* I wanted to learn a lot about a few parks, rather than learn a little
about numerous parks. Therefore, I sought to limit the case studies
to a number that would support this purpose.

* In order to investigate the direct and dynamic interaction between activities
at a park - criminal and otherwise - and the people using and living around the park, I wanted to focus on neighborhood parks that were centered in residential areas. Larger, regional parks (such as Roger Williams Park or Neutaconkanut Park) were automatically excluded, as were other neighborhood parks that are slightly removed from the residential vicinities they primarily serve (such as India Point Park).

* An obvious aim was to focus on parks in higher crime areas of the city, where issues of criminal activity and safety in open spaces might have more immediate significance and relevance. Although I didn't have concrete crime statistics to point out these regions, I had a general sense of which neighborhoods had more serious crime problems than others.

* When looking at these higher crime neighborhoods, which tended to also be lower-income areas, I noticed that the vast majority of the parks had recreational facilities - playground apparatus, ball fields, basketball courts, etc. There were very few parks without any specific facilities - so-called 'passive' parks with just grass and/or other vegetation. Consequently, I decided to concentrate on the active recreational parks.

* One of the primary influences on my final selection was insight from Bob McMahon, the Deputy Superintendent at the Providence Parks Department. On an afternoon this past summer, he took me on the 'grand parks tour' of Providence, showing me about a dozen parks of interest and discussing the salient issues and challenges associated with each one.