![]() |
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Identification of "Park Stewards": I found that almost all of my case study parks have people outside the Parks Department that are concerned about park conditions and actively seeking to enhance them. In some cases, these people are part of an organization such as the Woonasquatucket River Greenway Project or the West Broadway Neighborhood Association. In other cases, these people are active community citizens with a personal commitment to a park, who take it upon themselves to better park circumstances in various ways - trash and graffiti cleanup, talking to city officials and police about park issues, organizing grant money to acquire new equipment, etc. All these people live or work in a neighborhood, and consequently have first-hand knowledge of the circumstances and problems in the parks there. Their actions supplement the Parks Department's activities, and often do what officials and administrators may not have the time or the money to achieve. As a result, they are an important resource for healthy, successful parks. Naturally, the Parks Department usually recognizes such people, and works with them in their efforts. Yet there might be parks that do not have such 'champions', or perhaps they have people that are interested and concerned about the park, but do not know how to go about getting involved. For these reasons, the Parks Department may want to consider setting up a system whereby current park advocates are recognized explicitly as honorary 'stewards' or 'supporters', and identify such people in parks where they are lacking. Not only would such an arrangement serve to bring out people who might not know how to channel their ideas or enthusiasm for a park, but it would also duly recognize and encourage those people whose work is already making a difference and let the whole community know about their efforts. Setting up regular communication between the stewards and the Parks Department would let park officials easily keep abreast of issues in the parks (the stewards could effectively be liaisons between officials and community residents), encourage discussion on new ways to solve problems, and allow the stewards take the helm in instituting some of the solutions (thereby relieving the pressure on the officials). 2. Informing future park
layout and design: In my investigation, I found indications
that park layout and design may indeed affect crime and perceptions of
safety. The users at Dexter Training Ground which has an open, accessible
perimeter, and is bounded by city streets on all sides, had comparatively
high perceptions of safety as well as very positive feelings about the
park in general. In contrast, users at Billy Taylor Park and Donigian
Park which both have vegetated, closed off or concealed back corners,
had the worst perceptions of safety and were both cited as areas of drug
use and other criminal activity. (See 'Linking
Crime and Perceptions' for more information.) When establishing parks
in the future, the Parks Department may want to consider developing at
sites where the park perimeter would be exposed to the street on all sides,
and thus where establishing good visibility (or 'view distances' as they
are sometimes called) is relatively easy. This would not be possible in
all cases, for there are sometimes natural or scenic features that preclude
such openness (a riverbank for example). However, following this general
suggestion might help in preventing some parks from becoming susceptible
to crime and safety concerns.
|
||||||