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 occurs. 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 American 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.
Table 4.1 Mean rating of park condition by all respondents * Tables 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 based on a 5 point scale (1 = very poor, 5 = very good). n Mean * S.D. How would you rate the current condition of Riverside Park? 197 2.31 1.12 Percent Very poor 58 29.4 Poor 54 27.4 Fair 62 31.5 Good 13 6.6 Very Good 10 5.1 Table 4.2 Mean rating of park condition by ethnicity n Mean S.D. African American 28 2.64 a 1.10 Latino 76 1.99 a,b 1.08 Caucasian 70 2.49 b 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. Table 4.3 Mean ratings of park condition by frequency of visits n Mean a S.D. Infrequent visitors 52 2.25 1.08 Occasional visitors 87 2.28 1.03 Frequent 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 potentially 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 3.90 a 1.28 Illegal activities in park 169 3.78 a,b 1.51 No bathrooms 190 3.73 a,b 1.46 Condition of parking lot 191 3.54 b 1.42 Entrance to park 185 3.23 c 1.50 Area surrounding park 181 3.09 c,d 1.46 Frequency of police patrol 150 3.08 d 1.66 People in cars 181 3.04 d,e 1.50 Safety at water s edge 179 2.93 d,e 1.64 Number of trees and flowers 166 2.68 e 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). Table 4.5 Discouraging aspects factor analysis n Mean a S.D. Alpha Park Safety & Bathrooms 196 3.32 1.24.76 Items included: Loading: Safety at water s edge.69 No bathrooms.59 Illegal activities in park.58 Frequency of police patrol.56 Park Condition 196 3.28 1.33.81 Items 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 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 4.6 Discouraging factors by ethnicity Park Safety & Bathrooms n Mean S.D. African American 29 2.75 a 1.24 Latino 78 3.86 a,b 1.16 Caucasian 74 3.02 b 1.19 Park Condition n Mean S.D. African American 29 3.49 1.24 Latino 79 3.73 c 1.17 Caucasian 73 3.20 c 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 1.21 Respondents without children 115 3.20 1.30 Park Condition n Mean S.D. Respondents with children 88 3.67 a 1.14 Respondents without children 116 3.32 a 1.12 a Independent samples t-test: Means are significantly different at p < 0.03 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 not cared for 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 5 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 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 Three a Emergency phone 218 4.56.92 Security lighting 215 4.41 1.05 Drinking fountain 211 4.36 1.03 Restrooms with sinks 221 4.35 1.07 49.0 Increased police patrol 215 4.32 1.16 41.4 New playground equipment 207 4.29 1.13 More trees and flowers 213 4.29 1.00 31.2 Bike/walking path to Clark Park 211 4.26 1.11 28.7 Child-proof railing at water s edge 208 4.25 1.25 25.5 Improved park entrance 206 4.20 1.10 Repave parking lot 208 4.18 1.14 Picnic tables 214 4.08 1.10 Park shelter 206 4.04 1.20 Displays about nature, fishing, boats 210 3.86 1.29 Barbeque grills 202 3.66 1.28 Fish cleaning station 193 3.07 1.54 Viewing 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.
Table 4.9 Desired improvements factor analysis n Mean S.D. Alpha Park Safety 226 4.35 a.87.87 Items included: Loading: Security lighting.93 Increased police patrol.70 Emergency phone.64 Improved park entrance.63 Repave parking lot.60 Basic Needs 226 4.26 a.97.84 Items included: Loading: Restrooms with sinks.73 Drinking fountain.82 Park shelter.46 Traditional Amenities 220 4.02.95.79 Items included: Loading: Picnic tables.86 Barbeque grills.77 More trees and flowers.50 Riverside -specific Amenities 216 3.35 1.22.76 Items included: Loading: Fish cleaning station.74 Viewing binoculars.61 Displays about nature, fishing, boats.59 a Paired samples t-test: Means with the same superscript are not significantly different at the p <.05 level 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, 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. Table 4.10 Improvement factors by ethnicity Park Safety n Mean S.D. African American 31 4.39.89 Latino 92 4.64 a.57 Caucasian 80 4.12 a.97 Basic Needs n Mean S.D. African American 31 4.37 1.11 Latino 91 4.53 b.76 Caucasian 79 3.96 b 1.02 Traditional Amenities n Mean S.D. African American 30 4.13 1.01 Latino 89 4.27 c.80 Caucasian 78 3.76 c.99 Riverside -specific Amenities n Mean S.D. African American 31 3.67 d 1.43 Latino 88 3.70 e 1.17 Caucasian 75 2.86 d,e 1.08 a,b,c,d,e Bonferroni Multiple Comparison Test: Means sharing the same superscript are significantly different at p < 0.05 Table 4.11 Improvement factors by respondents with and without children Park Safety n Mean S.D. Respondents with children 96 4.55 a.80 Respondents without children 130 4.20 a.90 Basic Needs n Mean S.D. Respondents with children 96 4.52 b.79 Respondents without children 130 4.07 b 1.04 Traditional Amenities n Mean S.D. Respondents with children 95 4.12 c.90 Respondents without children 125 3.90 c.98 Riverside -specific Amenities n Mean S.D. Respondents with children 94 3.67 d 1.14 Respondents without children 122 3.10 d 1.23 a Independent samples t-test: Means are significantly different at p < 0.01 b,d Independent samples t-test: Means are significantly different at p < 0.0001 c Independent samples t-test: Means are significantly different at p < 0.03
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 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 like 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. 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 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 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 need facing Riverside Park, they are important and could enhance the distinct 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 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.