Vandalism as a design consideration in urban parks: A case study of University Village Park
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vandalism is reported to be a major problem for many urban parks. This thesis explores the relationship between vandalism and design through examination of a neighbourhood park in Guelph, Ontario. The purpose of the thesis is to examine the environmental and social variables that might predict neighbourhood park vandalism. Various concepts that relate to understanding vandalism and reducing it through physical design were explored in the literature, including vandalism, social psychological origins of vandalism, neighbourhood design, territoriality and, defensible space-crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) concepts. From this literature review, three streams of data were collected: information about use of the park, obtained through a mail-out resident survey; information about vandalism in the park, collected from police reports, maintenance crews and observation; and information about physical factors of the park and neighbourhood that influence vandalism and its prevention, obtained by examination and assessment of the physical features of the neighbourhood. From these data sets, recommendations were prepared that suggest ways to reduce and prevent further vandalism in the park. These recommendations were reviewed with members of the community, with city staff responsible for park design and maintenance, and with the local police. Based on this review, recommendations for the park were modified. The study concludes with guidelines for the reduction of park vandalism through design, both in the rehabilitation of existing urban parks and the design of new ones.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".