Reference no: EM133032649

Controlling the behaviour of park users without directly supervising them poses a significant challenge for park staff. Besides including messages about limitation of liability on signs, there are other means by which park staff can encourage appropriate behaviour in parks.

One example is the use of security lighting. Consider, for example, a municipal park that acts as a shortcut between a residential area and commercial businesses. Ensuring that walkways and seating areas are brightly lit at night can help to limit crimes such as muggings and sexual assaults. Consensual criminal activity (such as drug-dealing), however, may simply be driven further into the shadows.

Where significant problems with drug-dealing and trash-dumping develop in a particular area, park managers may choose to install security cameras, along with signage that alerts visitors to the existence of the cameras. The signs themselves may act as a significant deterrent.

When installing security cameras, it is important to consider whether the cameras constitute an invasion of privacy. On private property (for example, in an outdoor amusement park, or in a privately owned parking lot), the property owner is entitled to install video surveillance; however, posting signs alerting patrons to the fact that they are under surveillance is a good idea. The law with respect to video surveillance in publicly owned places like city streets and municipal parks is less clear; while public video surveillance is on the rise in Canada, the legality of this practice has not been confirmed. Because a park is a public place, visitors in outdoor areas have no reasonable expectation of privacy. However, it is reasonable for patrons to expect privacy in park washrooms and change rooms. There have been cases in which park managers have installed cameras in these areas in an effort to control public sexual activity. People caught on camera in these areas have successfully challenged the use of cameras in many cases.

However, lighting and security cameras are fixed devices, and savvy users can learn to avoid them. On the other hand, foot patrols by security officers can prove much more difficult to anticipate and avoid. Where park managers have concerns about risk-taking or crime, arranging for patrols by park staff or security officers may be warranted.

The key to effective patrols is the element of surprise. If staff patrol a regular route on a regular schedule, problem visitors will quickly learn to avoid the patrols. The route and schedule should be varied so that the arrival time of patrols in any particular location is unpredictable.

In problem areas, staff should patrol in pairs. Where the risk is lower, single patrollers may be adequate, as long as backup is within range of portable radios. Staff at some large parks use cars to conduct patrols. However, the light and sound from an approaching car can give wrongdoers plenty of time to escape. In daylight, at least, bicycle patrols can be more effective as well as less likely to pollute the park environment.

Can anyone help me in answering me this question in context to the above passage:

What is the biggest safety-related challenge for managers of parks and what are its consequences?