The Complexity of Problem-Solving in Urban Parks

Abstract

Urban parks present difficult environments in which to analyze crime and disorder problems. We describe data collection and analysis of a limited evaluation of an intervention meant to reduce crime and disorder in an urban park through increasing park use. The case study uses an urban park in the municipality of Anchorage, AK. The research method took into account differing activity spaces within the small (one-city block) park by dividing the park into a dozen distinct zones based on the built environment and how people used the space. Consistent with prior research, we found that increasing park usage decreased crime and disorder and that disorder was associated with a lack of natural surveillance. Moreover, research shows urban parks are frequently the site used by many groups—parks are contested space.

Keywords

problem-solving crime and disorder green spaces contested spaces

Introduction

Many urban parks were planned to “provide ‘relief’ to the urbanized landscape of the city” (Hayward & Weitzer, 1984, p. 243). Park use is associated with many positive outcomes, including reduced anxiety (More & Payne, 1978), improved physical health (L. Payne, Orsega-Smith, Roy, & Godbey, 2005), and reduced childhood obesity (Potwarka, Kaczynski, & Flack, 2008). In addition to park attributes such as size (Giles-Corti, Broomhall, et al., 2005), number of amenities and their features (Giles-Corti, Timperio, Bull, & Pilora, 2005), and presence of sidewalks or paths (Kaczynski, Potwarka, & Saelens, 2008; Reed et al., 2008), the perceived presence of crime and disorder—sometimes measured as fear of crime—is associated with willingness to use parks (Gobster, 2002; Hayward & Weitzer, 1984; McCormack, Rock, Toohey, & Hignell, 2010; Zanon, Doucouliagos, Hall, & Lockstone-Binney, 2013). Moreover, there are differences in what different groups of park users do in parks. People of different racial/ethnic backgrounds tend to use parks differently and to evaluate the safety of parks differently (Giles-Corti, Timperio, et al., 2005; Gobster, 2002). This creates the possibility of conflicting uses and conflicting perception of parks among different groups of park users.

These conflicts and other realities of modern urban life create a complex environment in which to analyze and solve problems. Indeed, there may not be widespread agreement about what “the problem” is. The objective of this article is to provide a case study illustrating the difficulties facing problem solvers at urban parks. Through two different observation periods (summer and winter) of Town Square Park in Anchorage, AK, we demonstrate the importance of small units of analysis that take into account the built environment and seasonal variations in park use. We also show how the complexity of modern urban environments, including the politics of changing urban environments, can impede problem-solving efforts.

We begin by describing the importance of criminological theory and problem framing in problem-solving. Next, we describe the setting for our case study. Methods and findings from two limited observations of the park are described in the next section, followed by challenges and limitations of evaluating an intervention and collecting data in public spaces. Finally, we offer comments for future research and crime prevention practice.

Theoretical Background

Problem-oriented policing (Goldstein, 1990) has gained popularity over the past 25 years as a general framework for solving crime and disorder problems. In broad strokes, problem-oriented policing encourages creativity in officers and in police agencies. Officers are tasked not only with solving the immediate issue but with determining why issues recur—and how to prevent their recurrence. Solutions to problems need not involve criminal justice processing of the guilty party for the purpose of crime prevention. In fact, the best solutions may not involve police at all but instead a change in the environment in which a problem exists (Fennelly & Timothy, 2013; Hill & Paynich, 2014; Jeffery, 1971). For example, a reasonable solution to jewelry theft in retail spaces was the installation of glass display cases instead of open tables in jewelry stores (Eck, 1994). Solutions to problems in a problem-oriented policing framework (Clarke, 1997; Weisburd & Eck, 2004) usually leverage one or more opportunity theories such as routine activities theory (Cohen & Felson, 1979), rational choice theory (Cornish & Clarke, 1986), and crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED; Jeffery, 1971; Newman, 1972).

Much of academic criminology focuses on what Hirschi (1986) describes as criminality, or the propensity to offend, while generally assuming criminal opportunities are so plentiful as to be ubiquitous (for an explicit example of this, see Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). Opportunity theories focus instead on specific criminal events. Offenders are assumed to be rational and able to weigh costs and benefits, within the limits of their knowledge and ability to assess information (Clarke & Cornish, 2000; Cornish & Clarke, 1986). Moreover, criminal events require more than merely an offender. Offenders and victims must converge at a particular time and place (Cohen & Felson, 1979). The propensity to offend is just one causal factor in a multifactorial decision to commit a particular crime at a particular place against a particular victim (Brantingham & Brantingham, 1993). The convergences of victims and offenders do not occur randomly across time and space. These opportunities to commit crime are affected by the routine activities that occur at a place.

The built environment can shape criminal opportunities at a place. CPTED and defensible space (Jeffery, 1971; Newman, 1972) provide a framework for understanding how the built environment can alter the probability of a criminal event. The ability to be seen from nearby places (natural surveillance), access control, and definition of space (territorial enforcement) are the key concepts of CPTED. These concepts are mirrored in the fear of crime literature. For example, Fisher and Nasar (1995) found that the presence of hiding places for offenders (prospect) and blocked avenues of escape (boundedness) were related to fear of crime in public spaces.

Problem-oriented policing works best when the problem is well defined and the solution leverages criminological theory. We now have systematic reviews, suggesting that problem-oriented policing works to reduce crime and that solutions grounded in theory reduce crime more than approaches that are entirely law enforcement based (Braga, Papachristos, & Hureau, 2014; Guerette & Bowers, 2009; Weisburd, Telep, Hinkle, & Eck, 2010). These reviews also suggest that spatial displacement of crime is unlikely, with diffusion of crime prevention benefits equally likely as displacement (Guerette & Bowers, 2009). The common model applies scanning, analysis, response, assessment, a model first expressed by Spelman and Eck (1987), to known or assumed problems. Indeed, Spelman and Eck state that the “heart of the process is the analysis stage” (p. 5).

While scholars and practitioners widely recognize that problem-solving requires flexible thinking in terms of responses, relatively little attention is paid in the literature and in practice to determining what sort of problem is to be dealt with (Bichler & Gaines, 2005; Gallagher, 2014; T. C. Payne, Gallagher, Eck, & Frank, 2013). Eck and Clarke (2003) offer a useful framework for the classification of problems that helps to determine precisely what sort of problem one is attempting to solve. This classification scheme has two dimensions, behavior and environment, that sharpen the problem-solver’s focus. Much like an inaccurate medical diagnosis impedes or destroys the ability of doctors to improve the prognosis of patients, inaccurate diagnosis of a crime and disorder problem can have impacts on the ability to solve the problem. Inaccurate diagnoses of the crime problem may be the result of inaccurate heuristics, subconscious biases, faulty cognitive programming, or simply poor training (Rossmo, 2009). Moreover, even when police are trained in problem-oriented policing, the existing literature suggests they tend to rely on traditional police methods such as saturation patrols (Bichler & Gaines, 2005; Gallagher, 2014). It was surprising, then, when the Anchorage Police Department contacted the authors to evaluate a nonenforcement-based crime prevention effort at Town Square Park.

Setting: The City, the Park, and the Problem

The Municipality of Anchorage is the largest city in Alaska with an estimated 2014 population of 301,010 persons (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014). The area of Anchorage is 1,704.88 square miles (4,415.62 km²). The city is comparable to other midsized cities in the United States, with common amenities and nationally known retail and restaurant chains, except that Anchorage lacks the metropolitan area that commonly surrounds cities of its size elsewhere in the United States.

Town Square Park occupies one city block in downtown Anchorage. The original park site was demolished to make way for the Egan Convention Center in 1981. The current park site is a block away and was completed a decade later, with incremental improvements since. The park is commonly used for special events and as a community space. Town Square Park is bordered on the north, south, and east by three-lane one-way streets. The Alaska Center for the Performing Arts occupies the western border of the park. The park is comprised of paved sidewalks that meander through a rolling landscape design and trees meant to provide relief from the hustle and bustle of city life. The park’s design obscures sight lines through much of the park. A fountain is in the center of the park. The east side of this fountain forms a three-sided blind approximately 5 feet (1.5 m) tall. The fountain has been inoperable for more than 2 years because it leaks into an underground electrical junction that provides power to several surrounding blocks (Ballard, 2015; Burke, 2014).

Since at least 2010, the park has been the subject of news coverage suggesting that crime has increased (Palsha, 2010). Local news media has focused both on specific crimes, such as a “brazen” sexual assault in the park (Grove, 2012), and on a more general rise in crime (Swann, 2013). Commentary in popular media about the problems in the park suggests disagreement or confusion about the nature of the problem. Some commentators have described the problem as either crime or fear of crime (Hancock, 2014). Others have described the problem as inadequate facilities (Bachand, 2013), while yet others see the problem as particular people, sometimes referred to as “undesirables” (Bilet, 2013).

In the summer of 2014, the then Chief of the Anchorage Police Department Mark Mew asked the authors to evaluate whether a series of planned events in the park, including activities for children, food vendor availability, and music performances were associated with a decrease in crime. This intervention was planned and executed by the Anchorage Downtown Partnership, a local business association, and other local business leaders with participation of the police department. These events were scheduled in the middle of the day, in the hours surrounding the lunch hour. The events were designed to increase natural surveillance by changing routine activities at the park—put simply, the idea was to increase use of the park.

Measuring Park Use, Crime, and Disorder

Despite being relatively small (one city block), the park has several natural zones where people congregate. Moreover, observation of the entire park is not possible from a single vantage point due to its design, even from elevated positions adjacent to the park in the Alaska Center for the Performing Arts to the west, or from nearby multistory parking structures to the southeast of the park. Our compromise was to use a large window overlooking the park on the second floor of the Alaska Center for the Performing Arts as our primary observation point, supplemented by walking through the park to observe areas that were not visible from that location (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Town Square Park with zones.

We created 12 zones for measurement of park use and disorder. Zones were identified by informal observations of park-user behavior during the week before the intervention was fielded in the summer of 2014 and by the characteristics of each zone. Zones boundaries were defined by easily identified physical characteristics. Table 1 describes the primary features within each zone and the boundaries between zones. The primary observation point inside of the Alaska Center for the Performing Arts provided a clear view of most zones. Zones 2 and 7 were partially obscured by tree cover; Zone 12 was partially obscured by the design of the fountain in the center of the park. These three zones were observed by walking through the area.

Table 1.

Town Square Park Zone Description.

Zone	Primary Features	Boundaries
1	Flower beds and grassy seating areas adjacent to the Alaska Center for the Performing Arts	Grass/sidewalk line on the west Edge of raised flower beds on the north, east, and south
2	East–west winding concrete path Grassy area with trees south of the path Trees and rolling hill approximately 5 feet (1.5 m) tall that obscure sight lines from 6th avenue into the park	Grass/sidewalk line to the north 6th Avenue sidewalk on the south
3	Concrete bench on the north border Trees and rolling hill approximately 5-feet (1.5 m) tall that obscure sight line from Zone 2 to Zone 8	Edge of concrete bench to the north Grass/sidewalk line to the south, east, and west
4	Concrete bench on the north border Small concrete plaza and stairs	Edge of concrete bench to the north, west, and east Change in sidewalk material to the south
5	Trees and rolling grassy hill approximately 5-feet (1.5 m) tall that obscure sight line from Zones 4 and 6 to Zone 7	Grass/sidewalk line to the north and east Edge of concrete bench to the south
6	Small open plaza Stairs providing pedestrian route between Zones 8 and 5	Stairs on the west 6-Foot (2 m) wall to the south Grass/concrete line to the east and north
7	East–west winding concrete path Trees and rolling hill approximately 5-feet (1.5 m) tall that obscure sightline from 5th avenue into the park	Grass/sidewalk line to the south 5Th Avenue sidewalk to the north Kobuk Coffee, Co., to the east Grass/sidewalk line to the west
8	Large, paved, open plaza Front of inoperable fountain on the east side	Edge of raised flower beds to the west Edge of concrete benches to the south Change in paving material to the north and areas not occupied by fountain
9	Concrete benches surrounding grassy areas Trees obscuring sightlines from E St and 6th avenue into the park	Edge of concrete benches
10	Paved plaza	Edge of concrete benches
11	Grassy area to the east of the fountain Largest nonpaved area in park	Tree line to the north Edge of concrete benches to the south Grass/sidewalk line to the east Line formed by fountain edges on the west
12	Area east of the fountain Inoperable fountain provides seating area on the west side with the best sightlines in the park due to elevation Fountain walls create a three-sided blind 3- to 6-feet (1–2 m) tall Fully visible only from Zone 11	Fountain edge on west, north, and south Line formed by fountain edges on east

Each zone was observed one at a time for 3 min. The number of park users and incidents of disorder were counted and then the next zone was observed. Disorder included loud/disruptive people, people drinking alcohol or acting visibly under the influence of alcohol/drugs, people smoking (tobacco and other substances), panhandling, skateboarding, drug dealing, and drug use. Each behavior was coded according to what it looked like, keeping our measurements consistent with a typical park user’s perceptions of behavior. For example, our measure of drug use did not require a field chemical test of the substance; behaviors that looked like drug use were coded as such. This necessarily introduces a degree of subjectivity into the measurement. Our goal throughout was to capture how typical park users might view behaviors—when people appeared to be using illegal drugs, it was coded as such. The authors observed 571 three-minute periods during 9 days between July 17, 2014, and July 31, 2014. Observations occurred between 11:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., including 2 days before the intervention, 2 days after the intervention, and the 5 weekdays during which the Anchorage Downtown Partnership and its partners staged events in the park.

Additional data collection and analysis

The limitations of the summer 2014 evaluation and ongoing discussions with stakeholders suggested that additional data collection and analysis would be useful to identify the problem, if any, at Town Square Park. This additional analysis used different methods designed to record how long particular individuals and groups stayed in the park, along with measures of disorder. Time-lapse photography was used to capture still images from a fixed location similar to that used in the summer study at 1-min intervals during 11 days in January and February 2015. Time-lapse photography was augmented with direct observation and handheld still photos. This resulted in 71 additional hours of observation and more than 5,600 photos.

Findings

Summer 2014

Park usage increased from an average of 3.9–7.2 persons per park zone during events. Children were present during 36% of observations during events than 17% of observations not during events. The authors observed no serious crime during this project, but disorder was present in 13% of observations. Disorder was less likely during events (10% of observations) than when events were not occurring (16% of observations). The reduction in disorder was short lived, with disorder reappearing within 2 hr of the conclusion of events in the park. The authors noted that the same individuals who often dealt drugs in the park would leave during events and return shortly after the event ended. Together, the findings suggested an anecdotal confirmation that increasing park usage decreased disorder—at least during the events.

Subjectively, Town Square Park never seemed like a particularly dangerous or crime-ridden place, even when events were not scheduled. Our observations suggested that the bulk of the problem was limited to a small number of drug dealers (no more than a half a dozen) who used Town Square Park to meet customers. These transactions were fleeting and nonviolent—and many park users seemed oblivious to them. Qualitatively, the park was a more pleasant place during events, and the businesses participating in the events considered them to be a success. However, from our summer 2014 observations alone, Town Square Park simply did not seem to be a nexus for problems.

Winter 2015

Five-minute periods were used for analysis (n = 856). Park use and disorder was measured during each of these 5-min intervals, using the same park zones from the summer. The park was used by fewer than 10 persons in nearly three quarters (73.3%) of observations. No park users were present in 14.1% of the 5-min observation periods. Crime or disorder occurred in 18.5% (158) of the 5-min observation periods. Some of these 5-min observation periods contained more than one disorder incident, for a total of 167 instances of disorder observed. Figure 2 shows the most frequent crime and disorder by type. Nearly a third, 31.1% (52), of these were drug use; this type of disorder occurred more than twice as frequently as any other type. The next most common type of disorder was persons wearing blankets (bedware on person) at 14.3% (24), with park rule violations such as trespassing after hours nearly as common at 10.7% (18). Crime and disorder incidents were heavily concentrated in Zone 12, the area behind the inoperable fountain. Nearly half (46.7%, 78) of crime and disorder incidents occurred behind this fountain. As shown in Figure 3, this is despite the area being quite small.

Figure 2.

Most prevalent crime/disorder incidents.

Figure 3.

Choropleth map of crime and disorder in Town Square Park, normalized by area.

Time-lapse photography also allowed for the measurement of groups within the park. Groups were defined as three or more persons who were physically close to one another, had physical contact, and/or communicated with each other. Most groups (97.5%) stayed in the park for fewer than 20 min. Of the 21 groups that stayed longer than 20 min, 18 were located in Zone 12, behind the fountain. Moreover, groups of persons in Zone 12 were markedly different from groups in other areas of the park. Individuals within groups in Zone 12 were more likely to be involved in crime or disorder than groups in other areas of the park. More than two thirds (68%) of groups with individuals who committed crime and disorder were behind the fountain.

Discussion

Collectively, the authors have spent more than 100 hr directly observing Town Square Park, with additional time spent coding over 5,600 photographs, and yet more time spent with police patrolling the park. Throughout both observation periods, we kept in contact with key stakeholders. We conducted informal interviews with nearby business owners and police officers who work in the park, all of whom agree that “the park is a problem.” Local news reports suggested the same. In the context of problem-oriented policing, however, this is an insufficient definition. We first needed to more precisely define the problem. Using the framework provided by Eck and Clarke (2003), we initially classified the problem as one involving annoying, unsightly, or disruptive behaviors. Indeed, our summer 2014 data collection suggested that crime and disorder occurred frequently enough to be noticed by casual park users—16% of our observations included disorder. Using different methods that allowed for a more detailed analysis, we found that 18% of 5-min observation periods contained disorder.

Initial observations in the park suggested that elements of park design contributed to the crime and disorder in Town Square Park. Two aspects of the park’s design were noted: (1) the inoperable fountain and area behind it and (2) grading of land (hills) that obstruct natural surveillance from nearby streets and businesses. Park observations suggested that the areas farthest from the street, particularly in Zone 12 (behind the fountain), were indeed problematic. The finding that the area behind the fountain is problematic was echoed by a CPTED report conducted by local law enforcement in 2013. Issues surrounding that space are believed to be due in large part to the lack of natural surveillance afforded to persons hiding in this semi-enclosed location with stonewalls facing the north, west, and south (Anchorage Police Department, 2013). Deficiencies in park design are easily explained by CPTED principles, such as natural surveillance, access control, and territorial reinforcement (Fennelly & Timothy, 2013; Hill & Paynich, 2014). It is possible that restricting access to this area, behind the fountain, would help to eliminate locations in the park that are difficult to observe and thus drive crime and disorder incidents into the open. Eliminating trees and reducing the height of the hills may have a similar impact, reducing potential offenses by making areas in which offenses occur more easily visible.

A third possibility emerged as we observed the park. Town Square Park exists in a complex urban built environment that contributes to a variety of conflicting uses by the public. The park is located near the Downtown Transit Center, the city’s central bus transfer station, which has been the subject of its own controversies with crime and disorder, particularly among the homeless and other people who have “nowhere else to go” (Kelley, 2015). Felson et al. (1996) made comparable inferences about homeless persons contributing to crime and negative perceptions around transit hubs. Additionally, the complexity of the built environment contributing to crime around transit centers was previously identified as an important consideration (Block & Davis, 1996; Loukaitou-Sideris, 1999). While we do not have measures of this, we suspect that at least some of the public perception of Town Square Park is a result of the status of people in the park, particularly people who are homeless, instead of particular behaviors. That is to say that one use of Town Square Park is as a place for people who are homeless to simply be.

Town Square Park is located between several area employers, restaurants, and bars; it is a convenient pedestrian route between these destinations. The park is also near several venues that host special events. This creates the likelihood of use conflict between people of very different social statuses. The conflicting uses of Town Square coupled with its presence in a complex environment contribute to it being a contested space. Hilborn (2009) identifies parks as contested because as public spaces, they may not discourage different legal activities; one person may walk a dog through the same space that someone else may play a sport. These differences in users’ opinions about how spaces are used become points of conflict, resulting in parties’ dissatisfaction by how other parties’ behave. What we observed in Town Square was a combination of legal activities mixed with disorderly behaviors and nonviolent criminal offenses. Behaviors that are unsightly but not necessarily illegal, such as wearing and carrying blankets and sleeping bags, are difficult to remedy, and it is because of this that the area is “an arena of struggle for social control” in which place managers try to enforce what they believe to be proper public activities (Reyes, 2016). This should include territorial reinforcement (Fennelly & Timothy, 2013), conveying to park users that guardianship is present. There are multiple avenues for exerting this control over Town Square Park, none of which is likely to be found satisfactory to all park stakeholders.

There are barriers at Town Square that prevent implementing and utilizing potentially effective solutions. Unlike other parks in the city, Town Square also has its own ordinance dedications further protecting it from changes likely to improve the park from a CPTED perspective (Municipality of Anchorage, 1984). Local horticultural groups met the removal of trees to improve natural surveillance with hostility (DeMarban, 2014; Kelly, 2014). Another method of increasing surveillance and providing additional guardianship without removing obstacles could be the strategic positioning of police throughout the area or including the park in a regularly walked police beat. This is unlikely due to the high cost involved (Doogan, 2014).

One method currently in place to increase the risks (Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, 2013) associated with committing crime are closed-circuit television (CCTV) used by the adjacent Alaska Center for the Performing Arts. These CCTVs are ineffective for four reasons: long processing times, no dedicated officers responsible for responding to CCTV observed incidents, inadequate financial support, and lack of jurisdictional authority. Long processing times between when an incident is observed and when police are able to respond have been found to mitigate the crime prevention benefits of CCTV (Piza, Caplan, & Kennedy, 2014). CCTV monitoring without the aid of directed police patrol has also been found to be less effective than desirable (Piza, Caplan, Kennedy, & Gilchrist, 2015). Interviews with security staff revealed that their available budget for security systems was lacking, restricting the system’s usefulness. Lastly, security staff had little recourse when they did observe an offense occurring in Town Square, besides attempting to contact law enforcement. Town Square is a public space. Alaska Center for the Performing Arts security staff are not legally permitted to intervene beyond their roles as private citizens. This jurisdictional issue is indicative of the reduced level of responsibility and authority that security staff has compared to city employees and police if the latter were charged with managing the park (Felson, 1995).

Key stakeholders suggested that the problem was in the park and that changes to what occurs in the park could change the social environment. This was, after all, how the authors were first involved with Town Square Park. The problem frame shared by these stakeholders was illegitimate park users caused problems in the park. This suggested that the problem was one of nonviolent conflicts over legitimate use of space rather than annoying, unsightly, or disruptive behaviors (Eck & Clarke, 2003). In reality, both of these problem classifications likely fit Town Square Park. Recent research such as that by Groff and McCord (2012) suggests that the number and types of recreational activities available in a neighborhood park are related to the park’s tendency to generate crime. Smaller parks are more difficult to design activities for due to space restrictions. Unfortunately, for Town Square Park, there are not many activities that are possible in the available space. Park amenities that are most likely to develop a sense of prosocial territoriality, such as basketball courts or baseball fields, would likely be underutilized given the size of the park and its location.

Challenges and Limitations

Several difficulties presented themselves early in this project. First, the authors were brought into the summer 2014 evaluation just a few days before the intervention was to be fielded. Combined with other challenges described below, this led to a necessarily shallow problem analysis and solving effort. Despite the relatively late involvement of evaluators, we were encouraged that the Chief of Police was interested in evaluating the effort. We faced many other challenges in producing information that was useful to the city.

At first, it was unclear precisely what problem was to be solved. Descriptions of crime in the park were nonspecific and tended to be directed toward the status of persons in the park (most notably, persons who appeared to be homeless). One reason the authors were asked to help evaluate the intervention was a lack of calls for service data in the park; crime analysts from the police department had very little data to analyze despite the public concern about the park. Particularly during the daylight hours, Town Square Park was not the site of many police incidents. An evaluation that relied on a reduction of calls for service would have suffered from very limited statistical power to detect an effect. Informal interviews with police officers who patrolled the area on bicycles and local business leaders suggested that drug dealing and use were common and caused problems for other park users, yet casual observation of the park by the authors showed that Town Square Park was not a particularly crime-ridden or disorderly place during the day. This is not unusual, given that previous literature has found that different officers patrolling the same geographic area rarely identify the same problems as one another (Bichler & Gaines, 2005); police officers have also been shown to not identify the same problems as the concerns of residents in areas where officers patrol (Skogan & Steiner, 2004). After discussions with key stakeholders, the problem could likely best be described as one of incivilities involving annoying, unsightly, or disruptive behaviors in a recreational environment using the framework provided by Eck and Clarke (2003).

Organizers suggested that activating the park space would reduce crime, which is consistent with research, suggesting that drawing in conventional users and increasing natural surveillance increase safety in parks (Groff & McCord, 2012; Hill & Paynich, 2014; Hillborn, 2009). Organizers suggested that legitimate park users would displace illegitimate park users, a distinction we will return to later in the article. The proposed mechanism was to increase guardianship through increased park usage (Felson, 1995; Groff & McCord, 2012). There was no interest in or broader causes of crime in the area surrounding Town Square Park, and there was little interest in promoting design changes within the park. Even within the setting of increased news coverage and commentary regarding crime in Town Square Park, changes to the park were often met with protests. Cutting down nine trees and trimming others was the source of considerable public controversy despite being directed at areas of the park where violent crime had recently occurred (DeMarban, 2014; Kelly, 2014).

Related to an unclear problem definition and intervention mechanism, the city lacked baseline measures of park use and disorder in the park. The park is designed with multiple points of ingress and egress, making the use of automated pedestrian counters difficult. Determining the number of persons who frequently use the park is an important endeavor, as previous research has found the importance of accounting for ambient populations in crime rate calculations and risk assessments for victimization (Andresen, 2010; Andresen & Jenion, 2010). Measures of park use were not available, however, limiting our ability to use a pre–postdesign to only original data we collected. Data collection was also limited by a lack of funding for evaluation. Our summer 2014 evaluation of the interventions was therefore limited to a one-group pre–postdesign (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002).

As a general principle, we would have liked to use any number of evaluation designs that would have improved internal and external validity of the evaluation (Shadish et al., 2002). Practical limits and feasibility prevented several alternative designs to those described. We were unable to use other places throughout Anchorage as controls; the surrounding microspatial context of Town Square Park is unique. There is no other place like Town Square Park in the city; no controls exist. Other parks in Anchorage are either visible from one side to the other or do not exist within a similar urban context. Town Square Park is situated among several bars, the Downtown Transit Center (bus depot), restaurants, and shops. All research designs that rely on controls were therefore infeasible. We also could not use a repeated measures design. The intervention details, including dates, were decided and planned before we were asked to evaluate the effort and did not allow for a repeated measures design. We conducted additional observations the following winter to better understand park use and disorder in the absence of an intervention; however, no interventions were fielded during this second observation period.

These challenges lead to limitations. First, the lack of baseline park usage data restricted our ability to answer the primary question posed by the police: Does staging events in the park reduce crime and disorder? The limited time available to create measures led to a failure to measure one type of disorder some of the stakeholders were particularly interested in: whether the events prevented what one of our key stakeholders described as undesirable people not merely being present in the park but occupying the space, as an invading army would. This is a slightly different problem than the one we identified: annoying or unsightly behaviors. Instead, it involves nonviolent conflicts over legitimate use of the park (Eck & Clarke, 2003). Second, our focus on accuracy within each park zone meant we often undercounted disorder that occurred in other zones while we were focused on the zone being measured during our summer 2014 data collection. Unless park users were purposefully moving away from areas, we were measuring during the 3-min observation period—and we had no indication this was the case—this is unlikely to impact evaluation of the intervention since whatever bias is introduced would be distributed during event and nonevent periods equally. It does, however, tend to undercount overall disorder in the park, which could lead to problem misspecification and is a reason we conducted further data collection in the winter. The summer data collection was limited to daylight hours because its main purpose was to provide an evaluation of a daytime intervention at the park (hosting events). Our key informant interviews with business leaders and police officers suggested that the park attracted both crime and disorder at night. Town Square Park is nominally closed at night but has no physical access control. While we observed little crime and only minor disorder, our interviews suggested serious crimes such as aggravated assault were common at night.

Many of these limitations led to methodology changes in the winter data collection, but this second observation method had limitations as well. The most important is that the time-lapse camera could not be installed in a secure location. An observer needed to be present to ensure the security of the equipment. While this allowed for the collection of detailed field notes, it also imposed practical limits on data collection dates and times. We were also unable to complete foot patrols of the park due to security concerns. Observation dates and times were not randomly selected. Selection of dates and times was based on the availability of the observation point inside the Alaska Center for the Performing Arts. We were not permitted to use this vantage point during performances at the Alaska Center for the Performing Arts.

Conclusion

Our most important suggestion for future studies of crime, disorder, and problem-solving is to use a framework for problem definition. Eck and Clarke (2003) provide such a framework that greatly helped the authors conceptualize the range of possible problems at Town Square Park. This was necessary because initial discussions of the park frequently included statements such as “everyone knows what the problem is,” yet many of the stakeholders had vague statements of both the problem and the goal. One of the key roles that careful analysts fill is a clear operationalization of the problem. This is a frequently overlooked aspect of problem-solving.

Another suggestion for future work is for researchers to consider the smallest unit of analysis that is feasible. Before we devised formal research methods, the authors spent several hours in Town Square Park. We simply watched where people went and what they did in the park. This was time consuming but necessary to understanding how the space was used by people. While other researchers might have defined them differently, we are confident there are meaningful differences among spaces within Town Square Park. There is a practical limit to how small one’s unit of analysis can be, of course. Our suggestion is for analysts to be aware that a study area could contain multiple contexts, even when the study area is small.

The practical and methodological challenges of studying crime and disorder at places like Town Square Park are numerous. Our efforts were limited by a lack of baseline data, inability to use control locations, lack of agreement on the problem, and a lack of funding. These challenges all contributed to a problem identification and analysis effort that lacked the rigor typically associated with academic evaluations. This is, of course, common in problem-solving, as it is conducted by practitioners. Academics working with police agencies and other problem-solving partners need to be flexible and nimble in order to be relevant at the local level. While far from perfect, our efforts demonstrated the value of problem identification, measurement, and data analysis to our partners. Researchers should also explore potential barriers for hypothetically possible solutions; as noted in this article, resistance to design changes suggested by CPTED, a lack of financial resources, poorly utilized CCTV, or political immunity may complicate the effective use of crime prevention strategies. The biggest challenge is that this park, like many public spaces, is at the center of conflicts over urban space that go far beyond what could be reasonably expected of police, yet there is a public expectation that police “solve” the Town Square Park problem.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Anchorage Police Department. (2013). Town Square Park: Crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED). Unpublished report, Community Action Policing Team, Anchorage, AK.

Andresen

(2010). Diurnal movements and the ambient population: An application to municipal-level crime rate calculations. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 52, 97–109.

Andresen

Jenion

(2010). Ambient populations and the calculation of crime rates and risk. Security Journal, 23, 114–133.

Bachand

(2013). Letter: Park facilities are lacking. Retrieved from Alaska Dispatch News: http://www.adn.com

Ballard

(2015). Berkowitz seeks Anchorage Town Square changes. Retrieved from KTVA Alaska: http://www.ktva.com

Bichler

Gaines

(2005). An examination of police officers’ insights into problem identification and problem solving. Crime & Delinquency, 51, 53–74.

Bilet

R. L.

(2013). Letter: Confront the undesirables. Retrieved from Alaska Dispatch News: http://www.adn.com

Block

Davis

(1996). The environs of rapid transit stations: A focus for street crime or just another risky place? In Clarke

(Ed.), Preventing mass transit crime (pp. 237–257). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

Braga

A. A.

Papachristos

A. V.

Hureau

D. M.

(2014). The effects of hot spots policing on crime: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Justice Quarterly, 31, 633–663.

10.

Brantingham

P. L.

Brantingham

P. J.

(1993). Environment, routine, and situation: Toward a pattern theory of crime. In Clarke

R. V.

Felson

(Eds.), Routine activity and rational choice (pp. 259–294). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

11.

Burke

(2014). The missing rink: No staking this year in Anchorage’s Town Square. Retrieved from Alaska Dispatch News: http://www.adn.com

12.

Center for Problem-Oriented Policing. (2013). 25 Situational crime prevention techniques. Retrieved from Problem Oriented Policing Center: http://www.popcenter.org

13.

Clarke

R. V.

(1997). Situational crime prevention: Successful case studies (2nd ed.). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

14.

Clarke

R. V.

Cornish

D. B.

(2000). Rational choice. In Paternoster

Bachman

(Eds.), Explaining crime and criminals: Essays in contemporary criminological theory (pp. 23–42). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.

15.

Cohen

L. E.

Felson

(1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588–607.

16.

Cornish

D. B.

Clarke

R. V.

(1986). The reasoning criminal. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

17.

DeMarban

(2014, 5 4). Sudden removal of trees from Town Square Park prompts uproar—and thanks. Retrieved from Alaska Dispatch News: http://www.adn.com

18.

Doogan

(2014, 2 12). Anchorage scrambles to add police as force continues to shrink. Retrieved from Alaska Dispatch News: http://www.adn.com/article/20140212/anchorage-scrambles-add-police-force-continues-shrink

19.

Eck

J. E.

(1994). Drug markets and drug places: A case-control study of the spatial structure of illicit drug dealing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD.

20.

Eck

J. E.

Clarke

R. V.

(2003). Classifying common police problems: A routine activity approach. In Smith

M. J.

Cornish

D. B.

(Eds.), Theory for practice in situational crime prevention (pp. 7–39). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

21.

Felson

(1995). Those who discourage crime. In Eck

J. E.

Weisburd

(Eds.), Crime and place (pp. 53–66). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

22.

Felson

Belanger

Bichler

Bruzinski

Campbell

Fried

… Williams

(1996). Redesigning hell: Preventing crime and disorder at the Port Authority Bus Terminal. In Clarke

(Ed.), Preventing mass transit crime (pp. 5–92). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

23.

Fennelly

Timothy

(2013). Crime prevention through environmental design. Oxford, England: Butterworth-Heinemann.

24.

Fisher

Nasar

J. L.

(1995). Fear spots in relation to microlevel physical cues: Exploring the overlooked. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 32, 214–239.

25.

Gallagher

K. M.

(2014). Problem framing in problem-oriented policing: An examination of framing from problem definition to problem response. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH.

26.

Giles-Corti

Broomhall

M. H.

Knuiman

Collins

Douglas

… Donovan

R. J.

(2005). Increasing walking: How important is distance to, attractiveness, and size of public open space? American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28, 169–176.

27.

Giles-Corti

Timperio

Bull

Pilora

(2005). Understanding physical activity environmental correlates: Increased specificity for ecological models. Exercise and Sport Science Reviews, 33, 175–181.

28.

Gobster

(2002). Managing urban parks for a racially and ethnically diverse clientele. Leisure Sciences, 24, 143–159.

29.

Goldstein

(1990). Problem-oriented policing. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

30.

Gottfredson

M. R.

Hirschi

(1990). A general theory of crime. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

31.

Groff

McCord

E. S.

(2012). The role of neighborhood parks as crime generators. Security Journal, 25, 1–24.

32.

Grove

(2012). Man caught in brazen rape in Town Square Park, police say. Retrieved from Alaska Dispatch News: http://www.adn.com

33.

Guerette

Bowers

(2009). Assessing the extent of crime displacement and diffusion of benefits: A review of situational crime prevention evaluations. Criminology, 27, 1331–1368.

34.

Hancock

(2014). Effort under way to redesign Town Square Park. Retrieved from KTUU: http://www.ktuu.com

35.

Hayward

Weitzer

(1984). The public’s image of urban parks: Past amenity, present ambivalence, uncertain future. Urban Ecology, 8, 243–268.

36.

Hill

Paynich

(2014). Fundamentals crime mapping. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Learning.

37.

Hillborn

(2009). Dealing with crime and disorder in Urban Parks. Problem-oriented guides for police (Response Guides Series, No. 9). Washington, DC: Center for Problem-Oriented Policing.

38.

Hirschi

(1986). On the compatibility of rational choice and social control theories of crime. In Cornish

Clarke

(Eds.), The reasoning criminal: Rational choice perspectives on offending (pp. 105–118). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

39.

Jeffery

C. R.

(1971). Crime prevention through environmental design. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

40.

Kaczynski

A. T.

Potwarka

Saelens

B. E.

(2008). Association of park size, distance, and features with physical activity in neighborhood parks. American Journal of Public Health, 98, 1451–1456.

41.

Kelley

(2015). Mayor says Anchorage bus depot needs facelift, but denizens say it’s their place to go. Retrieved from Anchorage Dispatch News: http://www.adn.com/article/20151124/mayor-says-anchorage-bus-depot-needs-facelift-denizens-say-its-their-place-go

42.

Kelly

(2014). Nine trees cut down in Town Square Park. Retrieved from Alaska Dispatch News: http://www.adn.com

43.

Loukaitou-Sideris

(1999). Hot spots of bus stop crime: The importance of environmental attributes. Journal of the American Planning Association, 65, 395–411.

44.

McCormack

G. R.

Rock

Toohey

A. M.

Hignell

(2010). Characteristics of urban parks associated with park use and physical activity: A review of qualitative research. Health & Place, 16, 712–726.

45.

Payne

(1978). Affective responses to natural areas near cities. Journal of Leisure Research, 10, 7–12.

46.

Municipality of Anchorage. (1984). Code of ordinances. Retrieved September 15, 2015, from Block 51, Town Square Dedication: https://www.municode.com/library/ak/anchorage

47.

Newman

(1972). Defensible space: Crime prevention through urban design. New York, NY: MacMillan.

48.

Palsha

(2010, 6 23). Witnesses claim crime on the rise at Town Square Park. Retrieved from KTUU: http://articles.ktuu.com

49.

Payne

Orsega-Smith

Roy

Godbey

(2005). Local park use and personal health among older adults: An exploratory study. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 23, 1–20.

50.

Payne

T. C.

Gallagher

Eck

J. E.

Frank

(2013). Problem framing in problem solving: A case study. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 36, 670–682.

51.

Piza

Caplan

Kennedy

(2014). CCTV as a tool for early police intervention: Preliminary lessons from nine case studies. Security Journal, 1–19. doi:10.1057/sj.2014.17

52.

Piza

Caplan

Kennedy

Gilchrist

(2015). The effects of merging proactive CCTV monitoring with directed police patrol: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11, 43–69.

53.

Potwarka

Kaczynski

A. T.

Flack

A. L.

(2008). Places to play: Association of park space and facilities with healthy weight status among children. Journal of Community Health, 33, 344–350.

54.

Reed

J. A.

Arant

C. A.

Wells

Stevens

Hagen

Harring

(2008). A descriptive examination of the most frequently used activity settings in 25 community parks using direct observation. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 5, S183–S195.

55.

Reyes

R. C.

(2016). Public space as contested space: The battle over the use, meaning and function of public space. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 6, 201–207.

56.

Rossmo

D. K.

(2009). Criminal investigative failures. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

57.

Shadish

W. R.

Cook

T. D.

Campbell

D. T.

(2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

58.

Skogan

W. G.

Steiner

(2004). CAPS at ten: Community policing in Chicago. Chicago: The Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority.

59.

Spelman

Eck

J. E.

(1987). Research in brief: Problem oriented policing. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

60.

Swann

(2013, 10 5). Crime on the rise in Town Square Park. Retrieved from KTVA Alaska: http://www.ktva.com

61.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2014). Anchorage municipality quickfacts. Retrieved November 15, 2015, from State & County QuickFacts: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/02/02020.html

62.

Weisburd

D. L.

Eck

J. E.

(2004). What can police do to reduce crime, disorder, and fear? The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 593, 42–65.

63.

Weisburd

D. L.

Telep

C. W.

Hinkle

Eck

J. E.

(2010). Is problem-oriented policing effective in reducing crime and disorder? Criminology & Public Policy, 9, 139–172.

64.

Zanon

Doucouliagos

Hall

Lockstone-Binney

(2013). Constraints to park visitation: A meta-analysis of North American studies. Leisure Sciences, 35, 475–493.