To compare the reality of the crime situation around each park, and
the perceptions of crime and safety of users of each park,
I employed the following methods:

1. I used Arcview to tally the numbers of each type of crime, as well as
the total crime, in the 1800 ft.-radius area around each park. Based on
this information, I generated a 'crime hierarchy' - listing the parks in order
from most crime to least crime.

2. I assigned two scores to each park - one representing interview responses to questions on perceptions of safety; the other representing interview responses to questions on perceptions of criminal activity.

The 'safety perceptions score' was achieved by adding together the percent of respondents who:
a) stated that they felt safe in the park
b) stated that they would visit the park alone
c) stated that they would visit the park at night
Therefore, a high score indicates comparatively better perceptions of safety.

The 'crime perceptions score was achieved by adding together the percent of respondents who stated that they knew of criminal activities occurring in the park. Therefore, a high score indicates comparatively greater perceptions of crime.

On the basis of these two scores, I generated two hierarchies - one listing the parks in order from best to worst perceptions of safety, and the other listing the parks in order from least to greatest perceptions of crime.

3. I compared the parks across their ranking in each of the hierarchy lists. In other words, did the parks with high rates of crime in their vicinity also have the worst perceptions of safety and the greatest perceptions of crime?

4. For each park, performing more in-depth comparisons between the GIS crime-pattern maps, and the information gleaned from the interviews. How do the crime maps substantiate the interview facts, and vice versa, how might the interviews explain trends incrime?