REVITALIZING RIVERSIDE:COMMUNITY PERSPECTIVES ON ENHANCING AN URBAN PARK
Jason DuvallMartha Gruelle
Melissa Hopkins Kimberly Wolske
A project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Master of Science
(Natural Resources and Environment)at the University of Michigan
April 2005
Faculty Advisors:Professor Rachel KaplanAssociate Professor Raymond De Young
ABSTRACT
Riverside Park is a small, riverfront park located in Southwest Detroit. The park lies
in a culturally diverse neighborhood of mixed industrial and residential land uses. While the
park has many positive features, it has become an undervalued and neglected public space.
Through a series of observations of current park use, interviews with community leaders, and
surveys to local residents, our research explored the community’s perceived barriers to use
and suggested improvements for the park. Feelings of a lack of comfort emerged as a major
barrier to park use. This lack of comfort stems from perceptions that the park is neglected,
unsafe, and incompatible with users’ physical needs. Despite these problems, residents
report that they value Riverside Park’s unique features and are willing to become involved in
revitalization efforts. These findings helped to guide a series of recommendations on how
community ownership can be promoted and sustained at Riverside Park. Long-term success
is contingent upon the ability of the City of Detroit and the community of Southwest Detroit
to share in the responsibility of revitalizing this public space.
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..........................................................................................................VII
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................1Benefits of Parks................................................................................................................................................1
What Makes a Park Successful?.......................................................................................................................2
The Challenge of Urban Parks..........................................................................................................................2
CHAPTER TWO: STUDY SITE AND RESEARCH METHODS.....................................................5Riverside Park as a Research Setting................................................................................................................5
Methods............................................................................................................................................................12Observations................................................................................................................................................12Interviews.....................................................................................................................................................12Surveys.........................................................................................................................................................13Survey Distribution and Returns..................................................................................................................14Data Analysis...............................................................................................................................................16Community Meeting.....................................................................................................................................17
CHAPTER THREE: COMMUNITY PROFILE AND CURRENT USE OF THE PARK...................19Community Culture..........................................................................................................................................19
Current Use of Riverside Park.........................................................................................................................20
Survey Data......................................................................................................................................................21Level of Use..................................................................................................................................................21Types of Activities........................................................................................................................................23
Implications for the Future.............................................................................................................................25
CHAPTER FOUR: PERCEIVED CONDITION AND COMFORT.................................................27Park Condition.................................................................................................................................................27
Survey Data..................................................................................................................................................27
Barriers to Park Use........................................................................................................................................29Survey Data..................................................................................................................................................29Comfort as an Emerging Theme..................................................................................................................32
Desired Improvements.....................................................................................................................................32Survey Data..................................................................................................................................................32
Comfort.............................................................................................................................................................36Cues of Safety...............................................................................................................................................36Physical Safety.............................................................................................................................................37Basic Needs..................................................................................................................................................37
Amenities..........................................................................................................................................................38Typical Park Amenities................................................................................................................................38Riverside-specific Amenities........................................................................................................................39
Summary...........................................................................................................................................................39
iii
CHAPTER FIVE: COMMUNITY EVENTS AND PARTICIPATION.............................................41Holding Events as a Means to Address Concerns..........................................................................................41
Types of Events.................................................................................................................................................42
Community Involvement..................................................................................................................................45
What’s Needed..................................................................................................................................................45
Conclusion........................................................................................................................................................46
CHAPTER SIX: RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION......................................................49
REFERENCES...........................................................................................................................57
APPENDIX A: VIEWS OF RIVERSIDE PARK...........................................................................59
APPENDIX B: GROUPS INTERVIEWED....................................................................................63
APPENDIX C: INTERVIEW GUIDE AND CONSENT FORM......................................................65
APPENDIX D: COVER LETTER AND COMMUNITY SURVEY..................................................71
APPENDIX E: COMMUNITY MEETING PARTICIPANTS..........................................................81
APPENDIX F: DEMOGRAPHICS OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS..................................................83
iv
FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Changes in population, racial and ethnic make-up of nearby neighborhoods…… 6Figure 2.2 Map of Riverside Park and surrounding land use……………………………… 8Figure 2.3 Diagram of Riverside Park………………………………………………………..9
TABLESTable 2.1 Return rate for survey……………………………………………………………16
Table 3.1 Frequency of visits………………………………………………………………22Table 3.2 Frequency of visits by ethnicity…………………………………………………22Table 3.3 Reasons respondents have never visited Riverside Park……………………….. 23Table 3.4 Mean ratings of current uses…………………………………………………….24Table 3.5 Current uses factor analysis…………………………………………………….. 24
Table 4.1 Mean rating of park condition by all respondents……………………………… 28Table 4.2 Mean rating of park condition by ethnicity…………………………………….. 28Table 4.3 Mean rating of park condition by frequency of visits………………………….. 29Table 4.4 Mean ratings of discouraging aspects………………………………………….. 30Table 4.5 Discouraging aspects factor analysis…………………………………………… 31Table 4.6 Discouraging factors by ethnicity………………………………………………. 31Table 4.7 Discouraging factors by respondents with and without children………………..31 Table 4.8 Mean ratings of desired improvements………………………………………….33Table 4.9 Desired improvements factor analysis…………………………………………..34 Table 4.10 Improvement factors by ethnicity……………………………………………….34 Table 4.11 Improvement factors by respondents with and without children………………..35
Table 5.1 Mean ratings of community activities…………………………………………...42Table 5.2 Community activities factor analysis……………………………………………43Table 5.3 Mean ratings of kids’ activities………………………………………………….44Table 5.4 Mean rating of willingness to volunteer at the park……………………………..44Table 5.5 Interest in volunteering…………………………………………………………. 45
v
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We are deeply grateful to the community of Southwest Detroit. Thank you to the
many individuals and organizations who have spent time and effort to welcome us as outside
researchers into their community. These community members were always willing to share
their wisdom and to help create a vision of the future for Riverside Park; their generosity has
been truly humbling. We hope this report will further inspire the community to care for
Riverside Park.
We also thank our advisors, Rachel Kaplan and Raymond De Young. Their gentle
guidance through the learning process has been invaluable. We truly could not have
accomplished this without their insight, flexibility, and general good nature.
Thank you to our client, National Wildlife Federation, and in particular, Carey Rogers
and Nicole Rom who brought this project to our attention and provided us with ideas,
resources, and a great enthusiasm for Riverside Park.
We would also like to thank members of the Southwest Detroit community who
donated an extra amount of their time and resources to help us with this project. Father Don
Hanchon, of Holy Redeemer Church, and Father Tom Sepulveda, of Ste. Anne’s Parish,
graciously allowed us to distribute surveys to their congregations. Margarita Ortiz of the
Bowen Branch library donated her time to translate Spanish surveys. Karen Kavanaugh,
Southwest Detroit Business Association, provided us with a mailing list of residents in the
area. Matrix Theatre and Southwest Detroit Environmental Vision allowed us to distribute
surveys—and to enjoy a play in Riverside Park!—on the day of their children and youth
theatre production.
A special thank you to Tim Karl of the Detroit Recreation Department. He helped us
to better understand the park’s history and current situation.
We would also like to thank our friends and family members who have encouraged us
throughout this learning process. Through the highs and the lows, you have been there as
constant sources of support.
vii
viii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Parks can play an important role in the urban landscape. Beyond typical
recreational uses, urban parks offer people a refuge from city life, a place where they can
relax and get away, socialize, and be in contact with nature. At the same time, urban
parks can be the focal point of their surrounding community. Whether a venue for
stewardship activities or cultural fairs, a park can help bring a community together and
strengthen its identity.
The contribution a park makes to its community, however, is only as great as the
community’s willingness to use it. A variety of factors – from safety issues to design
elements – can make a park incompatible with visitors’ needs, resulting in a space that
becomes undervalued and scarcely used. Nowhere are the consequences of this greater
than in urban areas where access to green space is limited.
This study examines the issues of the existing and potential role of a particular
park at the riverfront in Southwest Detroit. The park does not currently serve the
community effectively, providing both challenges and opportunities that are the focus of
this document. The remainder of this chapter provides a brief overview of the
importance of green space, the features that make a park successful, and the challenges
faced by urban parks.
Benefits of Parks
Numerous studies have demonstrated the ability of natural places to positively
influence individual well-being. Even brief views of nature have been found to speed
recovery from surgery (Ulrich, 1984), reduce anxiety (Heerwagen, 1990), and enhance
one’s ability to function effectively (Kaplan, 2001). Exposure to natural environments
has also been linked to the restoration of attentional resources (Kaplan, 1995) and
reductions in crime and aggression (Kuo, 2001).
Green space can also lead to greater social cohesiveness. According to Kuo,
Sullivan, Coley, and Brunson (1998), settings with park-like elements not only are used
more often, but also strengthen neighborhood social ties. In addition, these settings can
encourage a sense of ownership and empowerment in the community, leading to better
monitoring of outdoor areas and supervision of children (Coley, Kuo, & Sullivan, 1997).
1
What Makes a Park Successful?
In order for an urban park to flourish, it must meet the needs of its users.
According to Carr, et al. (1992), public spaces that are highly used and valued by
individuals have several features in common. Most importantly, valued parks are able to
meet visitors’ basic needs, which include access to water, seating, shelter and bathrooms,
and a sense that the park is safe.
Successful parks also allow the user to relax and get away from daily life while
providing engaging elements such as vegetation and scenic views (Carr, et al., 1992). In
addition, these parks provide opportunities for more active uses, such as picnics,
community events, and general recreation. And, finally, successful parks allow people to
explore their surroundings.
The Challenge of Urban Parks
Meeting these needs can be more challenging when an urban park caters to a
culturally diverse population. There is some evidence that parks can act as a boundary
between neighborhoods of different races, resulting in lack of ownership and use (Solecki
and Welch, 1995). However, in some cases parks can foster appreciation of different
cultures and lifestyles (Gobster, 1998). Literature on park use also demonstrates that
different ethnic groups want to use park space in different ways. For instance, Latinos
tend to prefer group-oriented, as opposed to individual, recreational activities; the latter
are often favored by Caucasians (Hutchinson, 1987; Loukaitou-Sideris, 1995).
Despite the vital role parks often play within their community, meeting the variety
of needs we have mentioned can be a daunting task. Faced with limited budgets and
increasing demands, many city agencies barely have the financial resources to maintain
parks, let alone invest in improvements. While these agencies await funding, however,
other important resources go untapped. Residents and community organizations
represent an overlooked asset in park revitalization efforts. When included as partners in
decision making and park upkeep, community members can bring an incredible amount
of insight and energy to bear on these situations.
Riverside Park faces many of the challenges typical to urban parks. While the
park has many positive features, including its riverfront location, it has become an
undervalued and neglected public space. Our research set out to determine community
2
perceptions of the park, including perceived barriers to use, suggested improvements, and
how community ownership can be promoted and sustained.
3
4
CHAPTER TWO: STUDY SITE AND RESEARCH METHODS
Riverside Park as a Research Setting
Riverside Park is a lost gem among public spaces in Southwest Detroit. To
understand what makes this park unique, it is useful to look at the history of land use in
the area. Beginning in the early 1900’s, the land surrounding what eventually became the
park was developed for industrial purposes such as tobacco processing and automotive
parts manufacturing (Sauer, 1916). By the mid-1900’s, the natural gas utility Michigan
Consolidated established a coal gasification plant adjacent to the park (United States
Geological Survey, 1953). Although each of these operations has since left, the area
remains primarily industrial, marked by warehouses, abandoned buildings, and a few
operating businesses.
Beyond this industrial landscape, however, Riverside Park also neighbors some of
Detroit’s most exceptional riverfront features. The J.W. Westcott Company, which
borders the park at its southeast corner, operates one of the country’s only mail boats.
The company began in 1874 and since 1895 has been delivering mail to passing Great
Lakes freighters (Pollack, 2001). A branch of the Detroit Fire Department sits on the
other side of J.W. Westcott and is home to the city’s fireboat. Both of these boats can be
seen from the park’s promenade as they venture into the river. They are just two
examples of the many vessels to travel past the park. Within Southwest Detroit,
Riverside Park also offers one of the few uninterrupted views of one of the city’s most
prominent landmarks – the Ambassador Bridge. Completed in 1929, this 9,200-foot
suspension bridge is the most heavily used border crossing for truck traffic in North
America (I-94 International Trade Alliance, 2005). In addition to the views it affords, the
park offers one of the few public access points to the riverfront.
In the 85 years since its establishment, Riverside Park has undergone many
changes. These include the construction of a concession stand and bathrooms, as well as
a public boat launch and fishing pier (T. Karl, personal interview, December 8, 2004). In
the 1980’s, repeated vandalism brought the demolition of the bathrooms and concession
stand. Following the attacks on September 11, 2001, significant portions of the park,
including the boat launch, were closed in order to protect the Ambassador Bridge. This
reduced the current park from approximately 21 to 9 acres. Despite these setbacks, the
5
City of Detroit in 2002, with support from the Great Lakes Fishery Trust, rebuilt the
seawall and added a promenade to improve fishing access.
The area surrounding Riverside Park has also seen major changes in recent
decades. While adjoining properties are used for commercial and industrial purposes,
several residential neighborhoods are within a one-mile radius. According to census tract
data for the past three decades (1980 – 2000), these neighborhoods have become more
diverse and transient, yet population density has declined. Figure 2.1 illustrates the sharp
decline in population during the 1980’s, a decrease that was reversed somewhat in the
1990’s as more Latinos moved into the area (United States Census Bureau, 1980-2000).
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
1980 1990 2000
Census Year
Num
ber
of R
esid
ents
Latino
White (non Latino)
AfricanAmerican
Mixed and other
Figure 2.1 Changes in population, racial and ethnic make-up of nearby neighborhoods.
This study considers the approximately nine acres of Riverside Park still open to
the public (see Figure 2.2). With its southern edge delineated by the Detroit River, the
park is bounded to the west by a newspaper warehouse and to the east by a Homeland
Security fence associated with the Ambassador Bridge. Railroad tracks and a tree-lined
embankment form most of the northern boundary. The tree line prevents passers-by from
obtaining a clear view of much of the park until they have approached its entrance. The
majority of the park, aside from the promenade, is either grass or paved parking lot. A
handful of trees, a small habitat garden installed by the National Wildlife Federation
(NWF), and an old playscape are the exceptions to this linear landscape. The northwest
corner of the parking lot leads out of the park, across the railroad line to the end of West
Grand Boulevard. Only five households are within two blocks of the park. Most of the
6
7
Figure 2.2 Map of Riverside Park and surrounding land use
8
Figure 2.3 Diagram of Riverside Park
9
nearby community lies more than 0.3 mile north of the park on the other side of an
interstate freeway and a major thoroughfare for trucks entering and exiting the
Ambassador Bridge.
The location of Riverside Park appears to be both a blessing and a curse. While
the park’s public fishing access and views of the riverfront are enough to draw some
Southwest Detroiters, its isolation from the local community may be a deterrent to others.
Recognizing these challenges and the park’s potential to become an important
community asset, several organizations have devised extensive plans to revitalize
Riverside Park. Proposals range from merely modifying the existing layout of the park to
connecting it to other portions of the riverfront by means of a greenway or river walk.
What has not been done, though, is an assessment of how current users and the nearby
community would like to see the park improved.
In undertaking this task, we were faced with several immediate challenges.
Guided by the belief that park revitalization would be successful only when backed by
strong community support, we felt it was vital to understand the community’s perceptions
of the park, not simply which of the proposed plans was most favored. If the latter had
been the intent of our study, we might simply have sent a survey “cold” in the mail. But
to understand how the park could better serve community needs, it was necessary to first
gain insight into the dynamics of the nearby community by developing a positive, trusting
relationship with its members.
Complicating this task was the reality that Riverside’s community was far from
homogenous. NWF had told us that the park was predominantly used by African
Americans; the nearby residents, however, are mostly Latino and Caucasian. This diverse
population has added another layer of richness to the complex forces already affecting
Riverside Park. As outsiders to this community, we have consequently taken a feedback-
driven approach to our research, looking to the community as much as possible to help
guide our data collection and interpret our results.
10
Methods
Observations
To get a sense of the park, its current usage, and its surroundings, we visited
Riverside Park and the neighboring community at various times of the day and week in
the spring and early summer of 2004. Notes were taken on the proximity and character
of homes, the cultural and community institutions nearby, as well as the number of
people using the park and the activities taking place. In addition, we spoke informally
with anglers and asked several to fill out a short questionnaire about their use of the park
and what they would like to see changed. Based on these observations, we identified
several issues that seemed worthy of further investigation.
Interviews
In the summer of 2004 we conducted interviews with staff and leaders of
community organizations in the area near Riverside Park. The purpose of interviews was
to deepen our knowledge of the community, develop lines of communication with
community leaders, and explore what organizations and their constituents thought about
the park. In addition we hoped that by including these organizations in our research, we
could encourage their interest in future revitalization efforts.
Our list of potential interviewees was derived through the following ways:
NWF provided names of groups and individuals that it had worked with in
Riverside Park and its surrounding community;
Team members explored surrounding neighborhoods and scanned local media
for organizations active in the community;
One group member, having worked in Southwest Detroit, provided
information and contacts; and
In the course of interviews we asked for suggestions of additional
organizations to contact.
Based on observations of park users and our conversations with NWF, an
interview guide was developed that addressed five main subject areas:
Perception of the park by individuals and organizations in the community;
Reasons people might not use the park and changes that could increase use;
11
Infrastructural improvements, activities, and events that could occur in the
park, particularly those that might meet a community need or match an
organization’s goals;
Willingness of the organization to support revitalization efforts; and
General impressions of the community.
A list of interviewed organizations appears in Appendix B. These organizations
include housing development groups, churches, and cultural, environmental and business
associations. Throughout the summer of 2004 a total of 22 individuals were interviewed,
generally individually and in a few instances in groups of two or three.
Each of the 17 interviews lasted approximately one hour and was conducted by at
least two members of the project team. The informal nature of the interviews and the
variety of groups that were included required flexibility in this process. Although
interviewers made efforts to address the five subject areas, interviews sometimes focused
on only a few topics or on a more general discussion of the community, depending on the
interests of the interviewee.
During the interviews, notes were taken and, with participant permission,
interviews were recorded. Notes and recordings were then used to summarize interviews
for future use. The interview guide and consent form are provided in Appendix C.
Surveys
Based on the results of our observations and interviews, the team composed a
four-page, 13-question survey for distribution to community residents and park users.
The survey was produced in both English and Spanish as was the cover letter. Nine
participants, two of whom speak Spanish, test-piloted the draft survey. In the final
version, questions measured five aspects of participants’ use, perceptions, and visions of
Riverside Park:
1. Awareness and use of the park. This section asked about the frequency of
visits and of specific types of activities (such as fishing, picnicking, and relaxing and
getting away). It also asked participants to rate the current condition of the park. Items in
this section, like most of the survey, used a five-point Likert scale.
12
2. Interpretive material. The next section asked questions to assess how well
NWF-sponsored signs at the park were received. The purpose of the signs is to illustrate
the connection between Great Lakes ecosystem health and public health.1
3. Potential barriers to park use. The third section asked whether the respondent
felt discouraged from going to the park because of things like litter, people sitting in cars
in the parking lot (a complaint heard in several interviews), and illegal activities
happening in the park.
4. Potential park improvements. This section asked participants to rate how
important each of several potential park improvements were to them. Since many
improvements might be seen as very important, we asked participants in a subsequent
question to circle the three improvements that they would most like to see happen.
5. Community activities. In this section participants were asked to rate how
likely they would be to participate in activities such as a church picnic, an arts or cultural
fair, or an activity on Great Lakes wildlife. Participants were also asked to rate how likely
they would be to encourage children they knew to attend similar events. This last section
also included a question about respondents’ interest in volunteering at Riverside Park.
Finally, the survey asked a series of demographic questions including age, gender,
zip code, length of residence in the area, ethnicity, ages of children in one’s household,
and how often the respondent visits Detroit parks. Space was provided in multiple
locations on the survey for additional comments. The survey and cover letter are
provided in Appendix D.
Survey Distribution and Returns
Our goal was to distribute the survey as widely as possible given our limited
resources, but to do so in a way that would encourage recipients to fill it out. The
following considerations were important in devising our distribution plan: (1) a
considerable portion of the neighborhood speaks Spanish; (2) much of this population is
comprised of illegal immigrants who might be afraid to fill out a survey from a faceless
source; (3) the low-income status of the neighborhood meant that residents were likely to 1 Though we did seek input on the value of NWF’s interpretive signs, we did not emphasize these findings in later chapters. It is important to note that these signs were appreciated by some participants. Approximately 27% of participants noticed the signs. The vast majority of those who did notice the signs (90% or greater) thought they were interesting, understandable, and important.
13
be transient and therefore mailing addresses would be quickly out of date; and (4) beyond
these concerns, the potential success of a mailed survey would be questionable given that
we were outsiders to the community.
Based on these concerns and the recommendations of interviewees, we focused
our efforts on in-person distribution whenever possible and offered bilingual survey
packets. Each packet contained a cover letter, two copies of the survey (one English, one
Spanish), a self-addressed stamped envelope, and a pen. The cover letter appeared in
English on one side of a sheet and in Spanish on the reverse. The outer envelope was
printed with a graphic of a park bench beside a river with the heading of “Riverside
Park.” Across the bottom of the envelope, a tagline read (in both languages) “Survey
about community views enclosed!”
A total of 1,144 surveys were distributed between July and September 2004; 411
of these were distributed in person at places like a community-wide sidewalk sale,
religious services at two churches, and during community events at Riverside Park and
nearby Clark Park. We targeted the religious services in particular in an attempt to reach
the greatest concentration of Spanish speakers and immigrants.
The format for distributing the surveys depended on the setting. At the churches,
packets were given to participants as they exited the service. At community events and in
the park, we asked attendees to fill out surveys on the spot, and provided packets to those
who indicated they would fill out the survey later. To capture the opinions of residents
living closest to the park, we distributed 500 survey packets by hanging them on door
knobs.
We also mailed 233 packets first-class to a random selection of addresses
generated by a local business association. These households were in proximity to the
park, but not as close as the door-to-door sample. Of the packets mailed, 27 were returned
as undeliverable.
The response rate across the entire sample was 21.8%. Table 2.1 shows the
individual return rates for each of the distribution points. For the community-wide
sidewalk sale and the church services, the return rates are also reported according to the
language of the surveys returned. Such values could not be calculated for surveys
14
distributed by mail or door-to-door as we cannot say which language non-respondents
would have chosen.
As Table 2.1 shows, in those places where we distributed English and Spanish
surveys separately (rather than packaged together, as in the mailing and door-to-door
distribution), the return rate for the Spanish surveys was far lower. This marked
difference underscores the difficulty of including new immigrant voices in neighborhood
planning.
Table 2.1 Return Rate for Survey (excluding mailed surveys returned as undeliverable).Total
DistributedTotal
ReturnedPercent
ReturnedOverall Return Rate 1117 244 21.8Main Distribution Points 1069 197 18.4Community-wide Sidewalk Sale 60 21 35.0 English 38 19 50.0 Spanish 22 2 9.1
Church Service 1 198 33 16.7 English 44 22 50.0 Spanish 154 11 7.1
Church Service 2 105 26 24.8 English 42 16 38.1 Spanish 63 10 15.8
Mailing List, delivered 206 11 5.3English 9
Spanish 2
Door-to-door 500 106 21.2English 98
Spanish 8
Distributed at Parks 48 47 98.0English 47 46 98.0Spanish 1 1 100.0
Data Analysis
Interview notes and the accompanying audio recordings were used to generate
interview summaries. Analysis of this material focused on two themes: barriers to park
use and suggestions for improvements. For each of these, we identified a number of sub-
themes (e.g. safety, access and location, restrooms) and tabulated how often they were
15
mentioned. Although this analysis allowed us to better identify general perceptions about
the park, it is important to note that several interviews addressed these topics only briefly.
While most of the survey data involved structured items, participants also
included many comments on the surveys. These were typed into a separate document
and, if necessary, translated. Comments were then organized into the following seven
themes: (1) current park use, (2) discouraging aspects, (3) desired improvements, (4)
community events and activities for children, (5) volunteering, (6) encouragement and
positive feelings, and (7) other. Comments within each theme were then grouped into
sub-themes (e.g. for discouraging aspects, sub-themes included condition and safety, and
access and greenways). If a comment addressed multiple themes, it was placed into each
theme that was appropriate.
We used factor analysis as a data reduction technique to identify sub-themes
among banks of survey items. For each bank of items, we used principal axis factoring
with varimax rotation (SPSS for Windows, Version 11.5). In each case, two analyses
were run to determine the final number of factors created. For the initial analysis, all
factors with Eigenvalues greater than one were created. Based on the number of main
factors apparent in the scree plot, the creation of the same number of factors was forced
in a second analysis. Double-loading items were excluded from factors as were items
with factor loadings less than 0.40. Only factors with Cronbach reliability (alpha) scores
of 0.70 or greater were used for further analysis.
Survey responses were also compared between groups of individuals based on
differences in background variables and how often participants used the park. Where two
groups were compared, independent samples t-tests were used. Where three or more
groups were compared, one-way analysis of variance was used, followed by a Bonferroni
multiple comparisons test. Acceptable significance values for all analyses were those
with p ≤ 0.05.
Community Meeting
In November 2004, NWF sponsored a community meeting where we presented
our preliminary survey findings and solicited input about the study and next steps.
Community organizations represented at the meeting included 15 groups, many of which
16
were part of the interview process (see Appendix E for a listing of community meeting
participants). Outcomes of this meeting are described in Chapter Five.
17
CHAPTER THREE: COMMUNITY PROFILE AND CURRENT USE OF THE PARK
Many plans have been devised for Riverside Park but few have taken into account
the needs of its current users or of nearby residents. As one of our goals was to
understand how the park might better serve this community, researching cultural
dynamics and current uses of the park was essential. This chapter reports what we
learned about each. Interviews were our main source of information regarding
community culture while park observations and survey items provided data on the
frequency and types of park use.
Community Culture
Driving through the commercial areas near Riverside Park, one is immediately
struck by the presence of Spanish and bilingual signs, the number of Mexican restaurants
and groceries, and the many establishments that cater to the Latino population – including
many of the organizations we interviewed. Comprising more than half of the area’s
population, Latinos represent an important and growing segment of Southwest Detroit
(United States Bureau of the Census, 2000). Yet on a typical day at Riverside Park, few
(if any) of the visitors are Latino. When asked why these community members might not
visit the park, interviewees tended to cite various facets of Latino culture. Most often we
heard that Latinos are very family oriented and concerned about the safety of their
children. Saturdays and Sundays are important family days in the culture, and in the
summer often involve backyard cookouts. One participant noted, however, that for
Latinos to feel comfortable using a public place such as a park, it must feel safe and cared
for. Another participant suggested that most public places do not meet these criteria.
It was also clear, however, that such concerns have not prevented residents from
creating a strong community structure. Evidence for this lies in the fact that several
interviewees mentioned word-of-mouth as the fastest way of spreading information
through the community. But residents are more than well connected; they seem to care
about the happenings and future of their neighborhoods. This care is apparent both in the
many local newsletters and Spanish newspapers that exist in the community as well as the
large turnouts at churches, cultural events, and other activities put on by local
18
organizations. Of particular interest to our research were the community efforts to
revitalize Clark Park.
Separated by a highway overpass and the steady truck traffic of Fort Street, Clark
Park lies approximately six blocks to the north of Riverside Park and is well known in
Southwest Detroit. Located in a bustling section of town, the park is largely surrounded
by residential housing and local businesses. Through interviews, we learned that when
the City of Detroit shut down the park’s ice rink and recreation center in 1991, a group of
volunteer parents, residents, business owners, and nonprofit organizations joined together
to form the Clark Park Coalition. Through volunteer efforts, the coalition was able to
reopen the recreational center and ice rink by 1992. In addition to the athletic activities
such as hockey, soccer, and baseball that it originally fought to save, the coalition has
expanded programming to include educational and social opportunities. Still operating
thirteen years later, Clark Park Coalition is testimony not only to the neighborhood’s
capacity to self-organize, but also to the commitment individuals have to the community.
Current Use of Riverside Park
Why is it then, that the same type of community support is absent from Riverside
Park? At first, our assumption was simply that the park was underutilized. Given its
isolated location and Clark Park’s prominence in the area, it was not difficult to imagine
that Riverside lacked a significant user base, let alone a group of people fighting for its
improvement. As a consequence, our research was initially driven by the question of
how to increase park use. We sought answers to this question by first examining current
usage patterns of the park.
Site visits provided the initial picture of park usage. The typical scene included
anywhere from zero to fifteen people on the riverfront promenade and another ten to
twenty people sitting in parked cars. The large expanse of grass and the small playground
between these two areas remained mostly empty. Visitors on the promenade were
usually fishing or simply sitting near the river. Most were African American and male
although a few female anglers were observed. Occasionally, visitors were observed
bringing items, such as barbeques or card tables, but these items were usually set up in
the parking lot. The age range of park users varied widely, though children were seldom
19
observed. The lack of Latino users was particularly surprising given the proximity of the
park to a predominantly Latino neighborhood. Interviewees seemed to confirm these
observations, suggesting that the park did not attract the attention of local residents
except as a place to view the Fourth of July fireworks. The fireworks attracted people
from the city and beyond who sought to take advantage of one of the best views of the
Detroit skyline.
The most prevalent activities in the park tended to be either fishing, sitting by the
river, or sitting in cars. Interview participants’ perceptions about current uses of the park
were similar to what was observed, although interviewees also mentioned some of the
undesirable activities occurring at the park. Interviewees noted that the park seemed
unsafe, and that remnants of nighttime activity, such as broken glass and litter, made the
park an unappealing destination. They also noted that accessing the park by foot was
extremely difficult because Fort Street and the highway cut off the park from the
surrounding neighborhood.
Survey Data
To validate our observations, we asked survey participants how often they visit
the park and what activities they prefer to do during their visits. We collected this
information, along with demographic data, to determine if there were park usage trends
that differed between park users and non-users, as well as between different demographic
groups. Survey respondents were mostly Latino (44%) or Caucasian (35%), women
(65%), and age 40 or older (60%), suggesting that the sample differed in a number of
respects from the population we observed at the park. See Appendix F for a table of
survey respondent demographics.
Level of Use
The survey data revealed that underutilization was perhaps not the main problem
facing the park. Although 37.8% of respondents indicated that they had either never
visited the park or were infrequent visitors, the majority of respondents (67.5%) said they
went to the park at least occasionally (see Table 3.1). Confirming what we heard through
interviews, Latino participants indicated that they visited the park significantly less often
20
than African American and Caucasian participants (F (2, 201) = 8.12, p < .02, see Table
3.2). Female respondents also indicated that they visited the park significantly less often
( = 2.63) than males ( = 3.03, t (140.6) = 2.22, p < .03).
Table 3.1 Frequency of visits
n Mean* S.D.
How often do you visit Riverside Park? 230 2.76 1.23Percent
Never 46 20.0Infrequently 41 17.8Occasionally 96 41.7Often 17 7.4Very often 30 13.0
* Tables 3.1 and 3.2 based on a 5 point scale (1 = very poor, 5 = very good).
Table 3.2 Frequency of visits by ethnicity
n Mean S.D.
African American 31 3.29a 1.32Latino 94 2.39a,b 1.15Caucasian 79 2.90b 1.16a Bonferroni Multiple Comparison Test: Means are significantly different at p < 0.01b Bonferroni Multiple Comparison Test: Means are significantly different at p < 0.02
To understand why some respondents have never been to the park, this group of
survey participants was also asked to check off their reasons for not visiting Riverside.
Approximately half of the participants reported that they were unaware the park existed.
Another 35.7% reported “other reasons” for not going to the park, while approximately
30% preferred to go to other parks instead. Overall, access to the park was not found to
be as significant of a barrier to visiting the park as awareness and preference to visit other
parks (see Table 3.3), although this finding is likely confounded by the number of people
unaware of the park.
21
Table 3.3 Reasons respondents have never visited Riverside Park (n = 42)
Percent that agreed*
Not aware of the park 47.6Park is too difficult to get to 7.1Go to other parks instead 28.6Do not go for other reasons 35.7* Multiple items could be selected; therefore this does not total 100%
Types of Activities
Along with frequency of park visits, we wanted to know what types of activities
draw current users to the park. Eleven survey items addressed the range of activities we
expected to be most common. Analysis of these items was consistent with our
observations, with a few exceptions (see Table 3.4). Passive activities involving the river
were done most often, with “look at river” and “watch boats” receiving the highest mean
scores, at 3.51 and 3.25, respectively. Surprisingly, the items associated with sitting in
the car (relax in my car) and fishing (fish), had low mean scores of 2.38 and 1.80,
respectively. One possible explanation for these lower than anticipated means involves
the choice of survey distribution sites. Most surveys were distributed in and around the
neighborhoods bordering the park; however, it might be the case that visitors who drive
to the park come from locations outside of the distribution area. This same issue is also
likely to explain the low mean score for fishing. Evidence from park observations and
informal conversations with anglers indicated that individuals come to fish at Riverside
Park from all over the city.
When principal axis factor analysis was performed on current use items, two
distinct categories emerged (see Table 3.5). The first category was composed of passive
activities that could typically only be done at the riverfront. Items in the second category
tended to be activities one would expect to take place in a park setting. Analysis of
survey responses indicated that activities unique to Riverside were done significantly
more often (t (186) = 13.98, p < .0001) than the traditional park activities. Although the
unique activities were done more frequently, it is unclear whether this is because people
actually prefer these unique activities or because the park’s current condition is not
conducive to traditional park activities. What does seem clear is that the location of
22
Riverside Park provides a venue for these unique activities to take place, and this seems
to attract visitors in spite of the many problems facing the park.
Table 3.4 Mean ratings of current uses
n Mean* S.D.
Look at river 198 3.51 1.29Watch boats 203 3.25 1.30Relax and get away 182 2.99a 1.46Walk 189 2.92a 1.39Relax in my car 181 2.38 1.45Take kids to playground 176 2.13b 1.37Eat lunch 173 1.91b,c 1.18Picnic 164 1.86c 1.12Fish 172 1.80 1.31Clean my car 165 1.22 .70* Tables 3.4 and 3.5 based on a 5 point scale (1 = very poor, 5 = very good).a,b,c Paired samples t-test: Means sharing the same superscript are not significantly different at the p < .05 level
Table 3.5 Current uses factor analysis
n Mean a S.D. Alpha
Activities Unique to Riverside 212 3.05 1.15 .90Items included: Loading: Look at the river .89 Watch boats .83 Relax and get away .79 Walk .64 Relax in my car .46
Traditional Park Uses 190 2.04 1.08 .78Items included: Loading: Picnic .76 Eat lunch .69 Take kids to playground .69 Fish .56a Paired samples t-test: Means are significantly different at p < .0001
23
In contrast to the activities discussed above, the park is also occasionally used for
large events. Most popular are the Fourth of July fireworks, with 39.4% of survey
respondents indicating that they had attended the annual event in the past few years.
Several community organizations in the area have also used the park for smaller one-time
events. During interviews and informal conversations, we got the impression that a
sizable portion of the community associates the park with these events rather than seeing
the park as place for everyday recreation and leisure.
Implications for the Future
These findings suggest that the problems facing Riverside Park are more complex
than simply a lack of visitors. While it appears that a surprising number of nearby
residents do occasionally use the park and are attracted by the distinct features of
Riverside, there are several user groups that are less likely to visit. The low frequency of
visits by Latinos is troubling, and given the park’s location and proximity to the Latino
population, getting support from this group seems essential for the long-term success of
the park. Women also seem to visit the park less often which might help explain the low
occurrence of families. In order to understand why these groups are underrepresented,
we not only need to explore community perceptions of the park, but also to consider how
these groups would like to use the space. These issues are the focus of the next chapter.
At the same time, it is important to take into account what attracts current users.
While a more diverse clientele may help the community foster a stronger connection with
the park, it is important that any changes to the park be compatible with the legitimate
activities already occurring there. Likewise, changes must be flexible enough to allow
for use by individuals as well as larger group events. By trying to accommodate current
and new users alike, future plans for the park have a better chance of garnering the
necessary support needed to make the park a community asset.
24
25
CHAPTER FOUR: PERCEIVED CONDITION AND COMFORT
In order to see how Riverside Park could become a greater asset to the
community, it is necessary to investigate and understand the community’s perception of
the park. Drawing on both the interviews we conducted and the results of the survey, this
chapter addresses residents’ general feelings about the park as well as the barriers they
perceive and the improvements they desire.
Park Condition
Community feelings toward Riverside Park were initially investigated through
interviews in which participants were asked to describe their general impressions of the
park. Interviewees’ perceptions were largely negative, with many viewing the park as
unsafe and not cared for. Several factors contributed to these feelings including
excessive amounts of litter, the park’s isolation from the surrounding area, the lack of
visitors, evidence of drug and alcohol use, the lack of restrooms, and a lack of park
amenities. Interviewees also noted that the majority of illegal activities appear to occur at
night and may be responsible for most of the litter. While a security gate at the park’s
entrance used to be closed at dusk to deter nighttime activity, the gate is no longer closed.
Researcher observations further illustrated some of the interviewees’ concerns.
The largest area of the park (the center lawn) is virtually devoid of activity. Park visitors
tend to spend time sitting on the river promenade or in their cars. The lack of activity in
the main lawn area of the park could add to general feelings that the park is unused and
unsafe. In addition, on several occasions, we observed evidence of drinking and
marijuana use in the parking lot.
Survey Data
This negative perception was confirmed by survey respondents. When asked to
rate the current condition of the park, more than half of respondents (56.8%) rated the
condition as poor or very poor (see Table 4.1). Latinos, in particular, had a significantly
more negative perception of the park condition than did either African Americans or
Caucasians (F (2,171) = 5.54, p < .05, see Table 4.2). These feelings may contribute to
the less frequent use of Riverside Park by the Latino community.
26
Table 4.1 Mean rating of park condition by all respondents
n Mean* S.D.
How would you rate the current condition of Riverside Park? 197 2.31 1.12
PercentVery poor 58 29.4
Poor 54 27.4
Fair 62 31.5
Good 13 6.6
Very Good 10 5.1* Tables 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 based on a 5 point scale (1 = very poor, 5 = very good).
Table 4.2 Mean rating of park condition by ethnicity
n Mean S.D.
African American 28 2.64a 1.10Latino 76 1.99a,b 1.08Caucasian 70 2.49b 1.10
a Bonferroni Multiple Comparison Test: Means are significantly different at p < .03 b Bonferroni Multiple Comparison Test: Means are significantly different at p < .02
Although the park received a relatively low rating by survey respondents, one
might predict that frequent users would have a more positive perception of the park’s
condition. However, this was not the case. When respondents were divided into
infrequent, occasional, and frequent visitors, all three groups had statistically identical
ratings of the park condition (F (2, 183) = .201, p = .82, see Table 4.3). Thus, while there
is a common feeling the park is in poor condition, this perception does not necessarily
deter park use.
Regardless of how often they visit the park, respondents engage in similar
activities. However, respondents who rated the condition as good or very good indicated
they look at the river (t (170) = 2.67, p < .01) and watch boats (t (24) = 2.72, p < .02)
significantly more often than respondents who had a lower rating of park condition. It is
possible that people who rated the park more positively value the park’s unique riverfront
location and thus are less bothered by the negative aspects of the park’s condition.
27
Table 4.3 Mean ratings of park condition by frequency of visits
n Meana S.D.
Infrequent visitors 52 2.25 1.08Occasional visitors 87 2.28 1.03Frequent visitors 47 2.38 1.29
a Bonferroni Mulitiple Comparisons Test: Means are not significantly different at the p < .05 level
Barriers to Park Use
As discussed previously, the park has a lot to offer, but it also faces significant
problems that constitute barriers to use. While the park’s riverfront location is a defining
element, excessive litter, evidence of illegal activities, and a lack of vegetation are
equally defining aspects. When interview participants were asked about the barriers to
using Riverside Park, they overwhelmingly mentioned safety. Participants’ comments
about safety ranged from very specific concerns, such as personally being harassed or
people drinking in cars, to more general feelings about the lack of safety. At the same
time, many aspects of the park’s condition were also seen as barriers.
Survey Data
Based on the interview responses, the survey listed ten items that might be
discouraging aspects of the park. Survey respondents were asked to rate how much each
of these features discouraged them from visiting Riverside Park. Analysis of these items
proceeded in a manner similar to our other observations (see Table 4.4). Respondents felt
litter, illegal activities, the lack of bathrooms, and parking lot condition were the aspects
that discouraged them most from using the park (paired t-test, p < .001 comparing these
four means to other discouraging items, see Table 4.4). One survey respondent put it
bluntly, “Get restroom. People do it outside.” Somewhat unexpectedly given the
interview responses, items addressing people in cars and lack of vegetation were seen as
less important barriers.
Table 4.4 Mean ratings of discouraging aspects
n Mean* S.D.
Litter 195 3.90a 1.28
28
Illegal activities in park 169 3.78a,b 1.51No bathrooms 190 3.73a,b 1.46Condition of parking lot 191 3.54b 1.42Entrance to park 185 3.23c 1.50Area surrounding park 181 3.09c,d 1.46Frequency of police patrol 150 3.08d 1.66People in cars 181 3.04d,e 1.50Safety at water’s edge 179 2.93d,e 1.64Number of trees and flowers 166 2.68e 1.46
*Table 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7 means based on a 5 point scale (1 = not at all; 5 = very discouraging)a,b,c,d,e Paired samples t-test: Means sharing the same superscript are not significantly different at the p < .05
Principal axis factor analysis was used to examine whether the set of discouraging
aspects could be explained by a few central themes. The analysis generated a two-factor
solution (see Table 4.5). The first category consists of items related to both safety and
bathrooms, while items in the second category related to general park condition. Both
categories were found to be equally important to survey respondents as a whole (t (200) =
1.70, p < .09). However, for the African American participants, the park condition was
significantly more discouraging than the safety and bathrooms aspects (paired t-test, t
(28) = 2.73, p < .02).
Ethnicity also played a significant role in the ratings of each factor. Latino
respondents indicated they were significantly more discouraged by factors related to
safety and bathrooms than African Americans or Caucasians (F (2,170) = 6.59, p < .01,
see Table 4.6) and were more discouraged by factors related to park condition than
Caucasians (F (2, 178) = 4.17, p < .01, see Table 4.6).
Respondents with children were significantly more discouraged than those
without children by the lack of bathrooms (t (188) = 2.33, p < .03) and lack of safety
railing at the water’s edge (t (171) = 2.40, p < .02). In addition, people with children
reported being significantly more discouraged by items related to park condition (t (186)
= 2.18, p < .03, see Table 4.7).
Table 4.5 Discouraging aspects factor analysisn Meana S.D. Alpha
Park Safety & Bathrooms 196 3.32 1.24 .76Items included: Loading:
29
Safety at water’s edge .69 No bathrooms .59 Illegal activities in park .58 Frequency of police patrol .56
Park Condition 196 3.28 1.33 .81Items included: Loading: Entrance to park .87 Condition of parking lot .74 Area surrounding park .50 Litter .48
a Paired samples t-test: Means are not significantly different at the p < .05 level
Table 4.6 Discouraging factors by ethnicity
Park Safety & Bathrooms n Mean S.D.
African American 29 2.75a 1.24Latino 78 3.86a,b 1.16Caucasian 74 3.02b 1.19
Park Condition n Mean S.D.African American 29 3.49 1.24Latino 79 3.73c 1.17Caucasian 73 3.20c 1.07
a,b,c Bonferroni Multiple Comparison Test: Means sharing the same superscript are significantly different at p < 0.01
Table 4.7 Discouraging factors by respondents with and without children
Park Safety & Bathrooms n Mean S.D.Respondents with children 89 3.49 1.21Respondents without children 115 3.20 1.30
Park Condition n Mean S.D.Respondents with children 88 3.67a 1.14Respondents without children 116 3.32a 1.12
a Independent samples t-test: Means are significantly different at p < 0.03
30
Comfort as an Emerging Theme
During interviews, community leaders reported that some aspects of Riverside
Park are more discouraging than others. Survey data further builds on this notion. The
lack of bathrooms and the general feeling that the park is unsafe and in poor condition
emerge as equally discouraging aspects, suggesting that the park is not meeting some
fundamental needs of visitors. If visitors intend to spend time at Riverside Park, they are
forced to mentally prepare for the fact that there may be illegal activities going on, there
will not be a bathroom, and there will likely be litter on the ground. One can imagine that
these conditions might dissuade visitors.
Desired Improvements
What kind of improvements could make the park more amenable? Consistent
with the findings presented above, during the interviews, participants emphasized the
need for restrooms and increased security. In addition, more community events and
activities at the park were suggested as a means of addressing some initial barriers.
Given the leadership role of many of these individuals within the community, this finding
was particularly encouraging (see Chapter Five for information on community events).
Interviewees also expressed a need for such traditional park amenities as barbeques,
picnic tables, and park benches, as well as a walking/biking path to Clark Park.
Survey Data
Survey respondents were asked to rate the level of importance of seventeen
potential park improvements and also to indicate the three improvements they would
most like to see happen. As Table 4.8 shows, most of these items received ratings above
4.0 indicating that they were all highly desired. “Restrooms with sinks” and “increased
police patrol” were most frequently included in the top three improvements desired.
Data reduction on desired improvement items using principal axis factor analysis
generated four factors (see Table 4.9). The first category included items related to park
safety, and had a comparable mean to the second category which included restrooms,
drinking fountain, and park shelter. The third category included park amenities
(barbeques, more trees and flowers, and picnic tables) while the final category, including
31
three of the lowest-rated items, grouped together amenities that were specific to Riverside
Park, such as viewing binoculars and nature displays.
Table 4.8 Mean ratings of desired improvements
n Mean* S.D. Top Threea
Emergency phone 218 4.56 .92Security lighting 215 4.41 1.05Drinking fountain 211 4.36 1.03Restrooms with sinks 221 4.35 1.07 49.0Increased police patrol 215 4.32 1.16 41.4New playground equipment 207 4.29 1.13More trees and flowers 213 4.29 1.00 31.2Bike/walking path to Clark Park 211 4.26 1.11 28.7Child-proof railing at water’s edge 208 4.25 1.25 25.5Improved park entrance 206 4.20 1.10Repave parking lot 208 4.18 1.14Picnic tables 214 4.08 1.10Park shelter 206 4.04 1.20Displays about nature, fishing, boats 210 3.86 1.29Barbeque grills 202 3.66 1.28Fish cleaning station 193 3.07 1.54Viewing binoculars 198 2.95 1.49*Table 4.8, 4.9, 4.10, and 4.11 means based on a 5 point scale (1 = not at all; 5 = very important)a Percentage of respondents who rated the item as one of the top three most important improvements. Only percentages over 25 are reported.
African American and Latino respondents were not significantly different in their
ratings of the desired improvements. But the ratings by the Latino respondents were
significantly higher than those by Caucasians for improvements related to park safety (F
(2, 200) = 6.33, p < .05), basic needs (F (2, 198) = 8.44, p < .05), and traditional
amenities (F (2, 194) = 6.73, p < .05). Furthermore, for the Riverside-specific amenities,
the Caucasian respondents’ ratings were significantly lower than African Americans (F
(2, 191) = 11.44, p < .05, see Table 4.10).
Respondents with children in their household desired all improvement factors
more than respondents without children (see Table 4.11). Both park safety (t (224) =
3.02, p < .01) and basic needs (t (224) = 3.56, p < .01) received significantly higher mean
scores from respondents with children. However, this group also felt traditional
amenities (t (210) = 2.13, p < .04) and Riverside-specific amenities (t (207) = 3.54,
32
Table 4.9 Desired improvements factor analysis n Mean S.D. Alpha
Park Safety 226 4.35a .87 .87Items included: Loading:
Security lighting .93Increased police patrol .70Emergency phone .64Improved park entrance .63Repave parking lot .60
Basic Needs 226 4.26a .97 .84Items included: Loading:
Restrooms with sinks .73Drinking fountain .82Park shelter .46
Traditional Amenities 220 4.02 .95 .79Items included: Loading:
Picnic tables .86Barbeque grills .77More trees and flowers .50
Riverside-specific Amenities 216 3.35 1.22 .76Items included: Loading:
Fish cleaning station .74Viewing binoculars .61Displays about nature, fishing, boats .59
a Paired samples t-test: Means with the same superscript are not significantly different at the p < .05 level
Table 4.10 Improvement factors by ethnicity
Park Safety n Mean S.D.African American 31 4.39 .89Latino 92 4.64a .57Caucasian 80 4.12a .97
Basic Needs n Mean S.D.African American 31 4.37 1.11Latino 91 4.53b .76Caucasian 79 3.96b 1.02
Traditional Amenities n Mean S.D.African American 30 4.13 1.01Latino 89 4.27c .80Caucasian 78 3.76c .99
Riverside-specific Amenities n Mean S.D.African American 31 3.67d 1.43Latino 88 3.70e 1.17Caucasian 75 2.86d,e 1.08
a,b,c,d,e Bonferroni Multiple Comparison Test: Means sharing the same superscript are significantly different at p < 0.05
33
a Independent samples t-test: Means are significantly different at p < 0.01b,d Independent samples t-test: Means are significantly different at p < 0.0001c Independent samples t-test: Means are significantly different at p < 0.03
p < .0001) were also significantly more important. This could be an indication that in
addition to meeting physical needs, respondents with children also desire amenities that
give children a greater ability to enjoy the park.
We found it intriguing that features that might be considered typical park
amenities are separated into two categories. One of these includes basic human needs
(i.e., restrooms, drinking fountains, and shelter), while the other consists of amenities that
complement recreational activities (i.e., barbeques, picnic tables, and more trees and
flowers). Given participant reports of barriers to park use, it is perhaps not surprising that
survey respondents rated the “basic” needs as more important areas of improvement than
the “traditional amenities” (paired t-test, p < .0001 for all comparisons). It is also to be
expected that both basic needs and traditional amenities were significantly more
important to the respondents than the improvements that would make Riverside Park a
more special place (i.e., viewing binoculars and displays) (paired t-test, p < .0001 for all
comparisons).
What seems to us particularly noteworthy, however, is that the items related to
both safety and basic needs were equivalent in their perceived importance (t (234) = 1.47,
p = .15). With relatively high mean ratings of 4.35 and 4.26, respectively, participants
provided a clear signal of what they see as urgent improvements to make the park a place
34
Table 4.11 Improvement factors by respondents with and without children
Park Safety n Mean S.D.Respondents with children 96 4.55a .80Respondents without children 130 4.20a .90
Basic Needs n Mean S.D.Respondents with children 96 4.52b .79Respondents without children 130 4.07b 1.04
Traditional Amenities n Mean S.D.Respondents with children 95 4.12c .90Respondents without children 125 3.90c .98
Riverside-specific Amenities n Mean S.D.Respondents with children 94 3.67d 1.14Respondents without children 122 3.10d 1.23
they would want to use. These two factors further illustrate what constitutes comfort: if
people are to feel comfortable going to the park, both the sense of safety and basic needs
must be satisfied.
Through a synthesis of our observational, interview, and survey results, we have
identified several themes that are discussed in greater detail below. Specifically, we will
look more closely at how comfort might be created at Riverside Park, and how various
park amenities might enhance a visitor’s overall park experience.
Comfort
Successful urban parks allow visitors to relax and explore. Visitors must feel they
can, in a sense, let their guard down and focus on enjoying the elements of the
environment that they find appealing. However, if visitors are also distracted by feelings
that the park is unsafe, or concerned that their basic needs will not be met, the park
becomes a less desirable destination.
Creating comfort has emerged as a prominent need at Riverside Park. As
discussed earlier, factor analysis of survey responses identified two components of this
issue related to safety and basic needs. Safety concerns need to be addressed both in
terms of the direct evidence of physical safety and the more inferred evidence provided
by cues of safety, such as indications that the park is not neglected. Basic needs are park
elements crucial to a visitor’s ability to spend significant amounts of time there.
Cues of Safety
“It’s not so much that I see illegal activities, the park just has an unsafe feeling.”
-Survey Comment
Cues of safety can be thought of as aspects of a park that signal the visitor
whether the park is cared for. If the setting is seen as neglected, visitors would be wise to
avoid the environment or, at the very least, spend a minimal amount of time there.
Unlike specific safety concerns, such as the threat of being assaulted, these elements are
indirect indicators of personal safety.
35
This is particularly a problem at Riverside Park where cues like litter, lack of
activity, and the condition of the park’s entrance signal to visitors that the park is not
watched over and that anything can potentially happen. These cues can be rather subtle
yet still appreciated by visitors. For example, something as simple as better signage at
the park’s entrance could help to send a message that people care about the park and that
it is on the community’s radar.
Physical Safety
Unlike cues of safety, these issues speak directly to one’s personal safety and are
characterized not only by a sense that a person could be in immediate danger, but also
that the environment is unpredictable. In these instances, visitors are forced to remain
vigilant, focusing their attention on monitoring the environment for threats rather than on
enjoying their park experience.
In the case of Riverside Park, physical safety concerns range from illegal
activities to the lack of childproof railing at the river promenade. In order to create a
sense of physical safety, these concerns need to be addressed directly. Increasing police
presence, installing nighttime security lighting, and childproofing the railing on the river
promenade might help to address some of these concerns. These concerns might also be
indirectly addressed by providing visitors with cues of safety. If a norm is created that
the park is generally cared for, people might be hesitant to engage in illegal activities.
Basic Needs
To feel comfortable in an environment, people need to feel that it can meet their
basic needs. When an environment fails to do this, people are either forced to leave or to
devise alternative solutions. At Riverside Park, the latter is illustrated by the number of
people who remain in their cars to avoid the elements. The absence of bathrooms
presents a bigger problem, as visitors resort to unorthodox solutions.
Through a series of gradual facilities improvements, the park can become a more
desirable destination for visitors. For example, re-installing the park’s water fountain and
providing shelter from weather conditions (either through installing a physical structure
or providing more shade trees) will add to the general level of comfort felt by people
36
within the park. If some of the general comfort needs of visitors are met, they may spend
more time in the park and share their positive park experiences with others. As more
visitors feel encouraged to spend time in the park, the City of Detroit may see bathroom
installation as a higher priority.
Amenities
Although comfort issues are currently the most urgent concern, the importance of
adding park amenities should not be overlooked. The careful selection and placement of
these items can have a dramatic impact on visitor experience and may indirectly
influence park safety.
As factor analysis of the survey items indicated, desired park improvements
included two amenities types – typical park amenities and Riverside-specific amenities
(see Table 4.9). Typical park amenities were found to be significantly more desired by
respondents than Riverside-specific amenities. This may be due to the poor condition
and general lack of such amenities currently at the park, making it difficult for residents
to see Riverside-specific amenities as highly desirable.
Typical Park Amenities
When one imagines a park setting, a number of amenities immediately come to
mind. These images might include items such as barbeque grills, picnic tables, and
landscaping, but could also easily be expanded to include seating areas. While these
items are not essential for use of a park they do enhance the experience of visitors and
make extended use of the park more likely. In many cases strategically incorporating
these amenities can revitalize an overlooked and forgotten public space.
At present, Riverside Park lacks most typical amenities. The limited number of
trees and consequent lack of shade may be contributing to the large number of visitors
who remain inside their cars. This lack of vegetation also means the park can easily be
viewed from the parking lot. With the exception of the waterfront, there are only a few
natural elements that act to draw visitors into the park and encourage exploration. NWF,
with assistance from the Detroit Recreation Department, has made efforts to address this
37
issue by planting and maintaining a wildflower garden at the park, which has greatly
enhanced its overall appearance.
While there is an abundance of seating at the park, most of it is concentrated at
the waterfront and is not shaded. This arrangement pushes activity to the park’s edges
and makes it difficult for visitors to use the lawn. The lack of picnic tables is also
problematic for activities that require a tabletop, such as eating.
A park shelter and/or shade trees could offer visitors protection from the
afternoon sun. Seating, such as benches and picnic tables, could draw people from their
cars and bring them into the park. The presence of typical park amenities could also
facilitate more social activities, ranging from family picnics to community barbecues.
Furthermore, the presence of such amenities could indirectly affect park users’ sense of
comfort. Park amenities make the park seem more attractive and cared for, and this in
turn could have the effect of reducing litter and illegal activities.
Riverside-specific Amenities
Amenities that highlight the special features of a place can act to capture visitors’
attention and cultivate the sense that the area is valued. In the case of Riverside Park,
survey items that focused on these unique features included displays about Great Lakes
shipping and wildlife, viewing binoculars, and a fish cleaning station; however, this list
could include any amenities that accentuate the distinct features of the park or the
surrounding community, such as public artwork.
These are items that should encourage exploration and give visitors a sense of
what is special about the area. While these features are not the most urgent needs facing
Riverside Park, they are important and could enhance the distinctive aspects of the park.
Future park improvements should take these types of uses into consideration.
Summary
Perceptions of the park’s condition, barriers to its use, and desired improvements
were widely shared by participants in the study. Some differences emerged, particularly
for Latinos and people with children. Both of these groups seemed to have stronger
feelings about the current problems facing the park and the improvements that are
38
needed. In order for the park to successfully meet the needs of the community, future
improvements should be sensitive to the concerns and desires of these groups, while
enhancing the features of Riverside that make it unique.
Based on both interviews and survey results, lack of comfort is a major barrier at
Riverside Park. Visitors bemoan the park’s lack of essential basic facilities, they feel it is
unsafe, and are concerned that it is not cared for. In order for the park to gain community
support, improvements must address each of these concerns. While the addition of
desired park amenities (such as picnic tables and sources of shade) may be seen as less
urgent, such improvements may solve some of the more immediate needs related to
comfort by making the park appear valued and compatible with users needs. More
specific recommendations that stem from these results are discussed in the final chapter.
39
CHAPTER FIVE: COMMUNITY EVENTS AND PARTICIPATION
On a bright July afternoon about 100 people gathered on the lawn in Riverside
Park to watch a children’s theater production. As participants arranged their folding
chairs, the river sparkled nearby and sent a cooling breeze. Fish and burgers sizzled on a
grill. The actors presented a vision of the plants and wildlife that made the Detroit River
home before Europeans settled. Then the local fire boat cruised by, spraying water into
the air and delighting visitors. Audience and actors alike enjoyed a fine picnic in the
afternoon sun.
Was this the same park that we had often heard described as dilapidated and dirty,
where visitors seemed to stay in their cars, and litter blew across the parking lot and
lawn? Yes and no: Yes, it was the same location, but the community presence—and the
preparation that made the event a success—had momentarily transformed Riverside Park.
In this section we argue that community gatherings like this theater event are a
key element in helping Riverside Park to fulfill its potential to become a community
asset. However, we also recognize that organizing such gatherings, while always a
challenge, has the added burden of overcoming the barriers we outlined in the previous
chapter. For instance, the park’s current condition required sponsors of the outdoor
theater event to arrange and pay for portable bathrooms, recruit a local volunteer
organization to pick up litter from the park the day before, and provide maps and
directions to the many participants who were not familiar with the park.
Holding Events as a Means to Address Concerns
In the earlier discussion of the problems facing Riverside Park (Chapter 4),
holding community events was a recommended step toward improving its current
condition. Such events could address many of the needs that have been identified by
study participants. Events could make the park better known in the community, and thus
facilitate efforts to garner support for it. At the same time, the sense of safety and
comfort that accompanies large group events may help change attendees’ perceptions of
the park. Groups holding events in the park, along with participants, may demonstrate a
caring attitude toward the park, and be more inclined to help with keeping the park clean.
40
The potential impact of community events at Riverside Park goes beyond the
park’s boundaries. More frequent community events may help foster the interest of
nearby residents and businesses. This increased interest has the potential to make the
park a higher priority to city government. An open space that is being used and valued
by residents has a greater chance of being seen as a good investment. More
fundamentally, we believe that groups and individuals using and caring for the park could
develop a sense of ownership toward the park. This commitment could result in a
newfound community perception that the park is a valued resource.
Types of Events
Survey participants were asked to consider eleven types of community activities
that could be held at Riverside Park. As shown in Table 5.1, participating in art or
cultural fairs received the highest endorsement (paired samples t-test, p < .0001 for all
comparisons), with six other activities also showing substantial interest to the
respondents.
Table 5.1 Mean ratings of community activities
n Mean* S.D.
Arts or cultural fair 208 4.03a 1.21Activities about Great Lakes wildlife 201 3.48 1.36Volunteer day to clean up the park 205 3.44 1.27Community barbeque or fish fry 200 3.40 1.28Activities about gardening 205 3.35 1.38Exercise programs 206 3.33 1.31Activities about Great Lakes shipping 199 3.26 1.39Activities about safe fish consumption 199 3.03 1.52Church picnic 197 2.98 1.46Parent-child fishing day 200 2.86 1.61Fishing instruction 195 2.72 1.45* Tables 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, and 5.5 based on a 5 point scale (1= very poor, 5= very good).a Paired samples t-test: Variable mean is significantly different from all other means at p < .0001
Principal axis factor analysis of these ratings generated three categories (see Table
5.2). Social activities emerged as most desired by respondents. This result is consistent
with interviewee comments about the prominence of social events occurring in the area.
41
The second category incorporates nature-related activities (gardening and wildlife) as
well as activities on Great Lakes shipping.
Table 5.2 Community Activities factor analysis
n Meana S.D. Alpha
Social Activities 217 3.74 1.12 .74Items included: Loading:
Community barbeque or fish fry .77Arts or cultural fair .67
Nature Related Activities 213 3.40 1.21 .85Items included: Loading:
Activities about Great Lakes wildlife .89Activities about Great Lakes shipping .80Activities about gardening .46
Fishing Related Activities 211 2.95 1.39 .86Items included: Loading:
Fishing instruction .86Parent-child fishing day .78Activities about safe fish consumption .64
a Paired samples t-test: Category means are all significantly different at p < 0.0001
The last category included activities related to fishing. While this category
received a significantly lower rating than the other two, respondents with children were
significantly more interested in fish-related activities than respondents without children (t
(200) = 6.57, p < .0001, see Table 5.3). As noted earlier, anglers at Riverside Park were
not well-represented in our survey data; this may help explain the lower ratings of the
total sample population. On the other hand, we found that among African Americans a
substantial proportion (43.5%) listed fishing as one activity they do, at least occasionally,
at Riverside Park. African Americans and Latinos also indicated significantly greater
interest in these activities than Caucasians (F (2, 187) = 9.45, p < .05, see Table 5.3).
Therefore, fishing activities should not be discounted. These activities offer a way to
make the most of Riverside’s unique location and represent an important attraction of the
park for select groups.
42
Table 5.3. Fishing Related Activities
n Mean S.D.
African American 30 3.30a 1.46Latino 87 3.24b 1.40Caucasian 73 2.39a,b 1.21
Respondents with children 77 3.91c 1.26Respondents without children 71 3.37c 1.34
a,b Bonferroni Multiple Comparisons Test: Means with the same superscript are significantly different at p < 0.05c Independent samples t-test: Means are significantly different at p < 0.0001
In addition to general community activities, participants were asked to consider
seven possible kids activities that could be held at Riverside Park. While the mean scores
of all activities were relatively high, the two most popular activities were children’s
theater and activities about Great Lakes wildlife (paired samples t-test, p < .003, see
Table 5.4).
Table 5.4 Mean ratings of kids activities
n Mean S.D.
Children’s theater 150 4.05a 1.29Activities about Great Lakes wildlife 153 4.01a 1.23Activities about gardening 147 3.73b 1.33Volunteer day to clean up the park 141 3.70b 1.38Activities about Great Lakes shipping 147 3.67b 1.37Fishing instruction 148 3.65b 1.32Exercise programs 141 3.60b 1.29
a,b Paired samples t-test: Means with the same superscript are not significantly different at p < 0.05
In November 2004, community groups gathered at a meeting to brainstorm other
potential activities that could be held at Riverside Park. Ideas included a “safety fiesta”
sponsored by the local community policing agency, library-sponsored bookmobile visits,
making Riverside Park a stop on an annual bike tour of Detroit, wildlife programs for
preschoolers, a poster contest with the river as the subject matter, and clean-up and
beautification projects. Such events address many of the needs expressed by study
participants, and can involve programs that organizations are already sponsoring. Events
like these are a practical first step toward the park’s revitalization.
43
Community Involvement
One of our most hopeful findings was the fact that survey respondents indicated a
willingness to volunteer at the park (see Table 5.5). When asked how interested they
would be in volunteering at the park, 43% of survey respondents indicated they were
either “interested” or “very interested.” A roughly equal percentage of respondents
indicated they would be likely to participate in a volunteer clean-up day at the park.
Approximately 59% of respondents reported that they would encourage kids to do the
same.
While the challenges facing Riverside Park may appear daunting, the willingness
of community members to get involved in revitalizing the park in creative ways is a
valuable resource waiting to be tapped. Perhaps holding volunteer days in the park could
serve to energize other community events.
Table 5.5. Interest in volunteering Percent willing to participate
n Mean S.D. not at all somewhat veryHow interested would you be in volunteering at the park? 210 3.42 1.22 9.0 9.0 38.6 17.6 25.7
Volunteer day to clean upthe park (adults) 205 3.44 1.27 9.8 9.3 37.1 15.1 28.8
Volunteer day to clean upthe park (kids) 141 3.70 1.38 9.9 11.3 19.9 16.3 42.6
What’s Needed
As the outdoor theater example shows, holding events at Riverside Park requires
overcoming some barriers. What can be done to minimize these barriers and to support
groups wanting to hold events there? The following recommendations are intended to
help community groups and interested residents overcome some of the challenges they
currently face in planning activities in the park.
1. Planning ahead. Community groups will need to expend time and effort to use
the park. This means not only making an effort to plan outside their usual
practice, but also finding ways to deal with litter and lack of facilities. While the
rewards, as mentioned, can be great, this extra effort is not negligible. It requires
44
these groups to make an up-front commitment to the park. Making this
investment will be most reasonable if park events are integrated into
organizations’ on-going programs. For example, children and youth theater
programs, and school projects, might be enhanced by making use of Riverside’s
waterfront location.
2. City support before events – The city should recognize the value that
community-sponsored events bring to the park by providing logistical support.
Targeted mowing, litter pick-up and trash hauling before and after local events
would show that the community is not alone in valuing this resource. Subsidies
toward rental of portable restrooms could make or break small groups’ ability to
hold events at Riverside, and should be seen as part of the city’s commitment to
provide access to open space.
3. Nearby help – Nearby businesses could also benefit from the park’s improved
condition, in terms of increased property values and their employees’ enjoyment
of the work location. These businesses may be able to provide financial or in-
kind support to aid park improvement efforts. They could also play an active role
in any task force or longer term committee that is organized.
4. Collaboration – Organizational partnerships could be key to making the best use
of Riverside Park. In the short term, communication among community groups
and between these groups and the city is needed. As these relationships mature, a
task force or coalition could be formed to help oversee and coordinate efforts on
the park’s behalf.
Conclusion
There is much that can be done by the community to help Riverside Park meet its
potential as a valued public space. As a first step, we recommend increased community-
sponsored events in the park. Volunteer clean-up days seem particularly appropriate
given the willingness of study participants to be involved and the needs currently facing
the park.
Initially, events are more likely to be held at the park if they can be incorporated
into an organization’s on-going programming. These events can accomplish the dual
45
goal of furthering an organization’s mission while enhancing residents’ familiarity and
comfort in the park. In general, the planning and coordination of community events there
should be high on the priority list of any organization interested in revitalizing Riverside
Park.
46
47
CHAPTER SIX: RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION
This park could be wondrous! How can we make it happen?- Survey comment
Riverside Park is a gem that needs to be improved and expanded. The community needs more and better access to the riverfront for recreating and enjoying nature.
- Survey comment
People in the nearby community already recognize the value of Riverside Park.
The park is a place where they can seek respite from city life, relax, and enjoy views of
the Detroit River. There is also widespread recognition, however, that the park is not
meeting some of the current needs of users. The lack of basic facilities and concerns
about safety make it difficult for residents to take full advantage of this unique setting.
The challenge in revitalizing Riverside Park is to devise solutions that not only address
these concerns, but also accentuate the park’s special qualities.
In addition, the success of Riverside Park depends on collaboration. The park’s
revitalization cannot fall solely on the City of Detroit. While the city’s involvement is
essential, its resources remain limited. Even if this were not the case, the success of
revitalization efforts would still hinge on the degree of community support for the park.
Encouraging responsibility to be shared between the city and the community increases
the potential for long-term success and the likelihood that community needs will be met.
Fortunately, there are many available resources in the community, including a
tremendous amount of human capital and goodwill. Survey respondents have indicated a
strong willingness to volunteer just as several community organizations have expressed
an interest in holding more events there. These findings hold great promise for the future
of Riverside Park, but attention must also be paid to helping individuals feel more
comfortable visiting the park. Our recommendations, therefore, are aimed at addressing
residents’ concerns while simultaneously building a stronger relationship between the
park and the people of nearby neighborhoods.
In the next few sections we offer a set of recommendations to address the most
prominent issues for the park including comfort (physical safety, cues of safety, and basic
needs), amenities, and building community ownership. While organized according to
48
these themes, it is important to note that many of our recommendations address multiple
concerns.
Physical safety: The threat of physical danger is a major concern for many community members. Assuaging this concern and ensuring safety will encourage more people to use the park.
Close the security gate at dusk. Nighttime activity not only adds to people’s
perception that the park is unsafe but it also generates a significant amount of
litter. Although at one time the gate was closed each evening, this no longer
occurs. If the City of Detroit were to close the gate each night, cars would not be
able to access the park after dark.
Increase police presence. While police do patrol the park, visits are infrequent
and brief, typically lasting about five minutes. Patrolling the park more
frequently (and at unpredictable times) may deter illegal activities while
increasing the comfort of park visitors. In addition, police may be able to engage
with park visitors to help foster a sense of community in the park. Since the
police cannot be present at all times, it is important to create the perception that
the park is regularly monitored. Posting a sign that indicates that police patrol the
area, and that gives people a number to call with complaints, may also help
achieve this result.
Add security lighting. Providing night lighting will increase the visibility of
activities in the park, discouraging illegal activities and allowing visitors to assess
whether they want to enter the park.
Install emergency phones. Emergency phones can address physical security
concerns by deterring criminal behaviors, and giving visitors the confidence that
help is reachable.
Make the promenade railing childproof. The renovation of the promenade
brought with it the installation of a railing along the riverfront. However, the
current configuration does not prevent small children from accessing the river’s
edge. This places a significant burden on families and community organizations
who must watch after more than a few children.
49
Cues of safety: The appearance of the site can lead people to think it is not safe or cared for. Addressing these issues can give the sense that the park is cared for and under close community watch.
Address littering problem. Litter is a major problem at the park. Furthermore,
the presence of litter reinforces the sense that littering is acceptable. While most
litter is generated through nighttime activities, it also occurs during the day. While
trash receptacles are available in high-use areas, their inconspicuous color may
reduce their use. Proper trash disposal could be encouraged in a number of ways
that not only discourage litter, but also create the feeling that the park is special.
For example, children involved in neighborhood community organizations could
paint anti-litter messages on signs or trash cans. In addition, volunteer clean-up
days could be regularly scheduled in between the city’s usual maintenance days.
Improve park’s entrance and repave parking lot. The entrance to the park lies
at the junction of two streets and a set of railroad tracks, making it difficult to see
from the main approach along West Grand Boulevard. Ideally, the layout of the
entrance would be changed. Until the resources are found to make that happen,
the problem could be partially addressed by moving existing signs to a more
prominent location. In addition, the parking lot is currently potholed and poorly
drained. In the short term, potholes could be temporarily filled; however, plans
should be made to redesign the parking lot with improved drainage.
Basic Needs: The lack of basic facilities is a significant barrier for families and people wishing to use the park for an extended period.
Install bathrooms. The park’s isolated location makes accessing bathrooms
difficult. While permanent bathrooms were highly desired by interviewees and
survey respondents, the resources required to build and maintain such facilities
are limited. At the least, portable bathrooms should be provided during periods of
high use, and a more permanent solution should be found.
Install water fountain. Drinking water is a need of park users, particularly in the
summer. Having access to water would make visiting the park more comfortable
50
for families with small children, individuals who spend significant time there, and
individuals who use the park to exercise.
Provide shelter. Shelter is necessary to protect park users on hot summer days
and encourage extended use. The current lack of shelter forces people to seek
respite in their cars, giving the impression that the park is either not occupied or
full of people who do not want to be seen. The addition of shade trees, gazebos
and/or park shelters would help to meet this need.
Amenities: Currently park visitors are limited in what they can do at the park. Improvements are needed that both facilitate a greater variety of activities and enhance Riverside’s unique features.
Provide more and different types of seating. Seating in the park is currently
concentrated along the riverfront promenade. While this is an attractive location,
at present there is little protection from the sun or wind. The lack of tables also
makes it difficult for visitors to enjoy a picnic lunch or socialize with others.
Additional picnic tables and benches should be placed in locations that offer
protection from the elements and/or are near areas of more intense use.
Add landscaping to encourage exploration. Trees and flowers not only
enhance the general appearance of the park, but also create a more interesting and
complex environment. Currently, the entire park can easily be viewed from the
parking lot. Plantings should not entirely hide any portion of the park, since this
could present a safety risk. Instead, vegetation that partially screens views could
help get individuals out of their cars to explore the park. Provided that vegetation
is maintained, its addition may help visitors recognize that the park is regularly
cared for.
Add outdoor message centers. Outdoor message centers offer an inexpensive
way of advertising events at the park, providing interpretive information, and
communicating fish advisories to anglers. These signs will also give the
impression that the park is actively maintained and cared for. While there may be
concern about vandalism, existing signs at the park remain in good condition.
51
Renovate playscape. In its current condition, the playground equipment at
Riverside is unlikely to attract families with small children. Updating or
removing older, rusting equipment and adding some new play elements could be a
major attractant for families. If community members were to work together to
build elements of the playscape, they would also gain a community-bonding
opportunity.
Connect Riverside Park to Clark Park. Residents have expressed an interest in
a walking/biking path connecting Riverside to Clark Park. Though such a plan
has been proposed through the Southwest Detroit Riverfront Greenway, it has not
yet been implemented. A pedestrian/ bike path would increase access from
neighborhoods to the riverfront.
Install public artwork. Southwest Detroit has a rich history of public artwork.
Local artists and organizations could donate their time to create murals,
sculptures, and other art forms. Artwork that captures the cultural diversity of the
area as well as the features that make Riverside Park unique might be particularly
appropriate.
Community ownership: Creating a sense of shared responsibility gives the park a much greater chance of thriving. Building broad ownership is particularly important given the limited resources of individual organizations.
Hold community events at the park. Community activities have the potential to
alter negative perceptions of Riverside by introducing people to the park in a safe
context. Over time these individuals may feel more comfortable visiting on their
own and may even encourage friends and family to come. With more people in
the park, and thus more vigilance, illegal activities are less likely to occur (see
Chapter 5 for further discussion of community events).
Leverage local resources. Local organizations and residents have indicated a
strong willingness to volunteer their time at the park. Given the many talents,
skills, and resources these volunteers offer, there is a great potential to make
revitalization of Riverside Park a cooperative effort between the city and the
community. For example, residents could assist with the building of a new
52
playscape. While adults construct and lay out playground equipment, children
could be involved in creating artistic accents such as handmade signs and tiles.
Residents’ involvement in these types of activities can foster a sense of pride and
ownership. By feeling they have made a meaningful contribution, residents may
be more likely to visit the park and value it as part of their community.
Encourage public participation. If improvements and support for the park are
to be sustained, then the local community must be involved in decision-making.
This can range from major decisions, such as how the park should be incorporated
into riverfront redevelopment plans, to smaller scale decisions such as the
placement of amenities.
Form a community coalition to support Riverside Park. A good starting point
for getting these recommendations, and other improvements, implemented would
be the formation of a community-based group to share the work. Such a coalition
could set priorities, coordinate activities, and serve as liaison with the Detroit
Recreation Department. We expect that it will be through the action of some
form of community coalition that the first steps are taken toward revitalizing
Riverside Park.
Conclusion
Riverside Park has not been forgotten by the people of Southwest Detroit.
Community members have spoken, and they are willing to put forth the effort to reclaim
this public space. We have seen glimpses of the park’s potential through our
observations of community events and through the enthusiastic comments of study
participants. Riverside Park can become a place where people go to relax and mentally
restore from their busy lives, where families spend the afternoon picnicking, and where
community members congregate for events, large and small.
Southwest Detroit possesses a remarkable amount of social capital and resources
that can be used to transform Riverside Park. While the park’s revitalization will require
effort, the changes required are within reach. Working together, community groups,
individuals, and city staff can help Riverside become a park that is not only more valued,
53
but also a source of great pride for Southwest Detroit. We hope our findings will be of
use in that process.
54
55
REFERENCES
1980 Census Tracts, Detroit, MI. (1980). 1980 Census of Population and Housing. U.S. Bureau of the Census.
1990 Census Tracts, Detroit, MI. (1990). 1990 Census of Population and Housing. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Retrieved online, November 30, 2004, from http://www.census.gov.
2000 Census Tracts, Detroit, MI. (2000). 2000 Census of Population and Housing. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Retrieved online, November 30, 2004, from http://www.census.gov.
Carr, S., Francis, M., Rivlin, L. G., & Stone, A. (1992). Public space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coley, R. L., Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (1997). Where does community grow? The social context created by nature in urban public housing. Environment and Behavior, 29(4), 468- 494.
Gobster, P. (1998). Urban parks as green walls or green magnets? Interracial relations in
neighborhood boundary parks. Landscape and Urban Planning, 41, 43-55.
Gobster, P. (2003). Managing urban parks for a racially and ethnically diverse clientelle. Leisure Sciences, 24, 143-159.
Heerwagen, J.H. (1990). The psychological aspects of windows and window design. In Anthony K.H., Choi, J., & Orland, B., eds. Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference of the Environmental Design Research Association, 269-280, Oklahoma City: EDRA.
Hutchison, R. (1987). Ethnicity and urban recreation: Whites, blacks, and Hispanics in Chicago’s public parks. Journal of Leisure Research, 19, 205-222.
I-94 International Trade Alliance: About the Alliance. (n.d.) Retrieved March 24, 2005, from http://www.semcog.org/TranPlan/BorderCrossings/ita/ita_about.html
Kaplan, R. (2001). The nature of the view from home: Psychological benefits. Environment and Behavior, 33, 507-542.
Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 169-182.
Kuo, F. (2001). Coping with poverty: Impacts of environment and attention in the inner city. Environment and Behavior, 33, 5-34.
56
Kuo, F., Sullivan, W.C., Coley, R., & Brunson, L. (1998). Fertile ground for community: Inner-City neighborhood common spaces. American Journal of Community Psychology, 26(6): 823-851.
Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (1995). Urban form and social context: Cultural differentiation in the uses of urban parks. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 14, 89-102.
Low, B. (2004). Human behavior and conservation. Endangered Species Update, 21(1), 14-22.
Pollack, S. R. (2001, June 30). Mail boat keeps chugging: Passing freighters count on little floating post office for bundles from home. Detroit News. Retrieved February 5, 2005, from http://www.detnews.com/2001/metro/0106/30/d01-241890.htm
Sauer, W. (1916). Map of the City of Detroit. Pittsburgh: Sauer Brothers.
Solecki, W. D., and Welch, J.M. (1995). Urban parks: Green spaces or green walls? Landscape and Urban Planning, 32, 93-106.
Ulrich, R. (1984). View through a window may enhance recovery from surgery. Science, 224(4647), 420-421.
United States Geological Survey (1953). Detroit and Vicinity, Michigan- Ontario. United States Geological Survey: Washington, D.C.
57
APPENDIX B: GROUPS INTERVIEWED
Ambassador Bridge Company
Bagley Housing Association
Bowen Branch Library
Casa de Unidad Cultural Center
Corktown Citizens District Council
Clark Park Coalition
Detroit Recreation Department
Detroit Riverfront Conservancy
Detroiters Working for Environmental Justice
Holy Redeemer Catholic Church
J.W. Westcott Mail Boat
LASED, Latino Association for Social and Economic Development
Latino Family Services
Peoples Community Services
Ste. Anne de Detroit Catholic Church
Southwest Detroit Environmental Vision
Third Police Precinct Community Relations
62
63
APPENDIX C: INTERVIEW GUIDE AND CONSENT FORM
Introductions & Purpose
Thanks for taking time out of your schedule to sit down with us. As explained on the phone we are graduate students at the University of Michigan working with the National Wildlife Federation to investigate community perceptions of Riverside Park. Ultimately we hope to develop a set of recommendations that will lead to increased use and support for the park. The interview should take no longer than 1 hour (in some cases 30 minutes may be more appropriate).
Consent & ConfidentialityBefore we can get started, we need you to read over this consent form and sign it. It’s required by the university for any research conducted on human subjects.
Distribute Interview Consent Form Basically, the consent form explains that your participation in this project is completely voluntary and you may decide to leave the study at any time. It also explains that the following interview is strictly confidential and you will not be identified in any reports without your permission. We would also like to record our conversation so that we can accurately capture you thoughts – which also requires your signature. Of course the recording will also be kept strictly confidential.
One copy needs to be signed for our records. The additional copy is your to keep – if you have any questions regarding the project contact information is provided on the back of the form.
Begin Interview See pages 2 -4
Conclusion
Thanks for taking time out of your schedule to meet with us and sharing your thoughts. We’ll be sure to let you know how the project progresses and we would be happy to share a summary of any materials or recommendations that result from our study. We may also need to follow up with you if we have any questions (would you prefer phone or e-mail?). Thanks again.
64
Interview Questions
Great. Let’s get started. We would like to begin by talking a little about how the park is perceived by both individuals and organizations within the community.
As one of our goals is to increase usage of the park, it’s important for us to understand what features of Riverside Park may discourage people from going there and what changes are needed to encourage their patronage.
Barriers to park use/changes needed
4) What are some reasons why people might not use the park?- safety concerns, lack of facilities, lack of access, better alternatives, litter,
location, types of people currently using the park
5) Do you think people might prefer to use other parks in the area rather than Riverside?- such as Clark Park or school playgrounds
Follow up:a) If so, why?
6) Are there any changes that could be made to increase usage at Riverside Park? - facilities, activities, landscaping
Follow up:a) If not, why don’t you think so?
Now that we’ve talked a little about changes that might be needed at the park, let’s spend some time discussing how the park might serve the community. Basically, we want to explore what the community might want the role of the park to be.
65
Perceptions of the park
1) Does your organization currently use Riverside Park or have you used it in the past? Follow up:
a) If so, how? How often? In what ways?- events, programming, employees eating lunch
b) If not, why not?
2) What types of groups currently use the park?- individuals, groups, mothers and children, families, young children,
teenagers, fishermenFollow up:
a) How frequently do these groups use the park?- daily, monthly, seasonally
b) Are any of these users members of/served by your organization?
3) Does usage of the park fluctuate depending on the time of day, season, whether events are taking place?
- heavier use in morning, after school, July 4th
Visions of the park
7) Are there any community needs not currently being met? - (limit to the top two or three) place for teenagers to go, etc.
Follow up:a) Do you think the park could be used to address these or some other needs? If
so, how?
8) One of NWF’s concerns is community health. Are there any health issues that people are particularly concerned about?
- such as air/water pollution, obesity, or stressFollow up:
a) Do you think people are aware of the link between personal health and quality of the environment?
b) Could the park be used to address these concerns? If so, how?
9) In order to get an idea of what the community’s vision of the park might be, we came up with a number of potential infrastructure improvements, programs, and events that might help generate ideas. As we go through the list think about which improvements or activities would be most appealing to this community and how your organization might feel about them. We want to reiterate, however, that it’s not in our capacity to make any changes occur.
INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTSRestrooms, picnic tables, benches, improved playground equipment, drinking fountain, grills, emergency phone, gazebo, more trees/shade, flowerbeds, sports facilities (basketball court/soccer field/etc.)
EVENTSHealth fair, art fair, farmer’s market, educational events
PROGRAMSCommunity garden, fishing club, environmental club
Which items might be most important to attracting more people to the park. Can you think of any other items that may attract people or that your organization might be interested in supporting?
We realize that the Parks and Recreation Department has a limited capacity to implement changes at the park and that any revitalization is likely to require a sustained community-based effort.
Willingness to support the park
11) Would your organization be willing to support such an effort?Follow up:
a) If so, in what capacity?- passive involvement: volunteering, events, encouraging use among
constituency- active involvement: becoming part of a coalition (similar to Clark
Park) that raises money for maintenance and improvements, sponsors and programs.
b) Are there any circumstances that might encourage a more active involvement?
66
As part of this research we are also planning to distribute a survey to area residents. We were hoping you could help us get a better idea of the area we should focus our survey on and what the best method for distribution might be.
67
Community attributes
12) We’ve brought a map with us of Southwest Detroit. Could you outline with this highlighter what you would consider the community of Riverside Park?
13) In order to develop our survey it would be helpful to understand how community members interact with each other:
Are people involved in community organizations/events?
Are there businesses, organizations, or public spaces that promote interaction?
13) Do you think going to one of these places would provide a good venue for distributing surveys, or are there any prominent individuals in the community who might be willing to help us and who are likely to encourage participation by others?
14) To help us access the greatest number of participants, would you be willing to share your organization’s mailing list with us or perhaps distribute the survey at one of your meetings/events or along with your newsletter?
15) Lastly, can you think of any other organizations that we should speak to?
Interview Consent and Contact Information
The following interview investigates community perspectives on Riverside Park. We hope to find out how to increase use of this park. We will ask a series of questions related to these topics. This research is being conducted as part of a Master’s project, Revitalizing Riverside Park for the University of Michigan.
Your participation in this project is voluntary. Even after you sign this informed consent document, you may decide to leave the study at any time. No one under 18 years of age is eligible to participate in this study.
This interview is strictly confidential. Records of this interview will be kept confidential to the extent provided by federal, state, and local law.
This interview should take no longer than one hour. The possibility exists that we may contact you once in the future with follow-up questions. This follow-up session will be no longer than 30 minutes.
Although you may not receive direct benefit from your participation, others may ultimately benefit from the knowledge obtained in this study. If new knowledge is obtained during the course of this research which may relate to your willingness to continue participation, you will be informed of this knowledge. One copy of this document will be kept together with the research records of this study. Also, you will be given a copy to keep.
(over, please)
68
If you have questions after you complete the interview, do not hesitate to contact Rachel Kaplan, Ph.D. or Raymond De Young, Ph.D. the faculty advisors to the project.
Researcher Contact InformationFaculty Advisors:Rachel Kaplan, Ph.D. Raymond De Young, Ph.D.3516 Dana 2034 DanaUniversity of Michigan University of MichiganAnn Arbor, MI 48109 Ann Arbor, MI 48109(734) 763-1061 (734) [email protected] [email protected]
Principal Investigators:Jason Duvall ([email protected])Martha Gruelle ([email protected])Melissa Hopkins ([email protected])Kim Wolske ([email protected])Master’s Candidates, School of Natural Resources and Environment2034 DanaUniversity of MichiganAnn Arbor, MI 48109(734) 647-6159
Should you have questions regarding your rights as a research participant, please contact the Institutional Review Board:Kate Keever1040 Fleming Building503 Thompson StreetAnn Arbor, MI 48109(734) 936-0933; email: [email protected]
Please sign below if you are willing to have this interview recorded on audio tape. You may still participate in this study if you are not willing to have the interview recorded.
________________________________________________________________Signature Date
I have read [or been informed] of the information given above. The above listed principal investigators can answer any questions I may have concerning the study. I hereby consent to participate in the study.
________________________________________________________________ Printed Name Consenting signature
69
APPENDIX D: COVER LETTER AND COMMUNITY SURVEY (ENGLISH AND SPANISH)
August 15, 2004
Dear Sir or Madam,
Your input about possible changes in the community is important. The enclosed surveyprovides an opportunity for you to share your views about Riverside Park. As you mayknow, Riverside Park is located on the Detroit River at the end of West Grand Boulevard.
Even if you are not familiar with the park, your participation in this survey is stillimportant, as it will help us gauge what the community values in a city park. Our researchteam at the University of Michigan will be sharing survey results with several interestedorganizations. If enough surveys are returned, the results could significantly influencefuture plans for the park.
Please help us gather community opinions by completing the enclosed survey, andreturning it in the provided postage-paid envelope by August 31, 2004.
If you have any questions about this survey or would like to receive a copy of the results,please contact us by phone at (734) 647-6159 or by e-mail at [email protected].
Thank you very much for your help!
Sincerely,
The Riverside Park Project Team
Jason Duvall Martha Gruelle Melissa Hopkins Kimberly Wolske
Ver el dorso para Español
70
15 de agosto de 2004
Estimado/a señor(a):
Saber qué piensa usted sobre cómo puede mejorarse la comunidad es importante. La encuesta que se adjunta le brinda la oportunidad de dar a conocer sus opiniones sobre el Parque Riverside que, como usted sabrá, está ubicado en la orilla del Río Detroit, al final de West Grand Boulevard.
Aunque no conozca el parque, su participación en esta encuesta es importante, ya que nos ayudará a evaluar qué aspectos valora más la comunidad en los parques de su ciudad. Nuestro equipo de investigación de la Universidad de Michigan compartirá los resultados de la encuesta con varias organizaciones interesadas. Si se reciben suficientes encuestas rellenadas, los resultados de la misma podrían influir de manera significativa en los futuros planes para el parque. Ayúdenos a recopilar las opiniones de la comunidad completando la encuesta adjunta y enviándola, antes del 31 de agosto de 2004, en el sobre ya franqueado que se le ha entregado.
Si tiene alguna pregunta sobre esta encuesta o desea recibir una copia de los resultados de la misma, llámenos al teléfono (734) 647-6159 o envíenos un correo electrónico a [email protected].
¡Muchísimas gracias por su ayuda!
Atentamente,
El equipo del Proyecto Parque Riverside
Jason Duvall Martha Gruelle Melissa Hopkins Kimberly Wolske
71
See reverse side for English
72
University of Michigan School of Natural Resources and Environment
RIVERSIDE PARK COMMUNITY SURVEYThank you for completing this survey about Riverside Park, located on the Detroit River at the end of West Grand Boulevard. Please return your completed survey by August 31, 2004.
1. How often do you visit Riverside Park?
1a. If never, please mark those that apply: I am not aware of Riverside Park. I go to other parks instead. The park is too difficult to get to. I do not go to Riverside Park for other reasons.
2. If you have gone to Riverside Park, how often do you do the following there?
never occasionally very often
Please list any other activities you do at Riverside Park:
3. Have you watched fireworks at Riverside Park in the past few years? No Yes
4. How would you rate the current condition of Riverside Park?
5. Have you noticed the signs along the river about wildlife habitat? No Yes
5a. If yes, please answer the following: Are the signs interesting? Don’t know No Yes Are the signs understandable? Don’t know No Yes
73 Please open
never occasionally very often1 2 3 4 5
Fish 1 2 3 4 5Watch the boats 1 2 3 4 5Picnic 1 2 3 4 5Take children to the playground 1 2 3 4 5Look at the river 1 2 3 4 5
Eat lunch there 1 2 3 4 5Clean my car 1 2 3 4 5Relax in my car 1 2 3 4 5Relax and get away 1 2 3 4 5Walk 1 2 3 4 5
don’t know
very poor fair
very good
X 1 2 3 4 5
University of Michigan School of Natural Resources and Environment
RIVERSIDE PARK COMMUNITY SURVEYAre the topics on the signs important to you? Don’t know No Yes
6. How much does each of the following discourage you from going to Riverside Park? don’t know
not at all
somewhatdiscouraging
very discouraging
Number of trees & flowers X 1 2 3 4 5Litter X 1 2 3 4 5Safety at water’s edge X 1 2 3 4 5No bathrooms X 1 2 3 4 5People in cars X 1 2 3 4 5
Condition of parking lot X 1 2 3 4 5Entrance to park X 1 2 3 4 5Area surrounding park X 1 2 3 4 5Frequency of police patrol X 1 2 3 4 5Illegal activities in park X 1 2 3 4 5
Other
7. Here are some suggested improvements for Riverside Park. Please indicate how important each is to you.
don’t know
not at all
somewhatimportant
very important
More trees and flowers X 1 2 3 4 5Barbeque grills X 1 2 3 4 5Picnic tables X 1 2 3 4 5Child-proof railing at water’s edge X 1 2 3 4 5Viewing binoculars X 1 2 3 4 5
Restrooms with sinks X 1 2 3 4 5Drinking fountain X 1 2 3 4 5Park shelter X 1 2 3 4 5Displays about nature, fishing, boats X 1 2 3 4 5
Bike/Walking path to Clark Park X 1 2 3 4 5New playground equipment X 1 2 3 4 5Fish cleaning station X 1 2 3 4 5Repaved parking lot X 1 2 3 4 5
Improved park entrance X 1 2 3 4 5Security lighting X 1 2 3 4 5Emergency phone X 1 2 3 4 5Increased police patrol X 1 2 3 4 5
Please circle the three improvements above that you would most like to see happen.
Please list any other improvements you would like to see at Riverside Park:
74 Please open
University of Michigan School of Natural Resources and Environment
RIVERSIDE PARK COMMUNITY SURVEY
75 Please open
8. Here are some possible community activities that could be held at Riverside. How likely would you be to participate in the following:
not at all likely
somewhat likely
very likely
Volunteer day to clean up the park 1 2 3 4 5Church picnic 1 2 3 4 5Community barbeque or fish fry 1 2 3 4 5Arts or cultural fair 1 2 3 4 5
Exercise programs 1 2 3 4 5Fishing instruction 1 2 3 4 5Parent-child fishing day 1 2 3 4 5
Activities about:Gardening 1 2 3 4 5Great Lakes shipping 1 2 3 4 5Great Lakes wildlife 1 2 3 4 5Safe fish consumption 1 2 3 4 5
Please list any other activities you would like to attend at Riverside Park:
9. Here are some possible activities for children that might be held at Riverside Park. How likely would you be to encourage children you know to attend?
(If this question does not apply to you, please skip to the next question.)
not at all likely
somewhat likely
very likely
Volunteer day to clean up the park 1 2 3 4 5Exercise programs 1 2 3 4 5Fishing instruction 1 2 3 4 5Children’s theater 1 2 3 4 5
Activities about:Gardening 1 2 3 4 5Great Lakes shipping 1 2 3 4 5Great Lakes wildlife 1 2 3 4 5
76 Please turn to back page
10. If organizations in your community were to seek volunteers for projects at Riverside Park, how interested would you be in volunteering?
11. How often do you visit parks in the Detroit area?
12. Background about yourself:
What is your zip code? _________ How long have you lived in the area? ______ years
Gender: Male Female
Age: under 20 30–39 50–59 70–79 20–29 40–49 60–69 80 or older
Please choose the race or ethnicity that best applies to you: African American/Black White, not Hispanic Native American
Latino/Hispanic Asian Arab Other____________
Please list the ages of children in your household:
13. Additional comments are welcome:
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION!
77 Please turn to back page
don’t know
not at all interested
somewhatinterested
very interested
X 1 2 3 4 5
never occasionally very often1 2 3 4 5
Return survey in the stamped envelope provided, or mail to: Riverside Park Master’s Project, 430 E. University, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1115For more information (or additional copies of this survey and/or return envelopes), please call 734-647-6159 or email [email protected]
Facultad de Recursos Naturales y el Medio Ambiente de la Universidad de Michigan
ENCUESTA A LA COMUNIDAD DEL PARQUE RIVERSIDEGracias por rellenar esta encuesta sobre el Parque Riverside, ubicado en la orilla del Río Detroit, al final del West Grand Boulevard. Por favor, envíe la encuesta una vez completada antes del 31 de agosto de 2004.
1. ¿Con qué frecuencia visita el Parque Riverside?
1a. Si su respuesta es nunca, por favor marque todas las razones que correspondan: No conozco el Parque Riverside. Voy a otros parques. Es demasiado difícil llegar al parque. No voy al Parque Riverside por otras razones.
2. Si ha ido al Parque Riverside, ¿con qué frecuencia realiza las siguientes actividades?
nunca a veces muy a menudo
Escriba aquí otras actividades que usted realice en el Parque Riverside:
3. ¿Ha visto los fuegos artificiales en el Parque Riverside en los últimos años? No Sí
4. ¿Cómo calificaría el estado actual del Parque Riverside?
5. ¿Ha visto los letreros a lo largo del río sobre el hábitat natural? No Sí
5a. Si su respuesta es sí, por favor conteste lo siguiente: ¿Le parecen interesantes los letreros? No sé No Sí ¿Son comprensibles los letreros? No sé No Sí ¿Le interesan los temas de los letreros? No sé No Sí
78 Abrir aquí
nunca a vecesmuy a
menudo1 2 3 4 5
Pescar 1 2 3 4 5Mirar los barcos 1 2 3 4 5Ir de picnic 1 2 3 4 5Llevar a los niños al parque infantil 1 2 3 4 5Mirar el río 1 2 3 4 5
Almorzar 1 2 3 4 5Limpiar mi carro 1 2 3 4 5Relajarme en mi carro 1 2 3 4 5Relajarme y desconectar de todo 1 2 3 4 5Pasear 1 2 3 4 5
no sémuy malo satisfactorio
muy bueno
X 1 2 3 4 5
ENCUESTA A LA COMUNIDAD DEL PARQUE RIVERSIDE6. ¿Cómo influyen los siguientes factores para que no vaya al Parque Riverside?
no sé no influyemás o menos
influye influye mucho Número de árboles y flores X 1 2 3 4 5Basura en el suelo X 1 2 3 4 5Medidas de seguridad en la orilla X 1 2 3 4 5No hay baños X 1 2 3 4 5Personas en carros X 1 2 3 4 5
Condiciones del estacionamiento X 1 2 3 4 5Entrada del parque X 1 2 3 4 5Zona alrededor del parque X 1 2 3 4 5Frecuencia de patrulla de la policía X 1 2 3 4 5Actividades ilegales en el parque X 1 2 3 4 5
Otros factores _____________________________________________________________
7. A continuación le presentamos sugerencias para mejorar el Parque Riverside. Indique la importancia que tienen para usted.
no sésin
importanciamás o menos importante
muy importante
Más árboles y flores X 1 2 3 4 5Parrillas para hacer barbacoa X 1 2 3 4 5Mesas con bancos X 1 2 3 4 5Verjas de protección para los niños
en la orilla del aguaX 1 2 3 4 5
Binoculares en miradores panorámicos
X 1 2 3 4 5
Baños con lavabo X 1 2 3 4 5Bebederos X 1 2 3 4 5Un refugio en el parque X 1 2 3 4 5Exposiciones sobre naturaleza, pesca
y barcos X 1 2 3 4 5
Acceso peatonal y para bicicletas al Parque Clark
X 1 2 3 4 5
Equipamientos nuevos para el parque infantil
X 1 2 3 4 5
Lugar para limpiar pescado X 1 2 3 4 5Estacionamiento repavimentado X 1 2 3 4 5
Mejoras en la entrada del parque X 1 2 3 4 5Iluminación de seguridad X 1 2 3 4 5Teléfono para emergencias X 1 2 3 4 5Patrullas de policía más frecuentes X 1 2 3 4 5
Rodee con un círculo los tres cambios escritos arriba que más le gustaría que se realizaran.
Escriba aquí otras sugerencias para mejorar el Parque Riverside:
79
ENCUESTA A LA COMUNIDAD DEL PARQUE RIVERSIDE
8. A continuación le presentamos actividades comunitarias que se podrían realizar en el Parque Riverside. ¿Qué probabilidades habría de que usted participara?
En absolutoprobable
más o menos probable
muy probable
Día de limpieza del parque con voluntarios
1 2 3 4 5
Picnic organizado por una iglesia 1 2 3 4 5Barbacoa comunitaria de carne o
pescado1 2 3 4 5
Feria de arte o cultura 1 2 3 4 5
Programas de deporte 1 2 3 4 5Clases de pesca 1 2 3 4 5Día de pesca para padres e hijos 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5Actividades sobre:
Jardinería 1 2 3 4 5Navegación en los Grandes Lagos 1 2 3 4 5Fauna y flora de los Grandes Lagos 1 2 3 4 5El consumo seguro de los peces del río 1 2 3 4 5
Escriba aquí otras actividades en las que le gustaría participar en el Parque Riverside:
9. A continuación le presentamos actividades infantiles que se podrían realizar en el Parque Riverside. ¿Con qué probabilidad animaría a los niños que conoce a participar en ellas? (Si esta pregunta no corresponde a su caso, por favor pase a la siguiente.)
En absoluto probable
más o menos probable
muy probable
Día de limpieza del parque con voluntarios
1 2 3 4 5
Programas de deporte 1 2 3 4 5Clases de pesca 1 2 3 4 5Teatro infantil 1 2 3 4 5
Actividades sobreJardinería 1 2 3 4 5Navegación en los Grandes Lagos 1 2 3 4 5
80
ENCUESTA A LA COMUNIDAD DEL PARQUE RIVERSIDEFauna y flora de los Grandes Lagos 1 2 3 4 5
81
Continúa en el dorso
10. Si las organizaciones de su comunidad buscaran voluntarios para proyectos en el Parque Riverside, ¿le interesaría ofrecerse como voluntario?
11. ¿Con qué frecuencia va a los parques de Detroit y alrededores?
12. Información personal:
Código postal _________ ¿Cuánto tiempo lleva viviendo en esta área? ______ años
Sexo: Hombre Mujer
Edad: menor de 20 30–39 50–59 70–79 20–29 40–49 60–69 mayor de 79
Indique qué raza u origen étnico mejor le corresponde: Africano Americano/Negro Blanco, no Hispano Indígena Latino/Hispano Asiático Árabe Otro____________
Escriba las edades de todos los niños que viven en su casa:
13. Agradeceremos sus comentarios adicionales:
¡GRACIAS POR PARTICIPAR!
no sé en absoluto interesado/a
interesado/a más o menos
muy interesado/a
X 1 2 3 4 5
nunca a veces muy a menudo1 2 3 4 5
Envíe la encuesta en el sobre franqueado que se le entregó o envíela a: Riverside Park Master’s Project, 430 E. University, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1115Para más información (o para más copias de la encuesta y/o el sobre para devolverla), llame al 734-647-6159 o escriba un correo electrónico a [email protected]
APPENDIX E: COMMUNITY MEETING PARTICIPANTS
Bagley Housing Association
Bowen Branch Library
Casa de Unidad Cultural Center
Clark Park Coalition
Detroit Recreation Department
Focus Hope
Greater Corktown Development Corporation
Holy Redeemer Church
La Casona Center
Latino Family Services
Peoples Community Services
Southwest Community Policing
Southwest Detroit Business Association
Southwest Detroit Environmental Vision
Ste. Anne de Detroit Catholic Church
APPENDIX F: DEMOGRAPHICS OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS
Gender n Percent Male 81 34.8 Female 152 65.2
Age n Percent Under 29 4 1.7 20-29 34 14.4 30-39 56 23.7 40-49 45 19.1 50-59 50 21.2 60-69 23 9.7 70-79 19 8.1 80 or older 5 2.1
Ethnicity n Percent African-American 33 14.3 Latino 101 43.9 Caucasian 81 35.2 Asian 5 2.2 Native American 1 0.4 Arab 2 0.9 Other 7 3.0
Years in Area n Percent 0-5 52 23.0 6-15 49 21.7 16-30 52 23.0 31-45 42 18.6 46-90 31 13.7