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.
1
Table 4.1 Mean rating of park condition by all respondents
How would you rate the current condition of Riverside Park?
n
Mean*
S.D.
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
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
African American
28
Latino
76
Caucasian
a
b
70
Mean
S.D.
2.64
a
1.10
1.99
a,b
1.08
2.49
b
1.10
Bonferroni Multiple Comparison Test: Means are significantly different at p < .03
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.
2
Table 4.3 Mean ratings of park condition by frequency of visits
n
Meana
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
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.
3
Table 4.4 Mean ratings of discouraging aspects
n
Litter
195
Illegal activities in park
169
No bathrooms
190
Condition of parking lot
191
Mean*
S.D.
3.90
a
1.28
3.78
a,b
1.51
3.73
a,b
1.46
3.54
b
1.42
c
1.50
Entrance to park
185
3.23
Area surrounding park
181
3.09c,d
1.46
Frequency of police patrol
150
3.08d
1.66
People in cars
181
3.04d,e
1.50
179
2.93
d,e
1.64
2.68
e
1.46
Safety at water’s edge
Number of trees and flowers
*
166
Table 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7 means based on a 5 point scale (1 = not at all; 5 = very discouraging)
Paired samples t-test: Means sharing the same superscript are not significantly different at the p < .05
a,b,c,d,e
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 analysis
4
Park Safety & Bathrooms
n
Meana
S.D.
Alpha
196
3.32
1.24
.76
1.33
.81
Items included:
Loading:
Safety at water’s edge
.69
No bathrooms
.59
Illegal activities in park
.58
Frequency of police patrol
.56
196
Park Condition
Items included:
a
3.28
Loading:
Entrance to park
.87
Condition of parking lot
.74
Area surrounding park
.50
Litter
.48
Paired samples t-test: Means are not significantly different at the p < .05 level
Table 4.6 Discouraging factors by ethnicity
Park Safety & Bathrooms
African American
Latino
n
Mean
S.D.
29
2.75a
1.24
a,b
1.16
74
3.02
b
1.19
n
Mean
S.D.
29
3.49
1.24
79
3.73
c
1.17
3.20
c
1.07
78
Caucasian
Park Condition
African American
Latino
Caucasian
73
3.86
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
n
Mean
S.D.
Respondents with children
89
3.49
1.21
Respondents without children
115
3.20
1.30
n
Mean
S.D.
88
3.67a
1.14
a
1.12
Park Safety & Bathrooms
Park Condition
Respondents with children
Respondents without children
a
116
Independent samples t-test: Means are significantly different at p < 0.03
5
3.32
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
6
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
.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)
Percentage of respondents who rated the item as one of the top three most important improvements. Only
percentages over 25 are reported.
a
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,
7
Table 4.9 Desired improvements factor analysis
n
Park Safety
Items included:
Security lighting
Increased police patrol
Emergency phone
Improved park entrance
Repave parking lot
226
Basic Needs
Items included:
Restrooms with sinks
Drinking fountain
Park shelter
226
Traditional Amenities
Items included:
Picnic tables
Barbeque grills
More trees and flowers
220
Riverside-specific Amenities
Items included:
Fish cleaning station
Viewing binoculars
Displays about nature, fishing, boats
216
a
Mean
a
4.35
Loading:
S.D.
Alpha
.87
.87
.97
.84
.95
.79
1.22
.76
.93
.70
.64
.63
.60
4.26a
Loading:
.73
.82
.46
4.02
Loading:
.86
.77
.50
3.35
Loading:
.74
.61
.59
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
African American
Latino
Caucasian
n
31
92
80
Mean
4.39
4.64a
4.12a
S.D.
.89
.57
.97
Basic Needs
African American
Latino
Caucasian
Traditional Amenities
African American
Latino
Caucasian
Riverside-specific Amenities
African American
Latino
Caucasian
n
31
91
79
n
30
89
78
n
31
88
75
Mean
4.37
4.53b
3.96b
Mean
4.13
4.27c
3.76c
Mean
3.67d
3.70e
2.86d,e
S.D.
1.11
.76
1.02
S.D.
1.01
.80
.99
S.D.
1.43
1.17
1.08
a,b,c,d,e
Bonferroni Multiple Comparison Test: Means sharing the same superscript are significantly different
at p < 0.05
8
Table 4.11 Improvement factors by respondents with and without children
n
Park Safety
Respondents with children
Basic Needs
Respondents with children
4.55
.80
130
4.20
a
.90
n
Mean
Traditional Amenities
Respondents with children
4.52
.79
130
4.07
b
1.04
n
Mean
S.D.
4.12
c
.90
125
3.90
c
.98
n
Mean
S.D.
d
1.14
1.23
95
Respondents without children
Riverside-specific Amenities
S.D.
b
96
Respondents without children
S.D.
a
96
Respondents without children
Mean
Respondents with children
94
3.67
Respondents without children
122
3.10d
a
Independent samples t-test: Means are significantly different at p < 0.01
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
b,d
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
9
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.
10
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
11
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
12
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
13
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.
14
15