Author
Listed:
- Lisle S. Hites
- Matthew Fifolt
- Heidi Beck
- Wei Su
- Shatomi Kerbawy
- Jessica Wakelee
- Ariann Nassel
Abstract
Background: While there is no panacea for alleviating campus safety concerns, safety experts agree that one of the key components to an effective campus security plan is monitoring the environment. Despite previous attempts to measure campus safety, quantifying perceptions of fear, safety, and risk remains a challenging issue. Since perceptions of safety and incidents of crime do not necessarily mirror one another, both were utilized in this investigation. Purpose: The purpose of this article is to describe an innovative, mixed methods approach for assessing campus safety at a large, urban campus in the southeast region of the United States. Method: A concurrent triangulation design was implemented to allow investigators the opportunity to collect qualitative and quantitative data simultaneously and integrate results in the interpretation phase. Data were collected from four distinct sources of information. Results: Student focus groups yielded data regarding perceptions of risk, and kernel density analysis was used to identify “hot spots†of campus crime incidents. Conclusion: While in many cases perceived risk and actual crime incidents were associated, incidents of hot spots of each type occurred independently with such frequency that an overall correlation of the two was not significant. Accordingly, while no significant correlation between perceived risk and crime incidents was confirmed statistically, the geospatial integration of these data suggested three types of safety conditions. Further, the combination of focus group data and spatial analyses provided a more comprehensive and, therefore, more complete understanding of the multifaceted issues related to campus safety.
Suggested Citation
Lisle S. Hites & Matthew Fifolt & Heidi Beck & Wei Su & Shatomi Kerbawy & Jessica Wakelee & Ariann Nassel, 2013.
"A Geospatial Mixed Methods Approach to Assessing Campus Safety,"
Evaluation Review, , vol. 37(5), pages 347-369, October.
Handle:
RePEc:sae:evarev:v:37:y:2013:i:5:p:347-369
DOI: 10.1177/0193841X13509815
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:evarev:v:37:y:2013:i:5:p:347-369. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.