Perceptions did vary across the different parks - some parks had much more positive perceptions associated with them than others. Users of Fargnoli Park had the most favorable perceptions of safety and the fewest perceptions of crime than any other park. This was originally anticipated, as Fargnoli Park is located in a more stable neighborhood than the other parks studied. Among the 'high crime parks' - those situated in neighborhoods believed to be exposed to worse crime conditions - perceptions varied as well. There are many potential explanations for this, for a myriad of inter-related factors can affect a park's conditions (see Challenges to Successful Parks). To understand how the actual context of crime around a park might be impacting perceptions, go to 'Linking Perceptions and Crime'.

When considering the results in tandem with the general manner of, and comments made by, respondents, it seems that many people have a pragmatic, common sense attitude towards crime and safety issues in their parks. Along with generally high perceptions of safety, many people who knew of criminal behavior simultaneously maintained their feelings of safety, as discussed above. Furthermore, there were people who expressed feelings of safety conditioned on particular circumstances - as long as certain conditions were met, they felt comfortable in the park. Many more people stated that even though they generally felt safe, they wouldn't visit the park at night. These findings corroborate the general impression I received that people use their common sense, as well as their knowledge about the park and the area, when they are using a park space. If they don't feel at ease at night, they simply won't come at night. If they feel that undesirable activities occur in a certain region, they will just stay away from that area. These conditions do not restrict their use of the park or their overall feelings of safety. Instead, they utilize their common sense to ensure a sense of security.

An interesting finding is that nuisance behavior was not always considered a criminal activity; essentially, some respondents had a different conception of what constitutes a crime than I do. In quite a few cases, people would state that they didn't know of any crime happening in a park, but then later on in the interview would mention things that could be deemed nuisance crimes, such as noise, fights, or public drinking. I realized that this was a limitation of my interview protocol. Considering that when crime was mentioned it was primarily of the nuisance type, this limitation could have greatly underestimated people's perceptions of crime in the parks. My unthinking assumption that 'criminal activities' means the same thing to different people was essentially erroneous.

In several cases, people seemed to expect a certain level of crime or disagreeable conduct in the park setting, and thus had quite a casual attitude towards its presence. When recounting instances of problems or neglect, respondents would say, 'What do you expect?' or 'It's a park, that's the kind of thing that happens'. In the few cases that interviewees gave reasons why they thought crime might be occurring in a park, several declared that parks tend to have those types of issues. These beliefs suggest that not only do some people perceive public spaces like parks to be particularly vulnerable - simply because they are public spaces - but they also relate to previous findings on how park users don't consider some types of activities as outright 'crime'. Overall, there seems to be something of a tolerant attitude to problems in the park, which is tied to a generally tolerant judgement of crime and troubles in the neighborhood context. This is not to say that people don't care about these issues, but in settings where such matters are prevalent and common, they are to an extent tolerated and accepted.

A very encouraging finding was that on the whole, there is a strong sense that the parks have improved from the past. This indicates that on the whole, significant work has been done to physically enhance conditions at the parks. Moreover, users recognize and appreciate these changes, and feel that they have positively impacted the park environment.

STUDY LIMITATIONS

Some of the limitations in this study of park perceptions are immediately apparent. Although six parks were originally intended for intercept interviews, only five of these were ultimately surveyed. Furthermore, my hope was to achieve about 20 interviews per park, but coming to terms with the amount of time needed in traveling to the various parks, and conducting the actual interviews, limited me to an average of 10 to 15 interviews at each park. A more comprehensive survey would require many more parks (with more interviews per park), as well as more of a variety of parks. I primarily looked at supposed 'high crime parks', with only one park in a low-crime neighborhood for comparison. It would have been interesting to choose a group of parks regardless of location, and study their dynamics and differences in greater detail.

A limitation with my interview protocol became evident as the interviews progressed. As previously mentioned, it seemed that some people did not have the same understanding of what constituted criminal behavior as I did. In my assumption that the phrase 'criminal activities' would be comprehended in the same way by all my respondents, I might very well have precluded getting a good sense of people's perceptions. If they didn't consider nuisance crimes as actual crime, then my asking 'Do you know of any criminal activities that occur here?' wouldn't necessarily elicit a response - they wouldn't mention the nuisance behavior that I am interested in as an aspect of crime.

The brevity of my protocol might also be considered a limitation. If my interview guide had been longer and more comprehensive, I might have obtained more detailed perceptions and could have explored people's opinions in a broader manner. However, there are disadvantages to a longer protocol. For my purposes, I wanted to casually approach people and encourage them to speak to me under the premise that it would only take a few minutes of their time. With a longer interview, it could very well have been more difficult to find willing respondents, and I would have needed a Spanish interpreter for many more hours than I did.
To look at an example of a very comprehensive interview guide designed to gauge perceptions of safety, go to: http://pps.org/topics/management/safetysecurity/toronto_safety_audit