feel safe in the parks?
(2) How do the individual characteristics of park users relate to their

perceptions of park safety and behavioral responses to perceived safety?

(3) How do park users' perceptions of park safety relate to their behavior

in the park?

The Geggraphic Context: Identifying_an Investigative Framework

Since classical times, human interaction with the environment has
been a prominent topic in geographic inquiry [1]. Within this tradition,
cultural geographers have traced human actions and societal development
through the study of artifacts, settlement patterns, and other observable
phenomena [2]. Social and urban geographers have approached the question
of human-environment interaction through the study of aggregate behavior
and the spatial eXpression of social institutions. Work in urban
ecology has searched for correlates of social phenomena such as juvenile
delinquency in the structural and social contexts of cities [4,7,19].

It has been argued that traditional approaches to people-
environment relationships have ignored the importance of individual roles,
decision, relationships, attitudes, and behaviors that combine to form
the observable aggregate patterns [20]. This desire to focus on
individuals rather than aggregates has prompted work in environmental
perception and the emerging subfield of behavioral geography. Lowenthal's
"Geography, Experience, and Imagination," published in 1961, is
generally credited as the major impetus for the development of environ-
mental perception research in geography [21]. In this article and in
subsequent works, Lowenthal points out the importance of cultural and
personal values in perceptions and uSes of the physical environment
[21,22,23,24]. Cultural and social geographers embraced this viewpoint

as consistent with their basic concepts and investigative techniques.

Over the last twenty years geographers' interests in the "image"
or perceptions of different human settings have stimulated work in a
variety of directions. Some have approached questions of cultural or
shared "images" of places from the historical perspective by examining
the influence of perceptions on past population movements and settlement
patterns [25,26]. Others have investigated the influence of these images
on current residential preference patterns, landscape assessments,
public policy fbrmulation, individual decision-making and overt
behavior [27,28,29,30,31,32,33]. Still others have concentrated on how
individuals deveIOp images or "mental maps" of areas and how spatial
infbrmation is learned, used, and remembered [34,35,36,37].

Much of the work in environmental perception, particularly that
on spatial learning and cognitive maps, is based on the assumption that
the process and product of perception can be decomposed and that the
component parts may be measured and compared to an objective reality.
These assumptions are consistent with a logical-positivist philosophy
which assumes that human behavior is ultimately measurable and is, in
some instances, amenable to mathematical modelling [33,36]. Concurrent
and often intertwined with these works are geographical studies of
perception and behavior more characteristic of traditional cultural
geography and humanist philosophies, stressing more holistic and
subjective approaches to understanding the cultural landscape and its
meaning [2,38,39,40,41,42].

Questions regarding the inherent "measurability" of environmental
images and their influence on individual or collective behavior have

been raised. Bunting and Guelke contend that, due largely to

methodological problems, work in environmental perception and-
behavioral geography has contributed little of explanatory value in
understanding spatial behavior [43]. Their objections are based on the
recognized difficulties of eliciting reliable information from individuals
regarding such subtle and complex psychological constructs as environmen-
tal ”images" and the lack of a standardized, rigorously tested methodology
for doing so. Further, they protest that the alleged link between these
images and observable behavior is based on very little empirical evidence.
Their proposed avenue for the subfield's return to relevance is a
reorientation to describing and evaluating observable, overt behaviors.
The environmental images that people hold and the influence of those
images on behavior can, they argue, be better identified by inference
from actual behavior. Further, by

focusing on overt behavior of geographic significance one commences

one's investigation on a foundation of solid, verifiable fact.

Even if one fails to provide an acceptable explanation, at least

a good description of a specific group of pertinent value to

other research could be provided [43, p.462].

In response, researchers in this area agree that there are

methodological weaknesses in current approaches but argue that Bunting
And Guelke fail to recognize the relative youth of the field, the
advances that have been made, and the complexity of the problem. Shifting
the focus to regard only observable behavioral responses to environments
is retrogressive, not progressive, in their view. Further, they argue,
there is ample empirical evidence to suggest a direct link between
environmental perceptions and behaVior [44,45,46]. Besides, Saarinen
points out, if Bunting and Guelke really believe there is no demon-

strable link between perceived images and observed behavior, then their

criticisms of measurement accuracy and methodology are "beside the point."

Saarinen states, if
images are important we should find some way of measuring them.
Even a rough measure of a significant variable is better than a
precise measure of something that does not matter. Along with this
we should make every effort to understand how much and in what
directions disparities between image and action probably will go
[4S,p.465].

One way to avoid some of the difficulties alluded to above is to
work within a framework that clearly identifies the various aspects of
environmental perception and behavior to be examined. Responding to the
confusion arising from vague definitions of "environment" as used in
behavioral and social science, Sonnenfeld has proposed a four level,
hierarchial classification of the human environment [47]. The first and
most general level is the geographical environment which includes all
objects and phenomena external to the individual, whether or not he or
she is aware of them (Figure 1). Next is the operational environment,
defined as that portion of the geographical environment which impinges
on the individual and influences behavior in one way or another.
Operational environments, unlike the geographical environment, differ
from group to group and individual to individual.

Within the operational environment each individual possesses
unique perceptual and behavioral environments. An individual's
perceptual environment is comprised of those environmental factors that
he or she is conscious of. This includes both physiological stimuli
such as color and light intensity, and the meanings associated with these
stimuli, through learning and experience. Thus, the perceptual environ-
ment has "both sensory and symbolic dimensions" [47]. It includes
various environmental cues that have meaning only when interpreted

through cultural and individual value systems and eXperiences. The last

 

 

GEOGRAPHICAL

OPERATIONAL

PERCEPTUAL

BEHAVIORAL

 

 

 

SONNENFELD'S BEHAVIORAL CLASSIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENT
FIGURE I

 

level in the hierarchy is the behavioral environment or that portion

of the perceptual environment which elicits overt behavior. This active
interaction with the environment may take the form of modifying either
some aspect of the environment (change) or one's exposure to it (movement).
This classification and the distinction between behavioral and perceptual
environments allows a conscious differentiation in research design and
analysis between, on the one hand, what peOple are aware of, how they

feel about the environment, and their responses to hypothetical situations,
i.e. aspects of their perceptual environments, and, on the other hand,

how people behave within the environment and overtly respond to various
environmental stimuli, i.e. elements of their behavioral environments.
These distinctions facilitate investigation of the relationships between
the perceptual and behavioral environments.

When applied to a particular setting or type of environment,
Sonnenfeld's approach is augmented by perspectives from ecological
psychology. Ecological psychologists Barker and Wright set out in the
late 19405 to examine human behavior in natural, rather than laboratory,
settings. During their field research they identified "behavior settings"
which provide the milieu and environmental cues eliciting generalizable
or "standing" patterns of behavior [27, pp.84-88]. Thus, they established
that people identify certain behaviors with certain environments.
Following this paradigm, researchers investigate how the available
settings for behavior (1) are interpreted by the people in them, and
(2) facilitate appropriate behavior patterns. Behavior settings include

both physical, or design elements and social characteristics.

Research investigating the influence of design on behavior ranges
from micro-level studies of room geography to investigations of response
to architectural elements of cities and neighborhoods [27,48,49,50,Sl].
Introduction of the social aspects of behavior settings adds considerable
complexity to the investigation but it also enriches the eXplanations of
observed behavior. Wicker suggests that behavior settings have self-
regulating mechanisms that tend to support acceptable standing patterns
of behavior [52, pp.62-64]. Thus, people either work out mutually
satisfactory behavior patterns within a given behavior setting or one is
rejected by the other, i.e. the potential participant leaves. Much of
the work in ecological psychology focuses on the behavioral environment,
but the importance of the perceptual environment is recognized. Clearly,
interpretations of environmental cues or symbols are important in
determining subsequent behavior and these interpretations depend on
individual personal and contextual elements [51,52,53]. Furthermore,
investigation of how people feel about environments, what their
emotional response or satisfaction level is, remains a viable strand

of the pe0p1e-environment and humanist traditions within geography.

Perceptions of Park Safety and Behavioral Response

The operational environment of park users is defined as the
observable physical park characteristics, e.g. park design, facilities,
and setting; social characteristics, e.g. types of users, their
behavior, and spatial distribution in the park; and managerial characé
teristics, e.g. the presence of enforcement officers, the park's hours
of operation, and entry controls. Park users' perceptual environments

consist of their interpretation of these overt characteristics. The

10

behavioral environments of park users are demonstrated in both observable
patterns of behavior in the park and users' reports of what they do and
where they go while visiting the park. By examining each of these levels
of environment, as they relate to perceptions of park safety, intercon-
nections between the different levels may be illuminated. Further, the
"behavior settings" provided by district level urbanand suburban parks
and various responses to them can be explored in a limited fashion.

This study addresses, first, the overall "image" of the parks as
safe or unsafe environments. Both the perceived safety of the park
relative to other settings and temporal variations in perceived safety
are examined. Next, the influence of users' individual characteristics,
such as gender, age, race, and familiarity with the park, on safety
perceptions and related behavior is evaluated and the direct association
between perceptions of safety and behavioral response is addressed.

Investigation of safety related perceptions and behavior of park
users has both pragmatic and theoretical significance. Park planners,
management, and enforcement personnel need such information to identify
problem areas and design more effective crime prevention strategies.
Further, theory development in both leisure research and behavioral
geography requires insights into how pe0ple perceive particular social
and physical environments and how these perceptions are translated into

overt behavior.

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

 

The subfield of recreation geography includes a variety of
research approaches and topics. Geographic analyses of recreation
phenomena began to appear during the 19305 with discussions of rec-
reational land use and tourism [54]. Through the 19605 recreation
geographers continued to focus on the economic impacts and signifi-
cance of recreation related development [54,55]. Stankey notes that
recreation geography has traditionally been considered a subcomponent
of economic geography by virtue of this early emphasis on land use
and economic aspects of recreation resources and activities [54,p.76].

After World War II recreation activities, travel, and both pub-
lic and private recreation related expenditures expanded dramatically
[S6,pp.34-39]. Correspondingly, recreation related topics received
increased academic attention from geographers and other social scien-
tists. By the early 19705 recreation geography textbooks began to
appear and geographers had assumed leading roles in both government
agency and interdisciplinary academic investigations of recreation
topics [S4,pp.78-79]. Many of these studies continued to address
inherently spatial issues of recreation related travel and site choice.

Mathematical models predicting recreation travel flows and recreation

11

12

facility use levels were developed and continue to be an important
component in the increasingly diverse subfield of recreation geography.

It became apparent, however, that the spatial considerations of
location, distance, travel time, and p0pulation density did not fully
explain observable variations in recreation site choice or use levels.
Geographers and other recreation researchers began to address more sub-
jective issues such as attitudes, landscape preferences, and recreation
facility development preferences in their efforts to understand and
predict recreation behavior [59,60,61]. At the same time, geographers
and others working from humanist or environmental perception viewpoints
began to discuss the meaning or "image" of recreation pursuits and
places over time and space [62,63,64]. Tuan and Graber, for example,
demonstrate how the symbolic value, use, and cultural importance of
wilderness areas have changed over time [65,66,67]. Thus, recreation
geography has eXpanded from an early preoccupation with economic is—
sues to encompassaifuller range of geographic perspectives and
approaches.

Geographic discussions of place ”images" are consistent with
work by sociologists, anthr0pologi5ts, and psychologists which address
the social or symbolic meanings associated with different kinds of
environmental settings [2,3,21,39,49,52,53,65,68,69,70]. The various
components that combine to define place "images" or "social defini-
tions," and their significance in influencing behavior remains a new
and growing field of academic interest. This perspective offers
Opportunities for significant insights into recreation places and

behavior than can enrich the subfield of recreation geography.

13

Images of recreation environments and behavior in park settings
have been examined at several scales of analysis using a variety of
approaches. Recently, theoretical structures relating recreation behavior
to particular types of park settings have begun to emerge. In this
chapter these classification schemes and definitional structures are
examined, together with supporting evidence from studies in various
settings. Each of Sonnenfeld's levels of environment, i.e. the opera-
tional, perceptual, and behavioral, is examined in terms of how they
’differ in different types of park settings.

Next, the specific problems of crime and conflict in recreation
environments are addressed. Again following Sonnenfeld's structure,
objective evidence regarding the prevalence of depreciative behavior in
parks is first discussed, followed by examination of available materials
illustrating park users' perceptual and behavioral responses to these
problems. These previous studies of depreciative behavior in different
park settings form the basis for the present study. The specific
research questions addressed and hypotheses tested are presented in the

final section of this chapter.

Parks as Behavior Settings

 

Public outdoor recreation settings carry various administrative
labels such as "park," "forest," "forest preserve," "park reserve,"
"arboretum," "recreation area," and so forth. For purposes of this
discussion the term "park" is generic, including all types of outdoor
recreation settings. Similarly, although there has been endless
academic debate regarding the difference between "recreation” and

"leisure," these terms will be used interchangeably in reference to the

14

types of activities that typically occur in park settings [56,70].

Parks may be classified according to level of administrative
responsibility, size, location, or any number of other criteria.
Several researchers have proposed continuums or hierarchial arrangements
for classifying or describing different types of parks. Helburn
proposes that parks may be arranged along a "wildness continuum" ranging
from the largely artificial, often small, highly deve10ped and heavily
used parks typical of urban areas to the large, remote, undeveloped,
"wilderness" parks in more rural locations where use is more dispersed
[64]. Intrinsic to this continuum of "naturalness" is the influence of
distance and accessibility. A5 distance from concentrations of human
activities and habitations increases, so does the expression of "natural"
processes or wildness. While pockets of "nature" exist in the form of
gardens, parks, and vacant lots even in the midst of the metropolis,
they cannot maintain the ecological diversity or natural balance possible
in more extensive, rural locations. Further, it is largely the very
remoteness and inaccessibility of existing "wilderness" areas that
have preserved them in a "natural" or "wild" state. Helburn also
suggests that people seek to increase their contact with nature and tend
to move along the continuum toward a more "wild" setting when choosing
an outdoor recreation location. He exemplifies the incremental or
gradational character of this movement by noting that an inner city
resident will find the landscape and animals of an agricultural scene
quite as exotic and interesting as the suburban dweller might regard a
national or state park with herds of deer and an occasional coyote. Other
researchers have noted pervasive preferences for more natural elements in

all types of settings and suggest this may be referable to biological or

15

genetic "programming" established through the evolutionary process [72].
If the desire for contact with nature is an incremental one, then it is
reasonable to expect that the numbers and diversity of recreation area
users will decrease as areas become more "wild," more remote and inac-
cessible.

Lee defines a hierarchy of neighborhood, district, regional, and
remote outdoor places whiCh is also based on ideas of accessibility or
location and users' expectations [73]. He characterizes "neighborhood"
parks as set in residential areas with primarily local users who
consider the park part of their evertday space to be governed by local
social norms. "District" and "regional" outdoor places attract users
from more than one neighborhood by drawing people from a wider surrounding
area, and are defined by non-local visitors in terms of more formalized
"rules of conduct" associated with the specific attractions present at the
site (museums, picnic grounds, nature areas, and so forth). However,
these "district" and "regional" parks may also be used by local residents
who view and treat the site as part of their everyday territory to be
governed by local groups' activities and definitions. Finally, remote
recreation areas draw not only visitors from nearby areas, but also from
distant areas, due to their unique features or widely known "reputation."
The social definition of these places, even more than for district or
regional parks, is highly dependent on the activities and attractions
to be found there and/or may reflect the particular social definitions
and expectations of the dominant user group.

Clark and Stankey present a more formal investigative framework
called "the recreation opportunity spectrum" [74]. They identify the

position of an individual park, or "recreation opportunity," along a

16

continuum by identifying the specific

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

combination of physical, biological, social, and managerial
conditions that give value to a place. Thus, an opportunity
includes qualities provided by nature (vegetation, landscape,
topography, scenery), qualities associated with recreational use
(levels and types of use), and conditions provided by management
flevelOpments,rOads, regulations) [74, p.l].

six factors they use for classification are:

Access -- including both access to the site and within it as well

as site location relative to potential users;

Nonrecreational land uses -- other resource uses within and around

 

the park which may complement or conflict with recreational use;

Onsite management -- the extent, complexity, apparentness, and

 

nature of site modification and facility development;

Social interaction -- the number of visitors, their frequency of

 

contact, and the types of contacts and the eXpectations that visitors
hold regarding the social milieu of the park;

Acceptability of visitor impacts -- essentially a value judgement

 

based on objective measures of impact magnitude (vegetation damage,
noise levels, vandalism damage, etc.) and subjective evaluation
of their importance;

Acceptable regimentation -- management control over visitor behavior,

 

ranging from subtle elements of site design and information programs
to official law enforcement activities [74, pp. 8-14].

Table 2.1 combines these three conceptualizations of the park

environment "continuum" in simplified form. Thus, a neighborhood

"tot lot" would have a low "wildness" content, high levels of accessi-

bility, site development, interaction among users, user impacts, and

regimentation. Wilderness areas, located at the Opposite end of the

17

 

mOmuw>fiuom ewes:
mo oocoww>o wouwswa

mcmnamo O>as coumo
mxnwm Hausa .xnmm
fie macaw Haasowuhmm

povw>oam
ouHOm muowumuosooum
ucmwnpo>o .uaonmmmm

moauw>wuow «:03
lounges mnem>no ecu
meowqufimficoa ouwm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

nu“: macaw HmHSOw: :« woumnucoocoo « :omquwmfiwoa ouwm Acme saw: pomoflo u:oEomn:me
cw hawnmawwm mw Ouwm on xma acoemOHo>oa mananopwmcoo AHHmSm: n>Ou Sana“; :oumo Opwmzo
mmcwuuom “wean
mecca mcwnmuw new cannsnam cw
no nonsfiu we seam one umoe oomwocanm mwcwuuom muons gmfiohoasoo
mmcwuuom Hansuuzownmm cam cw ovum :OvHoo Hewu:oefimon away: no Hmwucovflmon
xuwmcoucw 30H :oumo mm zoom mxhwm zuwo InSm no cash: cw :mnnspsm one away: Om: pcma
.OuosOh a“ AHHmst Hemne new pmooxm poumoofi :oumo owes a“ woumoofi xHHaSm: am:0wumouooncoz
Ho>mnu xnmm gummy .
xomnomnon no «com on muse: Hano>om xnmm gummy oy
ecu moawu Ho>mnu fio>wuu xms mnouwmw> on maze: or» can» whom: owes you xnmm
wcofi mopflacou :opmo .ousm an Oanwmmooow mmOH Ho>mnu whom: on use: mafia Ho>mau
.unommo OHnmnoewmnoo «an oofi>nom awn umoa .ufimcmnu noguo uuozm .ousm no Hoom
mowfiscon xamm away“: lamp» mmms anaswou ho pmo an ofinfimmoo an .xhnm canvas can
use on :uon mmoou< Haasmon o: coumo tom wamwO Afigesm: Op :uop mmooow xmmm xuflaflnwmmooo<
:oflumuomo> monsuaom pomofio>ow
Hensum: we ones we Ham: mm
mmonm womo~0>oucs ma macaw Humane:
:pfiwzz «no: mcfimucoo xmamnma meow :wmucoo an: :eHflz: unwed mmocuaflz
manna Omamfi ow scape: omnma ou scape: Hanam ouwm xnmm
ceased Hmcowwom pownumwo voosaonnwwoz
mowumwnouomnmnu
aconHOfi: xaam .
Ebahummm >bmz=bm0dmo one<mmumm mmh "mozmhbmm xm<m mo mhummm< A<Hmmu<z<z az< a<u~m>=m

H.N mgm<b

.amnan ..no .eeenunoa .mm-32a «Hence nmuneguon nanocoo ..um .uoxm omen“
e5 do". .3.2 .25 ..m..._.m.8 5330mm nunefinofifi 83883. 2:. £8.55 .26 e5 3.88 .zé
.kuwo.mm .amnmu ..>.z .3om coo nomnozv ucoaaonn>=m one one .moonsomom Hananoziwnon>osom Honoom
.nOHAoH poo .xoonu .nonsm on :.mooonm :OMOoonoom noovnsomruzoMuncnmoo Honoom och: .ooa .o.m
.E: .nmmémmngmn .moou no.5 £52380 326:: 2F: .533: .2 $8558

 

 

mnoms one
Ho::Omnom anon coozu
top nooucoo oHnunH

moono xnom

anounoo on pounEnH anon ocu mo .:Onmn>nom=m .:Mnmov

18

can acoao>oe on mnonn

unon HoMOnMHpno 3om
.nonunoo pooEomocoa

poonne mo mHo>oH sou

monocomo
nonnom om: onmnunss
cw mo =Onnosponm no
conuoouonm oonsomon

now nnwnmannm monocoa

on ounm .oonnencna
on poomsn nounmn>

masonw non:
mcoao mpooacoo sow
can: xnom canons»

on Ame non>o£on
now: mo :Onmn>nom:m
voonnv .coafionucoo
on nos knuao xnoo

Hoom unannomEn on
:oMnoouonQ ounSOm
-on Hanson: :oumo
.xonnom nonomo
xnom can: kno>
mpoomEn mo nunnnno
tumoooo woo momxn

mxnom nonnumno

no voosnopnmnoz on
cosy Annonuomm can
xfinonomsou goon

m:Onunom oEom nmooH

no on eomn>nom=m onm
mnom: woo oonnonuooo

mn xnnco xnom coumo

:Onuoononm oonsomon
coca nosuon :onn
soonoon now vowoooe
«mos .xonnom nocomo
xnom can: xno>
muooman mo Aunanno
nunoooo poo momxh

mzownno: poo mono
uxooz :o Amaonoommo

.oom: nan>oo£ annom

AHHMSms nan mxnom

ounm canons» Honucoo

neosomocoa onno

unoOnm:oo on noonp3m

on nOn>ogop nounmn>

wouoomxo on

own mo oocoOn>o
.om: nounmn>

now commons mn ounm

mnoms
mcoeo mucoucoo

:OMHoucoEnmon
onpoumooo<

muoomEn nounmn>
mo nnnfinnonmooo<

 

 

 

 

 

comnommno ono mnom: connommnc onoa :ngunz coo wooao some coo mnom: zoos :oMnoonoucn
.ow: nonmooucn so; on On mono» om: monno> nunmcoucn om: .omo xunmcoucn can: Honoom
oposom Ho:Onmoz nonnumno voognonzwnoz
monnmnnouoononu

Aconononm xnom

 

 

 

fl.p:ouv n.~ msm<n

19

spectrum are the most "wild," with low levels of accessibility, site
development, and so forth. In reality, the boundaries between neigh-
borhood, district, regional, and remote parks are not distinct and the
factors in Clark and Stankey's "opportunity spectrum” do not vary in
unison. However, this conceptualization does provide a general frame-

work illustrating the variation in operational environments of parks.

Perception and Behavior in Recreation Settings

 

Both Fridgen and Lee suggest that behavior in park settings can
only be understood by recognizing the socially assigned meaning or
"implicit theories of environment" that recreation participants assign
to these settings [70,73]. Fridgen states:

An implicit theory of environment proposes that an individual

develops a theory of what an environment is like and what goes

on in the environment. It is suggested that environments are

seen as having sets of features that go together.

People use these theories to help understand an environment

and predict what the setting will be like [70, pp.376-377].
"Implicit theories" differ for both park type and user group. Both
Fridgen and Lee also note differences, as suggested by Clark and
Stankey, in the expectations and social meaning assigned to parks at
different places along the "recreation Opportunity spectrum" [70,73,74].
The following sections review studies of park user perception and
behavior in different types Of settings. Two issues are addressed:
(1) what the relationships appear to be among Operational, perceptual
and behavioral environments in each setting, and (2) how implicit
theories of environment vary among groups and sites.

The attitudes, values, and preferences of wilderness users have

been explored in several studies and are found to be fairly consistent

across both areas and user groups. Most users are found to value highly

20

the environmental characteristics that distinguish wilderness areas

from other recreation settings -- the relatively untouched natural
landscape, the Opportunity for solitude (with one's traveling companions),
the exercise of self-reliance, camping, and survival skills, and the
"escape" from urban lifestyles and landscapes [54,67,7S,76,77,78]. Most
wilderness visitors expect to meet few other parties during their trip
and indicate that meeting or seeing evidence of many Others decreases
their enjoyment and satisfaction with their recreation eXperience
[S4,75,76,77]. They prefer only such site modification as necessary

to protect resource quality and reject interpretive signs, motorized
transport on site, and the idea of direct use restrictions other than
party size limitations [75, pp.67—68; 77].

Stankey reports differential perceptions of crowding among users
and wilderness areas, but finds evidence of avoidance behavior in only
about one third of those reporting feeling crowded [77]. Lee also finds
that wilderness users‘ opinions regarding the degree of crowding at a
site are not necessarily reflected in their behavior at that site [79].

He attributes the lack of observable differences in withdrawal behavior
between those who report feeling crowded and those who do not to the
shared norms among users expressed by largely unconscious, "nonsymbolic"
interaction. These interactions, he maintains, are the result of
behavioral expectations that wilderness visitors take for granted,
assuming that others in the setting will behave similarly and predictably.
He concludes "that wilderenss use is a very orderly social process with

a low level of conscious accounting for interpersonal behavior" [79, p.16].
Further, his findings point out the need for careful interpretation of the

behavioral implications of expressed attitudes and preferences.

21

Studies of more develoPed, but still largely rural, recreation
Opportunities have often focused on campers and campgrounds. Like
wilderness users, campers appear to hold particular "images" of
desirable recreation environments. Studies indicate that campground
selection is based on preferences fOr certain levels of site development
and social interaction [61, 80,81,82]. These preferences vary as
widely as the characteristics of campgrounds do, and peOple appear to
practice "self—sorting" behavior to achieve a satisfactory fit between
their preferences and their camping environment.

Clark, Hendee, and Campbell find that most campers using a large,
highly developed campground express nature-oriented motivations for
camping (to experience "solitude," "unspoiled beauty," and "to teach
children about the outdoors," for example) but find the context of a
fairly densely populated, developed campground quite suitable for
pursuit of these goals. They conclude that "'wilderness' is apparently
in the eye of the beholder" [80, p.148].

Campers, like wilderness users, appear to vary in their
evaluations of the same operational environment. Foster and Jackson
find, for example, that campers "varied in their evaluations of both
distance and screening between theirs and the adjacent site, and it was
these perceptions, rather than objectively measured distance and amounts
of screening, which were associated with variations in campers'
satisfaction” [82, p.305].

Campground visitors accept more social interaction and higher
levels of regimentation than wilderness users do. This may be partly
attributable to the greater diversity and more urban values of most

campers as compared to the majority of backcountry users. Foster and

22

Jackson report campers in structured campgrounds, where campsites and
the boundaries between them are clearly demarcated, report higher levels
of satisfaction than those in Open, unstructured campgrounds. This
finding implies that social norms governing parties' spacing and inter—
action need more visible reinforcement in these settings than in
wilderness areas [82]. Though campers appear to share similar values
and most perceive the campground to be a safe and orderly environment,
even in the face of evidence to the contrary, they tend to expect
formal, rather than informal, social controls to maintain that order
[80,83,84]. iCampground visitors expect, and most are not averse, to
seeing and hearing other campers during their stay. MOst do not object
to rules and regulations governing behavior in campgrounds, although
the rules may not be obeyed if they are perceived to interfere with a
camper's recreation experience [80]. Thus, the available evidence
indicates that though both campers and backcountry visitors express
similar appreciation of the natural environment and outdoor experiences,
their expectations of and responses to their respective Operational
environments differ. Both groups appear to seek out park settings that
are congruent with their expectations and preferences.

The diversity of urban recreation settings and users makes
generalizations regarding users' perceptions and behavior more difficult
than for more rural recreation settings. In addition to identifying the
"personal" nature of neighborhood park social space, as distinct from
the more "public" aspect of social interaction operating in larger
district, regional, or remote parks, Lee points out sociocultural
differences which further influence the social meaning of recreation

spaces [33]. His observations are related to Stokols' work on perceptions

23

and behavior. Stokols postulates that social environments may be
either "primary," that is characterized by continuous, personal inter-
actions as in most private settings, or secondary, characterized by
transitory, anonymous interaction as in most public settings [85].
"Propertyless" classes, Lee maintains, occupy a locally bounded, shared
territory where public space is treated much like private or "primary"
space and is perceived as "belonging" to local residents. Property-
owning higher status classes, on the other hand, occupy selective space
where private property boundaries form significant spatial divisions and
public space is perceived as anonymous, "secondary" space, belonging to
no one in particular and governed by formalized rules of behavior parti-
cular to the "kind" of place it is perceived to be. When these different
groups use the same Space, as in a district or regional park, they each
apply their own definitions to the setting. Lee observes:
MOst visitors to district parks on weekends and holidays are
picnickers who select a micro-space in a pleasant setting for
their activities. Their sense of belonging is linked to the
possession of space rather than to intimate knowledge of persons
and control of a larger territory. However, low income picnickers,
usually ethnic minorities, show a greater tendency to gather in
larger groups and define a common territory. Modes of spatial
behavior typical of the neighborhood park are transferred to the
district park and are used to identify it as a place where others
of similar sociO-cultural background are welcome [73, p.80].

Lee's generalizations are supported by several other studies of
behavior and perception in urban neighborhood, district, and regional
parks. In some urban areas, particular parks or areas within parks
become the nearly exclusive territory of certain groups and are generally
avoided by others [86,87,88,89]. Other evidence supports the view that

some urban parks are shared territory, governed by shared social norms

'and characterized by high levels of interaction among users, while others

24

function as more formal public spaces governed by formalized behavior
norms and fairly low interaction among different participant groups
[70,90]. Cordell notes that public park space in middle and upper income
areas is usually less intensively used than that in low income areas

due to the more affluent residents' substitution of preferred private
Open space settings (yards and private clubs, for example) for many

recreational activities [91].

Summary

In summary, people's perceptions of and behavior in outdoor
recreation settings appears to be governed by "images" or "implicit
theories of environment" particular to different kinds of park settings.
The differentiation of these setting "types" depends upon identifiable
combinations of physical and social site characteristics. The "recreation
Opportunity spectrum" concept provides a useful categorization of these
characteristics. In settings serving very homogeneous user groups, such
as wilderness areas and inner city neighborhood parks, behavior and
social interaction tends to be governed by informal social norms and
users tend to hold similar implicit theories or images of the environ-
ment. Settings with more diverse user groups, on the other hand, may be
defined and perceived differently by different users and thus depend on
more formal social controls to mediate behavior. Table 2.2 illustrates,
in simplified form, how park images and behavior may vary among parks at
different positions on the "recreation opportunity spectrum."

Perceptions of recreation environments appear to be influenced as

much by expectations of what certain "types" of park settings should be

25

.nmnmn ..>.z

 

.nnmn .mmn-m4n Anon mmnmomom «Hanna; mo naenaon =.on=pnso «unseen
cameo: :n connoeoo ego .non>agom .mozna>= .Hnonaaau .m ecu .ooeeo: .u.e .xnmno .z.m
.em-mo .os

13oz woo nomnomy usossonn>sm one osolwmoonsomom nonSnoz .nOn>oaom Honoom
.noHnon oso .xoonu .nonsm on :.mooomm sonuoonooz nooouso mo conunsnmoa Honoom och: .ooa .u.m

”mmomsom

 

.moono nnuso

oso nnopsson xnom an
nnso nsooo on oouoosxo
.mnom: no wonnmow uoz

.mosno> oonosm
so oomon .nosnomsa

.o:~o> Ongonsnm

mo: usossonn>so
Honouos on» onogs
zansuo nooouso: so
ononm on coon mnoms
.nsossonn>:o unanss
mo omnu nonsonnnom <

.nnnoo: o>nH no:

no: oo vso oouoosoo
unnoz ono mnom: umos
.mooosowoso; nanonoom

.nsooo nos :monunsos
isoo: nnonomsou nan
monsumow onaonsnm
on emanann on no:

.nunnoguso Hosnonxo
no oomnonoxo .Hosnom

.msonuouoomxo no
unon>onon noonoMMno
onocm nos masonmnsm

.mnom: umos no
wsnuuom unansm o
wonoonmsoo .mxnom
nonnumno nun: m<

.msonuooon Honsn on
nanosomoso: HonoOm

onos .mnom: Hooo~
:sos woo HoooH cuom

.monsumom

onfionsnm oso
noonsoo Hononmnomsm
on cannons nnnmsms

.nunnocuso nosnouxo
onnnmn> nngmn:

no connonoxo .Hosnom

.mn an

moons mo zocnx: on»
mo onnmnnouoonoso
msno: non>ocon mo
roan; may on oumnnnm
.wsnuuom unansm o
oonoonmsoo nanosms

.mnomo nooon

ssos oso HoooH Anon
.msoosowonouo; nH
.HonOOm nno> nHHoSma

.ooong manuoos o on
nos xnom .oouoomxm

.mnoms nosao mo
owvonzosx Hosomnom
so womon .HosnomsH

.QnAmnoszo mo omsom
o onosm oso ooomm
Hosomnom o xnoa on»
noonmsoo nos mnoms
.msno: nOn>oson
m.ooognon:unos HoOOH
on noomnsm soumo

.xnom one
too: o>nH mnom: nmos
msoosowoso: nHHonoom

masonm noms
msoso sonuoononsH

mHonusoo nonoom

msnos non>onon xnom

nunosowoso: now:

 

ouosoz

Hononom

 

connomna

 

woosnopamwoz

 

 

ngonononm xnom

 

munumnnouoonosu

 

 

moszPmm Mm<m mo mhzmzzomm>zm a<moH><=mm az< q<39mmuzmm mmb

N.N mam<b

26

like (implicit theories of park environments) as by the objective,
measurable characteristics of a particular park site. Recreation
behavior appears to be based on both conscious and unconscious aspects
of individuals' perceptual environments. Attitudes and preferences,
alone, do not adequately predict either an individual's choice of a
particular park site or on-site behavior. Aspects of social interaction
or the "social climate" of parks emerges as an important, if often
unarticulated, element determining the social meanings assigned to

different recreation environments.

Crime and Conflict in Park Settings

 

Geggraphy of Crime and Perceptions of Crime

Research in the geography of crime, in general, tends to focus on
the location and context of criminal activity [7,51,92,93,94,95,96].
This work Often follows the human ecology tradition of identifying the
environmental correlates of high crime rates [19,92]. Areas that are
particularly troubled by crime are Often those suffering from a host Of
other social problems [7;51, pp.lS6-l79;86;96;97]. Some studies concen-
trate on particular types of criminal or deviant behavior while others
investigate a particular location or type of setting [7,pp.6-IO;

Sl, pp.249-258;86;97;98;99;100].

Geographers and researchers from other disciplines have also
addressed how people evaluate their surroundings in terms of the threat
of being victimized [66,86,101,102,103]. Studies of the fear of crime
and behavioral response to the threat of crime are similar to those of
perceptions and responses to natural hazards. Research reveals that

people's safety related perceptions and behavior vary widely and often

27

bear little relation to empirically determined estimates of their
likelihoodcflfbeing the victim of either natural catastrophe or criminal
activity. In both cases, individuals' personal characteristics such as
age, gender, and attitudes, and the Opinions of their peers seem to
influence their evaluations of personal risk more than the actual
frequency of the threatening event [3, pp.l40-l43;86;101:104;105;106;107].
For example, Dubow, McCabe, and Kaplan remark that females and older
people appear to be disproportionately concerned about being victimized
since police records indicate young men are the most frequent crime
victims as well as offenders [119]. Several possible explanations of
these gender and age related differences have been advanced. Females
and older people may feel more vulnerable than young males due to
general socialization and perceptions about their ability to defend
themselves and/or the more severe potential effects of an attack. Media
reports of crimes against women may also produce a climate of ”vicarious
victimization" that sensitizes females to the possibility of being a
crime target [138]. It may also be that cultural expectations allow
females, more than males, to admit to being afraid. Further, females
and the elderly may be statistically less likely than young males to be
victimized due to their greater tendency to engage in protective and/or
avoidance behavior, thus presenting fewer potential female and elderly
targets for attack.

Overall, officially recorded crime rates and public concerns
regarding personal safety from criminal victimization have steadily
increased over time [7, p.2; 108, pp.16-18;109;110;lll;llZ;ll3;ll3;llS].
Both park managers and park users are concerned with the rising crime

rates, increased use of park areas, social conflicts, and resource

28

constraints arising in public parks during the last two decades.
Conflicts occur among divergent groups of park users and between park
users and management. Some of these conflicts are translated into

damage of park facilities through vandalism, overuse, or inappropriate
use. Criminal activities in park settings are a source of concern.

While users commonly associate park crime problems with urban parks,
personnel from parks at every position along the "recreation Opportunity
spectrum" report increasing levels of criminal and other depreciative
behavior in their areas. Although there is general consensus that crime
and conflict in park settings is an increasingly serious problem, neither

the extent nor the impact of these problems has been fully documented.

Identifying and Measuring Depreciative Behavior in Parks

 

Objective measures of crime and conflict are often scarce and
unreliable. The National Park Service has one of the best systems for
documenting enforcement actions in their jurisdictions. They report
8,241 felony crimes (homicide, rape, robbery, assaults, and theft) in
1978 for an overall crime rate of 2.9 per 100,000 user-days [16]. Of
these, ten percent (858) were violent crimes, while the rest were
property offenses. Further, 66 percent of the recorded offenses,

95 percent of all arrests, and 80 percent of all citations occurred
within twenty-eight parks, or less than ten percent of the parks in the
system. The National Capital Region in Washington D.C., alone, accounts
for fifteen percent of the total Offenses, system-wide, and 69 percent
Of all arrests. The top nine National Park units in terms of reported
felonies are: National Capital Region, Yosemite, Golden Gate National

Recreation Area, Lake Mead, Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, Great Smokey

29

MOuntains, Olympic, and Gateway East. For these nine parks, the average
crime rate was 7.9 felonies per 100,000 user~days in 1978.

The record of Part II, or misdemeanor crimes, in National Park
areas shows a similar pattern. Of the 72,494 reported in 1978, 14.5
percent were in the National Capital Region and an additional 36 percent
of the total misdemeanor Offenses were reported by just seven other parks:
Shenandoah, Lake Mead, Gateway East, Great Smokey Mountains, Sequoia-Kings
Canyon, Rocky Mountain, and Golden Gate National Recreation Area [16].
Thus, there appear to be more reported crimes in National Park units
characterized by high visitation and accessibility to a wide variety of
visitors either through location, such as Gateway East or Golden Gate
National Recreation Area, or reputation as a "must see" tourist destin—
ation such as Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, or the Great Smokey MOuntains,
than in more remote or less ”popular" units. In Yosemite National Park
alone eight negligent homicides, twenty-one rapes, twenty—three assaults,
thirty-three auto thefts, 311 burglaries, and 1,600 thefts were reported
in 1978-79 [116,p.ll]. Still, considering the vast acres of land and
millions of people visiting these parks, it cannot be stated that crime
is dangerously out of control. If the above crime figures for Yosemite,
for example, are‘calculated against the estimated 20,000 people in the park
on a busy weekend the crime rate is only about 0.5 per 100,000 people.

Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) victimization
surveys in twenty-six cities indicate that over half of all personal
victimizations (rape, robbery, assault, and theft) occur in the public
Spaces of streets, parks, fields, playgrounds, school grounds, or

parking lots [117, p.16]. The proportion of these crimes occurring in

30

parks appears to be quite low. Georges and Kirksey's study of Dallas
crime locations finds only 0.9 percent of all robberies and none of the
reported rapes occurred in parks during 1974-75 [7, p.7]. Rasmussen
reports that crimes in parks comprise only four percent of all reported
crimes in Chicago and that the more heavily used parks report the most
crimes [118]. Malt Associates' detailed analysis of crime in urban
parks reports:

In 1970 five cities had a total of 7,853 criminal acts in neigh-

borhood areas of which 2,633 were on streets surrounding the

parks and only 108 on the twenty parks themselves. On the basis

of reported crime, parks appear to be much safer than their

surrounding areas [119,p.iv].
Of these 108 felony crimes, twenty-seven occurred in fifteen parks
smaller than twenty acres and eighty-one were reported in five urban
parks larger than twenty acres. Park crime constituted 1.4 percent of
all crimes in the parks‘ service areas and 3.9 percent of all outdoor
crime locations in the service areas. Assault, rape and murder consti—
tuted 17.6 percent of the park crimes (19 incidents), 34.3 percent were
robberies (38 incidents) and the remaining 48.2 percent (52 incidents)
were larcenies. In each case, the park crimes contributed less than two
percent of the offenses occurring outdoors in that category for the ser-
vice areas. Malt Associates note that more robberies and larcenies occur
in parks with recreation centers and swimming pools than those without
these facilities but they attribute this, at least partially, to the
availability of park personnel in these locations to receive reports
of crimes [119].

Analysis of official records suggests that parks, even in urban

areas, are relatively safe in terms of personal victimization: risk of

violent attack, such as rapes and muggings, appear to be greater in many

31

other settings. Thefts seem to be the primary "serious" crime problem

in parks. These data, however, cannot be accepted at face value.
Problems of data bias through incomplete or under-reporting of some
crimes, different enforcement and reporting practices among agencies,
overlapping jurisdictions and enforcement officer discretion, are exacer«
bated in recreation settings. Law enforcement in Federal and State

parks ranges from the specially trained, single purpose park police in
some urban units of the National Park Service, to Park and Forest Rangers
or Conservation Officers having varying amounts of enforcement training
and responsibilities, and equally varying degrees of enthusiasm about
performing enforcement duties. Park law enforcement in local jurisdic-
tions is even more variable. Some large urban and suburban park systems
have their own park police or rangers. Most local parks, however,

depend on county sheriffs or city police departments. The number of
Officers, their legal powers, frequency and methods of patrol, and
enforcement policies differ from park to park and year to year even
within the same park system [120].

The number of crimes recorded by park agencies is probably much
below the actual number of incidents for several reasons. First, park
patrol activities are complicated by problems of on-site accessibility,
sometimes large distances between park units in a system, officers often
having interpretive and/or maintenance duties in addition to enforcement,
and, often, inadequate equipment and too few qualified personnel [119,
pp.42-43]. Second, strict enforcement of minor offenses is seldom
practiced since park agencies are in the business of providing pleasurable
experiences for park visitors. Visitors, in turn, do not usually expect

a highly regimented and strictly supervised environment. Consequently,

32

minor offenses Often draw only warnings from Officers and usually go
unrecorded. A third and very significant aspect of under-reporting is
the morass of overlapping jurisdictions typical of many park settings
[9,pp.10-31; 121]. Local, state, and federal officers may all have
jurisdiction within a single park. Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore's
park rangers, fOr example, share enforcement responsibilities with nine
other agencies. As a result, crimes that occur on park land may never
be recorded in park agency records, particularly if they are serious
crimes requiring investigations more appropriately carried out by other
agencies. Further, park records may include incidents that did not
actually occur within the park when park enforcement officers intercede
in events outside park boundaries. The jurisdiction problem is related
to the fourth component of park crime under-reporting —— park users who
do not know how to report a crime, even if they are inclined to do so.
There may be no park personnel on site and visitors may not know how to
contact park enforcement officers [84,122]. They may not believe park
personnel have the legal powers to do anything about their problem.
Further, other enforcement agency personnel (local police, for example)
may be equally unwilling to recognize park rangers or police as
qualified enforcement officers and be reluctant to cooperate fully.
In short, park enforcement records probably contain only a portion of the
violations that occur within park boundaries and one agency's records are
probably not strictly comparable to another's.

Year-to-year comparison of enforcement records, even within the
same agency, is problematic. For example, the National Park Service

reports a 29.4 percent decrease in homicides and a 51.7 percent increase

33

in rapes between 1977 and 1978. These rates, however, are based on
absolute changes of five and thirty-one incidents, respectively. While
these figures are significant to the people involved in these crimes,
they are not adeuqate to establish crime trends on a national scale.
MOreover, changes in park boundaries and enforcement practices can
dramatically influence year to year crime reports [16,120].

Comparing park crime to crimes in other settings is also
difficult. The population at risk is not stable either temporally or
spatially. Crime rates based on park user-days are not comparable to
FBI or LEAA crime rates based on resident populations. Even evaluation
of crime in urban neighborhood parks, presumably used by an identifiable
surrounding resident pOpulation, is difficult. Few urban park agencies
collect adequate or appropriate data to establish how many people use the
park and for how long. There is no way of evaluating whether low numbers
of incidents reflect low risk of victimization or simply levels or
patterns of use that provide few potential crime targets [119,pp.22423].
Similarly, prOperty crimes such as burglary, vandalism, and theft, are
most appropriately evaluated in terms of potential targets. Burglary
rates, for example, are a function of the number and vulnerability of park
structures as much as potential criminal populations and enforcement
practices [123,124].

Although even cautious evaluation of the available data suggests
that risks of criminal victimization are fairly low in parks, compared
to other settings, these data are not adequate to establish which types
of park settings may be more or less dangerous than others. More crimes

are reported in large and well used parks but it is not clear whether

34

this is a function of the setting or simply of larger numbers of peOple
providing both more potential criminals and targets. Malt Associates'
study of crime in urban parks reports:

The largest amount of crime was found [in] those parks which

(1) represented the only significant recreation opportunity

in a locality and (2) where ethnic, racial or class changes

were occurring in the serviced populations. These parks also

had the densest service populations and generally the highest

crime rates among the study areas [ll9,p.lOl].
Thus, the one generalization that might comfortably be asserted is that
parks located in generally high stress environments are likely to be
impacted by antisocial behavior more than those in less stressful settings.

While park users, justifiably or not, are typically concerned
most about personal victimization, park personnel are most alarmed about
escalating rates of park property damage and theft. The National Park
Service reports 7,734 vandalism incidents in its units in 1978 for a
conservatively estimated dollar loss of $284,095 with repair costs in
individual parks as high as $20,472 [16,120]. The U.S. Forest Service
estimated their 1974 nationwide expenses attributable to vandalism to
be $7.5 million.

Several studies have solicited park managers' and field personnel's
Opinions about problems in their parks. Driessen interviewed Forest Ser-
vice personnel (district rangers, foresters, recreation technicians, rec—
reation staff officers, and landscape architects) in ten Districts and
reports:

Vandalism was fOund to be the number one reported management problem
associated with facilities and equipment. What is striking about

this finding is the fact that this problem stands far above the
others [14,p.v].

 

 

Driessen finds that perception of problems does not appear to vary with

respondents' job experience, length of the recreation season, extent of

35

visitor use (except in Districts with more than a million visitor.use
days, where offroad vehicle control is perceived to be more of a problem
than elsewhere), distance of the site from large cities, or the kinds
(local versus nonlocal) of visitors at the site.

The Comptroller General's survey of 1,216 Federal agency park law
enforcement officers found that 61 percent perceived crime to be a
serious problem in their area. The crimes which were most often
reported to be substantial to very great problems were (in rank order):

vandalism of Government prOperty

Destruction of natural and historic resources
Drunkeness and disorderly conduct

Game law violations

Drugs or narcotic violations

Vandalism of private property

Disturbing the peace

Unauthorized possession of weapons

Larceny

0. Boating violations [9,p.7].

HOWQGU'IbMNl—I

The ranking of felony crimes perceived to be moderate to great problems
is: burglary (38 percent), larceny (36 percent), assault (30 percent),
robbery (25 percent), auto theft (18 percent), rape (six percent), and
murder (four percent).

Clark, Hendee, and Campbell's investigation of campground managers'
and users' perceptions reveals that most managers rate litter (90.8 per—
cent) and vandalism (89.6 percent) to be moderate to major problems in
their campgrounds, followed by rule violations (88.5 percent), nuisance
behaviors (88.1 percent), theft (84.7 percent), excessive noise (81.8
percent), and trouble in general (76.1 percent). Managers also perceive
problem behaviors to be much more prevalent and serious than do campers

[80, p.152].

36

No equally detailed information about urban park personnel's
perceptions of park behavior problems is available. Dunn reports that
crime and vandalism emerged as the first priority concern of an advisory
panel of recreation and park educators, practioners, and researchers
charged with pinpointing key research needs to support urban recreation
policy decisions [15, p.42]. Several other sources mention the import-
ance and impact of these problems in municipal park operations [18,118,
125,126].

Many behavior problems in park settings do not qualify as serious
crimes or result in significant property damage. These fall into the
"conflict" category. Rule violations and nuisance behaviors such as
excessive noise or unleashed pets are frequently classified as "deprecia-
tive behavior" and may be considered conflicts both among users and
between park users and management. Definitions of objectionable or
depreciative behavior vary among user groups, between users and managers,
and among park sites. In some cases, park rules define unacceptable
behaviors, such as the common "quiet after 11 p.m." campground rule, or
the "no alcoholic beverages" regulation in many parks. In others, con—
flicts may arise because of different values rather than official pro-
hibitions. Wilderness users, for example, may object to other users
bringing radios or horses into the backcountry because it violates their
"wilderness-purist" ideas about appropriate use of the resource. Similar-
ly, some beach users may object to others' nude sunbathing and seek
official injunctions against it. In urbanized areas, surrounding
residents may object to the appearance of the park or its users and

the behavior of park users.

37

In Clark, Hendee, and Campbell's campground behavior study, nearly
half of all the depreciative indicents observed were classified as
"nuisance acts" (excessive noise, health hazards, violations of privacy,
and pets off leashes which, alone, accounted for about eighty percent of
the "nuisances" and almost forty percent of the total observations). Of
the law violations (36.9 percent of all observed depreciative acts), 46.8
percent were violations of campground rules (17 percent of all observa-
tions) and 29.2 percent were of traffic rules (11 percent of the totaD
[84, p.4]. There are few, if any, other reports currently available
providing quantified measures of the whole range of depreciative
behaviors in a park setting. Enerva's case study of a troubled National
Forest campground in southern California provides insight and detailed
infOrmation but no baseline data [127]. Other studies mention problems
with drugs or alcohol use, teenage "gangs," or deviant subcultural
groups (homosexuals or other "counter-culture" groups), but provide few
quantifiable measures of frequency, severity, or impact [89,119,128,129].
However, this is not surprising since conflict is largely a subjective
event. Rule violations can be enumerated, but, like more serious crime
incidents, recording of violations requires that they be witnessed and
reported. Further, unlike more serious crimes, the number of rule
violations is related to the number and nature Of rules in each setting
and these vary widely. For example, a park that prohibits alcohol will
likely show many more alcohol-related offenses than in one where only
public drunkeness or underage possession is prohibited.

Objective measurement or evaluation of the operational environment
of a park as it relates to crime and conflict is difficult. Parks at all

levels of the opportunity spectrum have problems with both controlling

38

and measuring depreciative behavior. Serious crime seems relatively
infrequent, compared to other settings. Generally speaking, it appears
that large, high use, easily accessible parks report the most crime
incidents, although this may be a function of simply more peOple present
rather than indicative of higher individual risks of victimization.
Agency records of crime and conflict are usually not compatible across
agencies or time, and are probably not representative of the actual
nature, frequency, severity, and spatial distribution of park behavior
problems. Among criminal activities and rule violations, theft,
vandalism, and litter seem to be the most pervasive. Conflict and
crowding are largely subjective judgements and thus depend on the
particular combination of site, user, and management characteristics
of individual settings. Intuitively, we might expect the most conflict
in settings where users and managers, or different user groups, have
different values, goals, or beliefs. It is likely, then, that heavily
used sites drawing diverse users will exhibit the highest conflict,
crime, and dissatisfaction levels.

Regardless of how reliable objective measures of park crime and
conflict may be, or how safe these measures may indicate park environ-
ments are, it is people's subjective evaluations of appropriate behavior
within the park that determine, to a large extent, whether the setting
will facilitate or discourage antisocial behavior and conflict. Thus,
the social meaning or "implicit theories of environment" associated
with different park settings by different user groups is a pivotal
factor which both contributes to and is conditioned by levels of crime

and conflict in these settings.

39

Crime and Conflict in Rural Parks: Problems and PerceptiOns

 

Studies suggest that people visiting remote, rural parks share,
to some extent, a desire for contact with the natural environment and,
generally, the expectation that others in the setting will behave in a
predictable and acceptable manner. This expectation tends to be re-
inforced by "self-sorting" behavior which matches visitors to the specific
kinds of sites, in terms of both physical and social qualities, that they
prefer. Lee remarks:

Definitions of place in remote outdoor settings are usually
determined by the kind of attraction present and the visitors
drawn to it. Individuals and groups have greater control over
idiosyncratic definitions in remote settings than in any of the
other outdoor places. Wilderness backpackers, rock climbers, and
trailer campers are a few of the many kinds of users whose orien-
tation toward outdoor spaces is typified by possession, selective
organization, and formal social control.

Self- -segregation on the basis of counterculture lifestyle is
a new form of use engaged in primarily by highly mobile youth
from middle or high income families, and most fully expressed in
remote places. . . . Outdoor space is perceived as belonging to
everyone, and thus may legitimately be used for many activities
usually considered illegal or immoral. Nude bathing, marijuana
smoking, open sexual enjoyment, and loud rock music are a few of
the many activities than can be maintained only in selective
territories where surveillance by law enforcement officials is
difficult or where the number of participants is too large to
prevent effective social control [73, p.81].

This latter type of "deviant" place definition causes problems when it
impinges on users who do not share the subgroup's values or when the
subgroup is unable to maintain adequate self controls.

Some conflicts are large and dramatic such as the American Indian
occupation of Alcatraz Island which is part of Golden Gate National
Recreation Area, or the 1970 Yosemite Park riot [12, p.156]. Enerva
documents smaller scale but equally alarming problems arising when a

fairly isolated primitive campground acquires a deviant reputation [127].

40

He found that, at first, informal channels of communication established
the location as a place where counterculture people could gather to enjoy
the outdoors together and engage in various non-sanctioned activities
without being "hassled." Eventually the informal reputation of the camp-
ground as a "free" place attracted people who, in the absence of either
formal or effective informal social controls, were sometimes violent and
often destructive. Crime victims, often themselves antagonistic to
police, frequently did not file crime reports so the problems were not
"officially” recognized until they became quite severe and deviant users
had developed a strongly territorial view of the area. Subsequent
enforcement efforts have had some limited success but the area retained
a reputation that discouraged many people from using the site. Enerva
reports of his participant observation activities:
Black Canyon is everything its infamous reputation portrays
it to be and more. From the small amount of time I spent at the
campground discussing and observing, I saw most every type of
criminal activity that could transpire there. My personal exper-
iences include my life being seriously threatened; attempted theft
of my camping equipment; harassment of myself and friends; chal-
lenges to fight; vandalism; damage to my truck in excess of $1100;
alcohol or drugs offered for sale or given to me; and alleged
stolen property, including a motorcycle, offered to me for sale.
This was not the full extent of the extraordinary experiences I
encountered. Those that I had the good fortune of not experienc-
ing, other visitors and campers would poignantly relate the ugly
details of their past experiences. During my discussions with
visitors and campers only a handful stated that they had not
observed or had been victims of a crime [127, p.18].
He estimates that eighty percent of the Black Canyon users belong to one
of two groups -- the "longhairs" or counterculture people and service-
men -- and members of these two groups cause ninety percent of the prob-
lems. Both groups appear to be attracted to the site for its natural

features, its reputation as a "party" locatiOn, and the lack of official

supervision and controls. The servicemen, he remarks, appear to be

41

particularly drawn by this last factor and generally "do whatever they
want to because they realize they can get away with it (and they do)"
[127, p.21]. Incidents of rape, irresponsible use of firearms, and drug
sales are observed in or attributed to this group. He charges that
problems caused by both "deviant" groups occur most often when indiv-
iduals are under the influence<rfalcohol or other drugs. Further, the
values and norms of both groups are not consistent with larger societal
views of appropriate, responsible behavior. Thus, the crime and damage
problems they cause will probably require stringent formal controls since
they are largely unresponsive to acceptable informal social controls.

MOst accounts of conflict in rural parks are less dramatic than
Enerva's but share some of the same themes. Goodrich's discussion of
the problems arising from nude bathing also mentions the compounding
effect when a location gains a reputation as a setting for unconven-
tional behavior. Not only are new participants attracted, but curious
and sometimes seriously deviant individuals are also drawn to the site.
Consequently, problems of resource damage from crowding, harassment, and
serious antisocial behaviors follow the originally rather innocuous
activity [10]. She reports, however, that once the initial furor is
allowed to die down and mechanisms are developed that assist informal
social controls, combined with visible formal controls, people appear to
become accustomed to the new social definition of the nude beach,
participants' behavior becomes predictable and therefore no longer
threatening, and conflict problems decrease considerably.

Two other studies that touch on the expression of subcultural
values in rural recreation areas are Scott's study of wilderness users'

attitudes and White, Wall, and Priddle's investigation of "rowdyism" in

42

Canadian Provincial Parks. Scott finds that backcountry visitors can

be categorized according to their scores on an "unconventional

behavior" factor that includes attitudes toward nudity, smoking marijuana,
and "hippies" in wilderness areas. Young people camping with friends
expressed much less disapproval than did older, family group, visitors
[130]. White, Wall, and Priddle report that some Provincial Parks

appear to attract groups of young male "party" campers who generally
annoy other campers by their loud, disorderly behavior. They remark that
only some, not all, parks have this problem, primarily those in southern
Ontario whithin a day's drive of urban areas. Further, the "problem
parks" shift somewhat year to year, suggesting that informal communica-
tion establishes a preferred destination for "party campers" and,
perhaps, that when managers in one park institute control measures the
group moves to another park [131].

Other sources of conflict in rural parks include disagreements
over appropriate modes of wildland travel. For example, hikers dislike
sharing areas with horsebackriders or motorcyclists, canoeists do not
like to encounter motorboats, and cross country skiers want snowmobiles
banned in parks [54,75,77,132]. Interestingly, in many cases the sub-
group engaging in the "objectionable" behavior does not reciprocate the
other groups' objections and may express many of the same recreation
goals and preferences as the complaining group. Other kinds of conflict
and rule violations occur when a park is newly established cur undergoes
substantial design or management Changes. In these cases, local residents
and longtime users may find that their "traditional" patterns of access
and use are disrupted and some activities prohibited. Responses range

from organized group protest, lawsuits, and political pressure to

43

persistent removal of access barriers, vandalism, and blatant dis-
regard Of park rules [133,134].

Clark, Hendee, and Campbell's study of campers' perceptions of
behavior problems in campgrounds finds that most campers do not perceive
theft, noise, crowding, littering, rule violations, vandalism, or other
depreciative behaviors to be major problems in campgrounds [80]. In
terms of perceived differences among the types of behavior problems,
litter was the most frequently rated by campers as "becoming more of a
problem" or "now a major problem" (51.2 percent), followed by rule
violations (44.5 percent). "Trouble in general" (21.8 percent) and
"improper management" (10.0percent) received the smallest proportion of
"problem" votes. The researchers remark that campers seem determined to
view campgrounds as safe, orderly environments, even when they have been
victimized. Theft victims, they report, blame their own carelessness,
rather than campground authorities, for their loss, and often only report
the theft to legitimize their insurance claims, believing nothing can
be done to retrieve their property. Campground authorities are not
perceived as law enforcers [83, pp.30-31].

In Campbell, Hendee, and Clark's report of participant observa-
tion studies in campgrounds they find:

Suprisingly, depreciative behavior in public parks is much more
extensive than we were led to expect from interviews with recrea-
tion managers and campers. . . . Theft in particular seemed much
more prevalent than is generally supposed. . . . MOst thefts fit
one of two patterns. The first, stealing of camping equipment and
food, occurred most frequently during periods of heavy use. The
culprits were often teenage males who had come to the campground
only for the day or weekend. Usually ill-equipped, they made up
for their shortages by stealing. . . . The second type of theft
was more serious and involved systematic stealing of valuables .

from locked automobiles. These robberies were usually performed by
noncampers who came to the park for that eXpress purpose [83, pp.30-3l].

44

However, they also report that, contrary to pOpular opinion, teenagers
are not always the most frequent offenders, comprising less than twenty
percent (19.1) of the people obServed engaging in depreciative behavior.
Over half (57.1 percent) of the Observed offenders were adults and 23.8
percent were children. They report that
teenagers most often violated campground rules, including traffic
regulations, and were less likely than adults or children to
commit nuisance acts.

Children, usually while playing in groups of two or three, were
most likely to commit acts of vandalism which were directed primar-
ily at campground facilities. But, the most frequent type of in-
appropriate behaviors for children were nuisance acts -- most Often
involving pets and violations of privacy.

Adults were most likely to commit nuisance acts or violate rules.
When adults were observed in vandalistic acts, they usually involved
the natural environment rather than campground facilities,
and these adult acts involved individuals rather than groups [84,p. 6].

From these observations, the researchers conclude that most deprec—
iative behavior cannot be attributed to maliciousness or a single group
of "trouble-makers" but rather to general park users' (1) ignorance of
the rules; (2) disregard of rules and the impact of their behavior on
others; (3) search for entertainment; or (4) convenience concerns and
rules' interference with users' goals. They remark that campers often
do not appear to regard the campground and traffic rules as legitimate

and would commonly repeat the offense even after being reprimanded by

a ranger [84, pp.6-ll].

Crime and Conflict in Urban and Suburban Parks: Problems and Perceptions

 

Moving into the "middle-range" and urban parks of the recreation
opportunity spectrum -- the neighborhood, district and some regional
parks -- user heterogeneity and the Opportunity for conflict due to

different expectations increases (Tables 2.1 and 2.2). Here, as Lee

45

points out, different groups may define the park, or portions of it, as
personal space or a "primary" environment while others regard it as public
space or a "secondary" environment. Fridgen remarks that
conflicts and divergent social interactive patterns are more
likely to occur when user groups have different views about
whether the same recreation area is a primary or secondary
environment. It is reasonable to expect that people who view
a recreation setting as a primary environment would more likely
experience personal crowding, have less tolerance of others
(especially dissimilar others), and display more tension than
people who perceive the same recreation setting as a secondary
environment [70, p.382].

The personalization of recreation settings or informal designations
of park space as a certain subgroup's "territory" may lead to conflicts,
particularly in smaller urban neighborhood parks [73,86,88,89]. Teenagers
are often perceived to be "undesirable" or dangerous by other park users.
Urban parks are also affected by another group of "problem" users ~- the
indigents, alcoholics, and elderly poor peOple who may frequent the park
for lack of anywhere else to go. Several studies document how other park
users and surrounding residents object to the presence of this user
group [128,129,135]. Information about offenders in urban parks tends to
fOcus nearly exclusively on juveniles or "bums" and conflict or vandalism
problems. Young people and indigents may view the park, or an area
within it, as primary or personal environments and display territorial
behaviors that intimidate other users and may be translated into
damage of park facilities (graffiti, modification of areas to accomodate
personal desires, etc.) [49,85,99]. Neither group generally has access
to many other, more private, settings for primary social interaction.
Further, since these subgroups are perceived as not sharing other

users' values and norms, their behavior is considered unpredictable and

potentially dangerous [101, pp.8-9,24-25].

46

Rasmussen notes that several parks in Chicago have unsupervised
areas where young people gather to smoke, drink, and engage in "sexual
play." He remarks: "None of the described activities presented a threat
to other park users, but their presence did seem threatening" [118,p.47].
Other studies mention the presence of drug sales and use and homosexual
or exhibitionist behavior in urban park settings but do not discuss the
offenders beyond noting their locationzuulthe offender's expressed
belief that his or her behavior is appropriate in the given setting,
e.g., drug dealers are supplying a demand, exhibitionists are eXpressing
themselves [87,89].

Fear of crime is widely believed to influence use patterns in
urban parks [18,pp.23-25; 7l,pp.146—149;~ll8,pp.l-2; 136,pp.108-109].
Flickinger reports that 87 percent of his respondents felt safer in
Ohio state parks than in the city parks of Cincinnati, Columbus, Akron,
or Cleveland and 29 percent indicated not using their local neighborhood
park due to fear of crime [137]. McDonald and Newcomer report that,
among their elderly respondent group, nonpark users are more likely than
users to fear being victimized in the park, but the presence of "pan-
handlers and bums" was a more important reason for avoiding the park
[135,p.360]. Malt Associates' study finds that about half of both park
users and nonusers in urban areas express concern over their safety in
the park (45.9 and 54.7 percent, respectively). They report:

The highest level of concern was expressed by nonquser, females,
with about 60% saying they were concerned for their safety in
parks. A surprisingly large number of these were younger women
between 10 and 19. Almost 80% of this group said they were con.
cerned. The lowest level of concern was eXpressed by park using
males, with 45.5% saying they were concerned. . . . While 46% of

the users responded they were concerned over their personal safety
in the parks, only 13% said they thought there was a lot of park

47

crime. We believe the responses reflect both a certain concern
over crime but also only vague notions as to causes or probability
of being personally harmed. In other words, sources of anxiety
are not defined [119,p.72].
A higher proportion of non-users (31.8 percent) thought there was a
"lot of crime" in parks but less than five percent gave "crime” as a
reason for not using the parks. An additional 6.5 percent cited
"people who use parks" as the reason they do not use them but the
largest percentage (34 percent) of non-users indicated they simply were
not interested in park use [119,pp.60-74].
Among park users interviewed by Malt Associates, most do not
report avoiding any areas in parks (65 percent). Of those who do, 6.2
percent avoid areas because of the "kind of people" there, 3.1 percent
because of fear of crime, and 2.1 percent due to poor lighting at night.
MOst users either find nothing wrong with the park (21.5 percent) or
complain of park facilities or maintenance (47.1 percent). A small
proportion (10.6 percent) are bothered by "other people" in the park,
and 2.4 percent by "police hassling of youth." ”Inadequate lighting,"
and crime or inadequate policing each account for an additional percent
of the complaints. Most park users (88.6 percent) perceive the park to
be as safe or more safe than the rest of the neighborhood. Malt
Associates summarize the realtionship between park environments and
attitudes as follows:
a. As a general statement, highly specific and detailed
attitudes toward parks were related (1) to smaller parks,
(2) the degree of usage and (3) the residential proximity of
the respondent. Hence, people who live within a block of and
frequently use sub-neighborhood parks tend to have very precise
views about what is good or bad about their parks. People who

rarely use parks and live more than two blocks from one tend to
have only vague notions about the quality of the park.

48

b. Many people were contradictory in their attitudes toward
personal safety in parks and only on the larger parks could we .
find consistent associations between the park environment and
perceived risk. Larger parks have less visibility from the street,
more concealment and escape opportunities for the criminal by day.
Criminal surveillance or detection is even less feasible by night.
Therefore, even though the probability of personal danger in most
parks is statistically remote, it appears psychologically real
and important to the public.

c. Attitudes toward various security aspects varied considerably
by sex and age. . . . Older peOple felt parks should have a curfew
while younger peOple felt the opposite.

d. Most feared neighborhood scale parks were those single-
purpose recreational facilities near large public housing projects
and primarily used by teenage males.

e. MOst feared community scale parks were those older passive
parks, formerly outlying and now accessible to all, which poorly
accomodate automobile traffic and changed, intensive and inter-
racial use [ll9,pp.102-103].

A5 Malt Associates point out, aspects of the park landscape tend
to exacerbate some people's fears. Tuan suggests that humans have always
feared the dark, both that of nights and thatcflfdensely vegetated areas,
for what they may hide [69]. Bynum and Puuri note in their study of
students' fear of crime on a college campus that wooded areas and walk-
ways adjacent to dense shrubbery were particularly feared areas, though
the reported frequency of crime in these locations was quite low [138].
It seems likely that these fears would be more influential in urban park
users' perceptions of park safety than those of rural park users since
the urban park environment is also characterized by generally lower
levels of social homogeneity than those in more remote areas. Further,
most visitors to rural parks profess to go there specifically for the
outdoor, natural features.

In summary, the available evidence suggests that perceptions of

crime and stress in parks, both urban and rural, is more strongly related

49

to park users' implicit theories, or expectations, of what the park
setting is like than to objective measures of antisocial behavior. Park
visitors appear to perceive these environments to be safe and orderly so
long as perceived user homogeneity is maintained. When a park or
portions of a park come to be socially defined by a deviant subgroup,
conflict among users and between users and park managers may occur until
either other users become accustomed to the setting's new social defini-
tion and appropriate adjustments of social, site, and management charac-
teristics occur, or these characteristics are adjusted to re—establish
the previous definition by expelling the deviant group and strengthening
social processes of setting maintenance.

Urban parks, at least at an abstract level, appear to be more
often perceived as dangerous places than more rural or remote recreation
settings. This may be attributable to (1) generally higher degrees of
user heterogeneity, (2) generally higher perceived risk in urban areas,
(3) greater possibility that some users may regard the park as a personal
territory (a "primary" environment) and other users treat it as a public
setting (a "secondary" environment) and, (4) less acceptance of visual
barriers and screening that may isolate users and hide potential attackers
in the urban setting.

Dubow, McCabe, and Kaplan cite studies indicating peOple avoid
some urban parks and the areas around them, especially at night, because
of fear of crime [lOl,pp.6,3S-37]. Women tend to express more fear of
crime than men do but neither men nor women park users report crime fac-
tors to be especially important considerations in their use of specific
urban parks. It appears that, in general, fear of crime in urban parks

decreases as familiarity with a particular park increases unless the park

50

in question is perceived to be defined or controlled by users considered
deviant or undesirable. This is consistent with larger patterns of
perceived risk and crime levels 4- the more abstract the frame of
reference, the higher rates of crime and risk are perceived to be [101,
111,112]. While it seems likely that both park users and non+users
perceive rural parks generally to be safer than urban parks, just as
rural areas in general are perceived to be safer than cities, there are

no data to either directly support or refute this hypothesis.

Behavioral Respgnse to Park Crime and Conflict

 

Overt behavioral responses to perceived stress and hazard have
been identified as (l) avoidance, (2) no action -- rationalization of
the situation, or (3) adjustment through protective, ameliorative, pre-
ventative, or loss minimization behavior [101,104,107]. Park users may
be expected to exhibit some form of these behaviors when confronted with
crime or conflict situations.

Evidence of avoidance behavior is inconclusive. The "self-sorting"
behaviors that many researchers have noted in users' recreation location
choices may indicate avoidance of areas perceived as stressful for any
number of reasons (crowding or incompatible social atmosphere, for
example) as much as a search for an optimal or sufficiently satisfying
environment [60,63,66,81,82,87,135,139,140,l4l,l42,143,144].

Evidence of on-site avoidance behavior in response to perceived
stress from crowding or other social tensions is mixed. Some wilderness
users may overtly avoid other visitors, but many do not appear to do so
[77,79,139]. Observations of urban park use patterns often reveal

voluntary self-segregation of user groups, presumably in response to

51

perceived social differences and activity preferences [73,87,89,128,
129]. In short, the fact that so many recreation settings are well
attended, and some are so popular that crowd and entry control.measures
are necessary, suggests that parks, in general, are not perceived as
dangerous or stressful environments. Of those parks that are not well
used and of those individuals who simply do not use parks, we cannot
state, conclusively, that crime or fears of confrontation are often
major contributing factors.

Many park visitors do not appear to exhibit any behavioral res-
ponse to potential sources of conflict or observed crime in park settings.
In some cases, this may be because people do not object to the behavior
in question (nudity, drug use, or whatever); in others it may be attri-
butable to what Campbell, Hendee and Clark term the "norm of noninvolve-
ment." They note that

[i]n urban environments, where strangers are continuously thrown
together in public places, privacy is often created by a studious
disregard for other people. While creating privacy through anon—
ymity, it also frees the individual from responsibility for the
plight of others or their behavior. The "norm of noninvolvement"

is very much in evidence in the public campground. We frequently
saw campers passively stand by as their neighbor or their neighbor's
child violated campground law, damaged park facilities, or created

a public nuisance [83,pp.54-55].

In spite of campers avowed intentions during interviews to take
action against rule violators, Clark, Hendee and Campbell find that of
the 401 depreciative acts they observed, eighty percent were also
,Observed by other campground users and in ninety percent of these cases
"no perceptible reaction by adjacent campers could be observed" [84,p.ll].

Of those who did react, most merely commented to other people about the

incident or simply appeared upset but took no other action.

52

Christensen's study of bystander reactions to littering in a
campground reveals somewhat higher levels of involvement. In an
experiment to determine the influence of "appeal to help" messages
concerning litter control, she reports that 82.6 percent of campers
receiving the message had some reaction to subsequent staged littering
incidents compared to 61.1 percent of the uncontacted users [145]. The
most frequent reaction was to pick up the litter (56 percent of the
control group and 73 percent of those contacted), followed by direct
intervention such as speaking to the offender (19 percent of the control
and 26 percent of the experimental group), and, least commonly, reporting
the incident to campground authorities (six percent of the control
group and 16 percent of the experimental group). Overall, 77 percent
of the staged littering incidents elicited some type of response.

The responses Christensen reports may be considered primarily
ameliorative in that they tended to be addressed to repairing or
reporting the damage of a specific incident. Evidence of protective,
preventative, or loss minimization behavior is scarce. Studies of
campground settings, in fact, indicate a low incidence of these behaviors
as campers reportedly leave valuable possessions in unprotected situa‘
tions fairly often [83,84,127]. One third of Flickinger's sample of
state park visitors brought firearms with them for protective purposes,
a behavior most common in primitive areas and of visitors over fifty
years Old [137].

There are no studies of urban park users' reactions or lack of
reactions to depreciative behavior comparable to those of campers.

Available evidence suggests that the "norm of noninvolvement" or a "live

53

and let live" philosophy often prevails [87,89]. The individual and
often subtle symbolic gestures that maintain social order in other

public settings probably prevail in most urban parks as well [101].

Summary

The issue of crime and conflict in park settings is complex.

By available objective measures most parks appear to be fairly safe,
relative to other public settings. There are, however, many difficulties
in evaluating existing data and attaining appropriate measures of dep-
reciative and deviant behavior. With the exception of extreme situations,
park users' perceptions of personal safety and other users' behavior seem
to be more closely tied to their expectations of the prevailing soOial
norms in different park settings than to either reported deviant incidents
or park personnel's perceptions of depreciative behavior frequency in
these parks. Generally, rural park settings appear to be considered

more safe and orderly than those in urban settings. Women and older
people may be somewhat more concerned about park crime than men or young
people. Much conflict in parks appears to be generated by different
social norms between user subgroups, and many problems are attributed

to the presence of groups of young male users.

Park users may avoid, ignore, or object to deviant behavior,
depending on their evaluatiOn of its impact on them and their commit-
ment to maintaining site quality or social order. Available information
is insufficient for reliable estimates of what kinds or how many people

are likely to engage in any of these behaviors in any type of setting.

S4

Defining the Investigative Questions

Review of the available literature on perceptions, behavior, and
crime and conflict in park environments suggests several research questions.
First, do park users in urban and suburban parks feel safe in the park?
Research suggests that people perceive their own neighborhoodstx>be safer
than those they are less familiar with and urban areas to be less safe
than suburban or rural areas [101]. Further, some parks appear to be re-
garded as safer than others. This raises the question of relative safety
when comparing a particular park to park users' neighborhoods, images of
"downtown," and other parks they are aware of. Because research in fear
of crime strongly suggests that evenings in any setting are perceived as
more dangerous than daytime, it is anticipated that park users will
also share this View of temporal differences in park safety.

Secondly, research on perception and behavior in many areas, par-
ticularly fear of crime, reveals differences among peOple's assessments
of personal safety depending on their age, gender, and familiarity with
given environments. It is anticipated that women and older people will
perceive the park to be less safe and orderly than men or younger people
do. It is also expected that (l) the number of depreciative incidents
experienced by the respondent as witness, victim, or acquaintance of a
victim, (2) frequency of site visits and residential location, and
(3) perceived user homogeneity will influence park users' perceptions
of park safety.

A central question in behavioral geography is the influence of
perception on behavior. Both natural hazard research and studies of

response to crime find regularities in human re5ponse to various threats.

55

This study addresses most closely the question of how people who

perceive a threat in the park environment appear to respond to it, in

particular, do they report avoidance behavior?

The specific problem statements and hypotheses to be tested are:

Problem Statement A: Do park users feel safe in the parks?

 

Hypothesis Al:

 

Hypothesis A2:

 

Hypothesis A3:

 

Park users will report feeling safe in the park.

Park users will percieve evenings to be less safe
than daytime in the parks.

Park users will rate the park as equally or more
safe than other parks, their own neighborhood, and
downtown areas.

Problem Statement B: How do park users' individual characteristics

 

Hypothesis Bl:

 

Subhypothesis

relate to their perceptions of park safety and
behavioral responses to perceived safety?

Park users' perceptions of park safety, in general,
are related to their age, gender, and familiarity
with the park.

Bla: Younger park users will feel safer in the park

 

Subhypothesis

than will older users.

Blb: Male park users will feel safer in the park

 

Subhypothesis

than will female park users.

Blc: Park users who are more familiar with the park

 

Hypothesis B2:

 

Hypothesis B3:

 

Hypothesis B4:

 

will feel safer than those who are less familiar
with the park.

Park users perceiving other park users to be similar
to themselves will feel safer than those who perceive
other users as different from themselves.

Park users who report having been victimized or
having witnessed behavior problems in the park or
those who report knowing people who have, will
report feeling less safe than those who have not
had these experiences.

Park users who report feeling less safe in the park
will also report more avoidance behavior than those
users who report higher levels of perceived park safety.

Hypothesis B5:

 

Subhypothesis

56

Park users' age, gender, and familiarity with the park
are related, in general, to their reported avoidance
of some park areas due to safety concerns.

BSa: Younger park users will be less likely to

 

Subhypothesis

report avoiding some park areas than will older
users.

BSb: Male park users will be less likely to report

 

Subhypothesis

avoiding some park areas than will female users.

BSc: Park users who are more familiar with the park

 

Hypothesis B6:

 

Hypothesis B7:

 

will be less likely to report avoiding some
park areas or the whole park than those who
are less familiar with the park.

Park users perceiving other park users to be similar
to themselves will be less likely to report avoiding
some park areas than those who perceive other users
as different from themselves.

Park users who report having witnessed behavior
problems in the park, or those who report knowing
people who have been victimized there, will report
more avoidance behavior than will those who have
not had these eXperiences.

57

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

This chapter describes the methods and instruments used to
gather the information needed for this study. First, the study parks
are described and the reasons for their selection are discussed.
Then, the survey instrument and methods used in gathering infOrmation

from park users are examined.

Study Park Settings

 

Although theories of behavior environment interaction rest on
the assumption that people respond to certain behavioral "cues" in
different settings, very little is known about the relative importance
of various setting components in eliciting behavioral response. Clark
and Stankey's recreation opportunity spectrum, coupled with Lee's park
hierarchy, suggest what the relevant dimensions of variation may be in
park settings, in general. In order to identify more specifically the
particular aspects of park environments that influence safety related
perceptions and behavior, three similar parks, in terms of their location
along the recreation Opportunity spectrum, were selected for study.
Research indicates that widely different types of parks tend to have
different overall "images" (Table 2.2). Thus, differencesixiperceived
safety between, for example, a city park and a wilderness area, might
arise more from peoples' implicit theories about what kinds of behavior

occur in these types of parks, in general, than to actual differences

58

between a particular pair of park environments. By concentrating the
investigation in generally similar "types" of parks this problem is
minimized. Further, most research to date has concentrated on either
small, neighborhood parks or remote, rural recreation settings such as
campgrounds and wilderness areas, while this study concentrates on
middle-range district level parks in urban and suburban settings. This
facilitates identification of both the relevant environmental charac-
teristics that appear to influence park users' evaluations of park
safety in all types of park settings and those that differentiate
different types of parks' "images."

The parks were selected on criteria of (1) location in an urban
or suburban area, since these are the areas presumably most affected by
fear of crime problems; (2) medium to large size to avoid investigating
only "neighborhood" parks and allow for identification of spatial
variations within the park; (3) diversity of facilities and, thus, the
likelihood of drawing a diversity of user groups; and (4) cooperation of
park management personnel.

Three parks were chosen: Potter Park in Lansing, Michigan and
Elm Creek and Coon Rapids Dam Park Preserves in Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Lansing, Michigan, the state capital, is a medium size city in central
Michigan. State government and Michigan State University in adjacent
East Lansing provide considerable white collar employment, while auto
manufacturing supports a large blue collar workforce. Potter Park is
located between two older residential areas southeast of the downtown
and capital area. The neighborhood on the north side of the park is

predominantly lower-middle class and racially mixed. There is a single

59

pedestrian entrance on this side of the park. The only other park en-
trance is the single auto access point at the west end of the park, con-
necting to a busy four lane street, Pennsylvania Avenue. Some commercial
and industrial enterprises are located along this section of Pennsyl-
vania Avenue and residential areas across the street from the park are
similar, socio-economically, to those at the north boundary. The Red
Cedar River forms the southern boundary of Potter Park. Across the Red
Cedar is an enclave of medium to high income residences. The natural
amenities of the river, nearby parks, and a golfcourse, as well as the
quality of the houses in this area has produced a fairly stable, high
status neighborhood. Another major street, Aurelius Road, forms the
eastern boundary of the park and effectively eliminates either pedestrian
or auto access from this direction (Figure 3.1).

Potter Park is an older park, and has undergone several design
changes through its history. It contains the only free zoo in the mid-
Michigan area, although a $1.00 parking fee to drive into the park was
instituted, for the first time, in the summer of 1980. The park contains
both wooded and open, grassy areas and has extensive picnic facilities --
picnic pavilions, barbeque grills, and numerous picnic tables. There
are also playgrounds, tennis courts, a snack stand, a train ride, a river-
boat ride, and a canoe rental facility in the park. Park agency person-
nel consider Potter to be a family park with regional appeal. They
mention that it is a traditional location for many families, organizations,
and business groups to hold annual picnics. Because of its attractive
natural features and easy access, Potter Park also draws large numbers of
teenage and young adult users. In recent years the growing presence of

this user group, with their often boisterous and, to some, intimidating

 

60

 

fi
-- ‘- . . “as ' "nl’fi" ’ 7‘. ~" ‘ n: “fir-vy- -“ T‘L'?‘
ll $11.“fln).fi" ~~J tu- «we: .ey » a
u 'fi‘AWO‘h: ’53:.‘h2L 17's; " W ' “n? z ‘0' . ‘
n ‘nfifi ‘3’." . '

  
  

   

{1}?“ ,-

II ‘

::.. 2‘21?" '

...,-. 2., m \
'I' fl .q“

   

3

   

:i~~

r

.\\\\V
t. \

-na

     

 

 

O
O
M
.—
l.“
“.1
0
§
)4
o:
«sé
go:
3m
9+—
u—l—
o.

 

 

 

 

 

AUTOMOBIIE DRIVE
AND PARKING

 

-PEDESTRIAN WALK

 

@RAILROAD TRACKS

m OPEN wooos

[pf-"3:" DENSE BRUSH

7% 200 DISPLAY

   

 

 

 

 

 

61

behavior, has been a source of concern to park management, other users,
and adjacent neighbors.

Lansing parks are patrolled by a small special division of the
city police force. These officers have been forced to spend an increas-
ing amount of their time and energy in Potter Park as its popularity as
a location for young people to "cruise" and "party" has grown. Complaints
of drug and alcohol use, rowdy behavior, and fighting were frequent.
Tensions culminated over the Fourth of July holiday in 1980 when a young
white man was shot and killed by a young black man, allegedly in response
to earlier racial taunts by a group of white youths. Subsequently, the
entrance fee was instituted to discourage casual "cruising" and a mounted
policeman was employed to patrol the park full-time.

Hennepin County, Minnesota, contains both Elm Creek and Coon
Rapids Dam Park Preserves. Residential areas adjacent to both parks
are primarily suburban, serving a fairly affluent sector of the Minnea-
polis area workforce. Elm Creek Park Preserve is a large, newly devel-
oped park in a predominately agricultural setting. A sizable, and still
growing, middle-class residential subdivision is located along the north-
east boundary of the park. Although residents of this development enjoy
relatively unobstructed pedestrian and bicycle access to the park, auto
access from this side of the park recently was eliminated, creating
considerable conflict between local residents and park management
(Figure 3.2).

As a new park, Elm Creek still has a somewhat "raw" look and .
relatively few areas of mature woods. The subsection chosen for analysis
in this study contains a swimming pond with lifeguard stations, snack bar,

restrooms, beachouse, and a first aid station. Also included is a wooded

62

 

NM 350.".

m>mmmmm v_~_<n_
gum—«U <<._m

 

 

 

\
x
\

 

. ad 052". com

~

 
    

‘o-o-o'o'o'-'
o

o

 

o
-O—C-I-D-O-.-D-I-O-

 

a“. ’-..' )

 

a2.“

 

0009 000' o

 

humu—

 

1ovoo>> n:>oo: a

 

 

 

 

 

 

63

picnic area on a hill above the swimming pond (Figure 3.3). Elm Creek,
particularly the swimming pond, is a pOpular destination for families and
young people throughout the region. Life guards and other personnel
provide supervision in the pond area and a small roving force of park
rangers provides enforcement coverage for the rest of this and other parks
in the Hennepin County Park Preserve system.

Coon Rapids Dam Park Preserve is located at the head of navigation
on the Mississippi River. It includes wooded riverbank areas on each
side of the river and a small power generation dam across the river.

The adjacent area on the Hennepin County Side of the river is fairly
rural, with low density, lower middle to middle class residential devel-
opment of mixed age. The opposite bank, however, borders a small middle
class suburban community. The park entrance on this side is within five
minutes driving time of the downtown area. There is easy access to the
park, both on foot and by car, on both sides of the river (Figure 3.4).

This park too is new, at least to the Hennepin County system.
Recent acquisition of the site by the Park Preserve District brings
both benefits and drawbacks for local users. While the Park Preserve
District has invested heavily in site improvements, providing an inter-
pretive center, restrooms, picnic and fishing facilities, and improving
the aesthetic, accessibility, and safety factors of the dam structure,
traditional patterns of access and activity have been disrupted. Parking
and entry are now regulated and fees are charged during high use periods.
Swimming is prohibited and activities, in general, are more regulated
and supervised than was previously the case.

Coon Rapids Dam draws local peOple for fishing, picnicking, and

general enjoyment of the river and dam. "Sightseeing" by more distant

64

 

 

     

 

Belch house

m~Wooded area

Sand beach

- Parking area

 

 

FEET

—m

 

 

FIGURE 3.3
Elm Creek

Study Area

 

 

 

 

 

 

6S

  

 

JJ‘i- f

COON RAPIDS DAM

REGIONAL PARK
FIGURE 3.4

      
 

 

 

 

 

..
.II.

.....
ooooo
cove
ooooo
one.
.....
s...

 

 

  
  

w Heavily
j , WOOdCd
- Parking
Fishing dock

" Hiking
/ I trail

 

 

 

 

FEET

 

 

 

66

area residents is not uncommon. A small group of South-east Asian
immigrants frequently fish here, generating some conflict due to
differing language, fishing practices, social norms and customs. The
proximity of residential areas and the fairly light level of on-site
staffing and park enfOrcement patrols, has led to some problems of
"partying" along the riverbanks during evening hours.

The three study area parks are fairly close together on the
continuum of "recreation opportunities." All might be considered
district level parks. Although all three parks are adjacent to residen-
tial areas, access to the parks is controlled by park design and
management. All three parks are moderately well developed, although the
specific attractions vary. Park personnel speak of these parks as
"family" parks, but considerable user heterogeneity is visible in each
park. All are managed for visitor use, rather than resource protection,
and a moderate to high degree of regimentation, or supervision, exists
in each park.

There is little empirical work available investigating either
park user behavior and perceptions or depreciative behavior in these types
of settings. Due to time and funding constraints, intensive data collec—
tion was limited to three parks in this study. While the data from these
three parks have limited generalizability, they do provide baseline
information for future research. Comparison of these findings to those
of case studies in other types of parks may help identify both common
and differentiating elements among park types that influence safety

related perceptions and behavior.

67

Park User Survey

 

Measures of park users' perceptions and reported behavior were
obtained through on-site interviews. Park user interviews were conducted
in a face-to-face verbal fermat with the interviewer recording responses
as each question was asked. The survey population was all park users
over thirteen years old in the park on interview days. Interview days
were selected to provide both weekday and weekend samples and avoid days
when special events or conditions might bias responses. A systematic
sampling plan was employed to select respondents in the park. Each
tenth person over thirteen years old encountered by the interview team
while traversing a predetermined route was approached fer an interview.
Interviews were conducted in teams, with one team member interviewing
the randomly selected respondent while the other team member interviewed
the respondent's companion(s). This procedure reduces response contam-
ination from the respondents' companions. Only randomly selected
respondents' answers are included in the statistical analyses. Inter-
views lasted from five to twenty minutes. Since less than five percent
of all users approached in the survey refused to be interviewed, no
measures of refusal bias are calculated. When the selected respondent
did refuse, the next individual encountered along the route was inter-
viewed. The survey instrument and administration techniques were pre-
tested in Potter Park during the spring of 1980. The sampling technique
is an adaptation of one deveIOped by the Hennepin County Park Preserve
District research staff.

Selecting the statistically correct respondent from among a group
of people was sometimes difficult. When in doubt, interviewers attempted

to choose the respondent that provided the most diversity to the sample,

68

i.e. the one representing a subgroup less frequently encountered. This
is appropriate given the exploratory nature of the study and the need for
information about the range of responses possible. Also, people who
were clearly in transit from one area to another (into or out of parked
cars or restrooms, for example) were excluded from the sample selection
count. It was felt, based on pre-test experiences, that this avoided
many potential rersals without seriously affecting the representative-
ness of the sample. Sooner or later people became reasonably stationary
and approachable, re-entering the sample population.

Overall, given the time, funding, and situational constraints of
determining and "capturing" random respondents in an unregulated, free
entry and open movement environment, this plan seems to have worked
fairly well in terms of efficiency and effectiveness.in providing a
cross-section of park users. Table 3.1 illustrates the demographic
characteristics of the park users surveyed.

To insure that the study results are reflections of reality
and not products of interviewer bias several measures of interviewer
bias were calculated (Table 3.2). The interviewers in each park were
cross-tabulated against the responses they recorded on each of several
questions. The items used for evaluation of potential bias are some of
those that are most important in the relationships reported regarding
park user perceptions and behavior. There are no significant differences
as measured by chi-square measures of association among interviewers
on any of these items. Further, knowing the interviewer's identity does
not reduce the predictive uncertainty in any of the items by more than

eight percent as measured by the Asymmetric Uncertainty Coeffecient

69

TABLE 3.1

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF PARK USER SURVEY SAMPLE

 

 

Age:

Gender:

Race:

Characteristic

 

13-21 years
22—34 years
35-54 years
Over 54 years
No response

Male
Female
Missing

White
Nonwhite*

Education:

Less than high school
High school graduate
1-4 years of college
More than 4 years of college

Household Annual Income:

Less than $7,500

$7,500 - $15,000

$15,000 - $25,000
$25,000 - $35,000
Over $35,000

No response

Work Status:

Unemployed or retired
Student

Homemaker

White collar worker
Blue collar worker
No response

Number

77
109
43
12
17

120
137

228
30

49
78
79
SI

31
43
40
134

34
39
36
95
50

29.
42.
16.
4.
6.

46.
53.
0.

88.
11.

19.
30.
30.
19.

12.
16.
15.
51.

13.
15.
14.
36.
19.

U‘thOi—‘N

Percent

mO‘NO #i—‘U‘ O‘NVNO

KOU'INOHW

 

* Includes blacks, hispanics, and orientals

70

TABLE 3

.2

MEASURES OF INTERVIEWER BIAS: PARK USER SURVEY

 

 

 

 

 

Park
Potter Elm Creek Coon Rapids
Dam
User Response Measures , , .
nu nu nu
OH: O OH: O OH: d)
-H s o n -H s o n on s o n
I»: or). «4 o H w-i «4 o H -:-I 0H a:
uoo :3 uoo :3 uoo :3
GH-H c"! QH-r—l Cris own-I Cr-I:
EH44 me gnu-f m-I: gnu-I :04:
0‘44 a 0'4». rs 0'44 fl
mug-He .Ugwflcnog "43
.58 e 250. 5 <58 5
Fear index scores 06 23 .00 .99 .004 .65
Daytime avoidance O4 23 .08 .07 .0002 .97
Evening avoidance .02 .42 .009 .46 .01 .39
Number of different types of
depreciative behavior '
witnessed in park .05 .21 .01 .84 4.05 .15
Number of crimes and/or
harassment incidents reported .07 .42 .001 .93 .05 .65
Frequency of seeing user
behavior problems .03 .47 .05 .14 .04 .34
Frequency of seeing litter
and vandalism .04 .31 .03 .53 .0002 .89
Frequency of seeing rule
violations .05 .28 .04 .30 .02 .39
Age of respondent .04 .17 .04 .16 .Ol .55
Visit frequency of respondent .06 .31 .03 .39 .Ol .56
Travel time home to park for ' _
respondent .04 .74 .04 .21 .01 .74

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* Asymmetric Uncertainty Coefficient with interviewer identity

as the independent variable

** Statistical significance level of Chi-square measure of

association

71

(Table 3.2). Thus, it is reasonably certain that any relationships
among surveyed park users' individual characteristics, park location,

perceptions of safety, and avoidance behavior cannot be attributed

to interviewer bias.

72

CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS

In this chapter the research questions are addressed and the
hypotheses tested. The first two sections discuss how park users view
the parks in terms of relative safety and how their individual character—
istics influence their assessments of park safety and behavior in the
park. The final section provides a list of each hypothesis and sub-

hypothesis indicating whether they are accepted or rejected.

Relative Park Safety

 

Assessments of park safety were obtained by asking survey res-
pondents whether they would feel safe alone in the park during the day
and evening. Over ninety percent of those questioned reported feeling
safe in the park during the day. Evening hours, however, are considered
much less safe with over forty percent of the respondents reporting
that they would not feel safe alone in the park during the evening
(Table 4.1).

The question of safety in the park relative to safety in other
public settings was addressed through asking respondents to compare
their feelings of being safe in the park to how safe they feel in their
own neighborhoods and downtown areas. Respondents were also asked to
compare the study park to other parks they knew about in terms of
problems like people breaking the law or park rules. As Table 4.2

illustrates, the study parks were overwhelmingly rated as safer than

73

TABLE 4.1

PARK SAFETY DURING DAY AND EVENING

 

 

 

 

Response
Question Yes No
N (%) N ('6)
Would you feel safe spending the
day alone in this park? 232 (91.3) 22 ( 8.7)
Would you feel safe spending the
evening alone in this park?* ‘ 136 (57.9) 96 (40.9)

 

 

 

* "Depends on" response category deleted (1.2 percent of responses)

74

TABLE 4.2

RELATIVE PARK SAFETY

 

 

 

 

Response
Question Better Same Worse
N(%) N05) N06)
Park compared to downtown 96 (73.3) 25 (19.1) 20 ( 7.6)
Park compared to other parks 92 (40.2) ' 122 (53.3) 15 ( 6.6)
Park compared to neighborhood 26 (19.7) 48 (36.4) 58 (43.9)

 

 

 

 

75

downtown areas (73.3 percent "better" and 19.1 percent ”same" ratings).
Also, over ninety percent of those questioned felt that crime problems
and rule infractions in the study park were no more (53.3 percent "same")
or less (40.2 percent "better")severethan those in other parks

(Table 4.2).

Perceptions of park safety relative to safety in the respondents'
neighborhoods are less positive. Although the majority (56.1 percent)
of survey respondents report feeling at least as safe in the park as in
their own neighborhood, a substantial minority (43.9 percent) feel the
park is less safe than their neighborhood (Table 4.2). These results
are consistent with other research which suggests that perceptions of
safety are related to an individual's familiarity with the setting in
question [101].

Based on these findings Hypotheses Al through A3 are accepted.
Park users do appear to regard the park as a fairly safe environment,
particularly during the day (Hypothesis Al). Evenings are considered
less safe than daytime in the parks (Hypothesis A2) and most users do
rate the park as at least as safe as downtown areas, other parks, and
their own neighborhoods (Hypothesis A3). The decrease in perceived
levels of park safety during the evening and relative to respondents'
home neighborhoods is more logically attributable to overall assess-
ments of safety based on the time of day and familiarity with the
environment in question than to the specific park environment [101,119].
The importance of temporal setting is revealed in Law Enforcement
Assistance Administration survey responses indicating that 26 to 47
percent of residents interviewed in five U.S. cities do not feel safe

alone in their own neighborhoods at night [111,112,113,ll4,115].

76

In order to assess the relationships between both personal and
setting factors and park users' perceptions of park safety a composite
measure of perceived safety was constructed. This four point, ordinal
level, "fear index" is composed of responses to three questionnaire
items: the two previously discussed questions about feeling safe alone
in the park during the day and evening and a question about whether or
not the respondent feels other people in the park are well behaved.

Guttman scalogram analysis of the responses to these questions
yields a coefficient of reproducibility of .99 and a coefficient of
scalability of .95, both well above the minimum values required for a
valid scale [146]. There are only six scalogram errors, indicating only
three of the respondents answering these questions did not conform to
the pattern. This suggests that all three items tap a single dimension
of variation within park users' appraisals of the park. However, since
the Guttman scale contains fewer than the ideal minimum of twelve items,
the "fear index" scores computed from these items are treated as ordinal
measures.

The four item fear index varies from 1, for respondents who feel
other park users are well behaved and that the park is safe for a person
alone both day and night, to 2 for people who feel other users are well
behaved but who do not feel safeiJIthe park alone during the evening, to
3 for those finding park users well behaved but not feeling safe alone
in the park either day or night, and finally, to 4 for those individuals
finding other park users to be not very well behaved and the park to be
unsafe at all times for a person alone. Table 4.3 indicates the number

of respondents in each category.

77

TABLE 4.3

FEAR INDEX SCORES

 

 

 

Score Responses N (%)
1 Other users are well behaved, I feel safe alone
in the park day and night 134 (58.0)
2 Other users are well behaved, I feel safe alone
in the park during the day but not at night 75 (32.5)
3 Other users are well behaved, I do not feel safe
alone in the park day or night 17 ( 7.4)
4 Other users are not well behaved, I do not feel
safe alone in the park day or night 5 ( 2.2)

Total

231 (100.0)

 

78

Due to the low number of respondents with the maximum index
score of four (only five people) scale steps three and four are com-
bined for subsequent analyses, yielding an index value ranging from

one to three.
Association of Park UserS' Individual Characteristics with
Safety_Related Perceptions and Behavior
Age, Gender, Familiarity, and Perceptions of Safety

Research on fear of crime suggests that age, gender, and familiar-
ity with an environment are important factors in assessments of personal
safety. In order to evaluate the association of each of these character-
istics with park users' perceptions of safety, as indicated by their
"fear index" score, two measures of association were calculated: the
Asymmetric Uncertainty Coefficient and Kendall's Tau. Both measures
vary from 0 (no association) to 1 (perfect correspondence). The Asym-
metric Uncertainty Coefficient is designed for nominal level variables
and measures the proportion by which "uncertainty" in the dependent
variable is reduced by knowledge of the independent variable [146, p.226].
It is based on the concept of "proportional reduction in error" and
considers the entire distribution of the data, rather than just the
modal category. Kendall's Tau does not assume a directional relationship
and measures the strength of association between two ordinal level
variables by considering their order in every possible pair of cases
[146, p.227]. The Tau statistic may be negative or positive and the
probability of the observed association arising by chance can be calcul-

ated. Use of these two measures affords an estimate of the variation

79

explained in the dependent variable by knowing the value of the
independent variable as well as an indication of the strength and
statistical significance of their association.-

Hypotheses Bl through B7 are accepted when (1) the calculated
Kendall's Tau is both statistically significant at the .05 level or
higher and greater than or equal to .30 and (2) the Asymmetric
Uncertainty Coefficient is .10 or greater, indicating at least a ten
percent improvement in predicting the dependent variable when the
value of the independent variable is known. Establishing these "cut-off"
levels reduces the probability of accepting a false hypothesis based
on significant but weak levels of association and focuses the analysis
on the stronger relationships apparent in the data.

In order to test for possible relationships between respondents'
age and perceptions of park safety, each respondent's age was classified
into one of four ordinal age categories. As the figures in Table 4.4
demonstrate, age is significantly related to perceptions of park safety;
as expected, fear index scores tend to increase with respondents' age,
however the relationship is not strong enough to accept subhypothesis Bla.
Only five percent of the variation in fear scores is explained by age
alone. While the proportion of respondents who report feeling unsafe
alone in the parks does increase with age, especially for respondents
over 55 years old, the low number of respondents in this oldest age
group reduces both the reliability and generalizability of these
results (Table 4.5).

Gender, a dichotomous, metric level variable, however, is both
significantly and strongly related to perceptions of park safety

(Kendall's Tau of .64) with females having consistently higher "fear

ASSOCIATION OF RESPONDENTS'

80

TABLE 4.4

WITH FEAR INDEX SCORES

PERSONAL FACTORS

 

 

Asymmetric Uncer-

I

Kendall's Tau

 

 

 

Personal Factors N tainty Coefficient* (p)
Age 217 f .05 .11 (.02)**
Gender 230 .26 .64 (.00001)**
Familiarity with park:
Distance from home to park 230 .01 .10 (.05)**
Frequency of park visits 231 .04 .ll (.02)**
Length of local residence 226 .02 .00 (.47)

 

* Fear index dependent

 

 

** Statistically significant at .05 or higher level

81

TABLE 4.5
AGE AND GENDER OF RESPONDENTS WHO REPORT

FEELING UNSAFE IN THE PARKS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Respondents with:
Fear index score Fear index score
"' ”.=3 2' , =2, '
Age and Total ‘TT
Gender N (9) % all % all % all all
Classes ° with age with age
N score or N score or
3 gender 2 ender
_ class' . class
Age (years)
13—21 69 (31.8) 4 20.0 5.8 22 30.6 32.4
22-34 4 99 (45.6) 8 40.0 8.1 31 43.1 32.3
35-54 41 (18.9) 4 20.0 9.8 18 25.0 43.9
Over 55 8 ( 3.7) 4 20.0 50.0 1 1.4 12.5
. Total 217(100.0) 20 100.0 9.2 72 100.0 33.2
Gender
Male 107 (46.5) 0 0.0 0.0 9 9.3 8.4
Female. _ . 123 (53.5) 22 100.0 17.9 88 90.7 71.5
.fTotal” 230(100.0) 22 100.0 9.6 97 100.0 32.5

 

 

 

 

 

 

82

index" scores than do male respondents. Over one fourth of the varia-
tion in fear scores is predicted by gender (Table 4.4). None of the male
survev respondents report feeling unsafe alone in the park during both
day and evening and only 8.4 percent report feeling unsafe during the
evening (Table 4.5). Thus, subhypothesis Blb is accepted.

Three ordinal level operational measures of park users' familiar-
ity with the study parks were evaluated against fear index scores: (1) the
distance a park user lives from the park, as measured by travel time
from home to park; (2) how often the park user visits the study park;
and (3) how long the user has lived in the area. Familiarity, as measured
by distance from park to home and frequency of park visits, is signifi-
cantly related to fear index scores, although weakly. Less than five
percent of the variation in fear index scores is explained by each of
these measures (Table 4.4). Lenth of local residence is not significantly
associated with park users' assessments of personal safety in the park.
Those who visit the park more frequently and/or live closer to the park
are Somewhat less likely to report feeling unsafe in the park than those
who visit it less often and/or live further from the park, although,
again, the association is too weak for hypothesis acceptance. Subhypo-
thesis Blc is therefore rejected. Table 4.6 illustrates the proportion
of residents in each travel time and visit frequency category reporting

feeling unsafe alone in the park.

Perceived Social Homogeneity and Perceptions of Safety

Several researchers have postulated that feelings of safety are
related to the perceived social homogeneity of a setting [73,101]. It

is suggested that when peOple perceive others to be similar to themselves,

83

TABLE 4.6
RESIDENTIAL PROXIMITY AND PARK VISIT FREQUENCY OF RESPONDENTS

WHO REPORT FEELING UNSAFE ALONE IN THE PARKS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Respondents with:
. Fear index score ‘1 Fear index score
Proximity and Total =3 . 2 :2
Frequency . 1 I ~ .
. % all %.of -. % all % of
%
Classes ' N ( 3 N with all N with all
j score in : score : in
3‘ class - 2 Elass
Residential Proximity
(Travel time):
1-15 minutes . 136 (59.1) 12 54.5 8.8 40 53.3 29.4
16-30 minutes 1 63 (27.4) *5 22.7 7.9 23' 30.7 36.5
Over 31 minutes 31 (13.5) '5 22.7 16.1 12 16.0 38.7
Total 5 230(100.0) 22 100.0 9.6 75 100.0 32.6
Summer Visit Frequency:;
5 or more visits/month ' 70 (30.3) ’5 22.7 7.1 14 18.7. 20.0
1—4 visits/month 51 (22.1) 5 22.7 9.8 21 28.0 41.2
Fewer than 1 visit/month 110 (47.6) 12‘ 54.5 10.9 40 53.3 36.4
Total 231(100.0) 22 100.0 9.5 75 100.0 32.5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

84

the predictability of the behavior of other setting participants is
increased and the individual feels more comfortable and, presumably,
more safe and secure. The dichotomous, metric level, operational
measures used to indicate perceived social homogeneity in this study
are: (1) race of the survey respondent; (2) responses to a survey
question asking whether the respondent feels that most other park users
share their values; and (3) responses to a survey question regarding
whether or not park users "watch out for each other" or "don't want to
get involved." This question is intended to indicate park users'
assessments of the level of informal social controls in the park.

As Table 4.7 illustrates, none of these measures are significantly
related to perceptions of park safety and none explain more than two per-
cent of the variation in fear scores. Thus, the hypothesis that users
perceiving other park users to be similar to themselves is rejected.
Only 13.6 percent of the survey respondents felt that other people in
the park did not share their values. Almost one fourth of the respon-
dents (24.8 percent) report that people in the park "don't want to get
involved" with others.

Experiences with Antisocial Behavior in the Parks and
Perceptions of Safety

It may be that people who have seen, been the victim of, or
know a victim of a crime or other antisocial behavior in the parks will
feel less safe in the park than those not having these experiences. In
order to evaluate the associations between these factors and perceptions
of safety, survey respondents were questioned about how frequently, on

an ordinal level scale, they had seen or experienced each of several

85

TABLE 4.7
THE ASSOCIATION OF PERCEPTIONS OF SOCIAL HOMOGENEITY

WITH PERCEPTIONS OF PARK SAFETY

 

 

Asymmetric Uncer- Kendall's

Social Homogeneity N tainty Coefficient Tau
Measure with Fear Index (p)

Score Dependent

 

Race 230 .01 -.09 (.09)

Other users have similar
values to respondent's 215 .02 .00 (.50)

Park users watch out
for each other 183 .001 .04 (.32)

 

 

 

 

86

types of antisocial or depreciative behavior. Table 4.8 illustrates the
relationships between respondents' fear index scores and their exper-
ience with various types of park behavior problems. The only types of
depreciative behavior that are significantly related to perceptions of
park safety are alcohol and drug use. However, these relationships are
weak and in the opposite direction from that expected. Thus, the hypo-
thesis that park users who report having been victimized or having
witnessed behavior problems in the park or those who report knowing
peOple who have, will report feeling less safe in the park than those
who have not had these experiences is not supported and must be rejected.

Fewer than half of the respondents who report eXperience with
serious crime in the park also report feeling unsafe alone there (Table
4.9). Only about one third of those who report Voften" seeing other
users drinking alcohol or using drugs in the park report feeling unsafe
(Table 4.9). In fact, the proportion of respondents who perceive the
park to be unsafe tends to decrease as their reported frequency of
seeing alcohol and drug use in the parks increases.

This apparently contradictory, or at least unexpected, association
between witnessing alcohol and drug consumption and perceptions of park
safety requires fUrther exploration. Inspection of Table 4.10 reveals
that park user age is significantly related to both frequency of park
visitation and frequency of experiencing all types of antisocial behavior.
Over 90 percent of the users who report visiting the park more than five
times a month are under 34 years old, 43.5 percent are under 21. Ninety
percent of the serious crime and harassment incidents are reported by
park users under 34 years old; nearly half are reported by users between

13 and 21. Similarly, all the users who report frequently witnessing user

87

' TABLE 4.8

ASSOCIATION OF WITNESSING ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR IN THE PARK

WITH PERCEPTIONS OF SAFETY

 

 

 

 

 

(N = 244)
Asymmetric Uncer- Kendall's
Type of Antisocial Behavior ta1nty Coeff1c1ent Tau
(Fear score. (P)
dependent)
Number of serious crimes or
harassment incidents reported* .01 -.004 (.48)
Frequency of Witnessing:
Littering .01 .06 (.11)
Park vandalism .03 -.005 (.41)
Rowdy behavior .02 .02 (.31)
Traffic violations .02 .05 (.17)
Damage to user property .07 .03 (.32)
Alcohol consumption .05 -.20 (.00001)**
Drug use . .05 -.07 (.05)**
Rule violations .01 -,oz (.31)

 

 

 

* N=231

** Significant at or above the .05 level

TABLE 4.9

88

THE EXPERIENCE OF RESPONDENTS WHO REPORT FEELING UNSAFE ALONE

IN THE PARK WITH CRIME, ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION, AND DRUGS

IN THE PARKS

 

 

Respondents with:

 

Fear index score

Fear index score

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Frequency of Total = 3 = 2
Experience ~
N (%) % all % of % all % of
N. with 11 N with' all
. score in ' score in
3 class 2 :class
Serious crime or
harassment:
O incidents reported 203 (87.9) 20 90. 9.9 65 86.7 32.
l or more incidents . : i
reported 28 (12.1) 2 9. 7.1 ‘10 13.3 35.
Total 231(100.0) 22 100. 9.5 :75[100.0 32.
Have seen pegple
drinkingfialcohol:
Never 122 (so 0) 15 65.2 12.3 51 63.0 41.
Once or a few times 57 (23 4) 3 13.0 5.3 '20 24.7 35.1
Often 65 (26 6) 21.7 7.7 :10 12.3 15.
Total 244(100.O) 23 100. 9.4 81 100.0 33.
Have seen pegple
using drugs:
Never 185 (75.8) 17 73. 9.2 67 82.7 36.2
Once or a few times 29 (11.9) 4 17.4 13.8 9 11.1 31.0
Often 30 (12.3) 8. 6.7 6.2 16.7
Total 244(100.0) 23 100. 9.4 81 100.0 33.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

89

TABLE 4.10
ASSOCIATION OF AGE WITH WITNESSING ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR IN THE

PARKS AND FREQUENCY OF PARK VISITATION

 

 

 

 

 

 

(N = 241)
Asymmetric Uncer- Kendall's
“W. °.f .. “2“.‘2226222765‘ _ 233’
independent

Number of serious crimes or

harassment incidents reported .04 , -.08 (.Ol)*
NUmber of types of antisocial

behavior witnessed .06 -.28 (.0001)*
Frgguency of witnessing:

Rule violations (including

traffic violations) .07 -.25 (.0001)*
User behavior problems (including

alcohol and drug use, rowdy

behavior, damage to user property) .06 , -.24 (.0001)*
Litter and vandalism .04 2 4.17 (.0001)*
Frequency of visiting the park .04 .22 (.0001)*

 

 

 

*Statistically significant at .05 level or higher

9O

behaviorpucblems,including alcohol and drug consumption as well as
rowdy behavior and damage to user property, are under 34 and 60 percent
are under 21 (Table 4.11). These incidents do not appear to influence
younger park users' assessments of their personal safety in the park.
Possibly younger users do not perceive these behaviors as personally
threatening or as "problems," particularly those incidents defined as

"user behavior problems."

Safety Perceptions and Avoidance Behavior

Hypothesis B4, which states that park users who report feeling
less safe in the park will also report more avoidance behavior than
those users who report higher levels of perceived park safety, directly
addresses the question of the association between perception and behavior.
Park users were asked whether or not they would (or did) avoid particular
areas within the park, during the day or evening, due to safety concerns.
Respondents answering "yes" were classified as exhibiting "avoidance
behavior." Two dichotomous, metric level, measures of avoidance were
obtained, treating day and evening behavior separately. Comparing these
responses to individuals' fear index scores in Table 4.12 reveals a
moderate to strong and statistically significant relationship between
perceptions of safety and reported avoidance behavior, during both day
and evening. The relationship between perceived safety and reported
avoidance behavior during the evening is the stronger of the two (Kendall's
Tau = .59). Knowledge of a respondent's "fear score" reduces the un-
certainty of their reported avoidance by 16 to 32 percent. Based on
these relationships, Hypothesis B4 is accepted. It is interesting to note,

however, that 20 to 25 percent of those who report avoidance behavior also

91

TABLE 4.11
FREQUENCY OF EXPERIENCING SERIOUS CRIME, USER BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS,

AND PARK VISITATION FOR EACH AGE CATEGORY

 

 

Percent of each frequency class in

Frequency of Total each age group (age in years)

Experience N (%)

 

13-21 22-34 35-54 Over 55
(N=77) (N=109) (N=113) (N=12)

 

Serious crime or

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

harassment:

O incidents reported 211 (87.5) 29.9 45.5 19.0 5.7
l or more incidents

reported 30 (12.5) 46.7 43.3 10.0 0.0
User behavior problems

seen:*

Never 104 (43.2) 21.2 46.2 26.0 6.7
Once or seldom 84 (34.9) 32.1 45.2 16.7 6.0
A few times 23 ( 9.5) 43.5 47.8 .7 0.0
Often 30 (12.4) 60.0 40.0 .0 0.0
Visit frequency:**

5 or more visits/month 69 (28.6) 43.5 47.8 7.2

1-4 visits/month 56 (23.2) 32.1 48.2 14.3

Fewer than 1 visit/month 116 (48.1) 25.0 42.2 25.9
Total 241(100.0) 31.9 45.2 17.8 5.0

 

* Includes alcohol consumption, drug use, rowdy behavior, and
damage to park user property

** Frequency of visiting park during the summer

92

TABLE 4.12

ASSOCIATION OF PERCEPTIONS OF SAFETY AND AVOIDANCE BEHAVIOR

(N = 221)

 

 

 

Asymmetric Uncer- Kendall's
. . . tainty Coefficient Tau
Av01ds parts of the park dur1ng. with avoidance (p)
dependent
Daytime .16 .33 (.0001)*
Evening .32 .59 (.0001)*

 

 

 

* Statistically significant at .0001 or above

93

report feeling safe alone in the park during both day and evening
hours (Table 4.13).

When asked what areas of the park they avoided, 3.5 percent of
the respondents (9 people) indicated they do or would avoid the park
entirely during the day due to safety concerns while 12 percent (31
people) report avoiding the whole park during the evening for this
reason. Thirty-two percent of those who report evening avoidance and
forty-two percent of those reporting daytime avoidance behavior say they
do so because the park is not a safe place for a person to be alone,
particularly during certain hours. The fact that so many of the reasons
given for avoiding the park involve being alone suggests that respondents
may have been confused by the question order. Apparently, the previous
question regarding whether or not the respondent feels safe alone in the
park biased at least some answers to the next set of questions regarding
whether or not they ever avoided certain portions of the park. The
avoidance questions did not ask about behavior only when the respondent
was alone.

Survey respondents were also asked, in a different portion of the
interview, whether they had ever visited the park during the evening.
Crosstabluation of these responses against measures of safety perception
and reported behavior does not reveal any strong relationships (Table
4.14). This provides further evidence that respondents who reported
avoiding the whole park during the evening may have been thinking of not
visiting the park alone, rather than not visiting it at all. On the
other hand, it is possible that respondents who report avoiding the park
in the evening do so based on their experiences from previous evening

visits.

94

TABLE 4.13

PROPORTION OF RESPONDENTS WHO REPORT AVOIDANCE BEHAVIOR

AND THEIR FEAR INDEX SCORES

 

 

 

 

 

Report avoidance during:
Fear Index Score N (6) Daytime Evening
N (%)* ' N (%)*
l 130 ( 58.8) 9 (20.5) 25 (24.7)
2 70 ( 31.7) 24 (54.5) 62 (61.5)
3 21 ( 9.5) 11 (25.0) 14 (13.9)
Total 221 (100.0) 44 (19.9)** 101 (45.7)**

 

 

 

 

* Percent of all who report avoidance behavior

** Percent of all respondents

95

TABLE 4.14

ASSOCIATION OF SAFETY RELATED PERCEPTIONS AND BEHAVIOR AND

REPORTED EVENING VISITATION

 

 

 

 

I
) I
' Respondent has visited the park
during the evening
Perceived Safety
and Avoidance N Asymmetric Kendall's
Behavior Uncertainty Tau
Coefficient* (p)
Fear index score 243 .012 -.10 (.06)
Avoidance behavior
during daytime 251 .0002 .02 (.40)
Avoidance behavior
during evening 242 .00002 .01 (.47)

 

 

 

 

* Evening visits dependent on safety and avoidance

measures

96

Personal Characteristics and Avoidance Behavior

Turning to the relationships between personal characteristics,
perceptions, and experiences and avoidance behavior, gender is again the
strongest predictor, particularly of reported avoidance of park areas
during evening hours (Table 4.15). Knowledge of a respondent's gender
reduces the uncertainty of predicting whether they will report avoiding
the park or areas in the park by 11 to 30 percent (Table 4.15). Females
comprise about 85 percent of those reporting both day and evening avoid-
ance and over three-fourths of the female respondents report avoiding the
park or areas in the park during the evening (Table 4.16).

Age, familiarity with the park, race, and perceptions of social
homogeneity are not significantly related to either day or evening
avoidance behavior (Table 4.15). From this evidence subhypothesis 85b
that female park users will report more avoidance behavior than will
male park users is accepted while the subhypotheses relating avoidance
behavior to age, familiarity with the park, and perceived user homogeneity
are rejected.

Experiences with Antisocial Behavior in the Parks
and Reported Avoidance

The relationship between observed or experienced antisocial
behavior and reported avoidance is illustrated in Table 4.17. Experience
with serious crimes such as robbery, assault, theft, intimidation, or
fights among park users is significantly associated with reported avoid-
ance behavior, both day and evening, however the relationship is weak
and less than five percent of the variance in avoidance is explained by

exposure to crime. Between 38 and 67 percent of the respondents who

ASSOCIATION OF RESPONDENTS'

97

TABLE 4.15

PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS AND PERCEPTIONS

OF PARK SOCIAL HOMOGENEITY WITH AVOIDANCE BEHAVIOR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, Respondent reports avoidance during:
Daytime Evening
Personal Characteristics o 5“; o 5‘ E
«4:0 in «'17-‘49 In
H'H-H - Hort-H —
H 83.3 2 H 233.3 :1
.8 E84“: .8 .8 are 8
5 °8 8:4 I; W: 88
52 ‘2:§c9 =KE~ 12:5:3 :45—
Age 226 .05 .05 J 218 .02 -.07
Gender 241 .ll .31**i 232 .30 .62**
Familiarityi
Distance from park to home 241 .01 .07 232 .002 .04
Frequency of park visits 242 .003 .01 A 233 .002 .03
Length of local residence 237 .02 .07 228 .005 .02
Social homogeneity:
Race 241 .006 .07 N 232 .004 -.07
Other respondents have
similar values 221 .001 .02 216 .01 -.10
Park users "watch out" for
each other 185 .002 .04 182 .0001 .02

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* Avoidance behavior dependent on personal factors

** Kendall's Tau significant at .05 or higher level

98

TABLE 4.16

PROPORTION OF MALE AND FEMALE RESPONDENTS

REPORTING AVOIDANCE BEHAVIOR

 

 

 

 

M§l£§_ Females ERIE}.

Daytime Avoidance:

Total number 113 128 241
Percent of all respondents 46.9 53.1 100.0
Number reporting daytime avoidance 7 39 46
Percent all reporting daytime

avoidance 15.2 84.8 100.0
Percent all in gender 6.2 30.5 19.1
Evening_Avoidance

Total number 108 124 232
Percent of all respondents 46.6 53.4 100.0
Number reporting evening avoidance 15 94 109
Percent all reporting evening

avoidance 13.8 86.2 100.0

Percent all in gender 13.9 75.8 47.0

 

99

TABLE 4.17
ASSOCIATION OF WITNESSING ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR WITH

REPORTED AVOIDANCE BEHAVIOR

 

 

 

 

 

 

.Respondent reports avoidance during:
Daytime Evening
(N=252) (N=243)
. '3 4:
Type of Antisoc1al >3) >3:
- H
Behav1or .3 +5 5 1” 2 2 5 i”
“fin-4 H Hod-H H
#60 H uoo H
”to 881?. ”7.12.": 888.
Emu sew Eom :95:
°8 2 °8 .2
25o 25o
Number of serious crime
or harassment
incidents reported .05 .01 (.002)* .02 .09 (.01)*
Frequency of witnessing:
Littering .05 .11 (.009)* .02 .16 (.007)*
Park vandalism .02 .14 (.05)* .01 .01 (.32)
Rowdy behavior .02 .09 (.04)* .01 .08 (.09)
Traffic violations .03 .13 (.0004)* .03 .19 (.002)*
Damage to user prOperty .01 .01 (.19) .01 .03 (.07)
Alcohol consumption .01 -,03 (.29) .01 -.ll (.06)
Drug use .01 .02 (.33) .03 -.02 (.36)
Rule violations .01 .06 (.12) .00 .003(.48)

 

 

 

 

 

 

* Significant at .05 or higher level

** Avoidance behavior dependent

100

report being victimized in the park or knowing someone who was also
report avoidance behavior (Table 4.18).

Weak but statistically significant associations also exist between
reported avoidance behavior and the frequency of witnessing litter
and vandalism problems, rowdy behavior, and traffic violations.

Although none of these factors reduces the predictive "uncertainty" of
avoidance behavior by more than five percent, they do tend to reinforce
conventional wisdom regarding the negative influence of physical park
damage and rowdy behavior on park user perceptions of social order in
the park setting [8,128,135,147,148]. Still, in each category, at
least half of the respondents reporting avoidance behavior report never
witnessing these depreciative behaviors (Table 4.18). Further, only 14
(5.6 percent) of those interviewed report witnessing park vandalism and
while half of them also report evening avoidance this still constitutes
only 7 people -- six percent of all those who report avoiding the park
or areas in the park during the evening. The numbers of people report-
ing having witnessed litter and/or rowdy behavior are larger -- about
35 percent of those interviewed -- and between 53 and 47 percent of them
also report evening avoidance. These proportions drop to 24 and 27
percent for reported daytime avoidance (Table 4.18).

The association between avoidance behavior and the reported
frequency of witnessing traffic violations, although weak, suggests that
respondents were not thinking only of the threat of being victimized or
harassed when reporting areas they would avoid due to safety concerns
(Table 4.18). The threat of being hit by a careless driver may be a
component in avoiding certain park areas. Over sixty percent of those

respondents who report witnessing traffic violations "Often" also report

101

TABLE 4.18

THE EXPERIENCE OF RESPONDENTS REPORTING AVOIDANCE BEHAVIOR WITH CRIME,

LITTER, VANDALISM,.ROWDY BEHAVIOR AND TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS IN THE PARK

 

 

Respondent reports avoidance during:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Daytime Evening
Frequency Total (N=48)* (N=117)*
Classes ResP°nd' % all % all % all % all
gngg) N who in N who in
av01d class av01d class

Serious crime or

harassment:

0 incidents reported 213 (88.0) 35 76.1 16.4 91 83.5 44.2
1 or more incidents

reported 21 (12.0) 11 23.9 37.9 18 16.5 66.7
Littering:

Never seen 164 (65.1) 24 50.0 14.6 67 57.3 42.4
Once/few times 64 (25.4) 19 39.6 33.3 36 30.8 56.2
Often seen 24 ( 9.5) 5 10.4 20.8 14 12.0 58.3
Park vandalism:

Never seen 238 (94.4) 43 89.6 18.1 110 94.0 47.8
Once/few times 9 ( 3.6) 22.2 5 4. 55.6
Often seen 5 ( 2.0) 60.3 2 66.7
Rowdy behavior:

Never seen 166 (65.9) 27 56.3 16.3 71 60.7 44.7
Once/few times 63 (25.0) 14 29.2 22.2 35 29.9 55.6
Often seen 23 ( 9.1) 7 14.6 30.4 11 9. 55.0
Traffic violations:

Never seen 157 (62.3) 23 47.9 14.6 62 53.0 40.5
Once/few times 64 (25.4) 14 29.2 21.9 38 32.5 59.4
Often seen 31 (12.3) 11 22.9 35.5 17 14.5 60.7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*N=46 daytime and

N=109 evening for serious crime category

102

avoiding areas of the park during the evening and 26.3 percent report
daytime avoidance (Table 4.18). The frequency of witnessing rule viol-
ations or user behavior problems is not associated with park users'
decisions to avoid certain areas of the park or the whole park during
either day or evening hours. Although it does appear that park users
who report having witnessed behavior problems in the park, or those who
report knowing people who have been victimized there, are somewhat more
likely to report avoidance behavior than will those who have not had
these experiences, Hypothesis B7 does not receive sufficient support for
acceptance and must be rejected.

One of the problems in assessing the relationship between
experience with antisocial behavior in the park and both perceptions of
safety and reported avoidance is the low number of respondents who report
experiencing, or knowing someone who has experienced, a serious crime or
incident in the parks. Only four survey respondents (1.6 percent of the
random sample) report knowing of a violent crime in the park; none were
experienced personally by the respondent (Table 4.19). Eight people (3.2
percent) report park thefts and twenty-four people (9.5 percent) report
incidents of intimidation, "hassling," or fights among park users.
Possibly a larger sample would reveal stronger relationships between
perception and criminal victimization.

Nearly three-fourths (74 percent) of the respondents report
witnessing at least one type of problem behavior in the park. Alcohol
consumption is the most frequently reported incident observed with 48.4
percent of the respondents reporting seeing people drinking alcohol in
the park, followed by rule violations (35.7 percent) and parking or

traffic violations (37.7 percent). One third of the respondents report

103

TABLE 4.19

REPORTS OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR WITNESSED IN THE PARKS

 

 

 

(N = 252)
Type of Antisocial Behavior Numbgr Percent
Respondent experienced or knows
someone who did:
Violent crime 4 1.6
Theft 8 3.2
Intimidation, fights, argument, or "hassle" 24 9.5
Respondent has seen:
Littering 88 34.9
Park vandalism 16 6.3
Violation of pet/leash rules 73 29.0
Rowdy, loud, or offensive behavior 86 34.1
Parking or traffic violations 95 37.7
Damage to park user property 6 2.4
Drinking alcohol 122 48.4
Drug use 60 23.8

Rule violations 90 35.7

 

104

witnessing littering and rowdy or offensive behavior in the park.

Damage of park user property (2.4 percent) and park vandalism (6.3
percent) are the least frequently reported problems (Table 4.19). Thus,
it seems that if these incidents, other than vandalism and user property
damage, are associated with park users' perceptions or behavior, this
sample would be adequate to reveal the nature of such associations.
Instead, the weak and, in the case of perceptions of safety, contradictory
relationships exhibited suggest that intervening, or more influential,
factors exist to explain perceptions of safety and avoidance behavior.
It is interesting to note that in spite of so many park users reporting
having witnessed various types of depreciative behavior in the park, it
is still considered as safe, or safer, than downtown, neighborhood, and
other park settings (Table 4.2). This appears to imply that a fairly
wide range of behaviors are considered normal, if not acceptable, in
many public settings and that witnessing such behavior in parks is not

considered unusual.

Reasons for Avoidance Behavior
Some additional insights into park users' safety-related

perceptions and behavior are provided by inspection of the responses to
two open-ended survey questions. When asked why they avoided the park
or areas within the park, the most commonly cited reason was "because
of the kinds of people there" (24.5 percent of all reasons given). "Not
safe for some people or for people alone” is the second most frequently
mentioned reason, followed by concerns about people hiding in the woods
or bushes (Table 4.20). Only one person mentioned avoiding areas where

they had seen problems occur.

105

TABLE 4.20

REASONS FOR AVOIDING THE PARK OR PARK AREAS*

 

 

Avoidance during:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reason Daytime Evening T§EE%
N(%) N(%) °
Because of the kinds of people there 13 (33.3) 21 (21.0) 34 (24.5)
Not safe for some peOple or for
people alone 10 (25.7) 19 (19.0) 29 (20.8)
People can hide in the woods or
bushes 4 (10.3) 19 (19.0) 23 (16.5)
Evenings are not safe 2 ( 5.1) 16 (16.0) 18 (12.9)
Few other people around 3 ( 7.7) 10 (10.0) 13 ( 9.4)
Physical hazards (park structures,
water, etc.) 5 (12.8) 3 ( 3.0) 8 ( 5.8)
Not well lighted 0 ( 0.0) 8 ( 8.0) 8 ( 5.8)
Never totally safe/ not a safe place 2 ( 5.1) 3 ( 3.0) 5 (3.6)
Have seen problems there 0 ( 0.0) l ( 1.0) l (0.7)
Total 39(100.0) 100(100.0) 139(100.0)

 

* Respondents could mention more than one reason

106

Thus, although there are no significant associations between
reported avoidance and perceived user homogeneity or rule compliance, the
park social environment does appear to influence users' safety related
perceptions and behavior. It may be the location or spatial clustering
of the types of users considered threatening that influences other users'
behavior. In terms of who these "threatening" users are, survey res-
pondents were also asked to identify the kinds of people who cause prob-
lems in the park. Nearly sixty percent named "young people," "kids," or
"teenagers" (Table 4.21). The question of whether, in fact, young people
are the "kinds of people" being avoided in the parks requires detailed,
site specific, observational studies to answer. Such studies could also
further illuminate the influence of the physical environment, in terms
of vegetation, lighting, and physical hazards such as rivers or park

structures, on users' perceptions and behavior.

Summary of Acceptance or Rejection of Study Hypotheses

 

 

 

Hypotheses and Subhypotheses . Accepted or
~Rejected*
Al Park users will report feeling safe in the park. Accepted

A2 Park users will perceive evenings to be less safe
than daytime in the parks. Accepted

A3 Park users will rate the park as equally or more
safe than other parks, their own neighborhood, and
downtown areas. Accepted

Bl Park users' perceptions of park safety, in general,
are related to their age, gender, and familiarity
with the park.

Bla Younger park users will feel safer in the park than
will older users. Rejected

Blb Male park users will feel safer in the park than will
female users. Accepted

107

TABLE 4.21

WHO CAUSES PROBLEMS IN THE PARK?*

 

 

Eggup_ Nuubgg_ Percent
Kids, teens, or young people ' 70 59.3
Drinkers or drug users 24 20.3
A few trouble-makers 20 16.9
Members of a particular ethnic group 5 4.2
Total 118 100.0

 

* Respondents could identify more than one group

108

Blc Park users who are more familiar with the park
will feel safer than those who are less familiar
with the park. Rejected

82 Park users perceiving other park users to be
similar to themselves will feel safer than those
who perceive other users as different from
themselves. Rejected

B3 Park users who report having been victimized or
having witnessed behavior problems in the park or
those who report knowing people who have, will
report feeling less safe than those who have not
had these eXperiences. Rejected

B4 Park users who report feeling less safe in the
park will also report more avoidance behavior than
those users who report higher levels of perceived
safety. Accepted

B5 Park users' age, gender, and familiarity with the
park are related, in general, to their reported
avoidance of some park areas due to safety concerns.

BSa Younger park users will be less likely to report
avoiding some park areas than will older users. Rejected

85b Male park users will be less likely to report
avoiding some park areas than will female users. Accepted

BSc Park users who are more familiar with the park
will be less likely to report avoiding some park
areas than those who are less familiar with the
park. Rejected

B6 Park users who are more familiar with the park
will be less likely to report avoiding some park
areas than those who perceive other users as
different from themselves. Rejected

B7 Park users who report having witnessed behavior
problems in the park, or those who report knowing
someone who has been victimized there, will report
more avoidance behavior than those who have not
had these experiences. Rejected

 

* Acceptance or rejection of hypotheses is based on statistical
significance (equal or greater than .05) of Kendall's Tau, the strength
of association as measured by Kendall's Tau (greater than or equal to
.30), and the proportional reduction in error as measured by the
Asymmetric Uncertainty Coefficient (greater than or equal to .10).

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

In the first portion of this chapter the specific results of
this study are summarized and discussed. Next, the theoretical implica-
tions of these results are examined in the context of both behavioral
geography and leisure studies. In the concluding portion, the practical
implications and recommendations for park managers, planners, and law

enforcement are discussed.

Summary and Discussion of Results

Relative Park Safety

 

The majority of people using the three study parks do appear to
regard them as safe environments, at least during the day. In fact,
similar to the campers in Clark, Hendee, and Campbell's study, many park
visitors regard the parks as safe and orderly places in spite of their
reports of experiencing or knowing about criminal or depreciative beha-
vior in these settings [80,83,84]. Further, a lower proportion of these
park users report safety concerns than do Malt Associates' urban park
user respondents [119]. However, the format of the questions evaluating
safety concerns is not identical in these two studies and Malt Associates
did not distinguish between day and evening park use, although they re-
mark that their respondents "do not think in terms of evening usage"

[119].

109

110

There is clearly a difference in perceived safety between day
and evening park use among this study's respondents. Although nearly
sixty percent of the park users questioned reported feeling safe in the
park during the evening, this is a considerably smaller proportion than
the ninety percent reporting feeling safe alone there during the day.
This is consistent with general "fear of crime" research and is likely
due to overall differences in perceived safety between day and night
rather than being specific to the park setting. However, it does suggest
that "implicit theories" and social definitions of park environments
have a temporal dimension.

The study parks also appear to be considered fairly safe, relative
to other public settings. The large majority of respondents consider
the parks to be safer than "downtown," and as safe or more safe than
other parks. A smaller majority regard the parks to be at least as safe
as their own neighborhood. Over half of the respondents regard the
study parks to be as safe as other parks they know about and only one
fourth report avoiding any park due to safety concerns. This implies
that parks, in general, are considered to be fairly safe environments.

The overall patterns of responses to these items suggests a
hierarchy of perceived safety in public settings ranging from the most
familiar and socially homogeneous settings -- i.e. neighborhoods ~- to
socially hetereogeneous and less fmailiar areas such as "downtown."
Thus, "parks" as a particular type of public setting appear to fall near

the "safe" end of this continuum.

111

Association of Park Users' Individual Characteristics
with Safety Related Perceptions and Behavior

 

 

Although the above results generally support the hypothesis that
more socially homogeneous environments are perceived as safer than
socially heterogeneous settings, park users' responses to direct questions
regarding the parks' social homogeneity and informal social controls
within each park are not statistically associated with either their eval-
uations of personal safety or their reported avoidance behavior in the
park. There are also no demonstrable differences in safety perceptions
or reported avoidance behavior between white and non-white park users.
Almost three-quarters of the park survey respondents believe that most,
if not all, other users share their values and over half feel that peOpIe
in the park will "watch out" for one another. Perhaps the general image
of parks as safe environments is strong enough to overcome the reserva—
tions of those respondents who do not share the majority view of other
users' values and rule compliance. 1

It is also possible that the survey questions simply do not pro-
vide adequate measures of perceived social homogeneity or informal social
control. Possibly these judgements are not easily articulated or overtly
recognized by park users and the direct questions may be too simplistic.
The fact that 13 to 24 percent of the survey respondents did not answer
these questions may indicate that question wording was ambiguous or
inappr0priate [149, pp.lS7-l6l].

Gender is the personal characteristic most strongly associated
with perceptions of park safety and reported avoidance behavior.

Females have the highest fear index scores, indicating they would not

feel safe alone in the park at any time. Less than one percent of the

112

male respondents report feeling unsafe in the park during either the day
or evening. Males are somewhat more likely to report avoiding certain
areas of the park due to safety concerns but females still comprise over
80 percent of all those reporting both day and evening avoidance
behavior.

This is consistent with the findings of both general fear of
crime research and Malt Associates' study of perceptions of safety in
urban parks [101,119]. Malt Associates report that the females in their
sample appear to be reacting to a general, undefined sense of anxiety
rather than to specific features of the park environment. These findings
suggest that males and females may have markedly different perceptions
of park safety.

There is a weak but statistically significant association between
age and perceptions of park safety with reports of feeling unsafe in-
creasing with the respondent's age. However, only eight people over 55
years old were interviewed. A larger sample with correspondingly higher
proportions of middle age and elderly respondents might provide a more
reliable measure of the association between age and fear. Since less
than ten percent of all the user groups observed in the parks included
older people, it is tempting to speculate that older users may be avoid-
ing the parks entirely due to concerns about safety. There may, however,
simply be few attractions in these three parks for older users, the parks
may be less convenient fer older visitors to get to than other parks,
and/or there may simply be low proportions of older people in the park
service areas. The fact that no association was found between age and
reported avoidance behavior also does not support such speculations.

Finally, as Malt Associates report, even young women report park safety

113

concerns, thus the influence of gender may mask or overwhelm existing
associations between age and safety concerns.

There are also weak but statistically significant associations
between two measures of familiarity with the park and feelings of
safety. The proportions of respondents reporting feeling unsafe in the
parks increases with the distance between a respondent's residence and
the park and decreases with the frequency with which he or she visits
the park. Neither measure of familiarity is associated with reported
avoidance behavior.

The lack of a strong association between familiarity with the park
and perceptions of safety or reported behavior may be due to the over-
riding differences between males and females. It is possible that, as
with the lack of demonstrable relationships between park social homo-
geneity and perceptions of park safety, the image of parks in general or
people's implicit theories about the safety of these particular ”types"
of park settings influence their safety related perceptions and behavior
more strongly than does their actual familiarity or experience with the
particular park in question.

Association of Exposure to Antisocial Behavior in the Parks
and Safety Related Perceptions and Behavior

The pre-eminence of ideas or implicit theories about the park
environment in determining evaluations of park safety is also suggested
by examining the relationship between respondents' exposure to crime
and other depreciative behavior in the parks and their evaluations of
park safety and reported avoidance. Over ninety percent of those report-
ing feeling unsafe in the park during both day and evening have never

been victims of serious crime or harassment in the park nor do they report

114

knowing anyone who has been. Conversely, only 7.1 percent of those
reporting these incidents fall into the high "fear" category. In ad-
dition, there are weak but statistically significant relationships
between perceived safety and the frequency with which respondents report
witnessing other users engaged in the potentially objectionable activ.
ities of drinking alcohol and using drugs. These associations, however,
are negative, indicating that people who report seeing this behavior
frequently also tend to report feeling safe in the park.

These findings are consistent with other studies which find little
association between victimization and fear of crime [101, p.27]. The
fact that witnessing potentially objectionable behavior in the park does
not appear to be considered threatening is probably due to the fact that
as respondents' age increases the frequency with which they report both
witnessing all types of depreciative behavior and visiting the park
decreases. Younger users may see more potentially objectionable or
depreciative behavior simply because they spend more time in the park
than do older users. Further, and perhaps more important, these be-
haviors do not appear to be interpreted as personally threatening. In
fact, younger users, in particular, may consider drinking alcohol, drug
use, and rowdy behavior to be fairly acceptable and expectable types of
park use.

Although experience with serious crime or conflicts in the parks
is not related to perceptions of safety, it is weakly but significantly
associated with reported avoidance behavior. Two-thirds of the respon-
dents who have either been victimized in the park or know someone who
was report avoiding areas of the park or the whole park during the

evening. Although there is no indication that these park users are

115

necessarily avoiding the particular area where they or someone they know
was victimized, it does suggest that they may feel safe so long as they
avoid certain areas or situations. Dubow, McCabe, and Kaplan report that
at least some crime victims do appear to subsequently avoid the locations
or types of areas where they were victimized [101, p.63].

There are also significant, although weak, positive associations
between reported avoidance and the frequency of witnessing people lit—
teringcnrvandalizing park facilities, being loud or rowdy, and violating
traffic laws. This is consistent with conventional wisdom regarding
the negative influence of litter, vandalism, and rowdiness. It also
suggests that respondents were not thinking only of safety from serious
crime when they answered these questions. Again, it cannot be establish-
ed that respondents are, in fact, avoiding those areas where they have
seen these behaviors. The relationships are weak and may simply be co-
incidental. There may also be an underlying dimension of variation in
park users' awareness or concern about depreciative behavior that makes
some users more likely to report both theircnnIaVOidance behavior and
other users' misbehavior.

Overall, few people report being victimized or knowing victims of
serious crimes or harassment in the parks. Most of the serious crime
and harassment incidents reported are fights or verbal intimidation.
However, about 75 percent of the respondents have seen some kind of
potentially depreciative behavior -- mostly alcohol consumption, park
rule and traffic or parking violations, and littering or rowdy behavior.
Thus, although many park users are aware of these activities it does not
appear to influence their assessments of the parks' social order since

the large majority of the respondents report that other people in the

116

park are both well behaved and obey the rules. This suggests that
implicit theories about these types of urban and suburban park environ-
ments may include the expectation or acceptability of some types of

potentially objectionable behaviors in these settings.

Association of Perceptions of Safety with Avoidance

 

There is a moderate to strong association between perceptions of
park safety and reported avoidance behavior. People who do not feel safe
alone in the park also tend to avoid visiting the park or areas within
it, demonstrating a clear link between perception and behavior. More
avoidance is reported during the evenings than during the day, rein-
forcing the previous findings regarding the differences perceived to
exist in park safety from day to evening hours.

Not feeling safe alone in the park is a frequent reason given for
avoiding the park or areas within it. This reveals an error in survey
design. The avoidance questions were not intended to refer only to how
the respondent did or would behave when alone. However, the placement
of these questions after those asking about general perceptions of safety
appears to have biased some respondents' answers to the avoidance ques-
tions. This may have led to over reporting of avoidance behavior, in
general, since few people actually visit the parks by themselves. It
may also have masked more site specific behaviors by people responding
that they simply would not visit the park alone, rather than reporting
the particular areas of the park they might avoid when visiting the
park with others.2

Almost one-fourth of those who report avoidance behavior do not

report feeling unsafe alone in the park during either day or evening

117

hours. This, coupled with the finding that those respondents who report
serious crime or harassment incidents appear to be more likely to report
avoidance behavior than to indicate they do not feel safe alone in the
park, again, sUggests that some peOple may feel safe so long as they
avoid certain park areas or times of day. However, generalizations based
on the responses of those few respondents who report experiencing criminal
incidents are questionable. It is probably more important to note that

76 to 84 percent of those who report avoiding the park or areas in the
park do not report exposure to serious crime or harassment in the park.
Most peOple, then, appear to base their behavior on perceptions of re-

lative safety, rather than previous experience with threatening events.

Study Limitations

 

Both the small number of park users interviewed and the few park
sites included in the study limit the generalizability of the above find-
ings. Although the park user sampling procedure insures a reasonably
representative sample of users in the three study parks, these three
parks may not be an adequately representative sample of district parks,
in general. Further research defining the characteristics of district
level parks and district park users is necessary to evaluate the general—
izability of these findings in terms of their reflection of the "image"
of this type of park setting.

Low numbers of respondents also preclude separate analyses of
different user grOups such as males versus females and older versus
younger park users. Low numbers of respondents also may result in under
representation of certain groups, thus missing important variations in

park users' perceptions and behavior.

118

While the focus of the study is limited to questions of park users'
safety related perception and behavior, a complete investigation of both
the impact of crime on park use and the overall image of district parks
requires a representative sample of both park users and potential park
users. People presently using the park represent a self-selected group
of the general population in terms of their behavior and views of park
safety. Clearly, peOple who consider the parks to be very dangerous
locations probably visit them very seldom, if at all.

Determining the validity of survey measures of perceptions and
behaviors is always difficult. Many relevant concepts and attitudes,
such as views of the effectiveness of informal social controls in a
given setting, may be difficult to adequately articulate for both the
researcher and the respondent. Attempts to isolate one aspect of the
environment and ascertain its relationship to reasonably complex con-
structs such as perceptions of personal safety, may lead to over-
simplification. Further, asking respondents whether or not they would
feel safe alone in the park may be overly artificial since few peOple
actually visit the parks alone. Responses to questions about hypotheti-
cal situations, in general, may not provide reliable indications of actual
behavior. Also, questions about generally "safe" or "unsafe" areas or
times may not always elicit responses relevant specifically to perceiVed
safety from criminal attack. Until better measures of these constructs
can be developed and, where possible, validated by observational data,
these items can only be judged in terms of face validity. Further work-
in this area requires both replication of current measures with larger
samples and investigation of alternate methods of gathering relevant

information.

119

Future Research

 

A full understanding of the interactions among the operational,
perceptual, and behavioral environments of people using district parks
in urban and suburban settings requires a much more detailed and smaller
scale approach than was employed in this study. Data aggregation prevents
identification of the specific combination of factors that may influence
a particular users' response to various physical and social factors in

the parks. A research approach employing detailed behavior mapping and
iin-depth, unstructured interviews with different types of users would

add some "meat" to the "bare bones" so far supplied. A more fine-grained
analysis could explore how people move through the park and select
activity locations.

For example, the "kinds of people” being avoided could be more
readily determined using this approach. Informal discussions revealed
that in Potter Park both park users and park personnel identify the park-
ing lot area as the site of many problems. During the fieldwork, inter-
viewers noticed that it was not uncommon for a group of four to six young
people to dominate an entire parking bay (Figure 3.1) by tossing a fris-
bee down its center aisle, turning up their car stereos, and shouting
back and forth with companions perched on nearby car hoods. Some older
users and family groups reported being intimidated or angered by this
behavior. They were reluctant to drive through or park in an area where
this was occurring and were disturbed to find youngsters sitting on or
lounging against their car when they returned to the parking lot from
another part of the park. Both users and nearby residents also complained
about the often incessant parade of young people "cruising" in their cars

through the parking lot. Behavior mapping and unstructured interviews

120

could more readily demonstrate the perceptual and behavioral impacts
of this type of-park behavior.

Detailed observational studies could also explore the relationships
between reported perceptions, reported behavior, and actual behavior.
Both temporal and spatial variations in park use could be exmained. The
results of this study suggest that females may avoid certain areas of the
park, possibly wooded areas for example, and may avoid parks during the
evening due to fear of crime. Observations could validate these findings
and/or demonstrate other differences between male and female park users'
spatial behavior. 2

Further investigation of differences among age groups in their
behavioral expectations and responses to the park environment is also
warranted. A larger survey sample of park users, including more older
visitors, combined with observation of park behavior patterns, may reveal
different social definitions of recreation places, based on age and peer
group expectations, and different patterns of park use due to avoidance
of "non-conforming" users as well as different interests and activities.
A survey of local residents might reveal patterns of non-use of park
areas attributable to fear of crime and non-conforming values and expec-
tations about what kinds of behavior and users might be found in differ-
ent types of parks. Clearly, full investigation of the relationships
among safety related perceptions and behavior, individual character-
istics, and types of park settings requires extensive household survey
data.

Future studies would benefit from better measures of objective
risk in the parks. Careful records of the location, time, and details

of criminal and depreciative behavior in the parks are needed. Gaining

121

these measures is, however, problematic. Both parks and law enforcement
agencies are currently understaffed and personnel complain about the
seemingly unending supply of paperwork and reports already required of
them. Thus, it is doubtful that agencies will provide either the park
coverage or report details needed. Park users' objectivity and willing-
ness to supply information about these incidents is questionable. Fin-
ally, serious or violent crimes in the parks appear to occur infrequent-
ly, in general, and it may be difficult, if not impossible, to objective-
ly define zones of risk within the park based on these events.

A research agenda for future efforts would include, first,
detailed case studies employing both interviews and observations in
selected parks to better determine the appropriate dimensions of variation
to be addressed. As these questions begin to be answered, more compre-
hensive, general approaches, could be launched to improve the represent-
ativeness and quality of the existing data base. Better understanding
of how people use and perceive recreation settings and identification of
those environmental elements that may be considered threatening has both

theoretical and practical significance.

Theoretical‘lmplications

 

Recreation geOgraphy is concerned with the location, use, and
physical, social, and economic impact of recreation places. An import-
ant aspect Of recreation places is how social definitions and behavioral
expectations abOut them are formed-and how these place "images" influence
the use of these spaces. This in-depth look at one particular aspect of
park user perceptions and behavior in a particular type of recreation

setting adds to the understanding of how people perceive recreation places

122

and the "image" that people have of this type of district level parks

By comparing people's fear of crime and avoidance behavior in
parks to that in other public settings, an indication is provided of the
generalizability of other studies of fear of crime. Additional informa-
tion is supplied regarding how people use and perceive public space and
respond to the threat of criminal behavior.

In the broadest sense, this study contributes to the overall
field of social geography by demonstrating, once again, the importance
of place "images." Study results indicate that district parks tend to
be considered as safe or safer than their surrounding urban and suburban
contexts. This overall "image" appears to be as much or more influential
in determining park users' evaluations of personal safety than their
familiarity with the park, their perceptions of whether other users hold
values similar to their own and obey the rules, and their own experience
with criminal and other depreciative behavior in the park.

Further, the differences demonstrated between male and female park
users' perceptions and behavior, once again point out that males and fe-
males, in many ways, may occupy different behavioral and perceptual en—
vironments. These different "life worlds," particularly the environ-
mental factors that constrain femaleS' spatial behavior, deserve further
attention by geographers if the discipline is to provide relevant insights
into real world behavior.

The purpose of behavioral studies in geography is to increase our
understanding of the interactions between humans and their environment.
There is some disagreement regarding whether work in this area should be
directed primarily toward gathering quantifiable information to improve

predictive models of behavior and/or decision-making or whether it is

123

more apprOpriate to gain a qualitative understanding of how people feel
about and operate within the environment. This study touches upon both
concerns by identifying, measuring, and comparing the characteristics of
a particular type of setting and the peOple using this environment to

the behaviors and "images" elicited, in a consistent and replicable fa;
shion while explicitly examining the link between perception and behavior.
At the same time, the more humanist tradition within geography of seeking
to understand the meaning and experiential qualities of the environment

is not ignored. 2

Theory development in human geography and leisure studies must
inevitably be based on a myriad of case studies. Extensive descriptive
work is required to identify regularities before potential explanations
can be formulated and tested. Whether the ultimate goal is to predict
behavior or to simply understand it, overt behavior and the human per-
ceptions and ideas that produce that behavior must be investigated with-
in many different, unique environmental settings. The regularities and
variations that emerge provide the essential building blocks for theories
of human-environment interaction.

This study provides one such building block by examining percep~
tions and behaviors related to a particular type of phenomena within the
context of a particular type of setting. It replicates portions of
earlier studies in different environments and is, itself, replicable.
Further, by concentrating on park settings that are similar in terms of
their position along the "recreation opportunity spectrum," it contributes
to the development of theory within recreation geography and the inter-
disciplinary field of leisure studies relating recreation behavior, ex-

pectations, and preferences to specific types of recreation settings.

124

A central question in relating recreation behavior to recreation
environments is the "question of how shared images of such places arise
and ensure orderly group life" [73,p.7l]. Both Lee and Fridgen point
out that different types of recreation settings elicit different expect-
ations among users regarding the kinds of behavior that will be acceptable
there and that different user grOups in the same park may have different
images or "implicit theories" about that environment [70,73]. In turn,
conflict may arise among users who do not share the same social defini-
tion of the park.

Much of the work in this area has concentrated on land use conflicts
or depreciative behavior in rural park settings and with user groups such
as wilderness backpackers, snowmobilers, crosscountry skiers, and campers.
This study provides some information about social order in district level
parks located in more urbanized settings. In terms of different user
groups' differing social definitions of this type of park, there is some
indication that younger park users may have somewhat different ideas
about appropriate behavior in these types of park settings than those of
older visitors. Survey responses indicate that younger users tend to
visit the parks more frequently and are more likely to report witnessing
a wider range of depreciative behavior in the park compared to older
users. Yet, younger users are somewhat less likely to report feeling
unsafe in the park than are the older users. The fact that the majority
of survey respondents identified "young people" as the group most likely
to cause park problems further suggests that youthful visitors may
operate according to somewhat different behavior norms and expectations
in the parks. This, however, may be true in many other public settings,

as well.

125

This study confirms the preeminence of people's images or theories
about environments in forming their perceptions of particular park envir-
onments. Park users' responses to and perceptions of potential safety
threats in park environments do appear to differ among park settings.
Contrasting wilderness users' and campers' reported perceptions and
behavior suggests that as social heterogeneity and the prevalence of
"urban" values among setting participants increases, so does the accept-
ability of formal behavior controls while the proportion of visitors
using natural areas in these parks may decrease. It appears that as one
moves through the recreation opportunity spectrum from campers to day
users of district level urban and suburban parks, these differences be-
come more marked. The use and peGCetions of wooded areas, in particular,
appear to be affected.

Rural park locations may have a "safe" image associated with small
town nostalgia, wilderness ethic expectations, and perceived social
homogeneity. Clark, Hendee, and Campbell note that the image of the
campground as a safe and crime free environment is as pervasive as it is
misleading [80]. Perhaps when people use more urban park settings, larger
images of urban problems and behavior norms dominate their perceptions
of the park. While urban parks are perceived to be less dangerous than
downtown areas, they may be "tainted" by urban images of crime and social
diversity. Symbolic expressions of formal control, including a "clean
and neat" setting may be more important in parks in urbanized locations
than in rural campgrounds to reassure participants about the predict-
ability Of the social setting. This may be one reason witnessing litter
and vandalism was associated with avoidance behavior in this study. Still,

seeing depreciative behavior in the parks does not appear to bother many

126

of the park users in this study. This implies that either users have
considerable faith in formal and informal means of social control to
keep this behavior at acceptable levels or they do not perceive these
types of behavior as having an impact on their personal use of the park.
It is important to study these settings closely and identify just what
mechanisms are at work in maintaining social order.

More detailed studies of the influence of depreciative behavior
on park users' perceptions and behavior may assist in identifying the
types and levels of such behavior that are considered acceptable by
different user groups: It is also important to identify how the specific
elements of the park environment combine to influence both perceptions
of safety and_objective risk. For example, this study suggests that
groups of young people may be considered threatening in the parks, par-
ticularly by women and older users. Future research could evaluate
whether it is the absolute number of young people, the number and size
of groups of young people, the location or relative concentration of
these groups, or the types of behavior they are engaging in which in-
fluences whether they are perceived as threatening or not. An interest-
ing and related avenue for future work would be the investigation of
young people's recreation goals, needs, and preferences to facilitate
their expression in ways or locations that will not have an adverse
effect on other park users.

Studies of crime and perceptions of crime in urban parks suggest
that parks and areas within parks that attract large numbers of visitors
experience the most problems. More research is needed to evaluate
whether this is due to increased numbers of potential offenders and/or

victims, social diversity, the difficulty of providing adequate supervision

127

for large numbers of people, certain aspects of the park settings such
as designs which do not facilitate informal controls or surveillance or
attractions which provide certain criminal opportunities, or to some
identifiable combination of these factors. Moreover, the study of
safety related perceptions and behavior is an important component in the
larger pursuit of identifying those elements of leisure environments
that contribute to or detract from setting participants' satisfaction.
The findings of this study, for example, suggest that males and females
may view recreation settings differently and have somewhat different
site specific recreation preferences, needs, and behavior. Further, the
importance of temporal variations in park use and perception requires

fUrther attention.

Implications and Recommendations for Park Planning and Management

 

If social controls in the park are to "be designed to fit the
moral order of specific user groups," then decisionmakers must identify
the moral order or behavior norms of the relevant group or groups and
then decide which group's normative order is to be preeminent in program
and facility design [73,p.82]. Several studies have demonstrated that
recreation management approaches based on the managers' rather than the
users' values may have unanticipated or ineffective results [75,80,125,
129]. For example, both Clark, Hendee, and Campbell's study of campers
and this study or urban and suburban park users suggests that some dep-
reciative behavior may be "deviance by definition" [80.83,84]. That is,
park management may prohibit or discourage certain types of behavior
that users do not perceive as detrimental to their recreation experience.

In some cases unpopular rules or management practices may be necessary

128

for resource protection. In other instances, rules based on managers'
perceptions of what park users want or need may be at odds with the
actual desires of many users.

More to the point, rules that many park users do not agree with
are likely to be violated. Alcohol consumption, for example, is illegal
in Potter Park, yet nearly half the survey respondents in Potter report
having seen people drink alcohol there and 28 percent report seeing this
behavior "often." Unenforceable rules, from the practical point of
view, may also do more harm than good in parks.

Different user groups may require different types of enforcement
controls. While campers and backcountry users appear to respond well
to "appeals to help" in litter control efforts, for example, more formal
and punitive approaches may be required with other groups or more
serious violations [73]. Available research suggests that adolescents
and members of "deviant" subcultures may be particularly unresponsive“
to the types of infOrmal social controls that tend to govern predomin-
antly middle class, family oriented, leisure settings. Visible and
effective formal controls and/or physically ejecting or spatially segre-
gating nonconforming user groups may be the only solution.

Effectively barring nonconforming user groups, or strictly
regulating their behavior, may not, however, always be the best
solution for park conflict problems. In many cases, these individuals
may be pursuing legitimate recreation goals. The young people cruising
the Potter Park parking lot, for example, were seeking diversion, peer
group interaction, and perhaps stimulation and challenge. These are

all goals that recreation professionals and park agencies are pledged

129

to support and facilitate. Eliminating problems by eliminating problem
makers often only shifts the location of the problem behavior within the
larger park agency or community framework. A more effective, albeit
difficult, solution would be to identify alternate behaviors and/or
locations to satisfy the needs of these park users. Moreover, the

issue of problems relating to young people congregating in parks is

part of the larger dilemma of how our society chooses to deal with its
young peOple who often have no jobs, few responsibilities, little
parental supervision, and considerable mobility.

More research is needed to identify the effectiveness of various
control strategies in different types of recreation settings. Research
to date suggests that formal controls may be more acceptable and ef-
fective in socially heterogeneous leisure settings than in socially
homogeneous sites where infOrmal social controls are recognized by
most participants. The nature and expression of both formal and infor-
mal controls, too, can vary considerably, Public reaction to the
mounted police patrol in Potter Park was considerably more favorable
than that receivedlnrthe officers in patrol cars. Other research sug-
gest that highly visible, "ranger" type enforcement personnel are more
positively perceived, in general, than are officers with more standard
"police" type appearance. Further, many people in the study parks re-
marked that they would prefer to see more foot and horse patrols and
less car patrol in the parks.

Park agencies and local governments often cannot afford to dras-
tically increase the number of enforcement officers in the parks or
re-equip them. Some agencies have increased the level of surveillance

in the parks by increasing the number of nonenforcement personnel or

130

instituting volunteer "Clean-up," "host," or "interpreter/ranger,"
programs. Many feel that these programs provide a low cost method of
providing a visible Official "presence" in the park and hope they may
foster feelings of personal responsibility for the park among site
users.

Enforcement agencies and divisions, however, are not uniformly
enthusiastic about either changing from a "police" to a "ranger" image
or encouraging volunteer patrol programs. Dilution of the symbols of
police authority, they argue, can make dealing with trouble-makers in
parks more difficult. The ranger's enforcement powers and public duties
are perceived by many as different from those of police officers. Many
officers also fear that volunteer groups with surveillance responsibil-
ities can too easily get into dangerous situations that they have
neither the expertise nor equipment to handle. Others warn that volun-
teer patrols can become uncomfortably similar to vigilante groups.

Another practical application of research in this area lies in
identifying the elements of site design that may facilitate apprOpriate
behavior and/or discourage inappropriate activities. User groups with
different recreation goals, preferences, or behaviors might be en-
couraged to use different parks or different areas within a park through
either management or design. Some of the problems in Potter Park, for
example, might have been avoided through a parking lot design and en-
forcement or management policy that discouraged "cruising"znulmade
staying in the parking area less attractive, encouraged young users to
congregate in areas that family groups were not forced to pass through,

and provided opportunities for park personnel to maintain a more constant,

131

friendly but watchful eye on their activities. In fact, aesthetically
attractive areas where young People can park, cruise, and "hang out"
are not necessarily a problem if they are adequately sdpervised and
buffered from other park areas, residences, and transportation arteries.

The overall influence of the physical park landscape on users'
perceptions and behavior should also be considered. The results of this
study suggest that peOple using urban and suburban parks may avoid using
wooded or densely vegetated areas. A Wholesale clearing of vegetative
screening in parks, however, is hardly desirable. Selective clearing of
underbrush may be appropriate in some areas, particularly those adjacent
to parking areas and pathways. The aesthetic value of natural vegeta-
tion is essential to most parks' attractiveness and "image." The des-
irability of clearing vegetated areas depends on what kinds of activities
management wishes to encourage or discourage.

Areas designated as ecologic preserves or "natural areas" in urban
and suburban parks might best be managed primarily for their aesthetic
and educational value, neither expecting nor encouraging more general
recreational use. Guided interpretive activities might be emphasized
in extensive natural areas to increase their use by a larger proportion
of potential users. Thus, people who might be afraid to venture into
the woods alone would be accompanied by an "authority figure." Regular
patrol and guided walks will also discourage inappropriate use of these
areas.

Park managers might be particularly alert to the safety cues in
their facilities if they serve or wish to serve a large portion of the

female population. This is an especially salient point in urban and

132

suburban parks where people may wish to visit for a fairly short
period of time after work or school or on weekends. Female users
might appreciate an area where they feel they can sunbathe or bring
their children without fear of harassment. The increasing number of
female-headed families makes safe recreation opportunities for women,
alone or with other women and children, an important issue. Similarly,
park agencies that wish to encourage evening use of their facilities
will need to be aware of the elements that influence perceptions of
safety during the evening hours. Visibility, lighting, use patterns,
and social controls are likely to be particularly important to pot-
ential evening users. Park activities may have to be supervised and
transportation provided to lure older people and females, in particular,
to the park after dark.

Finally, as this study indicates, park agencies need to keep
accurate records of the number and types of people using their facilities,
activity patterns, depreciative behavior patterns, and enforcement
activities. Accurate baseline data is essential to designing and eval-
uating control and prevention programs. Experimental approaches to
behavior control in parks requires accurate, longitudinal data to
assess their effectiveness. Under tight budget conditions the cost
effectiveness of enforcement activities requires documentation. All
park agency personnel want to minimize both the human and monetary
costs of criminal and other depreciative behavior as quickly and effect-
ively as possible. Decisionmakers need accurate measurement of the
apprOpriate "hard data," supplemented by thoughtful analysis and
insight into the "softer," experiential character of each park and its

user population to meet this goal.

LI ST OF REFERENCES

1]

2]

3]

4]

5]

6]

7]

8]

9]

REFERENCES

William D. Pattison.
The four traditions of geography.
Journal of Geography 63:211-126, 1964.

 

Paul W. English and Robert C. Mayfield, editors.
Man, Spacg, and Environment.
Oxford University Press, New York, 1972.

 

Larry Grossman.

Man-environment relationships in anthropology and geography.

Annals of the Association of American Geogrgphers 67(1):126-144,
1977. ’”'

 

David Herbert.
Urban Geography.
Praeger Publis ers, New York, pp. 199-237, 1972.

Patrick Lavery, editor.
Recreational Geography.
John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1974.

 

Reginald Golledge and Gerard Rushton, editors.

Spatial Choice and Spatial Behavior: Geogrpphic Essay§ on the
Analysis of Preferences and Perceppions.

Ohio State University Press, Columbus, Ohio, 1976.

 

Daniel E. Georges.

The Geography of Crime and Violence: A Spatial and Ecological
Perspective.

Association of American Geographers, Washington, D.C., 1978.

 

S.S. Alfano and A.W. Magill, editors.

Vandalism and Outdoor Recreation: Symposium Proceedings.

U. S. D. A. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station, Berkeley, Ca.1976.

Comptroller General of the United States.

Crime in Federal Recreation Areas -- A Serious Problem Needing
Con ressional and Aggncy Action.

U. General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C., 1977.

 

133

10]

11]

12]

13]

14]

15]

16]

l7]

18]

19]

20]

134

Kristina Goodrich. '
Skinny dipping: The old swimming hole breeds controversy.
Parks and Recreation 15(5):33-37, 81, May 1980.

 

Theresa N. Westover, Theodore B. Flickinger, and Michael Chubb.
Crime and law enforcement.
Parks and Recreation lS(8):29-33, Aug. 1980.

 

Lawrence C. Hadley.

Perspectives on law enforcement in recreation areas.

In E.vH. Larson, editor, Recreation Symposium Proceedings,
pp. 156-160. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Northeastern FOrest
Experiment Station, Upper Darby, Pa., 1971.

 

Sheryl James.
The cause of death.
Lansing Maggzine, pp. 31-35, Dec. 1980.

 

Jon Driessen.
Problems in Managing Forest Recreation Facilities: A Survey of

 

 

Field Personnel.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Equipment Development Center, Missoula,
Montana, 1978.

 

Diana R. Dunn.
Urban recreation research: An overview.
Leisure Sciences 3(1):25 -57, 1980.

 

National Park Service.
Ranger Activities and Protection Division Report (mimeographed).
Washington, D.C., 1979.

Sacramento Union.

 

Park vandalism.
P. B-l, August 31, 1978.

Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Lake Central Region and National
Park Service.

National Urban Recreation Study. Chicagp/Gary.

U. S. Government Printing Office, Region B, Denver, Co. 1977.

Robert E. Park, Ernest W. Burgess, and Roderick D. MOKenzie.
The City.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 111., 1925.

William Michelson.
Man and His Urban Environment: A Sociolog;gal Approach (with

 

revision5)'. .
Addison-Wesley Co., Reading, 1976.

21]

22]

23]

24]

25]

26]

27]

28]

29]

30]

31]

135

David Lowenthal.

Geography, experience, and imagination: Towards a geographical
epistemology.

In English and Mayfield, eds. , Op. cit. 2, pp. 219-244.
Originally published in Annals of the Association of American
Geographers 51(3):24l-260, 1961.

 

David Lowenthal and Hugh C. Prince.

English landscape tastes.

In English and Mayfield, eds., op. cit. 2, pp. 81-112.
Orignially published in Gepggpphical Review 55:186-222, 1965.

 

David Lowenthal.
Environmental Assessment: A Comparative Analysis of Four Cities.

 

American Geographical Society, New York, 1972.

David Lowenthal.
The American scene.
Gepgraphical Review 58:61-88, 1968.

 

Kenneth Thompson.
Insalubrious California: Perception and reality..
Annals of the Association of American Geographers 59:50-64, 1969.

 

Clarence Glacken.
Traces on the Rhodian Shore.

 

University of California Press, Berkeley, Ca., 1967.

Thomas F. Saarinen.
Environmental Planning: Perception and Behavior.

 

Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, 1976.

Derk DeJonge.
Images of urban areas: Their structure of psychological foundations.
Journal of the American Institute of Planners 28:266-276, 1962.

 

D.L. Linton.
The assessment of scenery as a natural resource.
Scottish Geoggaphical Magazine 84:219-238, 1968.

 

K.D. Fines.
Landscape evaluation: A research project in East Sussex.

Regional Studies 2:51-55, 1968.

 

Shue Took Wong.

Perception of Choice and Factors Affectingy_ndustrial Water
Supply Decisions in Northeastern Illinois.

Univer51ty of Chicago, Department of Geography Resource Paper
No. 117, Chicago, 1969.

 

32]

33]

34]'

35]

36]

37]

38]

39]

40]

41]

42]

136

Julian Wolpert. . .
The decision process of spatial context.
Annals of the AsSociation of American Geographers 54:537-558,

 

1965.

Julian Wolpert. -
Behavioral aspects of the decision to migrate.
Papers and Proceedings of the Regional Science Association

 

15:159-169, 1965.

Roger Downs and David Stea, eds.
Impgu and Environment: Cognitive Mapping and Spatial Behavior.

 

Aldine Publi§hing Co., Chicago, 1973.

Peter Gould.
Acquiring spatial information.
Economic Geogrgphy 51:87-99, 1975.

 

Gary Meore and Reginald Golledge, eds.
Environmental Knowin : Theories, Researchyyand Methods.

 

Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Stroudsburg, Pa., 19762

Roger Downs and David Stea.
Maps in Minds: Reflections on Cognitive Mapping.

 

Harper and Row, New York, 1977.71—

Marvin W. Mikesell.

Landscape.

In English and Mayfield, eds., op. cit. 2, pp. 9-15.
Originally published in David L. Sill, ed., International
Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences 8:575-80, 1968.

 

 

Marvin W. Mikesell.
Tradition and innovation in cultural geography.
Annals of the Association of American Gppgraphers 68:1-16, 1978.

D.J. Walmsley.
Positivism and phenomenlogy in human geography.
Canadian Geogrgpher 28:95-107, 1974.

 

Edward Relph.
An inquiry into the relations between phenomenology and geography.
Canadian Geographer 14:193-201, 1970.

 

D.C. Mercer and J.M. Powell.

Phenomenology and Related Non-Positivistic Veiwpoints in the
Social Sciences.

Department of Geography, MOnash University, Melbourne,
Australia, 1972.

 

43]

44]

45]

46]

47]

48]

49]

so]

51]

52]

53]

137

Trudi-E. Bunting and Leonard Guelke.

Behavioral and perception geography: A critical appraisal.

Annals of the Association of American Geogrgphers 69(3):
448-462, 1979.

Gerard Rushton.
On behavioral and perceptual geography.
Annals of the Association of American Geo ographers 69(3):

 

463-464, 1979.

Thomas F. Saarinen.
Commentary-critique of Bunting-Guelke paper.
Annals of the Association of American Geographers 69(3):

 

464-468, 1979. ‘

Roger M. Downs.
Critical appraisal or determined phiIOSOphical skepticism?
Annals of the Association of American Geographers 69(3):

 

468-471, 1979.

Joseph Sonnenfeld.

Geography, perception, and the behavioral environment.

In English and Mayfield, eds., Op. cit. 2, pp. 244-251.
Originally presented to the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, December 27, 1968.

Robert Sommer.
Personal Space: The Behavioral Basis of Design.

 

Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1969.

Robert Sommer.
Depigu Awareness.

 

Rinehart Press, Corte Madera, Ca., 1972.

Kevin Lynch.
The Imagg_of the City.

 

M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1960.

J. Douglas Porteous.
Environment and Behavior: Planning_and Everday Urban Life.

 

Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. ,Reading, Mass. 1977.

Allan W. Wicker.
An Introduction to Ecological Psychology
Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., MOntery, Ca., 1979.

Yi- Fu Than.
Sign and metaphor.
Annals of the Association Of American Geographers 68(3):

 

363-372,1978.

s4]

55]

56]

57]

S8]

59]

60]

61]

62]

63]

64]

138

George H. Stankey.

Recreational geography: Its evolution and application to
problems of wilderness management. . -

In Harold A. Winters and Marjorie Winters, eds.;“Applications
of Geographic Research: Viewpoints from Michigan’State Univer-
sity, Department of Geography, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, Mi., 1977, pp. 75-88.

 

 

R.I. Wolfe.
Perspective on outdoor recreation: A bibliographic survey.
Geographical Review 54(2): 203-238, 1964.

 

Michael Chubb and Holly Chubb.

One Third of Our Time: An Introduction to Recreation Behavior,
Resources, and Programs.

John Wiley, New York, 1981.

 

 

Jack B. Ellis and Carlton S. VanDoren.

A comparative evaluation of gravity and system theory models
for statewide recreational travel flows.

Journal of Regional Science 6(2):S7-69, 1966.

 

Charles S. Tapiero.

The demand and utilization of recreational facilities:
A probability model.

ngional and Urban Economics 4:173-185, 1974.

 

Stanley R. Lieber.
Attitudes and revealed behavior: A case study.
Professional Geographer 29(1):53-S8, 1977.

 

Ervin H. Zube, Robert 0. Brush and Julius Gy. Fabos, eds.

Landscape Assessment: Values, Perceptions, and Resources.

Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Community Development Series,
Vol. 11, Stroudsburg, Pa., 1975.

 

A.S. Mills, L.C. Merriam, Jr., and C.E. Ramsey.

Public Opinion and Park Development.

Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 516, Forestry Series 22,
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, 1976.

 

Dean MacCannell.
The Tourist: A Neerheorygof the Leisure Class.
SchoEken Books, New York, 1976.

 

Kevin C. Kearns.
On the nature and origin of parks in urban areas.
Professional Geographer 20(3):l67—l70, 1968.

 

Nicholas Helburn.
The wildness continuum. '
Professional Geographer 29(4):333-337, 1977.

 

65]

66]

67]

68]

71]

72]

73]

74]

75]

139

Yi- Fu Tuan.

Topophilia: A Study of Environmental Perception, Attitudes,
and Values.

Prentice -Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1974.

 

 

Yi-Fu Tuan.
Landscapes of Fear.
Pantheon Books, New York, 1979.

 

Linda Graber.
Wilderness as a Sacred Space.
Association ofiAmerican Geographers, Washington, D.C., 1976.

 

Lyn H. Lofland.
A World of Strapgers: Order and Action in Urban PublicpSpace.
Basic BoOks, New York, 1973.

 

Erving Goffman.
The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life.
Doubleday Anchor BoOks, Garden City, New York, 1959.

 

Joseph D. Fridgen.

Environment-behavior research: Implications for the study of
leisure and recreation behavior.

In Seppo E. Iso-Ahola, ed., Social Psycholpgical Perspectives
on Leisure and Recreation, pp.357-389. Charles C. Thomas,
Springfield, Ill., 1980.

 

 

deleted

Stephen and Rachel Kaplan.
Humanscape: Environments for People.'

 

Dquury Press, North Scituate, Mass., 1978.

Robert G. Lee.

The social definition of outdoor recreational places.

In William R. Burch, Neil H. Cheek, Jr. and Lee Taylor, eds.,
Social Behavior, Natural Resources, and the Environment,
pp. 68-84, Harper and Row, New York, 1972.

 

Roger N. Clark and George H. Stankey.
The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum: A Framework fOr Planning,

 

Management, and—Research.

U. S D. A. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station, General Technical Report PNW-98, Portland,
Oregon, 1979.

 

John C. Hendee, W.R. Catton, L.D. Marlowe, and C.F. Brockman.
Wilderness Users in the Pacific Northwest: Their Characteristics,

 

Values, and'Mana ement Preferences“
Pacific Northwest Forest and Range ExPeriment Station, U.S.D.A.
Forest Service, Research Paper PNW-61, Portland, Oregon, 1968.

 

76]

77]

78]

79]

80]

81]

82]

83]

84]

85]

140

Robert C. Lucas.

Wilderness perception and use: The example of the Boundary
Waters canoe area.

Natural Resources Journal 3:394-411,‘l963.

 

George H. Stankey.
Visitor Perception of Wilderness Recreation Carrying Capacity.

 

U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range
EXperiment Station, Ogden, Utah, 1973. »

Betty G. Rossman and 2. Joseph Ulehla.
Psychological reward values associated with wilderness use.
Environment and Behavior 9(1):41-66, 1977.

 

Robert G. Lee.
Alone with others: The paradox of privacy in wilderness.
Leisure Sciences 1:3-20, 1977.

 

Roger N. Clark, John C. Hendee, and Frederick Campbell.
Values, behavior, and conflict in modern camping culture.
Journal of Leisure Research 3(3):143—159, 1971.

 

Joachim F. Wohlwill and Harry Heft.

A comparative study of user attitudes towards development and
facilities in two contrasting natural recreation areas.

Journal of Leisure Research 9(4):264-280, 1977.

 

Russell J. Foster and Edgar L. Jackson.

Factors associated with camping satisfaction in Alberta
Provincial Park campgrounds.

Journal of Leisure Research 11(4):292~306, 1979.

 

Frederick L. Campbell, John C. Hendee, and Roger Clark.
Law and order in public parks.
Parks and Recreation 3:28—31, 51-55, 1968.

 

Also in Clayne R. Jensen and Clark T. Thorstenson, eds.,
Issues in Outdoor Recreation,pp. 137-144, Burgess Publishing
Company, Minneapolis, Minn., 1972.

 

Roger N. Clark.
Depreciative Behavior in Forest Campgrounds: An Exploratory

 

Study.

U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station, Research Note PNW-16l, Portland,
Oregon, 1971.

Daniel Stokols.
The experience of crowding in primary and secondary environments.
Environment and Behavior 8(1):49-86, 1976.

 

-86]

87]

88]

89]

90]

91]

92]

93]

94]

95]

96]

97]

141

David Ley. ' ' r

The Black Inner City as a Frontier Outpost: Images and Behavior
of a North Philadelphia Neighborhood.

Association of American Geographers, Washington, D.C., 1974.

 

National Park Service.

Special Study: The 1974 Summer Season, Gateray National
Recreation Area.

New York-New Jersey, Nov. 1975.

 

California Department of the Youth Authority.

Gang Violence Reduction ProjeCt:‘First Evaluation‘Rgport.

Sacramento, Ca., 1978.

Project for Public Spaces, Inc.
Exxon Minipark: A Re-Desigp and Managgment Prpposal.

 

New York, 1978. '7

Department of Parks and Recreation.

Why Go To The Park? Questions to Measure Parks, People,
and Patterns: Rectip No. 10. '

State of California, The Resources Agency, Sacramento,
Ca., 1979.

 

Harold K. Cordell.

Substitution between privately and publicly supplied urban
recreational Open space.

Journal of Leisure Research 8(3):160-l74, 1976.

 

Clyde R. White.
The relation of felonies to environmental factors in Indianapolis.
Social Forces 10(4):498-513, 1931-32.

 

Sidney J. Kaplan.
Climatic factors and crime.
Professional Geographer 12(6):1-4, 1960.

 

Keith D. Harries.
The Geography of Crime and Justice.

 

McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1974.

Larry Stephenson.
Spatial dispersion of intra-urban juvenile delinquency.
Journal of Geogrgphy 73(3):20-26, 1974.

 

Irving Hoch.
Factors in urban crime. 6
Journal of Urban Economics 1:194-229, 1974.

 

Harold M. Rose.
The geography of despair.
Annals of the Association of American Gepgraphers 68(4):

 

453-464, 1978.

98]

99]

100]

101]

102]

103]

104]

105]

106]

107]

108]

142

David Ley and Roman Cybriwsky.
The spatial ecology of stripped cars.
Environment and Behavior 6(1):53-68, 1974.

 

David Ley and Roman Cybriwsky.

Urban graffitti as territorial markers.

Annals of the Association of American Geographers 64:
491-505, 1974.

James Lawrence LeBeau.. .

The spatial dynamics of rape: The San Deigo example.

Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, Michigan, 1978.

Fred DuBow, Edward McCabe, andeail Kaplan.
Reactions to Crime: A Critical Review of the Literature.

 

Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, National Institute
of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, Washington, D.C.,
1979.

Franklin D. Becker.

The effect of physical and social factors on residents'
sense of security in multi-family housing developments.

Journal of Architectural Research 4:18-24, 1974.

 

Lee Rainwater.
Fear and house-as-haven in the lower class.
Journal of the American Institute of Planners 32(1):23-37, 1968.

 

Ian Burton and Robert W. Kates.
The perception of natural hazards in resource management.
Natural Resources Journal 3:412-441, 1964.

 

Gilbert F. White and Eugene Haas.
Assessment of Research on Natural Hazards.

 

The M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1975.

Ian Burton, Robert W. Kates, and Gilbert F. White.
The Environment as Hazard.

 

Oxford University Press, New York, 1978.

A. L. Rydant.
Adjustments to natural hazards: Factors affecting the
adoption of crop-hail insurance.

 

Professional Geographer 31(3):312-320, 1979.

Ruth Shonle Cavan.
Criminology.
Thomas Y. Crowell Co., New York, 1962.

109]

110]

111]

112]

113]

114]

115]

116]

117]

118]

143

John J. Gibbs.

Crime Against PerSons in urban, Suburban, and Rural Areas:
A Comparative Analysis of Victimization Rates.

Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, U.S. Department
of Justice, Washington D.C., 1979.

 

Law Enforcement Assistance Administration.
Criminal Victimization in the united States.

 

U. S. Department of Justice, U. S. .Government Printing Office,
Washington, D. C. 1976.

San Diego: Public Attitudes About Crime.

 

Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, National Crime Survey
Report NO. SD-NCS-C-SO, NCJ-4624S, U.S. Department of Justice,

Washington, D.C., 1977.

Cincinnati: Public Attitudes About Crime.*

 

Law EnfOrcement Assistance Administration, National Crime Survey
Report NO. SD-NCS-C-ZZ, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington

D.C., 1979.

Pittsburg: Public Attitudes About Crime.

 

Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, National Crime Survey

Report No. SD-NCS-C-29, U.S. Department of Justice,
Washington D.C., 1979.

New Orleans: Public Attitudes About Crime.

 

Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, National Crime Survey

Report No. SD-NCS-C-27, NCJ-46242, U.S. Department of Justice,
Washington D.C., 1977.

Miami: Public Attitudes About Crime.

 

Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, National Crime Survey

Report No. SD-NCS-C- 24, NCJ- 46239, U. S. Department of Justice,
Washington, D. C. 1977.

Visiting California parks and campsites in the 80's
Dateline: NRPA 3(1):l, 11, 1980.

 

M. Joan McDermott.
Criminal Victimization in Urban Schools.

 

Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, U.S. Department of
Justice, 1979.

Paul F. Rasmussen.

A study of crime in the parks of Chicago, Illinois.

unpublished masters project, University of Illinois at Chicago
Circle, 1978.

119]

120]

121]

122]

123]

124]

125]

126]

127]

144

Harold Lewis Malt Associates, Incorporated.

An Analysis of Public Safety as Related to the Incidence of,
Crime'in Parks and Recreation Areas in Central Cities.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington,
D.C., 1972.

Theresa Westover and Michael Chubb.

Crime and conflict in urban recreation areas: Research in
progress.

Proceedings, Second COnference on Scientific Research in the
National Parks.

San Francisco, Ca., 26-30 November, 1979.

 

 

James F. Watts.

The criminal law enforcement authority of park rangers in
prOprietary jurisdiction National Parks —- where is it?

California Western Law Review 13:126-152, 1976.

 

Edward F. Conners.
Public safety in park and recreation settings.
Parks and Recreation 11:20-21, 55; 1976.

 

George F. Rengert.

Burglary in Philadelphia: A critique on an opportunity structure
model.

Presented to the Association of American Geographers Annual
Meeting, Salt Lake City, Utah, April 1977.

C.R. Jeffrey.
Crime Prevention through Environmental Design, Second Edition.
Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, Ca., 1977.

 

Harriet H. Christensen and Roger N. Clark.

Understanding and controlling vandalism and other rule
violations in urban recreation areas.

In Proceediggs of the National Urban Forestry Conference, V.l,
pp. 63-84. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Washington, D.CT,
Nov. 13-16, 1978.

 

Genie Zakrzewski.
Survey views park crime (letter to the editor).
Parks and Recreation lS(lO):4, 1980.

 

Thomas A. Enerva .

A study prepared for the United States Forest Service for
analysis, evaluation, and recommendation concerning the
depreciative behavior problems at Black Canyon campground.

San Diego, Ca., June 1979.

128]

129]

120]

131]

132]

133]

134]

135]

136]

137]

138]

145

David E. Gray.

The un-hostile park.

In David Gray and Donald A. Pelegrino, eds., Reflections on the
Recreation and Park MOvement,pp. 235-238, W. C. Brown Co.,
Publishers, U.S.A., 1973.

 

 

Robert Sommer and Franklin D. Becker.

The old men in Plaza Park.

In Gray and Pelegrino, eds., pp. 249-251, 0p. cit. 128.
Originally published in Landscape Architecture, Jan. 1969.

 

Randy L. Scott. .

A psychometric test for assessing the attitudes of Northern
California wilderness users.

Unpublished masters thesis, Humboldt State University, Ca., 1976.

P. White, G. Wall, and G. Priddle. .
Anti-social behavior in Ontario Provincial parks.
Recreation.Research Review 6(2):13-23, 1978.

 

Timothy B. Knopp and John D. Tyger.

A study of conflict in recreational land use: Snowmobiling vs.
ski-touring. -

Journal of Leisure Research 5:6-17, 1973.

 

Singing Sands Almanac.

 

National Park Service, Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore,
Oct. 1979.

K. Stocking.

The dune chronicles: The story of paradise lost and paradise
gained at Sleeping Bear National Lakeshore.

Detroit News Magazine, Aug. 19, 1979.

 

Archie D. McDonald and Robert J. NeWcomer.

Differences in perception of a city park as a supportive or
threatening environment.

In Gray and Pelegrino, eds., pp. 256—261, op. cit. 128.

Seymour M. Gold.
Urban Recreation Planning:

 

Lea and Febiger, Philadelphia, 1973.

T.B. Flickinger.
Crime and law enforcement in Ohio's state parks.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University, 1976.

Tim S. Bynum and Dan M. Puuri.
Vicarious victimiZation: An exploration of the fear of crime.
Journal of Crime-and Justice, forthcoming.

 

     

     

  
   

 

1v. LIBRRRIES
N lllllWllllHllWl
E55355

(36511

 

 

MICHIGAN STRTE UN
IllW""H“HWUIIIIWI
31293010