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) 763-3129rkaplan@umich.edu rdeyoung@umich.edu

Principal Investigators:Jason Duvall (duvallj@umich.edu)Martha Gruelle (mgruelle@umich.edu)Melissa Hopkins (mlhop@umich.edu)Kim Wolske (kswols@umich.edu)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: irbhsbs@umich.edu

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 riversidesurvey@umich.edu.

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 riversidesurvey@umich.edu.

¡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 riversidesurvey@umich.edu

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 riversidesurvey@umich.edu

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