5‘1.

'0

x

I. ‘£
A .3L

.
:p
:l 3:. I

if .(

.5 «3.81“
. .0 . v

9 Th .
. .. ‘ r!
{-15.1 :R.
.. 21“.!“
313...: at

33,

 

 

 

 

, Jnthh.»
. 3W2“ .n

.RIV...
In. 3
all... . his
v4.9...
2 33::
a... thuuu

twig)! aka.

Q‘flflthw a 5‘.

1.1.15.3!
v.1. 2:. Q.
3-

l
\

n5... |¢x
Q 9.4 a: 1....
N.» > .

we

.

fl
«whisfi «.
l. I: . 53

313.}? INS?!)
10“.“... :4 “wt?

l idr.

I3.
.YtL. ,0

‘1le?!
Osts'iit.

’05,.5 '1‘
.47 1“ I, I; O. l
i...» .2; 3.34...» Lab, .

 

77:53:23 _ LIBRARY
9 Michigan State
’7 v Universlty

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

PROMISES AND CHALLENGES OF
URBAN COMMUNITY-ORIENTED
CONSERVATION: THE CASE OF

GREENWAYS IN DETROIT

presented by

Maite Paulina Salazar

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Doctoral degree in Resource Development

 

 

f

glad/ax

 

Major Professor's Signature

December 12, 2005

 

Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

«b
FFg117612§lfl

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 p:/CIRCIDateDue.indd-p.1

 

PROMISES AND CHALLENGES OF URBAN COWUMW—
ORIENTED CONSERVATION: THE CASE OF GREENWAYS
IN DETROIT

By

Maite Paulina Salazar

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Resource Development

2005

ABSTRACT

PROMISES AND CHALLENGES OF URBAN COMMUNITY-ORIENTED
CONSERVATION: THE CASE OF GREENWAYS IN DETROIT

By
Maite Paulina Salazar

It has become evident that urban quality of life is linked to how resources and
natural areas are managed within the urban environment. Yet, in distressed areas
conservation initiatives ofien compete with critical community needs for scare resources,
raising important equity concerns. Community approaches to conservation, which seek to
involve local communities and to link community needs with conservation goals, are
often seen as a means to address equity concerns. Two key, often overlooked, elements in
the development of these approaches are the nature of community participation and the
divergent ways in which actors interpret and conceptualize project goals. This
dissertation takes a qualitative case study approach to understanding issues of equity in
the planning of one urban conservation strategy, greenways in Detroit. More specifically,
the study explores: l) The degree to which the planning of greenways reflects a
“participatory process” and, 2) the nature of relevant actors and they way in which they
interpret and conceptualize greenways. Historically, greenways efforts have been led
primarily by environmental and professional actors, with marginal presence fi‘om
community groups. In some ways, the current catalyst for greenways development in
Detroit, the Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan’s GreenWays program seeks
to redress this issue. The program has, albeit slowly and with difficulty, increased
opportunities for involvement by community organizations in Detroit. This dissertation

unravels the complexity underlying participation and the implications for equitable

conservation in urban areas. Race, ethnicity and their ensuing power dimensions were
critical elements that shaped participation in greenways planning. In addition, subtle and
explicit messages coming from the donor organization and the values of project leaders
contributed to a specific planning approach. In many cases, a technical focus in the
planning limited participation. Overall, community oriented strategies were more
effective at overcoming barriers to participation, particularly when greenways were
contextualized within a broader community development strategy. Today, greenways in
Detroit are invariably defined as part of a general discourse relating to the need to
“rebuild”, “revitalize,” and/or “redevelop” the city. In spite of this shared understanding,
greenways meanings and definitions reflect different, sometimes opposing, views of
redevelopment. Some greenways interpretations reflect the values and views of a
suburban white middle class, with redevelopment as a process driven by, and for, external
actors. Conversely, some Detroit activists and community organizations interpret
greenways primarily as a means for more equitable redevelopment. They view greenways
first and foremost as a set of opportunities for the city’s mostly minority residents.
Overall, this study illustrates the centrality of the community (re)development context for
generating effective and participatory greenways planning. In Detroit, greenways plans
cannot be viewed as separate and distinct from the racial and ethnic tensions. If they are
to contribute to community-centered redevelopment greenways plans must account for
and address issues of race. Furthermore, participation should not be seen solely as the
means by which conservation goals can be legitimized within a community. As this
research shows, participation has a direct impact in the generation of more inclusive

conservation ideals and goals.

To my parents, Rodrigo and Aurora, for their wisdom

To my accomplice in life, Rodrigo A., for always believing in me

iv

ACKNOWLEDGNIENTS

I would first of all like to thank my advisor John Kerr, for his tremendous support
and guidance throughout the various stages of this dissertation. He was always there to
discuss ideas, provide feedback and help me to overcome the difficulties of carrying out a
research project, and later on writing a dissertation. He always gave me the freedom to
pursue my own ideas while at the same time providing critical feedback that helped keep
me on track (especially when I was writing from a distance!). For this I am indebted;

Thank-you John.

I would like to thank the RD community for their help, fiiendship and support:
my fellow-graduates students (Peggy, Brian. . .); the secretaries and support staff (Cheryl,
Sue. . .); faculty members, for their interest and discussions (J oAnn Beckwith especially).
I would especially like to thank past committee members for their tremendous support,
and helping me through the labyrinth of RD graduate life: Cynthia Fridgen, for
encouraging me to purse the Ph.D.; Jim Bingen, for so many interesting conversations
which helped shape my research ideas and for introducing me to the standards research
group in Sociology. I am also indebted to Larry Busch in Sociology, for providing me
with the opportunity to pursue research in another field, in an interesting, stimulating and
fun environment (and for providing a much needed RA!) I learned a lot about research
from Larry and from the many Sociology graduate students that populated his offices.

Thanks to you all!

I would like to thank my committee members: Angela Mertig, Geoffry Habron,

Peter Kakela for their continued interest in my work, comments, support and many

rewarding discussions. I would especially like to acknowledge Peter Kakela, for his
tremendous support and wonderful advice at various stages of my program.

To the many people I interviewed and with whom I talked about greenways,
redevelopment, conservation and the great city of Detroit. The generosity with which
they gave me their time, knowledge and ideas greatly inspired this work.

I am indebted to the department of Resource Development, particularly its past
and current Chairpersons, Cynthia Fridgen and Scott Witter, for the financial support
provided, and for the vote of confidence they both expressed in my ability. In particular, I
would like to mention the completion fellowship provided by the Department, which
greatly assisted me in the last and final stage of the Ph.D. ‘

The graduate school provided me with a Dissertation Completion Fellowship
which greatly assisted the writing process. This work was also supported by a grant from
the Victor Institute at MSU which allowed me to carry out the field research. This project
would not have been possible without their financial support.

I would like to thank many fiiends with whom I have crossed paths during these
years, for wonderful conversations, fun times and for letting me into their lives. Too
many to mention: Hilary, for so many, many wonderful conversations; her mom Janet
and sister Alison Jones, for their generosity and many insights into Detroit; Peggy, for
many shared moments in grad school and so many other aspects of our lives; to many in
the “international crowd”, for an opportunity to see into different worlds; my fiiends from
African dance and yoga in Lansing, for helping to keep me sanel; my friends and
neighbors in the “Key Park” in NYC, for your kind words of encouragement and

friendship to this newcomer.

Many thanks to my parents, Rodrigo and Aurora for their wisdom and approach to
life; even from afar it helped me to keep things in perspective. To my wonderful and
joyous family, for bringing laughter into life!

Last, but certainly not the least, I would like to thank my genius of a husband,
Rodrigo, for his unwavering faith in me and the multiple ways in which he made it
possible for me to pursue this path. For encouraging me to pursue my dreams and not
give up, for taking the time to read this manuscript many, many times, for “picking up the
pieces” on those many times when I fell apart, for being a great father to our son. . .And
alas, many thanks to my little one, Dante, born when I started writing, who did his best to
prevent me from sitting down at my computer to write this dissertation (succeeding most

of the time), for being the true joy of my life. The end, Dante, it ’s done!

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... xi
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................ xii
ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................ xiii
CHAPTER 1 ...................................................................................................................... 1
Communities and Conservation ....................................................................................... l
1.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 2
1.1.2 Statement of research purpose and questions ...................................................... 5
1.2. Issues of equity in conservation and natural resource management ......................... 7
1.2.1. The new conservation paradigm: participatory approaches to conservation ...... 7
1.2.2. Critiques and challenges to participatory conservation .................................... 10
1.2.3. The environmental justice movement and communities of color ..................... 11
1.2.4. Environmental politics, experts and participation ............................................ 12
1.3. The social construction of the environment ............................................................ 14
1.4. Relevance of greenways to the study of urban communities and conservation ..... 15
1.5. The case of Detroit: deindustrialization, suburban development and race ............. 19
1.6. Theoretical and analytical framework .................................................................... 22
1.7. Dissertation plan ..................................................................................................... 24
CHAPTER 2 .................................................................................................................... 26
Research Methods and Design ....................................................................................... 26
2.1. Qualitative research and the case study tradition .................................................... 27
2.2. Triangulation ........................................................................................................... 28
2.3. Data collection procedures ...................................................................................... 30
2.4. Sampling strategy .................................................................................................... 37
2.5. Data analysis ........................................................................................................... 41
2.6. Limitations of the study .......................................................................................... 44
CHAPTER 3 .................................................................................................................... 45
The History of Greenways in Detroit ............................................................................ 45
3.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 46
3.2. Reconnecting people to nature: Origin and history of the greenways ideas ........... 46
3.2.1. Olmstead’s legacy: links between the early environmental and urban park
movement and greenways ideas ................................................................................. 48
3.2.2. Beyond Olmstead: planners and the preservation of open space ..................... 50
3.2.3. The role of conservation organizations in the late 20th century ........................ 51
3.2.4. The links between the smart growth movement and greenways ideas ............. 56
3.3. Tracing the idea of greenways in Detroit ................................................................ 59
3.3.1. Greenways and riverfi'ont redevelopment efforts ............................................. 59
3.3.2. The rails-to-trails greenways initiative ............................................................. 62

viii

3.3.3. The Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan’s GreenWays Initiative 68

3.3.3.1. The GreenWays Initiative’s grantrnaking objectives ................................. 72
3.3.3.2. Grants made to Detroit applicants .............................................................. 74
3.4. Summary ................................................................................................................. 76
CHAPTER 4 .................................................................................................................... 78
Two cases of greenways planning in Detroit: the Eastside and Southwest Detroit .. 78
4.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 79
4.2. Linked Parks Southwest Detroit Greenways Projects ............................................ 79
4.2.1. Geographical focus and objectives of the project ............................................. 79
4.2.2. Community characteristics ............................................................................... 81
4.2.3. Project history and leadership ........................................................................... 83
4.3. Conner Creek Greenways ....................................................................................... 84
4.3.1. Geographical focus and objectives of the project ............................................. 84
4.3.2. Community characteristics ............................................................................... 85
4.3.3. Project history and leadership ........................................................................... 87
CHAPTER 5 .................................................................................................................... 89
The meaning of greenways in Detroit: a “white middle class” construct? ................ 89
5.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 90
5.2. Elements that shape the meaning of greenways ..................................................... 91
5.2.1. The influence of program sponsors .................................................................. 91
5.2.1.1. The GreenWays Initiative grant guidelines promote a suburban ideal of
greenways ................................................................................................................ 92
5.2.1.2. The Program’s landscape perspective contributes to a suburban, white
middle class bias ...................................................................................................... 98
5.2.2. The importance of race: who are these greenways for? ................................. 100
5.2.3. The urban crisis: the background to greenways ideas in Detroit .................... 106
5.2.4. Ecology and greenways: taking advantage of deindustrialization ................. 110
5.3. Meanings and perceptions emerging from Detroit ............................................... 112
5.3.1. Greenways defined as part of an externally-driven redevelopment perspective
.................................................................................................................................. 114
5.3.1.1. “Saving Detroit” by creating a world class city ....................................... 117
5.3.2. Greenways defined as part of a neighborhood driven redevelopment
perspective ................................................................................................................ 122

5.3.2.1. Equity is a central piece of the community perspective on Greenways... 125
5.3.2.2. The importance of CDC participation to greenways definitions in Detroit

............................................................................................................................... 13 l

5.4. Working examples of the two definitions of Greenways ...................................... 134
5.4.1. The Eastside’s “Conner Creek Greenways” as an example of a community

oriented vision .......................................................................................................... 135

5.4.1.1. Safety, beauty and reconstituting the social fabric of the Eastside .......... 139

5.4.2. The Linked Parks project’s interpretation of greenways ................................ 142

5.5. Summary and conclusions .................................................................................... 147

CHAPTER 6 .................................................................................................................. 1 51

The Realities of Participation ....................................................................................... 151

6.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................... 152
6.2. Definitions and typology of participation ............................................................. 153
6.2.1. Differentiating between top-down and bottom-up approaches to participation

.................................................................................................................................. l 53
6.2.2. The importance of quality in participation approaches .................................. 158
6.3. The role of non-profit and public sector organizations in greenways planning in
Detroit .......................................................................................................................... 159
6.3.1. Participation at the program level: issues of inclusiveness in the GreenWays
Program .................................................................................................................... 160
6.3.2. Two contrasting models of greenways planning: differences and similarities
between the Eastside and Southwest ........................................................................ 161
6.3.2.1. Genesis of project ideas: defining the problem as the first level of
participation ........................................................................................................... 162
6.3.2.2. Decision making and participation opportunities during the planning
processes ................................................................................................................ 164
6.3.2.3. The Southwest model conforms to a public involvement format ............ 170
6.3.2.4. Elements of a “community-based” strategy in the Eastside ..................... 171
6.4. Many factors affect participation .......................................................................... 175
6.4.1. The predominance of a technical approach to environmental planning ......... 175
6.4.1.1. Emphasis on change at the landscape level affects participation in the
GreenWays program ............................................................................................. 176
6.4.1.2. The product vs. process emphasis of the GreenWays Program ............... 179
6.4.1.3. The role and values of organizing entities shapes participation approaches
............................................................................................................................... 1 8 1
6.4.1.4. The role of professionals in greenways planning ..................................... 184
6.4.1.5. The problem with the “public meeting” as the principal vehicle for resident
participation ........................................................................................................... 188
6.4.2. Race, ethnicity and power .............................................................................. 190
6.4.2.1. Minority participation in greenways planning in Detroit ......................... 191
6.4.2.2. Towards an explanation of low minority participation in greenways ...... 193
6.4.2.3. Mistrust and the tension between “outsiders and insiders” in Detroit ..... 198
6.4.2.4. Lack of culturally appropriate planning and information sharing reinforce
mistrust and exclude residents in Southwest ......................................................... 205
6.4.2.5. Representativity of community organizations .......................................... 210
6.5. Summary and conclusions .................................................................................... 218
CHAPTER 7 .................................................................................................................. 221
Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 221
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................... 225
Appendix A. Interview request letters ......................................................................... 226
Appendix B. Sample consent form .............................................................................. 228
Appendix C. Disclosure of research purpose ............................................................... 230
BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................... 232

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Interviews by race, gender and residency ............................................ 32
Table 2. Meetings attended by type and geographic area ..................................... 33
Table 3. Master plans and vision documents analyzed ....................................... 34
Table 4. Websites analyzed ........................................................................ 35

Table 5. Brochures, newsletters, mission statements and reports analyzed . . . . . . . . ......36
Table 6. Interviews by geographical area represented ......................................... 39
Table 7. Interviews by type of actor .............................................................. 39

Table 8. Interviews by type of involvement in the GreenWays Initiative . . . . . . . . . ..40

Table 9. Key actors and concepts in the greenways timeline. ................................ 52
Table 10. Major firnders of the CFSM’s GreenWays Initiative. ............................. 70
Table 11. Advisory board for the CFSM’s GreenWays Initiative. .......................... 71

Table 12. GreenWays Detroit grants. ............................................................ 74
Table 13. Participation typology. ............................................................... 155
Table 14. Differences in participation between Southwest and the Eastside ............. 163

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Research design. ........................................................................ 29
Figure 2. Creation and organization of codes. ................................................. 43
Figure 3. Greenways interpretations and meaning ............................................ 113
Figure 4. Summary of participation continuurns. ............................................ 154
Figure 5. Approaches to participation in greenways planning in Detroit. ................ 166
Figure 6. Greenways interpretations in Detroit ............................................... 223

xii

CDC

CEO

CFSEM

DECC

DEGA

DTE

EJ/EJM

EZ

FDR

NHC

NPS

RTC

ABBREVIATIONS

Community Development Corporations

Chief Executive Officer.

Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan.
Detroit Eastside Community Collaborative
Detroit’s Economic Growth Association.

DTE Energy Corporation

Environmental J ustice/Environmental Justice Movement
Empowerment Zone

Friends of the Detroit River.

National Heritage Corridors

National Park Service

Natural resource management

Rails-to Trail Conservancy.

xiii

CHAPTER 1

Communities and Conservation

1.1. Introduction

The prominence of urban areas as places to protect natural resources has increased
as human activities continue to expand and exert pressure on the environment. At the
same time, it has become evident that the quality of life of urban residents is linked to
how resources and natural areas are managed within the urban environment. Initiatives
aimed at conserving resources and enhancing the quality of life of urban residents can
take various forms, such as greenways planning, urban gardening, brownfield
redevelopment and habitat restoration. In their effort to link resource protection to quality
of life issues, these initiatives often seek, to varying degrees, to involve local
communities and to link conservation and community development goals. This research
looks at the ability of one of these initiatives - greenways - to reconcile resource
protection and community development goals in the city of Detroit.

Greenways are networks of linear parks or open spaces along natural or human
made corridors such as rivers or historic railroad tracks, with the multiple purposes of
bringing people together, protecting natural resources and providing public access to
natural areas. The greenways “movement” is rooted in the traditions and ideas of three
groups concerned with environmental issues: 1) conservationists, 2) environmentally
oriented planners and landscape architects and, 3) outdoor recreation enthusiasts
interested in trail related activities (for example the organization, Rails-to-Trail
Conservancy is a key greenways advocate). (See Ahern 1995; Fabos 2004; Little 1990)
for various accounts of the movement’s history.)

Promoted in suburban, rural and urban settings, greenways share a focus on

addressing the negative implications of the development and expansion of metropolitan

areas. In broad terms advocates are concerned with issues relating to inner city decay,
suburbanization and the reliance on the automobile as the sole means of transportation
that currently prevails in US. society. Their popularity as an urban “greening” strategy
has increased in recent years with city planners and advocates often viewing greenways
as an opportunity to meet neighborhood revitalization needs (F abos and Ahern 1996;
Walmsley 1995).

Yet in distressed areas initiatives such as greenways often compete with health
care, education and other community needs for the declining resources of local
government. Establishing greenways a necessary and effective mechanism for urban
revitalization (alongside conservation objectives) will depend in part on their ability to
echo and respond to the needs of inner city residents. In this sense, in spite of their
potential as an urban revitalization tool, greenways may encounter difficulties in their
application to the irmer city context.

One of these difficulties resides in the fact that greenways have historically been
linked to trail and nature related activities typical of the elites. Thus in spite of their
potential contributions to urban revitalization, greenways may be viewed by many as an
endeavor for the middle and upper class, often white, elites. From this perspective their
application to an inner city context can raise important equity concerns. Indeed, research
in related areas of scholarship warns us to the validity of this concern, and provides some
ground for equity concerns. First, leisure research indicates that young, upper middle

class whites tend to participate more in outdoor recreation1 (Lee, Scott and Floyd 2001 ).

 

I The research also indicates that the reasons for lack of minority participation in recreation activities are
often complex. They go beyond mere “cultural differences” and are reflective of broader inequities both
Within the institutions that manage and shape outdoor recreation opportrmities and within society as a
Whole. See clmpter four for a more detailed discussion.

More specifically, survey research in greenways related trail recreation suggests that
users tend to be middle and upper-middle class residents and that the location of trails in
urban areas affects who uses them and how (Furuseth and Altman 1991; Gobster 1995).
Second, as various scholars have suggested, the management of natural and recreational
resources largely by and for middle class interests can contribute to an ideal of outdoor
recreation which may not generalize across ethnic and socioeconomic lines (reviewed in
Loyd and Johnson 2002). Third, scholars who have studied the race and class based
nature of the traditional environmental movement have clearly indicated the need for a
more inclusive agenda, one that can reach out to minority and low income people (Taylor
2002).

This is not to say that greenways as an urban conservation strategy cannot be
adapted to meet the needs of inner city residents. Nor am I denying the right of all
citizens to a clean and pleasant living environment (in the broad sense of the term), where
nature, work and culture play a role. Inner city greenways could potentially function as a
way to make nature-based (and other) activities more accessible to those currently, and
historically, lacking in them. However, to the extent that greenways are part of a more
traditional recreation and environmental agenda they may not meal to or may tend to
exclude certain groups of residents. This raises the question of whether greenways, as
currently promoted, can effectively respond to the needs and desires of inner city, lower
income, mostly minority residents.

These questions and concerns are particularly relevant in places like Detroit, in
which the struggle to recover fipm industrial decline and unresolved racial tensions affect

the city’s ability to address issues related to environmental quality. Once home to the

highest paid blue-collar workers, Detroit has experienced a process of deindustrialization
in the last 60 years which has resulted in out-migration of both businesses and residents,
with a consequent loss of jobs and tax base. Racial discrimination has played a pivotal
role in the city’s transformation, both in terms of the factors driving the process and its
effects on the city’s African-Americans residents (Sugrue 1996).

At the same time as the city declined, out-migration together with various forms
of development subsidies (housing, freeway system etc) successfully spurred the growth
of suburban areas in Southeast Michigan (their population is now near 5 million)
(Thomas 1997). Altogether these processes have fm'ther enhanced racial and economic
segregation patterns within the region; today it is one of the most racially segregated
metropolitan areas in the US. Deindustrialization also left the city with many abandoned
buildings, low quality housing, vacant lots - many of which are brownfields - and a
legacy of industry related pollution problems.

Thus industrial decline, the explosive growth of suburbia along with historical
patterns of racial discrimination has shaped, and continues to shape, planning and
development in Detroit region. The aging city and its poor, mostly minority residents
are hit the hardest, bringing to the forefront the importance of equity in the development
of strategies for urban conservation. It is against this backdrop that we must understand

greenways initiatives promoted and carried out in Detroit.

1.1.2 Statement of research purpose and questions

This dissertation takes a qualitative case study approach to understanding issues

0f equity in the planning of greenways in Detroit. More specifically, I wish to explore

and analyze two fundamental aspects of greenways development in the city: 1) The
degree to which the planning of greenways reflects a “participatory process” and the
nature of the actors involved in it and, 2) the way in which relevant actors interpret and
conceptualize greenways. Towards this objective, five sub-questions guide the research:

1. What is the history of greenways development in the Detroit region?

2. Who are the actors driving the development of greenways ideas and plans in
the Detroit?

3. How do various community actors define and understand greenways? Is the
greenways concept, and opportunities derived from it, used as a community
development tool by local groups?

4. What is the nature of participation in greenways planning efforts?

5. How do racial inequalities affect greenways planning efforts?

The next two sections provide the background to understanding issues of equity
in conservation, particularly their increasing importance for many conservation strategies
throughout the world. The discussion highlights the lessons learned, their relevance and
importance to further research. The sections that follow establish the importance of these
insights to research on greenways in Detroit; they set the stage for the questions listed
above. The final sections provide the theoretical and analytical fiarnework guiding this

research as well as the research purpose and questions that stem from it.

1.2. Issues of equity in conservation and natural resource
management

1.2.1. The new conservation paradigm: participatory approaches to

conservation

Integration of community needs with environmental protection goals has become
a critical component of many conservation2 strategies. Concerns over social justice or
equity emerged in the arena of conservation as practitioners and scholars began to
recognize the need to reconcile advocacy for nature with advocacy for people. In the
international arena for example, concerns initially surfaced in the 19708 as practitioners
and scholars became disenchanted with large-scale, capital intensive and centrally
planned conservation and development projects in developing countries in the areas of
agriculture, water management and forestry (reviewed in Kellert 2000; Little 1994). In
the 19805, conservationists and community advocates began to question top-down, often
coercive nature conservation strategies that prevailed throughout the world. On the one
hand the conflicts that ensued from these strategies often undermined conservation goals
(Ghimire and Pimbert 1997; Western and Wright 1994). On the other hand, the hardships
faced by many local communities brought to the forefront the fact those suffering the
costs of conservation have traditionally been excluded from the decision making process,

raising important equity concerns (Ghimire and Pimbert 1997).

 

2 For the sake of brevity, the term “conservation” will be used in a broad sense to refer to strategies aimed
at the protection and management of nature and natural resources. Many areas of practice and scholarship
use the term natural resource management (NRM) to refer to the protection of resources. Conservation is
most often used to refer to the protection of natural areas, such as parks and reserves. In this dissertation the
terms nattu'al resource management (NRM) and conservation are used interchangeably. These strategies
share common tenants fi'orn an environmental protection and management perspective.

As a result, attention to the needs of local communities has become an important
component of many conservation strategies throughout the world. In the arena of
international development in particular this has translated into new versions of
conservation agendas, often called community-based, which emphasize working with
local communities in a participatory manner, (Brechin et a1. 2002; Brosius, Trsing and
Zerner 1998; Kellert 2000; Western and Wright 1994).

Conservation practice in the US. also changed in response to a perceived failure
of centralized and rational approaches to resource management. Historically resource
planning in the US. has tended to overvalue economic efficiency and science as the
exclusive basis for making decisions about resources (Cortner and Moote 1999). Within
this context the distributional consequences of resource management, particularly for
minorities, have often been overlooked or simply ignored.

As a response to this instrumental rationality in resource planning, conservation
strategies in the US. increasingly advocate public (and community) participation, in
alignment with the international trend. These new strategies, which emerged in the late
80s and early 908, are referred to by various names - ecological stewardship, integrated
resource or ecosystem management, landscape ecology, collaborative management,
ecosystem management - but they all represent a shift away fi'om top—down strategies to
more community oriented conservation. The development of ecosystem management, an
ecological approach to the study and management of resources increasingly endorsed by
scholars and public agencies, for example specifically sought to redress the overly

technocratic nature of conservation in the US. (Cortner and Moote 1999; Weber 2000).

The global fiend towards “sustainable development” has no doubt confiibuted to
the development of new approaches to conservation. Calls for sustainable development
advocate the reconciliation of economic, environmental and social justice goals (W CED
1987). Participatory approaches to conservation are also seen as an opportunity to
advance sustainable development goals by addressing both ecological sustainability and
social equity. Indeed, some definitions of sustainable development explicitly relate
quality of human life to the conservation of ecosystems (IUCN/UNEP/WWF 1991).

The policy implications of various definitions of sustainable development depend
to a great extent on context specific interpretation, but the acceptance and use of the
concept suggests the degree to which conservation has become linked to quality of life
worldwide. However, and perhaps due to the ambiguity imbedded in the term, there is a
growing tension between what and whose needs should be sustained, to what extent
resources should be conserved, which specific ecological systems should be prioritized
and which groups and societies should bear the costs.

In summary, local realities and global political fiends gave impetus to the idea
that conservation is not only about ecological and biophysical factors but also social and
political change. Within this context the conservation world embraced participatory
approaches to nature and resource protection. Participatory conservation approaches
share two major, interconnected tenets: 1) they aim to involve local communities in
conservation decisions, and 2) they seek to reconcile community economic development

and conservation goals.

1. 2. 2. Critiques and challenges to participatory commotion

In spite of their promise, the practical implementation of more participatory
approaches to conservation have often fallen short of expectations, generating debate
both on empirical and theoretical grounds (see Agrawal and Gibson 1999; Belsky 1999;
Kellert 2000; Leach, Mearns and Scoones 1999). In some cases, advocates have begun to
question the feasibility of a “people approach” to conservation, particularly in the
developing world (for one review of the debate and a middle ground opinion see Brechin
et a1. 2002; Wilshusen et a1. 2002).

As the research and practice of participatory conservation evolves, they provide
important lessons for finther study and critical analysis. Scholars point out that both
practice and research have often ignored power imbalances and the heterogeneous
character of communities (see Agrawal and Gibson 1999; Brown 1998) for critical
perspectives). More specifically, work in developing countries suggests four areas
requiring more attention, both in practice and research:

1. Process and history are important: i. e. understanding the context in which a
particular conservation sfiategy is imbedded. This suggests that we need to
understand how and why inequities arise in addition to what they are. History is
important to understanding present conditions.

2. Communities are not homogeneous entities: infia-community differences, class,
race and gender for example all affect conservation projects and programs

3. Defining participation is important: few initiatives indicate what they mean by
participation and how participation will be influenced by inns-community

differences.

lO

4. Equity refers to how decisions are made as well as to the effects of these decisions
on communities. Therefore access to the decision-making process is a critical

component of equity in conservation.

1.2.3. The environmental justice movement and communities of color

The emergence of the environmental justice (EJ) movement in the early 19803
also brought to the forefront social justice concerns with regard to the environment. In a
departure from fiaditional forms of environmental advocacy, the EJ movement sought to
link class and race sfiuggles with enviromnental concerns. In the US in particular the
unequal distribution of environmental hazards on people of color and low-income
residents, coupled with dissatisfaction with existing environmental organizations fueled a
movement that developed independently of the fiaditional conservation movement

(Taylor 2000b; Taylor 2002). As Taylor characterizes it:

“..the EJM examines how discrimination results in humans homing each
other, how racial minorities bear the brunt of the discrimination, and how
discriminatory practices hasten the degradation of environments. The
EJM also examines corporate and governmental environmental behavior

and the eflects of those actions on the aggrievedcommunities. ” @age 523)

In response to these inequalities, the EJM developed an agenda and form of action
in which community participation in environmental decisions took center stage. It has
also highlighted issues pertaining to and arising within the inner city context, in a

departure from more mainsfiearn agendas. Advocacy and research has focused largely on

11

environmental hazards, although some researchers have examined other environmental
issues using an EJ fiame (see Taylor’s study on cenfial park (1999) and wildlands
(2000a)).

Much of the work carried out in the field of EJ to date has focused on the burden
created by environmental decisions, and less on the process by which these burdens arise
(Pellow 2000). Pellow (2000), in his critical review of EJ research, proposes the term
“environmental inequality” which he defines as “[a focus] on broader dimensions of the
intersection between environmental quality and social hierarchies. . .[that] addresses more
structural questions that focus on social inequality (unequal distribution of power and
resources in society) and environmental burdens” (pg. 582). In this sense EJ scholars are
becoming more concerned with the complexities, processes and histories which generate
environmental inequalities, in convergence with some of the critical analysis emerging in
the field of conservation. Pellow’s work focuses on environmental hazards, but his
definition is useful to understanding a broader range of EJ issues, including the absence

of environmental amenities in many low-income and minority communities in the US.

I . 2. 4. Environmental politics, experts and participation

Much of the critical analysis related to both conservation and EJ are driven by and
reflect basic questions on the role of experts and local citizens in the making of
environmental policy. In the western world, and the US. in particular, there has been an
on-going debate about the democratic prospect of a society that is increasingly technical
and complex (reviewed in Fisher 2000). Social theorists and activists in particular argue

that policy making has become an increasingly technocratic endeavor. At the crux of the

12

debate lie basic questions about epistemology, the role of values and expertise, and their
intricate relationship to power in a democratic society.

Fischer (2000) contends that in the environmental policy arena public (non-
expert) participation is critical on both practical and ethical grounds. First, participation
helps to legitimize decisions, particularly in highly contentious scenarios. Second, if
given a chance citizens can bring contextual knowledge to bear on the discussion, which
in turn generates more effective and locally relevant decisions. Third, in a truly
“democratic society,” citizens should have real opportunities to deliberate on issues that
affect their everyday lives. The highly technical nature and historical preponderance of
expert opinion in environmental policy illusfiates both the difficulties and practical
relevance of participatory approaches.

Research in the social sciences has brought to the forefront the tension between
expertise and values in various environmental contexts. More specifically scholars have
pointed out the hidden values that reside in expert knowledge and the ways in which
power affects decision-making. Alario’s (Alario 2000a; Alario 2000b) study of urban
ecological restoration in Chicago reveals the complexity of values that underlie dissent
about restoration goals, even among environmentalists. Her study illusfiates how dissent
is based on differences in scientific understanding as well as special interests and value
differences. She suggests that “a synthesis of scientific knowledge and democratic
deliberation must occur as part of the decision making process” (page 60 Alario 2000b).
Concurring, (Fischer 2000a), whose analysis focuses primarily on environmental risk,
suggests that the crux of the matter is how to create effective mechanisms for both

experts and local citizens to engage in a meaningful participation. Referring to watershed

l3

management in the US, (Rhoads et al. 1999) point out that effective communication
between experts and non-experts requires time, energy and commitment, not merely the
formalization of a “community process”. Without these mechanisms participation is

merely a token statement.

1.3. The social construction of the environment

The theory of social construction developed in the social sciences and humanities
has greatly influenced the way in which we conceptualize and understand the nature and
effects of human-environment interactions. Social consfiuction perspectives suggest that
scholars who study enviromnental problems should focus on how human actors consfiuct
symbols and meanings related to the environment (Greider and Garkovich 1994). More
recently environmental sociologists suggest moving towards understanding that what we
take to be “physical fa ” have been shaped by human construction and interpretation,
and what we have fiaditionally viewed as “strictly social” phenomena have also been
shaped by responses to the physical world (see Freudenburg, Frickel and Grambling
1995; Woodgate and Redclift 1998).

Social consfiuctivist perspectives provide a fi‘amework for understanding
human-environment relationships which challenges us to understand “nature” as a
mediated, negotiated concept that is both “material” and “socially constructed.” Viewed
fiom this lens conflicts over conservation are in part due to the multiple interpretations
that various groups of people give to the “environment,” “nature” or even the idea of
“conservation.” Issues of equity arise due to the prevalence of some interpretations over

others in the development of a particular conservation sfiategy. Conservation viewed

14

fiom this perspective is not just about the conservation of ecosystems or “natural areas,”
but also about constructed meanings and the links between conservation and
development.

Indeed as experience and research has shown the intersection between
conservation and community development goals is critical to the development of
participatory sfiategies. At the same time, the intersection between these two realms is
full of conceptual complexities arising from these multiple interpretations, and more
often than not the resulting power struggles. In this sense a social consfiuctivist
framework for research helps us to look for and understand this multiplicity of
viewpoints.

Likewise in the field of E1 research, social constructivist perspectives have
challenged fiaditional definitions of the “environment”, giving voice to those typically
marginalized from the mainsfieam environmental agenda. Thus within an EJ fiamework
the poor living conditions of the irmer city become an environmental issue which should
be given as much prominence as the plight of endangered species and wild areas. A
social consfiuctivist perspective thus forces us to fiy to understand how, for example,
inner city actors construct and interpret the “environment” and its relationship to their

development needs.

1.4. Relevance of greenways to the study of urban communities
and conservation

Part of the broader international and national fiend aimed at promoting and

developing sfiategies which reconcile quality of life issues with resource protection,

15

greenways are both a conservation strategy and an approach to planning. From a
conservationist perspective the linear and linked character of greenways creates their
potential to redress the scarcity and/or high cost of conserving large fiacks of contiguous
land (Little 1990; Zube 1995). In the US. they emerged in part as a response to the need
to provide public open spaces in areas where acquiring land was not feasible due to its
high cost, such as urban and/or developed areas. Furthermore the disproportionate public
land ownership patterns in the US (most federally owned land is in the Western US.) left
important land extensions without any type of (public) protection. Greenways, which can
involve a mix of private and public ownership patterns, were seen as an alternative to
purely public ownership for protecting natural areas, particularly where this was
impossible or too expensive (Zube 1995).

From a planning perspective, greenways offer an opportunity to incorporate and
reconcile multiple values and interests into the planning process. They advance the goals
of creating “sustainable landscapes” where environmental values typically absent from
the fiaditional planning process, such as biodiversity and ecological infrasfiucture, can be
incorporated (Ahern 1995).

Beyond their ecological relevance greenways reflect an attempt to create
conservation systems that are meaningful both ecologically and socially. They are
typically promoted as a means for reconciling social, economic and environmental
objectives within a single project. In that sense they share a key tenet with
othercommurrity oriented conservation sfiategies. Most importantly advocates ascribe a
“community” building aspect to greenways. Little (1990), for example, in his seminal

work on greenways indicates that “linkages” are the “philosophical core of the greenways

l6

movement” (page 37). They convey the notion of linking natural (land), as well as human
and social resources. As he puts it, “to make a greenway. . .is to make a community. And
that is above all what the movement is abou ” (page 38).

Thus while greenways efforts vary a great deal in terms of specific goals they tend
to share the notion that community input and valuation are key aspects of the project,
much like other community based approaches to conservation. They also involve both
private and public lands, and formal and informal partnerships between the private sector,
NGOs and different levels of government units as well as citizen groups.

Although greenways share important characteristics with other community-based
conservation efforts, research on greenways has not been influenced by the critical
perspectives emerging in the environmental field, as revealed by my review of the
literature. References to issues of social justice and their relationship to the greenways
concept are largely absent from the literature on greenways.

In one exception, Lindsey et al. (Lindsey, Maraj and Kuan 2001) explored
whether residents in Indianapolis have equal access to the greenways system, by mapping
the distance of various census fiacts to the fiail system. Their research indicates that
minorities and low-income residents reside proportionally closer to the fiail than their
white, middle class counterparts. At the same time, they conclude that the degree of
segregation along the fiail is high. Paradoxically, the authors indicate that while not
conclusive their data also suggests that minorities and low-income residents tend to use
the fiails less than middle class whites.

While the research is important in its attention to equity, the authors assume that

proximity to fiail is an indicator of access, thereby ignoring other important factors that

17

affect fiail use (safety, maintenance, ability of the fiail system to meet user needs etc). It
also views greenways exclusively as a fiail system, as opposed to a conservation sfiategy
in which multiple objectives co-exist (and where recreation fiails are only one of these).
Most importantly the research does not explore the social processes which shape the
greenways system as it currently exists, assuming the objectivity of the conditions which
generated the route. In this sense a focus on greenways planning would provide important
insights into how competing visions of greenways emerge, are debated and reconciled.
As we have discussed above, this is an important aspect of understanding the equity
implications of conservation.

Nor does greenways research (or practice for that matter) appear to be influenced
by the long standing theoretical debate on the political versus the rational nature of
planning, in spite of its connections to the field. To varying degrees, schools of thought
guiding contemporary planning emphasize participation, social learning and community
empowerment (reviewed in Lane 2001). In reference to park management, Lane suggests
(2001) that the debate within the planning field has important points of convergence with
the questions and issues that arise in the “planning” of conservation activities. I argue that
greenways reside in the intersection of planning, conservation, and community
development. Moreover in urban areas they present an opportunity to explore issues of
equity in the development and construction of both environmental and redevelopment

sfiategies.

l8

1.5. The case of Deficit: deindustrialization, suburban

development and race

Detroit reached its peak prosperity during the 19403 and 19503, as it became a
center piece of the military-industrial complex of the nation. The city’s auto workers,
organized in the powerful United Automobile Workers, were among the nation’s highest
paid blue collar workers. The promise of better paying jobs in manufacturing, specifically
in the motor industry, lured Afiican Americans fiom the south to Deficit in waves of
migration that started in the early 19003 (Metzger and Booza 2002). Although
discrimination existed within the manufacturing industry, it still offered opportunities for
upward mobility for Afiican American families, particularly compared to their poor
prospects in other parts of the country. By the 19403 the city was home to a prosperous
and vibrant Afiican American community.

However, the opportunities for many Afiican-American families in Deficit
changed dramatically after World War 11. Like many other indusfiial cities in the north,
Deficit underwent a process of deindustrialization, in which major plants and sometimes
whole industries were closed, downsized or relocated in response to economic and
technological changes of the 20‘“ century. In post World War 11 Deficit in particular,
major auto makers began to resfiucture their assembly process to reduce production costs.
As part of the resfiucturing, indusfiy moved to the suburbs alleging the need for more

space to set-up plants based on the newer assembly line technology3 . Non-automobile

 

3 Industry also moved from Deficit to other states altogether, in search of labor cost cutting measures (i.e.
non-unionized work force). Subsidies, in the form of lower taxes, also lured industries fi'om Deficit to non-
mefiopolitan areas.

19

related businesses soon followed. As a result, the opportunities for many Afiican-
American families in Deficit changed dramatically (Sugrue 1996).

In Deficit, like other cities, suburban development exploded in the 19403 when
the Federal Housing Adminisfiation and the Home Owner’s Loan Corporation
underwrote new housing consfiuction for World War II veterans on vacant land at the
city’s north-east and north-west edges. The massive outward flight from the city that
followed was further encouraged by the 19503 federal highway project and the movement
of major industries to the suburbs (Sugrue 1996; Thomas 1997). By the 19703, the
mefiopolitan area had spread considerably to cover a six county area. In contrast, in 2000,
Deficit’s population fell below the one million mark for the first time since the 19303
census. It had peaked at almost 2 million in 1950 (Metzger and Booza 2002).

Suburbanization was accompanied by greater and greater segregation. Afiican
Americans were barred from suburban housing by the racially discriminatory housing
covenants enforced by federal loan policies and by the resistance of many white residents
to integrated housing4 (Sugrue 1996; Thomas 1997). Thus Afiican American residents,
particularly lower income people, were in practice barred from accessing better paying
jobs and improved housing. The city was left without an economic base, without jobs and

with an increasingly low income population.

 

‘ Both Sugrue 1996 and Thomas 1997, analyze and describe the multiple ways in which federal housing
policy combined with local resistance by whites to integrated housing perpetuated discrimination against
Afiican-Americans in housing developments. For example, the Federal Housing Administration regularly
refused loans for the construction of homes for Afiican Americans, while at the same time underwriting
construction in similar conditions for whites. Private neighborhood associations routinely included racially
discriminatory restrictive covenants; enacted to maintain “desirable residential characteristics of a
neighborhood” (page 44. Sugrue, 1996). To complicate matters even further, the appraisals by the Home
Owners Loan Corporation (a government entity) awarded higher ratings to white neighborhoods whose
homes were covered by these types of covenants, as they were seen as providing “stability” and ensuring
property values. At the same time, public housing in Deficit was racially segregated, concentrated in the
inner city and insuflicient in amount. As Sugr'ue (1996) succinctly puts it: “Federal housing policy
legitimated systematic discrimination against African-Americans in housing.” (page 44)

20

The social tensions created by unfair housing policies and unemployments,
coupled with racial discrimination in other aspects of daily life finally exploded in the
turmoil of the 1967 riot. The riot left many people dead, destroyed downtown property
and scarred the city for many years to come. While many people view the 1967 riot as
generating the demise of Deficit, in reality it was but a symptom or result of a highly
racialized deindusfiialization process that began in the early 403 (Sugrue 1996). The riot
and the chaos that ensued further accentuated an on-going white flight from the city and
reinforced its isolation. Today the city remains one of the most segregated areas in the
nation6 (Metzger and Booza 2002). Moreover, the massive flight of indusfiy and
residents, along with the social and physical destruction of many neighborhoods, left
behind a city of abandoned buildings, vacant lots, poor housing stock and a legacy of
indusfiy related contamination problems. Today, many of its residents, local
organizations and city government work towards revitalizing, redeveloping and in some
cases reconsfiucting the social, economic and cultural basis upon which the city can
thrive.

Within the context of an urban crisis, the role of environmental protection may
appear urgent yet at the same time superfluous to other multiple needs of the city and its
residents. Concern for the environment is often porfiayed as belonging to the middle and
upper-middle class, often white, members of society (reviewed in Mohai and Bryant

1998). Yet a survey of residents in mefiopolitan Deficit indicated that African-American

 

5 Unemployment was particularly high among young Afiican American men as new entry level jobs were
no longer being created in the city. In addition many older skilled black workers were fired and had to take
important wage cuts when they were able to find new jobs. Thus the inability - in the practice - to move to
the suburbs in search of these jobs devastated the social pillars of Deficit’s black community (Sugrue,
1996).

6 At 81.6%, Detroit ranks second nationwide in its share of African-American residents for cities with a
population larger than 100,000 (Metzger and Booza, 2002)

21

residents are just as concerned with environmental issues as whites (Mohai and Bryant
1998). In fact, Afiican-American residents tended to show sfionger concern over local
environmental issues than did whites, most likely as a result of the disproportionate
burden of low environmental quality in Afiican American neighborhoods. Other work
has also indicated that socio-economic status is weakly correlated to concern for
environmental quality (Jones and Dunlap 1992) and Mohai’s research confirmed this
fiend for Deficit residents.

While these surveys provide an indication of community concern for the
environment, they suggest a lot of questions that are relevant to understanding equity and
greenways. For example, how is this environmental concern expressed by Deficiters?
What types of conservation and environmental initiatives predominate in the city? How
might this affect greenways planning in Deficit? In this sense, which community actors
are relevant to greenways planning? In the practice, which actors shape the greenways
vision for Deficit? Lastly, are greenways an appropriate conservation sfiategy for the city
of Deficit? How do they complement and/or defiact from other environmental initiatives

that are relevant to the communities?

1.6. Theoretical and analytical framework

This research is guided by a theoretical frame of reference which recognizes both
the material and social construction of our world, and more specifically those ideas and
concepts which define our environmental actions. In my research I highlight the

construction of meanings, symbols and ideas because they have been less explored in the

22

realm of the environment, particularly in the urban conservation context in which this
research takes place.

In addition, I use and build upon those insights fi'om international and US based
experiences to consfiuct an analytical framework for research in order to better
understand issues of equity in the environmental arena. This analytical fiamework,
guided by a social consfiuctivist lens, pays attention to 1) the context and history in
which specific environmental actions are embedded; 2) the social position and multiple
meanings held by relevant actors 3) the type and nature of participatory approaches; and
especially, 4) the processes which drive decision-making and potential inequalities.

I therefore sought to use these insights to study conservation in an urban context.
Choosing an urban context for the research is important because 1) issues of equity in
conservation have been less explored in urban environments; 2) the defining line between
“nature” and “human environment” is easily blurred, providing an excellent opportunity
to observe the interplay between multiple meanings and interpretations; and 3) while
nature reserves and other rural sfiategies will continue to be important to conservation,
the prominence of urban areas as a place to protect our resources has increased. From an
equity perspective, this is particularly so since many low-income residents reside in urban
centers with low environmental quality, and often lack the means to access environmental
amenities in places like national parks, etc.

In addition, because of their relevance to present and future conservation agendas,
I decided to focus the research on urban conservation sfiategies that have explicit
community development goals and seek to involve local communities. In this sense,

greenways present an interesting case; their amorphous character would suggest that to

23

some extent they are shaped by the planning process, as well as by the consfiaints and
opportunities of the specific landscape. Thus, issues of equity first arise as greenway

elements are debated and created in the early planning stages.

1.7 . Dissertation plan

As infioduced above, the key questions that this dissertation addresses concern 1)
the degree to which the planning of greenways reflects a “participatory process” and the
nature of the actors involved in it and, 2) the way in which relevant actors interpret and
conceptualize greenways. To address these questions the dissertation is organized as
follows.

Chapter two describes the research design and methods used in the study and data
analysis. Chapter three provides a brief history of greenways with a focus on
understanding the genesis of the idea in the Deficit region. In it, I describe the principal
efforts and main actors critical to the development of greenways ideas in the region. I
analyze the way in which these ideas and efforts gave way and lead up to the current
catalyst for greenways development in the region: the Community Foundation for
Southeast Michigan’s GreenWays program. Chapter four provides background
information for the two projects in Deficit fimded by the GreenWays program that served
as the basis of this study. Taken together the latter two provide the historical and
contextual information needed to understand current greenways developments in the city.
Chapter five then analyzes the multiple ways in which greenways actors’ interpret
greenways, and specifically greenways role in the city’s revitalization process. In this

chapter, I specifically seek to understand the degree to which the greenways concept

24

embodies an ideal driven by community versus external interests. Chapter six analyses
the nature of participation in greenways planning for the case of Deficit, drawing on both
my original data and the theory of participation in the field of natural resource
management. It unravels the complexity underlying the reality of participation and the

implications for equitable conservation in urban areas.

25

CHAPTER 2

Research Methods and Design

26

2.1. Qualitative research and the case study tradition

A qualitative approach is suitable for this study because the research seeks to
understand 1) the different perspectives on greenways and their relationship to general
community goals and, 2) the social processes by which these perspectives are contested
and negotiated. The study specifically wishes to understand the meanings held by various
actors of key concepts such as “greenways”, “community”, and “participation”. In this
sense, the study does not seek to quantify perspectives along predetermined categories
but rather to explore what those categories may be. A key aspect of the research is to
understand how people shape and give meaning to the ”greenways” concept and how it
relates to conservation and development in the area.

A case study is an exploration of a bounded system through in-depth data
collection from multiple sources of information (Creswell 1998). It is particularly useful
in this case because it can provide a context rich understanding of the social justice and
equity concerns that arise in the development of urban conservation. While this not a
historical study, attention to context involves understanding the role of history in the
development of present day environmental inequalities as well as contested views about
the meaning of urban conservation in the inner city. In addition by focusing on the
planning process the research can document which actors have access to the process, and
which may be left out. As I have stated earlier this is a key, often neglected, element to a
more in-depth understanding of the social dynamics of conservation in general.

The research approach is based on what Stake (Stake 2000) refers to as an
insfiurnental case study, which is examined to “provide insight into an issue or redraw

generalizations” (ibid. p. 43 7). In this instance the case - greenways planning in Deficit -

27

is chosen because it facilitates an understanding of participatory approaches to natural

resource management in an urban, developed nation context.

2.2. Triangulation

Case study research uses multiple methods and data sources as a means to reduce
misinterpretation and ensure validity of the research results, a process often referred to as
triangulation. Triangulation is used to l) clarify meaning by identifying different ways a
phenomenon is perceived and/or 2) verify repeatability of an observation or interpretation
(Stake 2000).

The research design for this study was emergent but focused, i. e. initial questions
and respondents were identified as a point of departure, with room for flexibility and
change as the research proceeded (see Figure 1). Initial interviews and field observations
generated information about other potential key informant, activities and so forth. The
collection and analysis of documents complemented and confirmed the issues and themes
emerging from observation and interviewing, as well as generating new lines of inquiry
for the research. It is important to note that the emergent design served two main goals 1)
to confirm assertions and themes as they evolved during the research, and 2) to refocus
the research in order to make it more meaningful and valid to the case at hand. However
it is important to note that limitations related to fiavel time and budget were incompatible
with a sfionger focus on participant observation methods and document analysis. For the
most part, interviews served as the primary source of data, with document analysis and
observation playing a secondary role in the data collection process. In the case of one of

the two projects studied, due to the nature of its planning process, I was able to

28

 

Research Questions

What is the history of greenways development?

Who are the relevant actors in greenways planning?

How are greenways interpreted?

What is the nature of participation in greenways development?

  
  
 

Main data
source

  
 

  
     

Secondary data
sources

 

 

 

Interviews (——-—) Documents <——> Observation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  
  
   
 
   

 

 

- Community and .
environmental actors Newspapers 0 Public events

0 Master Plans
Greenways advocates (-—) . Informational H Community

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- GreenWays Initiative . meetings
participants Bulletins
\ J \ j
V V

Select interviewees and refine Learn about people
interview questions and issues

\ J

V
On-golng data analysis

 

Re-focus and refinement of research and its questions, for
example:
- Focus study on two local GreenWays projects
0 Do local groups use greenways as a community
development tool?

 

 

 

Figure 1. Emergent research design

29

participate and observe regular meetings as well as other planning activities. Thus
observation played a more prominently role in the collection of data pertaining to that
particular project. In all instances, I attempted to gather a wide range of perspectives,
whether via interviews, documents or observation activities, so as to ensure the validity

of my assertions.

2.3. Data collection procedures

This study collected data fiom three types of sources: qualitative interviews,
documents and participant observation during the period between November 2001 and
January 2003. On-going data analysis from these three sources was used to reformulate
and firrther focus research questions as the study proceeded. Interviewing was the main
research methodology due to its appropriateness for understanding people’s meanings
and perspectives (Fontana and Frey. 2000; Yow 1994) and the practical consfiaints (see
next two sections below).

For interviews, potential interviewees were contacted by mail (or in some cases
by email) with a letter indicating the nature of the research and a request for an interview
date (see Appendix A for a sample letter). The letter or email was followed-up by a
phone call and a request for an interview if the person was willing. All of those contacted
responded positively to the request for an interview, and the total number of interviews
was 29. Interviews lasted, on average, and hour to an hour and half. At the interview,
informants were informed of their rights as participants in the study, and asked to read
and sign a consent form in to indicate their agreement (see Appendix B for a sample

consent form).

30

Table 1 indicates the race, gender and residency of key informants. An effort was
made to include the voice of minorities, and the perspectives of both Deficit residents and
non-residents. Thus interviewees included both white and minority residents, and whites
who did not live in the city. (See Tables 6-8 in the next section for more interviewee
descriptions)

In the case of observation, all of the activities attended were public, thus requiring
no special consent or permission in order to be present. Table 2 indicates the
geographical area, type and number of meetings attended. In the case of the planning
meetings I attended regularly, participants were given a letter explaining the nature and
objectives of the research on two different occasions and asked both via email and during
the meeting if they objected to my presence and/or if they had any questions about the
research (see Appendix C). Because these meetings occurred regularly and participants
knew each other due to their regular attendance, it was both possible and appropriate to
inform the reason for my presence and objectives of the research. In the case of sporadic
public meetings attended, there was no intent to conceal the nature of my presence but
informing in a public manner was not deemed necessary. Except for a couple of large
community events, public meeting organizers knew the reason for my presence and
nature of the research. I, of course, provided the information fieely to anyone interested
or with whom I engaged in conservation during these events.

Documents were collected from various community meetings, as well as fi'om key
organizations and informants. These included brochures describing community events
and organizations, vision statements, planning documents, greenways master plans for

the region and Deficit, newspapers articles and other documents which could provide

31

Table 1. Interviews by race, gender and residency. The total number of
interviews was 29, carried out in 27 sessions. In two cases members of the
same organization were interviewed together. The "numbers" in this and
in all tables are shown for reader clarity. They are not meant as identifiers,
so that they cannot be used to cross index information between tables and
thus preserve confidentiality.

Number Gender Residency

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 African American F Detroit

2 African American F Detroit

3 African American F Detroit

4 African American M Detroit

5 African American M Detroit

6 African American M Detroit

7 African American M outside Detroit
8 Hispanic F Detroit

9 Hispanic M Detroit

10 Asian American F Detroit

11 white F Detroit

12 white F Detroit

13 white F Detroit

14 white F Detroit

15 white F Detroit

16 white F Detroit

17 white F Detroit

18 white M Detroit

19 white M Detroit

20 white F outside Detroit
21 white F outside Detroit
22 white M outside Detroit
23 white M outside Detroit
24 white M outside Detroit
25 white M outside Detroit
26 white M outside Detroit
27 white M outside Detroit
28 white F unknown

29 white F unknown

 

32

Table 2. Meetings attended by type and geographic area.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Type of meeting Number
monthly greenways planning 1 1
Eastside greenways town forum 1
greenways stakeholder meeting 1
public Involvement 2
Southwest
non-greenways community events 2
Southeast Michigan GreenWays Forums 2
Detroit Community Development Conferences “Tours of 1
Neighborhood Revitalization“

 

 

information about the community in general, and more specifically conservation and
greenways efforts. Tables 3, 4 and 5 provide a comprehensive, though not exhaustive, list
of the types of documents used for the research. Websites, in general, were used to collect
information on the types of activities promoted by specific organizations, their history,
mission statements etc. The websites listed in Table 4 refer to key websites on
organizations relevant to the overall analysis; other sites were also consulted and used
throughout the research but are not listed in this table. Table 5 provides a list of
organizations fiom which smaller documents such as brochures, pamphlets and
newsletters were collected, and some examples of these types of documents. In addition
to the documents listed in these Tables, the newspapers Detroit Free Press, Detroit News,
El Central, Metrotimes, The Michigan Citizen were analyzed for articles pertaining to
greenways, conservation, redevelopment and community during the period of field

research (2002). Articles related to the launching of the GreenWays program in Deficit,

33

which occurred in 2001, were analyzed for that year and in other newspapers (e. g.

Oakland Press, Macomb Daily). Occasionally articles for other years and/or newspapers

were analyzed.

References to specific books, government publications and other documents not

listed in these tables, but which were used for analytical (as well as bibliographical)

purposes, are made throughout the manuscript where relevant.

Table 3. Master plans and vision documents analyzed.

 

Master plans and vision documents

A vision of Southeast Michigan greenways

Organization

Rails-to-Trails Conservancy and the
National Park Service

 

Building the riverfront greenways: the state of greenways
Investments along the Detroit River

Greater Detroit American Heritage
River Initiative and Metropolitan Affairs
Coalition Project

 

Detroit‘s new front porch: a riverfront greenway in
Southwest Detroit

Rails-to-Trails Conservancy

 

Downriver Linked Greenways Initiative

Downriver Community Conference

 

GreenWays Initiative: program descripfion, grantmaking
guidelines. policies and application information

Community Foundation fer Southeast
Michigan

 

34

Table 4. Websites analyzed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

URL Organization
Mrsenwayscfsemcrg Gmmgw Initiative
mgr/www.ci.detroit.mi.us/phndeWcrs/stmt_de§ign.htm City of Detroit PlanningDepartment
MWboggscentemrL The Boggs Center

Community Foundation for Southeast
MJ/wwwcfsemorg MM
_h_ttp://www.conservaticniund.org Conservation Fund
httpV/wwaetroitrivenorg Friends of the Detroit River
htth/www.dwej.orL Detroiters Working for Environmental Justice
mmmmum.mm The Greening of Detroit
mpJ/wwwnwtorgurbanlandscapes/keepdetroitbeautiful National Wildlife Federation
httpvlwwwraiistrailsogg / www.trailsandgreenwafi.gg Rails-to-Trails Conservancy

 

 

35

Table 5. Brochures, newsletters, mission statements and reports analyzed.

Examples of documents analized Organization

Brochure: Eastside Community Policing
Partnership

Eastside Community Policing Partnership

 

Brochure: Growing People and Community

Detroit Agricultural Network

 

Brochures :Cycle Detroit 1985: Pedal Past
Tomorrow; Adopt-a-Park

Recreation Department

 

Intamal memo: 1988 Review of riverfront
redevelopment efforts

Recreation Department

 

invitations and promotional brochures

The GreenWays initiative

 

Listserve information;

Adamah Project and Detroit Summer

 

Magazine:Land and People

The Trust for Public Land

 

Mission Statement; Hood Campaing Fact Sheet

Detroiters Working for Environmental Justice

 

Mission statement; Newsletter: We Care

Nortown 000/ We Care inc.5

 

Newsletter: Creekside News and Views

Newsletter: Neighborhood Notes

 

Newsletter: Green Zones Grapevine

Healthy Detroit

 

Newsletter: Jefferson East News

Jefferson East Business Association

 

Newsletter: Real report: the resident's voice of
Detroit's East Riverfront

Riverfront East Alliance

 

Newsletter: River Current

Friends of the Detroit River

 

Newsletter: SDBA Community News

Southwest Detroit Business Association

 

Newsletter: SDEV Issues

Southwest Detroit Environmental Wsion

 

Newsletter: The Pipeline; mission statement

Wanner Conner Development Coalition

 

Publication and Video: Habitat, Health & Hope:
The National Wildlife Federation in the city

National Wildlife Federation

 

ReportzLyndon Greenway Fact Sheet; Newsletter:

Directions

Northwest Detroit Neighborhood
Development

 

Working statements, notices and promotional
brochures related to the greenways

Detroit Eastiside Community Collaborative

 

36

2.4. Sampling strategy

Purposeful sampling constitutes the basis for most qualitative research and refers
to the selection of participants and events not on a random basis but rather because they
can provide information about a given topic or issue (Creswell 1998). In this research, the
sampling strategy can best be described as occurring in two main “stages”. While not
strictly sequential due to the iterative nature of the research process, the two stages can
best be described as occurring in a sequential order. In the first stage I focused on 1) key
informants involved with greenways development in Detroit, 2) key actors involved with
specific projects related to the GreenWays program, 3) key actors that could provide
information about environmental issues and initiatives in Detroit in general and finally, 4)
actors who could provide insights into the community development issues in the city,
particularly revitalization efforts. Often, informants were knowledgeable and party to
different aspects of community life, thus providing information on various aspects and
levels. All together this “initial” stage helped to set the broader context in which
greenways initiatives occur. These interviews were especially important to understanding
where greenways fit within the “discourse on the environment” occurring in Detroit and
why some people were involved but not others.

The information gathered in this “first stage” of the research provided the basis
for deciding to focus on two specific greenways planning projects for a more in-dcpth
study. These two projects were chosen based on the following criteria: 1) opportunity and
timing: project organizers did not object to the research (and in fact key actors seemed
interested in it), and both planning processes were in their initial stages; 2) they provided

an interesting contrast from a community participation perspective as they represented

37

two types of planning process; 3) both projects were occurring in communities with high
percentage of racial minorities (one largely Hispanic, the other African-American),
making them interesting from an equity perspective.

Thus in the second stage, the majority of the interviews involved actors connected
or involved with these two projects and their communities. The emphasis was on
obtaining a range on perspectives regarding each project, particularly the connections
between the proposed greenways and other area needs. In this spirit, interviews were
carried out with residents, staff from community organizations, and city employees
serving the area (see Tables 6 and 7). In terms of observation, this stage of the research
presented more opportunities for data collection via this methodology. To the extent
possible, I participated in as many of these as possible given the time, distance and
budget constraints (see Table 2).

Tables 6-8 provide more detailed and descriptive information on all interviewees7.
Table 6 shows interviews by geographical area, indicating that overall 19/29 interviews
pertained, in equal proportions, to the two projects, which were the focus of the “second
stage” of the research. The rest of the interviews refer to city-wide and regional
perspectives which, as previously mentioned, helped to set the broader perspective for the
research. (For example the perspective of informants involved with other projects
occurring as part of the GreenWays Initiative, but which were not part of the more
detailed focus in the “second stage”). As I mentioned before, many actors played multiple
roles within the development context, and thus provided simultaneous perspectives on

regional, city and neighborhood issues. Table 7, specifically shows interviews by type of

 

7 Interviewee information is provided and detailed in several tables, as opposed to one in which all data is
cross-tabulated, in order to preserve confidentiality.

38

Table 6. Interviews by geographical area represented. SEMI refers to the Southeast
Michigan seven country region. City-wide refers the city of Detroit. As indicated some
interviewees provided information and/or perspectives on more than one geographical
area, either because of the nature of their work or multiple roles.

 

Geographical area Number of interviewees
Eastside
Southwest
Southwest and Eastside
Southwest and SEMI
Cultural Center
Northwest
city-wide and SEMI
city-wide
SEMI

d‘ll-lN-l-IWOO

Table 7. Interviews by type of actor. Professional refers to either planners or landscape
architects. CDC refers to Community Development Corporation. In some cases, actors
held multiple roles relevant to the study and are listed accordingly. Therefore the total
number of interviewees listed (33) exceeds the actual interviewee total (29). Only main
roles were taken into consideration when categorizing.

 
     
  

CDC staff

  

Community member

 
 

resident

 
 
 
 

Professional

 
 
 
 
   

sector
national

local
Greenw

    
    
  

Environmental

     

Hallow-545010

Initiative

39

Table 8. Interviews by type of involvement in the GreenWays Initiative. An advocate
refers to anyone who actively participated in and supported the events that lead to the
creation of the GreenWays program, and who - at the time of the research - continued to
be involved with the program in some capacity or another. A passive advocate refers to
someone who was well informed of the program, supported it but who may not have a
direct involvement or whose involvement was minimal. Public meeting attendance refers,
in general, to a one-time participation in either local or city-wide public forums or events
relating to the GreenWays program. Planning process participant refers to a non-grantee
involved in local level greenways planning on a regular basis. Planning consultant refers
to a professional hired to assist in local greenways planning. While some interviewees
could be categorized in more than one way, only one, main type of involvement is listed
for each person.

 

Type of involvement *' Number of interviewees
advocate

 

passive advocate

grantee

public maetingparticipant
planning process participant
planning consultant

none

 

 

N-l-‘Oflmab

actor (community, professional and environmental) and their affiliation, providing a
general idea of the range of perspectives gathered. The categories are not necessarily
clear cut or mutually exclusive; rather they are intended to provide a picture of the range
of perspectives gathered. For example, in some cases local environmental actors also
provided a “community perspective”, particularly when the type of organizations they
represented focused on grassroots, neighborhood issues. Finally, Table 8 indicates the
type involvement interviewee’s had with the GreenWays Initiative. This is relevant given
the importance of the program to greenways development, and more specifically to the

case.

40

2.5. Data analysis

An initial set of codes reflecting the themes which emerged during the interviews8

and found in the literature (concepts such as participation and community for example)
were created “freely”; they were not initially categorized into predetermined groups nor
were the relationships between them necessarily established. I used NVivo (QSR
International Pty. Ltd. Cambridge, MA. http://www.qsrinternational.com) to assist the
data analysis. This program facilitates a more emergent coding approach, as initial “fi'ee”
codes can later be categorized or grouped to reflect relationships among codes and
between these and themes from the literature. Once there was a saturation of “free”
codes, I organized them according to the following categories suggested by Bogdan and
Bilden (1998): “setting/context” codes, “definition of the situation” codes and
“perspectives held” codes. I created sub-categories within the groups as analysis and
coding proceeded. Codes were grouped, merged and moved from categories as the
analysis proceeded, and as new codes emerged (some codes were used as “flee” codes).
Codes were also grouped into sets (or more transient categories) in later stages of data
analysis and in the writing process, for example codes having to do with a particular
chapter or theme within a chapter. Figure 2 shows the principal codes created and
illustrates one of the ways in which they were organized. Thus formed this coding
scheme was used for further coding and analysis. Transcripts were reviewed several
times during the data analysis stage until no new codes emerge (data saturation). In later

stages of analysis and writing, codes were used also organized via models depicting

 

8 Coding was carried out using full transcripts. In the initial stages of the research, tapes were indexed to
assist the process of creating codes as it provided a preliminary means to organize the contents of the
interview while tapes were transcribed. But as transcription became simultaneous with analysis, only full
transcripts were used.

41

relationships between themes and ideas emerging from the research as well as fi'om the
literature. In summary, I looked for patterns, relationships, differences and commonalties
in the interviews. From these I developed assertions and generalizations about the case,
which were also contrasted with those found in the literature.

The information fi'om documents and field notes from observation were analyzed
in a similar manner, but without the use of NVivo. Documents and field notes were used
primarily to complement, and verify, themes and ideas emerging fi'om interview data
analysis. In this sense analysis of these data focused on specific themes, primarily
referring to the different perspectives and definitions of key concepts, for example 1)
greenways, 2) revitalization and 3) race relations in the city. I also used data fiom these
sources to complement the descriptive aspect of the analysis (for example referring to the
history of greenways in the region). In both cases the analysis was, for the most part,
done manually, primarily for practical reasons: the volume of the data was small making
it easier to manage in this manner, documents were mostly in a paper format etc. In
terms of validity, as I mentioned before emerging themes and patterns were verified using
the different sources of information (triangulation). In addition interpretations and
assertions were verified by sharing these with some informants at different stages of the

research, a process called member checking.

42

 

    
        
    
  
   

1 . Setting/context _"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

greenways interpretations

-‘w

.4.. ,1 Ad

 

views on revitalization

 

 

  

race and the environment |.

inclusiveness of process

N-r-sLl 114-*’ In _"_

l 3. Perspectives held I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    
  
 

 

- participation
- transparency 4|
'1 communi and minon
iv- til I
effects of TP

 

 

 

 

Outsrder/nsrder

M .1. ~

race and greenways

wrv v—u-r-v -

 

 

Figure 2. Creation and organization of codes. The scheme partially illustrates the coding
scheme used for data analysis. Codes were created and organized according to the three
main categories depicted in the tree diagrams. Sub-codes emerged and further refined the
analysis. Not all codes are listed nor was their organization limited to that shown in the
figure. TP: technical perspective

43

2.6. Limitations of the study

Though the research can reveal insights relevant to other conservation contexts
especially by illustrating critical issues in the field of conservation, the assertions and
findings do not necessarily apply to these other contexts. In this sense the data gathered is
not representative of other contexts, and hence generalizations cannot be made from the
case (such as for example “all greenways face barriers related to. . .”). It is important to be
cognizant of this limitation when stating the implications of the study for other contexts
and program.

In addition, the research relied heavily on interview data because of constraints
imposed by the site’s location. This meant that I was not immersed in the everyday
activities of the community and therefore observation data played an important albeit
secondary role. In this sense, I made an effort to include a wide range of perspectives so
as to inform the research as well as my decisions about which observation activities were
most informative. I also relied on observations and findings by scholars in other fields,
particularly the urban studies literature, in order to situate the study within the cultmal,

social, economic and political forces which shape Detroit communities today.

CHAPTER 3

The History of Greenways in Detroit

45

3.1. Introduction

In Detroit, greenways ideas occur within the wider context of redevelopment
efforts in the city. As I argued earlier, understanding the history and context of a
particular conservation program is critical to a better understanding of the issues that are
at stake. This chapter will therefore provide the background and context information
needed to understand issues of equity, participation and meanings of greenways in
Detroit. The chapter draws from my original data, secondary sources and the literature on
the environment in order to weave a more in-depth understanding of the evolution of
greenways in Detroit.

I start the chapter with a general discussion of the historical forces shaping
greenways throughout time. The section follows the development of the concept from its
origins in the ideas of Olmstead and other influential planners and landscape architects,
through to its inclusion as part of the broader discourse promoted by the conservation and
environmental movement. Section two traces the evolution of greenways ideas in the

Detroit region by providing a chronology of key efforts related to the city.

3.2. Reconnecting people to nature: Origin and history of the

greenways ideas

The idea of reconnecting people to nature is an underlying force throughout the
development of the greenways ideal. From its early days through to modern day
greenways, contact with nature has been seen as a necessary, versus an expendable,

element contributing to quality of life.

46

“Greenways could be part of a new order, realizing open space networks
envisioned for reconnecting cities to their rural hinterlands and people to

nature

Furthermore, greenways advocates have historically promoted this contact with
nature as an antidote to the daily stresses of urban life. Greenways advocates often invoke
their own personal, childhood experiences with nature to stress the importance of
greenways to our everyday life experience. Their narratives underscore a desire to stop
what is perceived as the on-going destruction of nature, and to conserve it for the

enjoyment of future generations.

we would hike down to the Rouge River and catch frogs and go to
Rouge Park and catch butterflies and take them home in jars. I mean do
all the things that little kids do... There is a benefit for people to have the
opportunity to do the things that I did. That in fact, it contributes directly
to the quality of life and the way we live ” (Michigan greenways advocate)
“then a tragic thing happened ...one day the bulldozers came and cleared
everything...the woods were cleared, the brook was put in pipe and
covered with asphalt...the woods became apartment houses. It was a
traumatic experience...1 often think about that; sometimes I still
experience that feeling of loss. " (National greenways advocate, as quoted

in Little (1990), page 2001)

47

Outdoor recreation, in the form of hiking and biking, has been an important
means for connecting people to nature within the greenways ideal. In this sense,
greenways follow in the path of early environmentalists which looked to walking and

hiking in the woods as a means to find peace and solace.

3. 2. 1. Olmstead ’s legacy: links between the early environmental and urban

park movement and greenways ideas

Greenways advocates and scholars ofien trace the origins of the movement to
ideas developed by the landscape architect and planner F. Olmstead (Fabos 2004; Little
1990; Seams 1995). Olmstead advocated urban parks as a way to provide city dwellers
with the benefits of nature. Within this context he talked about parkways, mostly in the
form of carriage pleasure drives and other linear connections seen as early precursors of
greenways (Little 1990). These ideas went into the making of such prominent linear parks
as Boston’s Emerald Necklace (proposed in 1887) and Prospect Park in Brooklyn
(proposed in 1866).

Olmstead was one of the pioneers of the urban park movement promoted by the
middle class elites, mainly planners and landscape architects, in the United States of the
18003 (Taylor 1999). According to Taylor (2002) the movement constituted an “urban
branc ” of the environmental paths taken by the middle class mostly male, environmental

activists of the 18003 (the other path being the “wilderness, wildlife, recreation branch”)9.

 

9Taylor (2002) argues that the middle classes took two main paths of environmental activism during the
19" century, both leading to the creation of today’s mainstream environmental movement. The “wilderness,
wildlife and recreation” branch was lead by such environmental icons as Emerson, Muir, Marsh and
Thoreau among others. This branch gives rise to the early environmental movement at the turn of the 20"
century, lead by Muir, Leopold, Pinchot and Marsh. However both branches - the “urban” and the
“wilderness”- are constituted by males belonging to the elites of the time; they share ideals and social

48

Like their contemporary nature and wilderness advocates, early urban parks advocates
were influenced by cultural nationalist ideas and prevailing anti-urban sentiments of the
time. Cultural nationalist, mostly elites and intelligentsia of the time, wanted to re-value
the American wilderness and landscape, viewing it as a national treasure that compared
favorably with those existing in Europe. According to Taylor (1999), Olmstead
conformed more to European ideals of nature than to the American ones represented by
Emerson, and later on by Muir, Thoreau and other romantics of the time. His promotion
and creation of urban parks tended to highlight pastoral, rural landscapes rather than the
spectacular vistas offered by “wild lands” which captivated early American
environmentalist. Nevertheless he and other park planners shared the social networks and
common experiences of wilderness advocates of the time. They too valued nature,
wilderness, and its tranquilizing effect on the human spirit (Taylor 1999).

Thus the connections between Olmstead, the early park urban park movement and
modern greenways ideas extend beyond the similarities in form and shape between
greenways and parkways. Many of the goals of the early park movement continue to
permeate greenways thinking today. Olmstead and other park planners argued that
contact with nature would help to improve the lives of the lower classes, thus civilizing
them into middle class values and norms (Taylor 1999). Parks were supposed to provide
a “rural, country” experience to the city residents. By improving the living conditions in
the city, parks would help to improve public health conditions for urban dwellers.

However as Taylor indicates in her study of Central Park (Taylor 1999) their values

 

networks. In her classification Taylor differentiates these actors and the issues they addressed from those
that formed the basis of the struggles of people of color and which gave rise to today’s environmental
justice movement. In this sense Olmstead and other urban parks advocates conform more to the standards
and values of mainstream environmentalism.

49

reflected middle class ideas about nature and recreation, and often clashed with those of
the working classes.

Modern greenways advocates share some of the same values imbued into the
creation of parks. Just like the early park movement sought to placate problems
associated with rapid industrialization and its trail of dirty, congested cities, greenways
seek to change how we go about urbanization. And just like early park advocates wanted
to preserve nature so that urban dwellers could experience its tranquilizing effect so too

greenways advocates value nature preservation as a critical goal.

3. 2.2. Beyond Olmstead: planners and the preservation of open space

The promotion and creation of metropolitan open space systems in the late 19th
and early 20th centuries were especially influential to the development of greenways
ideas. Within this context planners continued to play a pivotal role in the evolution of
greenways ideas, as illustrated in Table 9. The planner Benton MacKaye for example,
one of the influential figures in the advocacy of open space systems in the 19208,
proposed specific elements that would become critical to the greenways ideal (Little
1990). Influenced by the British “greenbelt”10 concept, MacKaye pioneered policy
prescriptions to contain what be perceived as “uncontrolled urban growth” or, in modern

terms, urban sprawl1 '. He specifically talked about creating public areas with “open

 

1° The greenbelt concept originated in Britain around the turn of the century as a means for preventing one
town or community from growing into another. The idea is to maintain a city or town’s urban integrity by
maintaining the rural integrity of its surroundings via “country belts” or “greenbelts”, usually in the form of
agricultural land. In the US. the term is used more loosely to mean any relatively wide stretch of open land.
(the relationship of greenbelts and greenways is reviewed in Little 1990 and Sears 1995)

“ Sprawl as a modern day phenomenon is generally defined as the process of expansion of metropolitan
areas in the US into suburban and rural areas at increasingly lower population densities. This growth and
expansion ofurbanized land use occurs at the expense offarmland and natural areas (and the inner city, as

50

ways” and “numberless walking units”, giving more prominence to the idea of a walking
trail (cited in Little (1990), page 19).

In addition to open space systems MacKaye also championed wilderness
preservation. He was the co-founder, with Leopold, of the Wilderness Society in 1936,
illustrating the continued connections between traditional conservationist and greenways
advocates. In fact as Taylor (2002) suggests, urban and rural environmentalism came
together in the 1920s in a common agenda in which open space preservation was a key
issue. These ideas would later become part of the modern day environmental movement.

Planners continued to be influential to the development of the open space
preservation discourse of the 1960s, and consequently the greenways ideal. They
promoted an ecological approach to planning and helped to emphasize the non-motorized
element of open space preservation and thus of greenways (Little 1990; Zube 1995).
Greenways ideas became part of the open space, anti-sprawl discourse that permeated the

environmental movement of the 19605 and beyond.

3. 2.3. The role of conservation organizations in the late 20"' century

According to Little (page 33, 1990), conservationists became increasingly
attracted to greenways because the high cost of purchasing land to put away for

conservation, the basis of the conservation movement throughout the 60s and 19708,

 

wealthier residents and jobs migrate to suburbia). Sprawl also requires more travel in the form of
automobile use, which in turn creates more pollution and contributes to sedentary life styles.

51

Table 9. Key Actors and Concepts in the Greenways Timeline. This timeline was
constructed from secondary data and timelines described in the greenways literature.
Key references and sources are indicated in the respective coltunn.

Ixt') :lcmrs

('tmccpl

R c 11' re n t‘ c

 

1865-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1866- F- Olmstead Parkways Zube, 1995; Little, 1990;
1387’ (Planner) Strip Parks Seams, 199s; Fabos, 2004
National Park Greenline; mixed
1892 System land uses and lube, 1995
(Adirondack Park) ownership
1895 Cleave‘and Metr°p°htan Park Fabos, 2004; Little 1990
(planner) System
1898 Ebenezer Howard British Greenbelt Little 1990; Seams, 1990
(planner) concept
Earl Olmstead Brothers
1903’ (planners ' F- LOOP park system Little 1990, F abos, 2004
Olmstead's sons)
1906- G. D. Clarke . .
1913 (planner) River Parkway L1ttle,l990
Public open space:
19203 Benton MacKaye walking and Little, 1990
(planner) recreational
elements
Coined the term;
. “greenways”
1322” xxx Open space; non- Little, 1990
motorized transport;
linkage element

 

52

Table 9 (cont’d).

 

Mc Harg

 

 

 

 

 

1966 (planner) Ecological Planmng L1ttle, 1990
R Lewis Environmental '
19603 (landscape . Little, 1990; Fabos, 2004
. Corndor
architect)
Late . Metropolitan Open
l960s- National Park Space; conservation Zube, 1995; Fabos 2004
Serv10e .
1970s corndors
1960s Rails-to-Trails Rails-to-Trails. http'J/wwwtrallsandgreenwa
' to Conservancy Smart growth ys.org,
date Seams, 1995
Conservation Fund
and other , , .
1987- environmental Greenways, Smart htth 'czcgéwanonfund
to date organizations, the Growth '. ’
National Park Moms’ 2002
Service
Conservation
1990s Fund, Sprawl
- to Watch Green infrastructure: Benedict and McMahon, 2002
date Clearinghouse, ecological corndors
USDA Forest
Service

 

became unsustainable in economic terms. In a haste to buy whatever land was available
before developers, much of the land purchased was disconnected, isolated and did not
have a lot of meaning socially or ecologically. Greenways offered a practical and

affordable way to further the conservation agenda.

53

Following this trend, the National Park Service (N PS) became an actor in the
greenways movement from the 19608 onward as a way to expand metropolitan open
space. Throughout the 19808, the NPS supported and advocated planning and developing
river corridors and linear trail systems including support for local actions and plans (see
Zube (1995) for a review).The NPS also developed the National Heritage Corridors
(NHC), which are linear systems with mixed ownership and land use patterns designated
by congress and affiliated to the NPS. In essence the NPS began promoting preservation
of valued linear landscape in the form of greenways, NHC and other formats as one more
element in their toolbox of conservation strategies. Greenways ideas can therefore be
directly linked to the conservation agenda advanced by the National Park Service.

Besides the public sector, non-governmental organizations involved with
conservation also embraced and promoted greenways ideas. The Conservation Fund
created the American Greenways Program to encourage local and regional greenways
projects in 1987. The program included a greenways project database, grants for
demonstration projects, publication of technical monograms on various aspects of
greenways, etc. It funded key works in the field such as Little’s “Greenways for
America” (Little 1990) and Flink and Sears’ “Greenways: A guide to planning and
development” (F link and Robert M. Seams 1993). Clearly the Conservation Fund

envisioned greenways as part of a package to conserve natural areas.

“[greenways can] ...help us achieve the goal of protecting those remaining

smcial glaces in the city and the county; side where nature still reim,
and where the opportunity to find tranquility still abounds, and where our

54

quality of 1172 can be enriched” (Excerpt from the afterword in Little’s
book (Little 1990), by Keith G. Hay, Director of the American Greenways

Program. Emphasis added)

One of the most prominent conservation oriented organizations connected with
greenways is the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy (RTC). The RTC originated in the 19608
within the context of growing societal concern for the environment and in the midst of
the birth of the modern environmental movement. Thus they can be seen as representing
the typical values and concerns of the middle class environmentalists. They have
championed a particular form of linear open space or greenway which takes advantage of
the opportunities created by abandoned railroad tracks. The organization was created to
promote the conversion of abandoned railroads to trails, again as a response to declining
open space and the need for new conservation strategies (from the history of the
organization on: www.railstrails.org). Today, the RTC and NPS promote a website of
greenways information called “Greenways Clearinghouse”
(www.trailsandgreenways.org), further suggesting the importance of greenways to these
organizations.

A considerable part of the RTC’s work has historically focused on the creation of
rural and suburban trails, although interest in urban areas has grown in recent years.
Recreation, in the form of biking and hiking are the predominant images of greenways
promoted by this organization. The images promoted by the RTC ofien convey the idea
of a backside, secluded trail. They have been particularly successful in the conversion of

rails to trails in Michigan, especially in the northern, more rural part of the state.

55

3. 2. 4. The links between the smart growth movement and greenways ideas

Smart growth is a loosely knit movement that seeks to address problems
associated with sprawl, primarily via land use planning and market based approaches to
controlling metropolitan growth. The movement is composed of scholars, practitioners
and advocates. Smart growth shares many tenets and objectives with other anti-sprawl
approaches, in particular the New Urbanism paradigm in planning and architecture
(Baum 2004; Till 2001). The connections between greenways and smart growth stern
fi'om both the influence of planning and architecture ideas to greenways and the growing
concern for the effects of sprawl on quality of life issues among citizens.

Many key environmental organizations and related professional associations
belong to the smart growth network including the RTC, The American Planning
Association and the Conservation Fund (see www.smartgrowth.org for a list of
organizations). Greenways advocates and organizations that embrace the smart growth

movement, often frame their mission as part of an anti-sprawl effort.

“The development of green infrastructure, such as trails and greenways,
are an important element in the smart growth arsenal, and can help us
grow in a more balanced and sustainable way " (Trails and Greenways:
advancing the smart growth agenda, page 2 in (Morris 2002))
“Greenways are essential elements “in the emerging national

movement to encourage smart growth and build healthier, more livable

56

communities. " (Excerpt of editorial letter by its president, in the RTC

magazine 2001)

In fact, the RTC places a particularly strong emphasis on the non-motorized and
alternative transportation element of the policies embraced by the smart growth
movement. Not surprisingly, given the centrality of the RTC to the movement, the
predominant interpretation of smart growth found in the greenways literature and voiced
by key advocates also places a strong emphasis on these elements.

Some critics suggest that to date, smart growth and other anti-sprawl development
approaches have tended to focus on the issues and problems of the suburban, white
middle class. Its practice has occurred primarily in the suburbs in spite of the strong
connections between inner city issues and sprawl (Baum 2004; Till 2001). According to
Baum (2004) part of the explanation resides in the fact that smart growth emerged as a
result of suburban concerns and interests, and thus the inner city is only peripheral to the
analysis. But in addition, Baum suggests that the smart growth movement by focusing on
“growth” rather than “development,” ignores the social and political nature of the forces
leading to sprawl, in lieu of an approach more based on a physical determinism. As a
result social issues, like those related to race, are for the most part not central to the smart
growth analysis or agenda, in spite of their ubiquitous nature in US. society.

In summary, in their origins and subsequent evolution greenways ideas have been
strongly connected to the mainstream environmental movement and its agenda. Its early
roots can be traced to the work of professional elites, mainly landscape architects and

planners, and other middle class men who championed urban parks and conservation.

57

in

3c

me

int.

0111

Table 9 illustrates the evolution of the concept in time and the pivotal role played by
planners throughout the development of greenways ideas. These actors promoted - for the
most part - a pastoral ideal of nature, one that sought to bring the “tranquilizing” effect of
nature to urban dwellers. Traditional conservation organizations and institutions
embraced the concept later on in the 20th century, in large part because it presented an
opportunity for cost effective yet ecologically meaningful conservation. Outdoor
recreation, in the form of hiking and biking in pristine landscapes became an icon for
greenways as the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy embraced and promoted the concept.
Greenways advocates also embrace the tenets and objectives of smart growth, sharing in
the suburban constituency and interests that tend to fuel this movement.

In many ways, greenways ideas are consistent with a mainstream environmental
agenda which 1) tends to focus more on the preservation of natural, pristine areas and less
on issues related to environmental justice, and 2) often reflects a preference for certain
outdoor activities such as hiking, biking and camping. This agenda has typically been
reflective of white, middle class values and its ideal of nature as a pristine uninhabited
area (DeLuca 1999, see Taylor (2000b) for a review). Participation in outdoor recreation
in particular has been an arena where minorities and women are underrepresented (Lee,
Scott and Floyd 2001). While the reasons for low minority participation are complex, the
management of outdoor recreation largely by and for middle class, typically white
interests is no doubt a contributing factor (reviewed in Loyd and Johnson 2002).

Today greenways ideas are championed by planners, landscape architects,
outdoor enthusiast and mainstream environmentalists. This also happens in the Detroit

area, as I will discuss below. It is only more recently that local community development

58

organizations have become players in the development of greenways plans and ideas in

Detroit.

3.3. Tracing the idea of greenways in Detroit
3.3.1. Greenways and riverfront redevelopment efforts

The idea of using greenways in Detroit can be traced back to efforts to redevelop
and create public access to the Detroit River in the downtown area in the early 19708.
While the word greenways may not have been used early on, the ideas are recognized as

clearly related to the current concept of greenways.

“So, we started on a number of things that had to do with linear
connections, but I wouldn 't have used the word greenways until maybe the
80 ’s or little bit after that. But there were linkages and

connections. "(Community planner and greenways advocate)

Recreation, the energy crisis and the implicit concern for a process which would
later be known as “urban sprawl” drove this initial interest in creating some kind of
linked access to Detroit’s Riverfront. In the late 19708 and throughout the 19808 this
concern found expression in the Recreation Department’s Linked Riverfront Parks
Projects. As described in documents and promotional material from that time, the
recreation department’s Linked Riverfront Parks Project emphasized the potential for
private sector development in addition to new areas for park land and public access. In

conjunction with this the recreation department also organized free bicycle tours of the

59

riverfiont called “Pedal Past Tomorrow” to showcase the downtown and riverfront area.
These tours were attended largely by suburban residents with some interest in the city, as
well as middle class Detroiters. These ideas emerged from and were largely driven by
professionals, mostly planners and landscape architects working within the city
administration. The activities they generated focused mainly on technical studies,
planning and in promoting a vision for redeveloping the riverfront area.

However this interest in Detroit’s river, as a resource and potential point of
attraction also found support in more grassroots environmental organizations such as the
“Friends of the Detroit River” (FDR). Like other community based environmental
organizations, the FDR is dedicated to protecting the river resource “through citizen
involvement and community action” (excerpt fi'om FDR’s mission statement). Similar to
other river organizations, the FDR functions exclusively on a volunteer basis and tends to
focus more on community-based activities such as river clean-ups, restoration and
preservation programs in addition to participating in and organizing coalitions which
further their goals.

Interest in the Riverfront also found expression in initiatives aimed at gathering
support for the concept across a wide range of city actors such as the “Detroit River
Greenways Partnership”. The partnership was an agreement between various private
sector organizations, community groups and units of government. Signatories to the
agreement included organizations such as the Friends of the Detroit River, Detroit
Recreation Department, Rivertown Business Association, Southeast Michigan
Greenways, Detroit City Council, Detroiters Workers for Environmental Justice among

others. The initiative sponsored a series of forums and workshops beginning in 1995,

60

with speakers from the Detroit Chamber of Commerce, Parks and Recreation and other
conservation professionals. One of the forums focused specifically on greenways as a
social and economic development tool. In this case the initiative was largely driven by
professionals in the Recreation Department, consultants and citizens with connections to
the Linked Riverfront Parks initiative.

Thus most of these initiatives aimed at protecting the Detroit River and enhancing
the riverfront were institutional efforts. The main intent behind these efforts was to
promote the idea of linked green spaces, bring on board local govermnent and private
sector players, in addition to some environmental organizations. Thus they served mainly
to create collaboration around the notion of green linked spaces, and to bring into the
discussion the “greenways or green space” concept creating what one interviewee

referred to as the “currency of communication

“The act and the process of developing these plans and this has been
particularly true in greenways 20 years later, I 0 to 15 years, or 20 years
later, is important because it depends on what I call the currency of
communication. We went around trying to say to people - when we said
“linked riverfront parks " I wanted people to shake their head, and know.
We did slide shows and we had pictures...1 gave a talk to the architects of
Lawrence T ech., and guys at the U of D and community groups all over.

So that it became what you thought about and what you did. ”

61

While key players recognized the importance of grassroots and community
involvement in these projects, their main intent was to obtain the support of institutions
and to gather basic technical information. They felt this was the most effective means to

move the idea forward.

“...it ’s not always community based at any one time. If you don ’t have
community at the grassroots level, at some point you are not going to get
any where. But it ’s not always true, you need grassroots people to get

things moving and to get things started. ”

It is also important to note that the idea of creating greenways along the Detroit
River existed within a general framework of increasing public concern for urban river
corridors (Little 1990). In many cities in North America, river commissions have been
established in an effort to protect and restore urban rivers. Later on, ideas about riverfiont
redevelopment in Detroit found expression in broader initiatives such as the River
Heritage and activities related to Detroit’s 300th anniversary. The latter resulted in the
development of a riverfront promenade along the Detroit River which has dramatically

changed the facade of the city’s river along its downtown area.

3. 3. 2. The rails-to—trails greenways initiative

Parallel to riverfront-based interest in greenways, conversations around a regional
initiative called the Southeast Michigan Greenways began in the early 19908 between

various environmental professionals and organizations. In contrast to riverfront efforts,

62

The Southeast Michigan Greenways Initiative was driven by the Lansing-based branch of
the national organization Rails-to Trails Conservancy (RTC). The initiative had two main
objectives 1) to link the population in southeast Michigan to the Discover Michigan Trail
in the northern region and, 2) to provide and protect open space fiom the pressures of
urban sprawl and inner city decay. While the initial focus was primarily rail to trail
conversions the scope of the project broadened early on so as to include the metropolitan

Detroit area.

“[ The] Rails to Trails Conservancy... wanted to create something called
the Discover Michigan Trails, using abandoned rail corridors to connect
to cities and all parts of Michigan together... and quickly realized [that]
in Southeast Michigan, where half of our population lies...there was not
anything that would constitute a real system...that would do justice to all
of the people that lived in that part of the state. So [they] decided to
undertake something called Southeast Michigan Greenways to say well we
can 't do justice to this with just simply Rails to Trails, we need to look
broader. And in many ways they were years, many years ahead of the
national Rails to Trails Conservancy... the organization has simply come
around since looking at greenways, connecting open space, kind of a

whole greenway system. "(greenways advocate)

The initiative included technical studies such as an inventory of potential

greenways in the region in conjunction with a series of public meetings and small group

63

workshops with various stakeholders from the region. This process culminated with the
publication in 1998 of the document “A Vision for Southeast Michigan Greenways”
which highlighted the vision developed by the loose network.

The meetings and workshops were attended largely by government officials, key
representatives from local agencies and departments (mainly Parks and Recreation and
Planning and Development), some environmental organizations and citizens. Thus most
participants were planners, landscape architects or other environmental professionals in
addition to recreation and outdoor advocates. At the start of the process most of the
participating organizations and individuals were not Detroit based or, as one interviewee
expressed, "not a lot of inner city Detroit " was present in these initial conversations. In
addition due to the types of organizations and professional areas represented, the
presence of minorities relevant in Detroit, such as African American and Hispanics, was
low. However, as participants recalled one of the objectives of the initiative was to reach
out and create change in Detroit.

In the mid-908 promoters of the Southeast Michigan Greenways became more
involved with environmental organizations based in Detroit such as the Friends of the
Detroit River, the Greening of Detroit and Southwest Detroit Environmental Vision and
with other efforts to create greenways such as the Detroit River Greenways Partnership.
In addition the initiative sponsored two demonstration projects, one of which was located
in Southwest Detroit. The project consisted mostly of conversations with local
environmental and community development organizations around the notion of
developing greenways for Southwest Detroit. It also included some public meetings,

presentations and conversations with professionals from local government departments.

One again it served to introduce and promote the idea of greenways as a possible
revitalization tool, as well as to gather the technical information needed to develop a
general plan or vision for a specific area. These “local” efforts also lead to the publication
of a document outlining a greenways project for the area: “Detroit’s New Front Porch
Report” (The Greenways Collaborative Inc. 1999).

Area organizations and some city government professionals were supportive of
the concept yet the project did not lead to further steps aimed at implementation.
Interviewees indicate that this may have been due to lack of funding, buy in from key city
leadership, a leading organization wishing to take on the project and in general the fact
that while the project was seen as necessary it was not a high priority for area

organizations given other development needs of the area.

“Because after we were done with the Southeast Michigan Greenways
Project, I thought right, people are going to plan the greenways in
Southwest Detroit when we ’re struggling with economic development
issues, when we 're struggling with social issues, when we ’re struggling
with housing blah, blah, blah. "( Community and economic development

organization stafi?

At the regional level the process also slowed down and encountered barriers in
moving forward. The initial process of outlining a vision for the region, carrying out
technical studies and conducting meetings had received financial support fiom the

Community Foundation and some federal grants. But while proponents had been

65

successful at funding the process up to that point, simultaneous efforts at creating a
mechanism to implement the vision were not fruitful. Key informants recall that their
struggle to obtain further funding arose partly fi'om the fact that they were seen as

outsiders to the Detroit area and that they were a “new face with a new idea”.

“There was some resistance there. I guess, I think we [RT C] were kind of
seen as outsiders because we were a Washington based organization. We
hadn 't been active in the Detroit area prior to this. We had tried - we had
all these public input sessions - but as far as the foundations and as far as
community leadership, we hadn ’t really tapped into them as well as we
wanted to. So they were leery about just handing all this money. So we

needed to form an advisory board. ” (greenways advocate)

In addition, the time spent gathering technical information delayed the process in
terms of meeting and maintaining interest at more local levels. This may have been
Particularly so for some of the Detroit-based environmental organizations. In effect while
there was support around the region, the initiative was maintained largely by the efforts
0f a few people instead of driven by local level organizations. In general the problem
seemed to be that the initiative could not move from the regional vision to an effective
mOChanism for developing it at the local level, particularly given the disparate needs of
the various counties and regions. The idea of creating a funding program thus seemed to

be an effective way to overcome these barriers. It also seemed like an effective way to

66

leverage federal and state funds for projects in areas like Detroit, by providing the

matching dollars these firnds often call for.

part of the problem was that the match is drfi‘icult to come up with
Federal and state sources wanting to direct money towards areas that
desperately need it. We have some projects and God knows when you see
them in the early stages they definitely needed it...How can we make this
work? Because you know Detroit...can ’t cough up a 20% to 30% match.
That hatched the whole greenwayfimd idea. And so we sat down with the

Kresge Foundation, I think right around '96... " (greenways advocate)

However, in order to do that potential sponsors needed to be assured that the
program would be successful at creating dramatic changes. In their view the region had,
up to this point, been recalcitrant to change. Participants of the process at that time agree
that what was perceived as lacking were key leaders from the region which could bestow
credibility to a program. When asked what they meant by “key leaders”, one interviewee
referred to “the movers and shakers, " meaning people with both corporate and
government connections and with access to the closed decision-making circles in Detroit.

The idea of creating a fund to support local efforts thus began to take shape in the
midst of these conversations between promoters of the project and members of the
philanthropic community. Most importantly the Community Foundation for Southeast
Michigan (CFSEM), a key financial supporter of the RTC initiative, decided to take on a

more prominent role in the promotion of greenways in the region. As a result, they

67

established the Greenways Pro gram as a catalyst for greenways development in the

Detroit metropolitan region.

3.3.3. The Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan ’s Green Ways

Initiative

The CF SEM, one of the largest and most prominent funding organizations in the
metro Detroit region, is dedicated primarily to local community and economic
development issues. The organization’s leadership position, via its Greenways Program,
thus represents an important change in strategy from past attempts at promoting
greenways in the region. The organization’s traditional focus on community and
economic development sets it apart from the more environmentally inclined agenda of
previous actors. Presumably it would better position them to overcome the barriers faced
by the RTC initiative and thus to create an effective mechanism for implementing
greenways in the region, and most importantly in Detroit.

The CFSEM brought new actors on board in order to develop its program,
particularly ones which could provide the much needed institutional and financial
support. Clearly, the CFSEM felt that new leadership was required in order to overcome
the barriers faced by previous efforts and to lead this new phase. The organization hired
the former Director of the Lansing office of the Nature Conservancy to spearhead the
project, raise the fimds and develop the criteria necessary to set up the prom.

Thus the CFSEM’s program, called the “GreenWays Initiative” is perceived and
promoted by its leadership as distinct to the RTC lead initiative. Key actors defined the

essence of their difference by contrasting the two efforts and pointing out those key

68

elements perceived as missing from the RTC’s initiative: infi’astructure, financial support,

local relevance and leadership.

“Well you have to understand that the greenways initiative that [we] own
is not the Southwest Greenways initiative that Rails to Trails Conservancy
spent eight years constructing... it ’s very drflicult to understand the

distinction, but there is a distinction.

“ Now if you read the [1998 RT C] document...it had four major flaws to
it. And this is not made to be a criticism of that plan at all, it ’s a terrific
document. The problems with it...there was no implementation. There was
no infrastructure there. It also and because of that it didn 't have any
money. It didn ’t have leadership and it wasn ’t local. And so you have
those four problems and what you end up with is essentially this very well

written, very thoughtful document that ’8 going to sit on somebody ’s shelf ”

In effect the program raised an impressive 25 million dollars in private funding,
which would leverage an additional 50 million in matching funds from state and federal
sources. As such it was hailed by the media as “Michigan’s largest and most expansive
preservation program with private dollars” (Pearce 2001) and news coverage of the
program in the local media has been widespread. In terms of leadership, the CFSEM
clearly recruited key players in Michigan’s philanthropic community in the establishment

of the program (see Table 10). The program has for example received a 10 million dollar

69

Table 10. Major funders of the CFSM’s 8mm from the Kresge Foundation, the largest
GreenWays Initiative

Institution

awarded through its Detroit Initiative

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Kresge Foundation program. The McGregor Foundation donated
MCG'egor Fund 2.5 million dollars, the largest in it’s history,
The Skillrnan Foundation
The Car’s WWW" to the program. In addition its advisory board
W.K. Kellogg Foundation
gummy/ebb” Foundation (Table 11) includes among others such
DTE E F d '

new on" m" personalities as the President of the Henry
John S. and James L. Knight Foundation
MW“ R- m” Fund Ford Museum & Greenfield Village; the
Americana Foundation
Whitney Fund president of DTE Energy Corporation, the
Frey Foundation

 

General Manager of General Motors, and the
Chairman and CEO of Ford Motor Co. Thus the program seems to have provided the
institutional, financial support and leadership lacking in the RTC’s initiative.

It is also interesting to note that besides the financial and institutional elements, the “local
nature” of the initiative is often mentioned by many actors as a key difference between
the two efforts. Clearly many felt this had been a limiting factor in previous efforts at
promoting greenways in Detroit. Most actors illustrated the local nature by referring to
the make-up of the advisory board, as well as the support of the philanthropic
community.

However not all Detroiters would call this leadership “local”, although they
might concede to the importance of having support from these actors. As some city actors
suggested, some might question whether the leadership behind the GreenWays program
really reflects the “community”. The ties to and interest in the city of many elite actors

have often been questioned by Detroiters. Since leaving the city, many of the big

70

Table 11. Advisory board for the CFSM’s GreenWays Initiative

 

Name Position .\fli|iation

Steven K. Harnp . Henry Ford Museum & Greenfield
. Presrdent .

(Chairman) Village

Gerard M. Anderson .

(Vice- Chair) Presrdent and COO DTE Energy Resources Group

Melvin Hollcwell Jr.

(Vice-Chair)

The Hon. Trudy

DunCombe Archer

Matthew P. Cullen General Manager

 

Partner Butzel Long

 

Judge 36th District Court

 

General Motors Corp. Economic
Development and Enterprise Services
Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Paul R. Drmond Attorney PLC
William C. Ford Jr. Chairman and CEO Ford Motor Co.
W Frank Fountain Sr. VP’ DaimlerChrysler Corp
' Government Affairs '
Executive Vice . .
Ralph J. Gerson President Guardian Industries Corp.
:31me Ghafarl, Chairman The Ghafari Cos.
Paul Hillegonds President Detroit Renaissance
Renee Jennings ‘ u H General Johnson Controls Inc.
Manager
Ron L. Kagan Director Detroit Zoological Institute
Keith Laughlin President Rails-tc-Trails Conservancy
John B. Marshall 111 President The Kresge Foundation
Heath J Meriwether Publisher Detroit Free Press
. . Vice President,
Timothy J. O'Brien Real Estate Ford Motor Co.
William F. Pickard Chairman and CEO Global Automotive Alliance
K3” Pr 'd t Th Skillm r dati
Schlachtenhaufen 681 en e an cun on
Shirley R. Stancatc President New Detroit Inc.
. . . Southeast Michigan Council of
Paul Tart Executive Director Gov ents (SEM C OG)

 

7l

businesses, like the three big auto companies, have had much bigger economic stakes in
the suburbs. More recently some big companies have tried to move back to the city. GM
for example, now has its main headquarters in Detroit. But in general, the professed
interest in the city manifested itself largely through fundraising for physical renewal and
predates any actual movement of the business’s infrastructure and human capital from the
suburbs to the city (Orr and Stoker 1994). From this perspective, their continued interest
in the city most likely stems fiom a “moral stand” rather than from an economic stake.
Yet, it is this very fact, along with a perceived record of not coming through that often
makes Detroiters question the “interest” many of these businesses actors have in helping
the city.

The actual process of developing the program began sometime in 2000 with the
official launching in April of 2001. The GreenWays Initiative was constructed as a 5 year
program “designed to improve and enhance southeast Michigan” through the construction
of greenways. It represents the first time such an extensive program for funding
greenways has been developed in the region. Indeed the overall comprehensive nature of
the program also represents a first for the region. To achieve its goals the program
established three components: public education and outreach, capacity building programs

and, grantmaking.

3.3.3.1. The GreenWays Initiative’s grantmaking objectives

Grantrnaking is clearly the GreenWays Initiative’s most prominent and visible

component, and the means by which greenways can be implemented at the local level.

72

The program provides funding to organizations in the seven counties12 of Southeast
Michigan for the planning and implementation of greenways via two types of grants: (1)
predevelopment grants, which support planning activities and, (2) land grants which
support the physical creation of greenways. To date predevelopment grants have been
more relevant to Detroit.

Analysis of the grant guidelines shows that these place a sficng emphasis on the
technical aspects that are necessary for building greenways in the region (see:
http://greenways.cfsem.org/apply/grantmaking_guidelines.hfinl). For example, grants for

predevelopment activities are described as:

“eng’neering studies, desim, activities to increase collaboration between

program participants, final planning work or hiring technical gens or

project related stafi'” (emphasis added).

In the practice, the most important outcome for the predevelopment grants are
ccnsfiuction documents, as this is believed to be a good predictor that a project will then
lead to a second stage of actual physical consfiucticn cf greenways. The emphasis on
consfiuction documents as a key objective of these grants is corroborated by data from
interviews with applicants, grantees and program staff. As we will see in subsequent
chapters, this “technical” aspect has shaped and been very important to the dynamics of
greenways development at the local level, from greenways definitions to the issue of

participation in the planning process.

 

‘2 The seven county region encompasses Oakland, Macomb, Washtenaw, Livingston, Wayne, Monroe, and
St. Clair and includes the entire metro Deficit area.

73

3.3.3.2. Grants made to Detroit applicants

During the first two rounds of funding the program awarded a total of 31 grants,
six of them to Deficit-based applicants. Five of these were predevelopment grants, i. e. for
planning (see Table 12); the land grant was in effect part of a larger greenway
predevelopment grant. Therefore in the practice there were five on- going greenways
activities in the city of Deficit firnded by the CFSEM. The proportion of city/suburbs
grants might seem satisfactory for a target region that spans seven counties. Yet in
light of the importance of allocating conservation funds to Deficit via the program

the proportion seems low.

Table 12. GreenWays Deficit grants during first two rounds of funding.

\alnlc of Type of '1‘} pc of grant Dollar

. . . . Location
()rgnnl/ntlon (.)rgnnl/utlon ((lzlteanurrlcrl) .\mount

 

City of Detroit

 

. City Predevelopment
Recreatlon Southwest $63,000.00
Department Government (Sept. 2001)
Nortcwn Community
Community Development Land mthept. Noggfst $75,000.00

Development Corp1 Corporation
Deficit East Side Consortium of Pr edevel ment
op East side 398300-00

 

 

 

Community community .
Collaborative Olganizations (April 2002)
Northwest Detroit Community Predevel ent
Neighborhood Development (8 t :53?) Northwest $37,930.00
Development Corporation cp '
. Community
Soutlévzseistngsefiou Economic Predevelopment Scuatgsvest $100 000 00
Association development (April 2002) D 1 m ’ °
WOOD
Deficit Economic

Busrness Predevelopment Downtown $12,000.00

Gmw‘h Development (April 2002) Riverfront

Association
[1] This organization is a member of the Detroit East Side Community Collaborative. Their
project is part of the predevelopment grant awarded to the collaborative in April 2002.

74

Indeed, interviewees echoed the notion that grant-making to Deficit still had a

long way to go to satisfy the original intent of the program13 .

“[ T hey are] just looking for some good applications in Detroit because
some of their money is earmarked for Detroit and they ’ve had a hard time
getting projects ”

“I lorew 80% of the money was targeted for Detroit and rural poor areas.
A lot of the big donors were very Detroit centered. The regional efl'ort,

yes, I ’m going to have to get same token money to the drflerent areas, but

this is Detroit. "

Most of the organizations receiving the grants can be described as focused on
community and economic development issues, and range in size from consortiums of
various types of organizations to smaller more neighborhood focused CDCs. In addition
one grant has been given to the cenfial office of the City of Deficit Recreation
Department and one to Deficit’s Economic Growth Association (DEGA). The DEGA
grant focuses on connecting two already existing walkways along the riverfront in the
downtown area. This area has received significant attention in recent years as efforts at
redeveloping the downtown and riverfiont area have been debated and carried outwith
various degrees of success. In this sense the comparatively small amount of the

greenways grant awarded to DEGA suggests that this is probably a small and specific

‘

'3 By grant round seven (Sept. 2001 - Sept. 2004), total grants had increased to 76 total (including land,
teclrnical assistance and predevelopment grants) of which 21 went to Deficit organizations. In addition one
Of the technical grants, developed by the RTC, focused on Detroit. Therefore is would seem that grant

making to city organizations was improving.

75

complement to on-going efforts. The other grant proposals focus on what might be
described as “neighborhood areas” of the city such as Mexican Town, the Brighfinocre
community area and a large extension of Deficit’s Eastside encompassing several
neighborhoods. While these areas vary in terms of their current growth pattern,
population, and social characteristics, they share some characteristics: a history of
economic disinvestment, issues related to poor environmental quality, and lack of

affordable housing, among others.

3.4. Summary

In summary each of the greenways efforts promoted in the Deficit region
throughout the years had a particular focus and was initiated by a somewhat distinct set
of actors. Yet to some extent they shared an interest in creating change in Deficit and
proposed that greenways were an effective means to achieve this. In the case of riverfront
related efforts, they were clearly part of the city’s revitalization policy which focused on
promoting investments in the downtown area. Later efforts which emerged fi'cm the RTC
were initiated by actors from outside the city and had a more regional focus.
Nevertheless, the RTC lead initiative professed a sfiong interest in Deficit, even though
most of the actors were not Deficit based. This reflected the RTC leadership’s interest in
expanding a primarily suburban movement to the city. Yet in spite of its efforts, the RTC
faced many barriers to implementing greenways, particularly in Deficit. In an effort to
overcome these, new actors came on board to promote a more comprehensive and
practical means for promoting greenways in the region, especially in Deficit. The

CFSEM spearheaded this new phase in greenways development. They supported and

76

developed a program called the “GreenWays Initiative”, designed to fund and promote
greenways in the Deficit mefiopolitan region. Like previous greenways efforts, the
program also professes a sfiong interest and commitment to creating change in Deficit.
The overwhelming majority of actors that participated in the evolution of
greenways ideas in the region were professionals (mostly planners and architects) and
parks and outdoor advocates, much in accordance with the history of the idea. Overall,
and to varying degrees during the different stages, community level organizations in the
city have been peripheral to the greenways development process. Moreover, minorities
have been largely absent from the genesis of these efforts, an issue I will discuss in more
detail in chapter six. The GreenWays program, which has effectively channeled funds
and support for greenways development in the city, has been slower than expected at
incorporating local level organizations. Nevertheless it has created opportunities for local
level organizations to become involved. The form and extent of this involvement is the

topic of the next chapters.

77

CHAPTER 4

Two cases of greenways planning in Detroit: the
Eastside and Southwest Detroit

78

4.1. Introduction

This dissertation focuses on two greenways projects occurring in Deficit, both
within the fiamework of the CFSEM’s GreenWays predevelopment grants, one in the
eastern and the other in the southwest part of the city. (Throughout the dissertation I will
refer to the eastern area as “the Eastside” and to the southwest area as “Southwest” for
convenience and because those are the local names given to these areas.) Thus they were
both under a one year grant cycle, focused on the planning process (i. e. on obtaining
consfiuction documents as the final product). However they varied in the type of
organization involved and the actual development of the planning process, as well as in
the genesis of the idea. They represent two different planning models: one headed by a
city department and the other by a coalition of community based organizations. This
chapter will provide background information about these projects. Later chapters will
analyze in more detail issues related to participation in the planning and interpretation of

greenways ideals and issues.

4.2. Linked Parks Southwest Detroit Greenways Projects
4. 2. 1. Geographical focus and objectives of the project

The city of Deficit’s Recreation Department was awarded a predevelopment grant
in the amount of $63,000 to support a project called “Linked Parks Southwest Deficit
Greenway Project” on Sept. 2001 (I will refer to it as the “Linked Parks” project fiom
now on). The project focused on the idea of linking three elements of Southwest, two

community parks (Clark Park and Riverside Park) and a historic site Fort Wayne, which

79

dates fiom the 18408 and houses several museums”. The general area affected by the
project is bounded by Livernois, Vemor Highway, the Deficit River and West Grand
Boulevard. A major expressway highway (I-75) separates the two parks and a former
industrial site. A warehouse and the city’s power plant separate Riverside Park from Fort
Wayne.

The main objective of the project was to fund the design, engineering and cost
analysis of these potential links. The analysis “will assess how to best improve the
existing green spaces and nonvehicular routes, so residents will have non-motorized
access to the parks and public venues to which these fiails will lead” (excerpt from
project description on the CFSEM’s website. www.cfsem.org). The proposal also seeks
to create a “framework for connections” (idem) to other greenways efforts nearby such as
those of communities in the downriver area, and along the Rouge and Deficit rivers.

At the time of writing this dissertation, consfiuction documents for the first phase
of the Linked Parks project, covering one segment of the proposed greenway, had been
finalized. A master plan outlining a vision for the remaining links had also been
developed. The first phase will focus on creating a greenways link ficm Clark Park to
Riverside Park located along Deficit’s riverfront. According to project leaders, the
recreation department intended to apply for a development grant fiom the CFSEM to

consfiuct this initial phase of the greenways. ‘5

 

'4 Historic Fort Wayne is currently closed to the public, except on special occasions. It has sufl‘ered from
funding problems and has changed overseeing authority in recent years, It is now run by Wayne County.

‘5 As of Oct 2004 the city had not been awarded additional grants for the Linked Parks project. Presumably,
further development of the project had been halted. Other GreenWays predevelopment grantees have been
successfirlatobtainingfirrtherfimding fromtheprogram, intheformlandgrants andadditional
predevelopment money to further their projects.

80

4. 2. 2. Comm unity characteristics

Southwest is home to Deficit’s Hispanic community”. While the area’s
population includes Afiican American, Native Americans, Caucasians and other ethnic
groups many people identify Southwest with Deficit’s Mexican town and its population
of Mexican-Americans, Xicanos, as well as more recent migrants from Cenfial and South
America. This is partly due to the sfiength of Latino-based organizations and to the
growing business sector in the Mexican town area. It is also due to the fact that unlike
other neighborhoods in the city, Southwest’s population is actually growing due largely
to migration from “Hispanics”.

The area, once home to the auto and manufacturing indusfiy, now suffers from
many environmental problems associated with its industrial heritage as well as new ones
created by the disinvestrnent affecting Deficit in general. The presence of brownfields,
vacant lots which serve as targets for illegal dumping, air pollution and lead poisoning in
many of its old and ill repaired housing stock, are some of the pressing issues affecting
the community. In addition, the area is subject to heavy fiuck fiaffic which further
compounds air pollution and safety issues in the community.

In spite of these problems the community is often described in interviews and
documents as “vibrant” and “growing,” with high levels of community organization and a

growmg business sector. Southwest has been designated as an Empowerment Zone and

 

'6 The term Hispanics or Latinos is often used as a generic label to identify people who originate, in
general, from Spanish speaking counfiies in the American continent. While they may share some cultural
determinants, they really represent a wide range of ethnic origins. In fact, they may self-identify in difi‘erent
and varied ways (“Latinos”, “Xicanos” “Hispanics” “South American” “Caribbean”, “Spanish”, “Native
American” etc). Indeed some people of Native or African origin who originate fiom Spanish speaking
countries (or the southern U. S. states) resent the use of the terms Hispanics or Latinos. It is beyond the
scope of this dissertation to address these differences m ethnic identification but I wish to acknowledge the
inaccuracy and misconception that is embedded in these generic terms. The term Hispanic or Latinos is
therefore used to simplify the description and with an understanding of its limitations.

81

its population is mostly low income, working class. Part of the riverfront in Southwest
has also received a Renaissance Zone designation, a state tax abatement program for
encouraging economic development. Hence Southwest has received both federal and
state funds to encourage economic development in recent years. In addition, key
informants working in community development issues in the area indicate that many of
the newer migrants are part of a skilled labor force relocated from other parts of the
ccunfiy in search of better paying jobs in the consfiuction indusfiy. Interviewees felt that
these new residents together with various community economic development initiatives
have given the area an important boost in recent years.

Clark Park, a key component of the greenways proposal, is located in a residential
neighborhood known as Mexican Town. It is widely used by citizens and community
groups alike, hosting a variety of community events and activities throughout the year.
While the park is city owned, its programming is run by the Clark Park Coalition. This
citizen coalition formed and fought to keep the park open when the city was planning to
close it for lack of flmds. Disinvestment, lack of programs and park maintenance had
created a scenario in which the park was used for illicit activities during the drug wars of
the 19808 in Deficit. The coalition now runs a community center with a broad range of
activities for residents and also maintains an ice rink that is widely used in the winter. A
walk in the park at any time and day is clear evidence of its place in the community.
Riverside Park on the other hand is much more underutilized and abandoned, being
located in an isolated and non-residential area. It does not possess any of the facilities or
programs found in Clark Park and residents often complain of illicit activity occurring at

night.

82

4.2.3. Project history and leadership

The idea for the Linked Parks project dates back to the demonsfiation project
carried out in Southwest in the mid-19908, within the context of the RTC’s regional
initiative. The concept of linking Clark and Riverside parks to Fort Wayne was part of the
proposal developed by the demonsfiation project at that time. The Recreation Department
used the concept and information that came out of the demonsfiation project as the basis
for its proposal to the CFSEM’s GreenWays Program. The impulse for the department’s
grant application came from professionals who had worked on the demonsfiation project
and fiom efforts by various actors seeking to encourage greenways projects in Deficit.

Like all of the department’s grant applications, the proposal for the foundation
was developed and written by their grant writer in collaboration with a consultant. Once
the grant was awarded different staff took leadership of the project. The professionals
involved with the project were not employed at the recreation department in the mid-
19908 and did not participate in the demonsfiation project. The project was managed by
the Landscape and Design unit of the Recreation Department’s downtown office. In
addition, the department hired a consultant to carry out the planning process, a common
procedure for these types of projects. The consulting team includes a landscape architect
involved with the previous demonsfiation project. The consulting firm also holds
confiacts for other greenways efforts in Southwest and for the project in the city’s

Eastside area (discussed in the next section).

83

4.3. Conner Creek Greenways
4.3.1. Geographical focus and objectives of the project

The Deficit Eastside Commrmity Collaborative (DECC) was awarded a $98,000
predevelopment grant to support the planning and development of the “Conner Creek
Greenways” located in the Eastside (I will refer to it as “Conner Creek” from now on).
The project specifically focused on linking Eight Mile Road to the Deficit River,
fiaversing several neighborhoods in the Eastside. The proposed greenways would follow
somewhat the route of the historic Conner Creek, tunneled underground as part of the
City of Deficit Sewer System in the early 19008. The proposal has the potential to create
links between parks, recreation centers and cultural institutions located in the area. In
some segments it would follow main avenues such as St. Jean and Conner. The project is
fairly large in scale compared with other Deficit projects. The completed greenways
route would eventually cover over eight miles of pathway.

Again the main focus of the grant was to support “the planning, design and cost
analyses for over eight miles” of greenways. The route has been divided into segments
and the planning process includes prioritizing and developing the necessary consfiuction
documents so that one of these can be implemented subsequently. In addition Nortown
CDC, a member of DECC, was awarded an implementation grant for a particular
segment of the project (called Milbank or phase I) prior to the predevelopment grant for
Conner Creek. Hence the Milbank segment of the project is currently in the process of
development.

The planning process instituted by DECC resulted in the formulation of a general

vision and sfiategy for developing the entire greenways in the future. The greenways was

84

divided into several segments (called phases I to IV), which could be planned and
constructed incrementally over a period of time and according to the priorities established
by DECC and the community. Thus one of the main objectives of the planning process
was to determine which segment to prioritize, and to develop the corresponding
consfiuction documents for this first phase. At the time of dissertation writing,

construction documents for the first phase of the Conner Creek had been finalized.17

4. 3. 2. Comm unity characteristics

The Eastside was once one of the more vibrant areas of the city, with an important
amount of business, industrial and commercial activity. The lower Eastside in particular
was important to the development of a vibrant Afiican American community (Thomas
1997). The Eastside was also one of the hardest hit by the deindusfiialization process as
indusfiy relocated to the suburbs, followed by business and commercial sectors. Highway
development and “Urban Renewal” further eroded the social and economic fabric of the
area, as entire neighborhoods were cleared and/or isolated from each other.

The Eastside is adjacent to the upper-middle class neighborhoods sometimes
referred by locals as the “Grosses Pointes” (one of which is Grosse Point), which are
among the older and wealthier suburbs in the mefiopolitan area. Stepping - or most likely
driving - ficm the Eastside to its adjacent suburban neighbors provides a sharp and
painful reminder of the racial and economic differences that can separate residents in

Deficit’s mefiopolitan area. There is unlikely to be a cruder, more surreal illusfiation of

 

'7 As of October 2004, DECC had received two additional GreenWays grants: 1) a land grant in April 2004
in the amount of $164,000 for consfiuction of the initial phase and, 2) a predevelopment grant in Sept 2004
in the amount of $100, 000 to support the planning of another segment of the greenways, one which would
connect to the first phase under consfiuction.

85

these differences than the actual wall that separates Grosse Point - with its pristine lawns
and overwhehningly white residents - from its Deficit neighbors.

Today the Eastside is home to a predominantly African-American population,
many with deep and sfiong ties to the community. The neighborhoods in the Eastside,
and along the greenways path, vary from stable with atfiactive housing stock including
some historic districts to other areas where there is significant disinvesfinent, abandoned
houses and vacant land. Some of the sectors in the Eastside - and along the proposed
greenways path - have EZ designation. The area is also home to important institutional
actors such as Wayne County Community College and several hospitals (St. John,
Riverview and Mercy).

A large number of housing improvement initiatives are currently underway by
non-profit and for profit organizations in the Eastside. Among these is the Deficit
Eastside Community Collaborative (DECC), one of the most prominent organizations in
the area, and indeed in the city. Established in 1992, DECC is a private, nonprofit

consortium of over 20 Eastside neighborhood-based community organizations.

“DECC works as a coalition to build the capacity of its member
organizations by providing technical assistance for the implementation of
housing and economic development projects, serving as a clearinghouse
of information for coordinating community development strategies, and
acting as a unified voice to address land use issues of common concern. ”

(Excerpt from DECC’s mission statement)

86

Most of the organizations in DECC tend to focus on housing and commercial
development issues, but the coalition also includes environmental organizations, the local

YMCA and smaller neighborhood development associations.

4. 3.3. Project history and leadership

The Conner Creek project arose fi'om a shared interest in greenways held by
several DECC organizations and actors. Some organizations like Warren Conner had
been interested in the general idea of building and maintaining green spaces for many
years. For them the project provided an opportunity to pursue and further develop ideas
debated during the Community Reinvesfinent Sfiategy (CRS), a city-wide community
planning process that took place during 1994-1997. Other key actors were interested in
the alternative fiansportation possibilities that could be provided by the proposed
greenways and its overall impact in revitalizing the Eastside. Most of the DECC actors
prominent in promoting the greenways idea initially professed a sficng concern for
enviromnental issues, and particularly their relationship to revitalization in the city.

The idea was given impetus in its early formulation by the fact that Nortown
CDC, a small neighborhood organization belonging to DECC, was awarded a
development grant by the CF SEM for a one mile sfietch of greenways. However, the
CFSEM conditioned the grant to the development of a larger scale greenways project in
the Eastside, in which Nortown’s proposal would be but a segment. Nortown’s interest in
greenways stemmed partially from an interest in historic preservation as a means to
prevent the disintegration of their neighborhood and community. The condition set

forward for Nortown’s grant pushed the idea of a greenways in the Eastside to the center

87

of the discussion by DECC. The fact that Warren Conner, one of the larger and older
CDCs in the area, became interested in pursuing the grant idea likely provided an
additional force.

Initially project leadership resided in staff members fiom a few DECC
organizations, largely due to their personal interest in the project, such as the Jefferson
East Business Association (J EBA), Nortown CDC, and the Catholic Pastoral Alliance to
cite a few prominent ones. Warren Conner, as I indicated earlier, showed an active
interest in the project from early on. Their leadership was evident throughout the process.

In order to coordinate the project, DECC developed a greenways planning
committee which met monthly and was open to participation by non-DECC community
actors (including government actors). This committee began meeting early on in the
formulation of the idea and development of the grant. Once the grant was awarded, a
consulting team was chosen and became part of the process, attending the monthly
planning meetings.

The nature and dynamics of decision making for both the Linked Parks and

Conner Creek projects will be discussed in more detail in chapter 5.

88

CHAPTER 5

The meaning of greenways in Detroit: a “white middle
class” construct?

89

5.1. Introduction

Traditionally, greenways arise from the interests and ideas of white-middle class
professionals and environmentalists as infioduced in chapter 1. In Deficit many actors
and members of the community perceive greenways as such, particularly in regards to the
way in which they are promoted by program sponsors. Nevertheless some city actors are
attempting to develop an alternative and more community-centered ideal of greenways.
This chapter explores the social processes that shape greenways ideas and plans in
Deficit, drawing primarily from my original data. I use an interpretive approach that
assumes ideas are not static or objective, but rather the result of their context and history.

In the first section I explore four key elements of the social processes that drive
and shape greenways meanings and interpretations in Deficit: l) the influence emanating
from the GreenWays program, 2) the racialized nature of the region’s development, 3)
the legacy of deindustrialization, and 4) and the emerging ecological perspective on
redevelopment. The second part of the chapter analyzes two predominant greenways
interpretations in Deficit: 1) one which sees greenways as part of an externally driven
redevelopment perspective, and 2) another which positions greenways as part of a
community centered redevelopment process. The section illusfiates how greenways
meanings are sfiongly connected to ideas about the redevelopment process in the city. In
this sense different interpretations are consfiucted in accordance to different views and
beliefs about the needs of the city. The last part analyzes how these two different
greenways interpretations are fianslated and developed at the local level. The section
presents and confiasts two specific greenways projects in terms of their goals, values and

perceptions.

90

Taken together, my research suggests that greenways in Deficit to some extent
continue to reflect the values and views of a suburban white middle class. In many ways
greenways interpretations and definitions are a reflection of the background and social
position of advocates and sponsors. Nevertheless, some activists and community
organizations in Deficit have been effective in using greenways to advance a
neighborhood driven revitalization sfiategy. Their interpretation of the concept reflects a
more community and neighborhood centered ideal. From this perspective, their

confiibution is particularly valuable to redevelopment efforts in the inner city.

5.2. Elements that shape the meaning of greenways

5. 2. 1. The influence of program sponsors

A8 I discussed in chapter three, the CFSEM’s GreenWays program is the most
important catalyst for greenways development in the region. The program was formulated
to infuse greenways ideas with new energy, and especially promote them in Deficit as a
means for redevelopment. Consequently, both overt and subtle messages coming fiom
the program and its leaders shape people’s interpretations of greenways within the city.
Their influence on greenways ideas occurred primarily through: 1) the subtext of the
program’s grant guidelines, and 2) its overall mission of creating change at the landscape
level. For a range of actors, the program was perceived as promoting a suburban rather
than an “inner city” view of greenways. Indeed, local environmental and community
actors along with some professionals (those who appeared to have sfionger ties and

sensibility for comrntmity issues) expressed this concern about the program. The majority

91

of these actors were also city residents. In a few exceptions, non-residents also expressed
this concern, particularly those who expressed an interest and concern for community and

neighborhood driven development.

5.2.1.1. The GreenWays Initiative grant guidelines promote a suburban

ideal of greenways

These critical actors felt overall that the GreenWays Initiative fit the reality of the
suburban communities of the region much better than that of Deficit, in spite of the city’s
importance to the program’s goals. Most importantly the majority of these actors were, to
different degrees, advocates of greenways. Their perception stemmed in large part fiom
the way in which pro gram sponsors formulated and then fiuther interpreted the program’s
guidelines, at least during the initial rounds of grantrnaking when this study took place.

One of their main criticisms refers to the program’s apparent disinterest in
funding sfieetscaping and beautification type projects. Sfieetscaping and taking
advantage of the sfieet system, they claimed, is paramount to any kind of beautification
and “greening” effort in Deficit. Thus by downplaying the role of the city sfieets in the
development of greenways, the program - via its guidelines - tended to exclude Deficit
projects. Interviewees felt this “exclusion” of the city sfieet was the result of a greenway
ideal more akin to a pristine, natural area. Such an ideal in their opinion better reflects the

types of environments one would find in a suburban or rural commtmity.

“But they wrote the grant in such a way [that] it excluded urban
places... They didn ’t want to get involved in streetscape improvement and

sidewalk stufl'... It ’s not going to be a clean you know a pristine park. And

92

the parks there probably have a coal gasification plant underneath them! “

(Greenways advocate)

Ideas like daylighting a creek, vacating and closing sfieets and connecting across
large fiacts of land were perceived by many Deficit actors as being priorities for the
foundation. And indeed those elements were often highlighted in conversations with
foundation staff, public presentations and somewhat indirectly in their promotional
materials”. While many interviewees did not object to these elements in principle, they
confessed that the city was “years away” fi'om the political, economic and environmental

conditions in which those types of proposals could be promoted and developed.

“ Why don ’t they [potential grantees propose projects to] vacate one of
these streets, which has been abandoned, vacate the street, plant a couple
of trees, narrow the street so that it is a boulevard for pedestrian
walkways...It ’s not something that most of the planners think about and I
don ’t even pretend that these hair brained schemes that we come up with
are realistic. And that ’s exactly the point. We don ’t want them to be

realistic! [We want them to dream] " (Donor organization representative)

“1 think that they really thought they could go in these urban areas and

they were going to do some really radical kind of like greening in natural

 

'8 See their grant guidelines on their webpage: http://www.cfsem. These tend to highlight trails and rail
fiail conversions as opposed to the urban sfieet space, in their porfiayal of greenways. In at least one of the
public forums a member of the public posing a question was specifically told by foundation staff that the
program did not fund sfieet beautification projects.

93

areas. Well I think that ’s a great idea and I think that our green
infrastructure should be just as important as our water system, really. It ’s
not that way right now and it ’s going to take a long time for that to get
that way. But that takes a commitment and you know you ’ve got a one
year grant cycle and if you want to do something, you can 't be closing

streets in a year in the city of Detroit. "(Deficit greenways advocate)

Some community actors were more critical in their appraisal of the program,
indicating that it was largely a suburban consfiuct out of touch with the needs of the city.
Others spoke more generally of a suburban bias present in the way the program was
promoted. In this case they pointed out that the images used, the leadership and typical

issues debated at forums all seemed to convey a suburban focus.

“ Well only so far as they are still real stuck on greenways in urban areas

as being 01?” road, jogging, biking... basic streetscaging and enhancements
that would include mblic artsI interactive kind at art, heritage
intemretation programs... that ’s just not what th_ez are interested in.,. we

understand their perspective too. they 're doing more traditional
geenwgzs stufi: but we feel that it 's just as important to aesthetically
upgrade all the greenway and the amenities and the major streets and then
attempt to create a more pedestrian fi'iendly environment. Because the
reality today here in this neighborhood what we ’re really trying to do is to

get people to take steps to get out of their cars and walking around. In

94

Detroit, that ’s Step A. We ’re not to the point where you can get people out
of their cars and jogging or out of their cars and taking their bikes of
their bike racks. Now maybe in Ann Arbor, we can. At Michigan State,

okay. But Wayne State, no. 0K? [laughs] So I mean I dg [eel that the

traditional greenway model is not for gcitv that ’s disinvested and

 

rebuilding" (CDO staff)

“Well I think their focus is much more suburban and rural than it is
urban. And they don 't quite brow what to do with this [Detroit]. You know
I think like the Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan would like

to figure it out, but- “ (Resident and city employee)

Some interviewees questioned whether the restrictions imposed by the guidelines

would consfiain and limit greenways development in Deficit. They essentially worried

that the program didn’t focus on aspects that were critical for the inner city. For example

one interviewee questioned whether the sfiong emphasis on creating linkages between

green spaces would divert attention from the need to create incentives for residents to use

community spaces more actively. Some interviewees, based on their own personal

experience predicted that unless some flexibility was built into the program, it would be

hard pressed to generate interest among Deficit organizations.

“I said to her you brow I want to do trails in our parks because that 's

where people come. And they keep talking about you 've got to link this

95

and that. Yeah, but in the first place we ’ve got a population which is obese
and we ’ve got a high obesity rate, unfit kids. So you ’ve got to make it real
easy or people are not going to take advantage of what '8 out there. And
you may have to do programs to bring people there ” (City resident and

employee)

“I don 't think for most community organizations in Detroit, dealing with
the kinds of issues that they are dealing with that this would necessarily
come out on the radar as a priority, to be perfectly honest. I mean
anymore than it really is a priority for us other than enhancing parks and
street paving. But I don ’t think the whole greenway thing right now in the

evolution of where Detroit is economically will ever come out as like right

now. ...I think it ’s Pollyanna it anybody thinks that this is - esmcially it
thgy are going to be tairly impossible about how they really intemret a

greenway. I can ’t even imagine when they have all these neighborhoods
who have a house by a vacant lot, no commercial, crime, no trash pick up,
lights that don 't work That they are going to get up in the morning and
saying gee, I 'd like to get involved in the greenway project. I mean you

brow what is that now? " (CDO staff)

In essence, differences regarding the grant guidelines and their interpretation go

beyond the purely technical; in many ways the “city sfieet” vs. “off-road jogging” debate

and the “city par ” vs. “linkages” debate underlie and illusfiate differences in values and

96

perceptions surrounding greenways ideas, in this case between some advocates (mostly
Deficiters) and program leaders (non-Deficiters). Interestingly, Walmsley (W almsley
1995) argued that many of the greenways examples typically highlighted in the seminal
book “Greenways for America” lacked attention to a key element in the inner city: the
city sfieet. Thus it may be the case that the predominant ideal undervalues a critical
element of the inner city context.

As Walmsley (1995) suggests, while the origins of greenways lie in the
preservation of open space in meficpolitan areas, many of the greenways precursors were
laid out in advance of urbanization. Thus, at least in this sense the fiadition is much closer
to a suburban context than to the realities of today’s inner cities, where greenways must
be superimposed on an existing urban grid”. Thus the narratives emerging from Deficit
further underscore and illusfiate the cenfiality of the “city sfi ” to greenways
development in the inner city today. But most importantly, they illusfiate how
mainsfieam greenways ideas and values may confiast with the needs and realities of the
inner city. Furthermore, that interviewees often supported the idea of greenways further
suggests that their criticism is more indicative of differences between non-Deficit and

Deficit advocates rather than advocates and opponents.

 

‘9 There are examples of greenways development in highly urbanized and even disinvested inner cities
(such as Toledo, Ohio, to cite one example). However, at least in their early years greenways were more
representative of fiail development in suburban or rural areas. It may be that this is the image that still
prevails in the mind of the general public.

97

5.2.1.2. The Program’s landscape perspective contributes to a suburban,

white middle class bias

Program sponsors fiame greenways as a way to fiansform the urban landscape in
Deficit. They feel that in order to change the face of the city, greenways must have an
impact at the landscape level. The landscape perspective promoted by the GreenWays
program, while an ecologically and technically sound and meaningful principle,
contributes indirectly to promoting an ideal that is perceived as exfianeous to the city’s
reality. As I discuss in more detail in chapter six, the concept requires that organizations
collaborate across neighborhood boundaries and beyond. This tends to limit the funding
to either large umbrella type organizations or to projects that can somehow demonsfiate
they will have an impact at larger scales. However, community organizations focused on
neighborhood issues may not have the time or staff to engage in such collaboration,
making the program unappealing or inaccessible. By “excluding” groups in this manner,
the program loses an opportunity to create projects more in tune with the needs of the
city, and which may incorporate other city-oriented elements into the greenways ideal.
One such example refers to the urban gardening community in Deficit. To date, city
urban gardening efforts have not used the GreenWays grants program to further their
aimszo. Urban gardening projects tend to function at the neighborhood level, making
landscape level projects more difficult to implement.

One community actor and resident involved with urban gardening projects
pointed out that while the greenways program was good for the city, its interpretation of

the word “green” was too narrow. Thus it may be the case that in addition to issues of

 

2° The Eastside in particular has a significant amount of community organizing around the concept of urban
gardens.

98

organizational participation, the landscape perspective may also shape meanings by
reinforcing a specific notion of what a “green” landscape should look like. This influence
is subtle and likely occurs through the subtext of the ideas emanating from the program.
There is obviously no clear or overt intention to exclude specific landscapes on the part
of program sponsors. Nevertheless, as the following narratives illusfiate, the influence is

indeed present among actors involved with the program.

“To tell you the truth, I 'm just kind of reconnecting with some of the
original thinking... We looked at urban farming as being an alternative
use for redeveloping the area... [but]I think this grant really focused in
on greenways and green spaces and then our tree farm kind of idea didn 't

necessarily fall neatly inside that idea. ” (GreenWays grantee)

the one person whom I have talked to who has a really interesting take
on the landscape, but who we will never find [is] ...the urban farmer
guy... Yeah, I mean we ’11 never give somebody money to grow tomatoes.
That 's clearly not what the greenways initiative does. Now if he can tie
with-[ other people] that would be really cool. And what he ’s doing is

really quite remarkable... " (GreenWays Initiative Program Director)

In addition to the grant guidelines and the landscape perspective concept, the

sfiong presence of professionals, predominantly middle class whites, in the promotion

and development of GreenWays Initiative grants, reinforces the notion of greenways as

99

white, suburban idea (an issue I will discuss in detail in chapter six). The perceived
suburban, middle class bias in the greenways ideal promoted by the GreenWays Initiative
was no doubt reinforced by the history of greenways development in the state and
nationwide. Not surprisingly interviewees referred to the “traditional greenways model”
and “the rails to fiails model” to illusfiate its inappropriateness in Deficit. A8 I discussed
in the previous chapter greenways are sfiongly linked to the development of the
conservation movement, which has typically focused on more rural, natural areas. In the
case of Michigan, the RTC has been particularly successful at promoting rail fiail

conversions in the northern, more rural part of the state.

5. 2.2. The importance of race: who are these greenways for?

Greenways ideas deal directly with issues of regional development. As such they
cannot escape the histories of racial and class inequalities that permeate the relationship
between the city and its surrounding suburbs. As one white interviewee explained, people
in the region “are concerned about where you are and where you live. ” Feelings of
hostility, ambivalence or indifference can run both ways as inner city residents often
regard suburbanites with suspicion and vice versa. Allusions to race are present in most
interpretations of greenways. They vary fiom subtle, almost imperceptible messages that

illustrate how race shapes people’s understandings of greenways to more explicit
accounts of the racial undertones of greenways in Deficit.

At one level race appears as subtle, hidden subtext in many of the narratives

Which refer to the “tension ” or “drfi‘erences ” between “suburbs” and “the city. ” To some

extent all greenways efforts, from the early days on, developed a message which

100

proposed that greenways could assist in overcoming the “tensions in the region.” In
some cases these tensions are acknowledged indirectly through, for example, reference to
the negative impacts of highway consfiuction on the region.

“Highways tend to divide us and green spaces could connect Detroit and the suburbs"
(John Marshal III, president of the Kresge Foundation and one of the major funders of the

GreenWays Initiative, quoted in the Deficit Free Press March 1, 2001)

“Unlike the region ’8 sprawling highway grid which was planned behind
closed doors and built over protests of dozens of since-bulldozed
communities, southeast Michigan ’8 greenways will be created through
community partnerships " (Excerpt from the 1998 document: “A Vision

for Southeast Michigan Greenways” ).

The unequal burden of these impacts on Deficit’s Afiican American community
has been thoroughly documented by scholars and has been the subject of public
documentaries (for example work by (Darden and Thomas 1987; Sugrue 1996; Thomas
1997) and the documentary The Sprawling of America: Inner City Blues (Cook 2001).
Yet acknowledgement of the racial underpinnings of highway development within the
Public discourse on greenways is at best subtle and more often nonexistent. Nevertheless

the use of the issue as a way to promote ideas illusfiates the importance of the racial
diVide to greenways definitions.

Indeed, most interviewees rarely talked fieely and explicitly about issues of race

and their relationship to greenways development in the city. Even interviewees who

101

criticized the “suburban bias” of the GreenWays program did not initially volunteer an
explanation of the meaning and implications of the term “suburban” in Deficit. However
upon probing, these actors often explained that in Deficit the term “suburban” typically
fianslates into white, middle class.

Interestingly, minorities and whites with a sfiong connection to the community
(for example residents) talked more freely about the racial undertones that came along
with the suburban image. However, even among residents and community activists, the
issue race came up more fieely amongst minority actors. Nevertheless, both white and
minority residents and community activists interviewed were often adamant and explicit
in highlighting the implications of a racial bias in the greenways ideal. For them the
problem with a potential suburban focus was its race and class connotations; in other

words suburban obviously implies white middle class.

“Because I think they are operating in a suburban mode. I think they
operate - it 's kind of like white folks thinking [laughs]. Because there are

a lot of white people involved in conservation. ”

These actors were especially wary of the social justice implications of a
greenways ideal driven by suburban, middle class values. Their concern was rooted in the
city’s history of community displacement to make way for redevelopment. Community
development activists and staff worried that the projects could generate valid
apprehensions and fears among the community, an issue echoed by some residents

interviewed. In a city where there is a physical wall dividing one of the oldest and most

102

exclusive suburbs from the city, it easy to understand the apprehension expressed in the

narratives of those on “the other side of the wall”.

“They were talking about putting a greenway in there. So, of course it
would be within walking distance to me, and all that. I like the river and
that is the reason I am here. I am trying to think, okay...greenway and
me. I am here, I have got my house already, I am in the hood, and I don ’t
have to move there. Then I am starting to think, well, is it me? Are they
going to let neighborhood people participate in a greenway? Because
there are still some very, very stereotypical assumptions that whites have
about black people. Especially about Detroit... So it ’s kind of like
progress means progress for only certain people. The people who are not
included in that are just kind of left out. So, then getting back to the
greenway thing, I was getting all excited with, oh, greenways, oh firn, fitn,
firn. Then I am thinking back to Graymark, I am thinking back to also

Black Bottom”. ” (Deficit resident)

[a greenway] might be seen like oh, who is this for? You brow is this

to bring “suburbanites ” into our city? ” (Resident and city employee)

 

2'According to the interviewee Graymark was a primarily African American neighborhood along the
riverside that was targeted for redevelopment into an upscale housing project. Having been displaced for
the redevelopment, residents could not afford to move back into the neighborhood once the project was
cOmpleted. Black Bottom, a neighborhood in the lower Eastside, was settled by African Americans as early
88 the mid-nineteenth century. Urban renewal programs in the 19508, intent on “slum clearance”, cleared
the area for the construction of better, cleaner housing (a proposed middle income apartment complex).

f 91:18 to relocate displaced residents, mostly low income, were a complete failure (Thomas 1997, Sugrue,

6).

103

In some cases, these interviewees mentioned race and cultural differences that
could affect greenways development in the city versus the suburbs. For example they
talked about the recreational and socializing preferences of African Americans and
Hispanics that might be missed by a “race blind” approach to greenways development,
and the importance of ensuring safety. But rather than any specific element, they were
most concerned about the general idea and leadership behind greenways. Their
assumption seemed to be that a greenways promoted largely by a suburban, white middle
class constituency would surely leave out the interests of the city’s mostly minority and
lower income residents. This assumption probably was based on personal as well as
historic experience.

Race was often intermingled with class issues, as many also perceived the poor
socio-economic conditions of the city and its residents as an important element affecting
greenways development in the city. While many community activists and residents felt
the city needed and indeed deserved access to green space and environmental amenities,
some were ambivalent about the projects at times. Others simply echoed a concern that
residents would not see the importance of greenways and consider them to be low in their
scale of priorities. In essence they wondered whether greenways were possible when
people still struggled with the basic necessities of life. Thus it seems that even among
Detroit supporters it is hard to shake the idea of greenways as hiking and biking trails in a
rural context; a luxury for the middle class. This implies that existing projects in Detroit
must work towards creating an alternative vision of greenways that provides a

counterpart to the prevailing image.

104

“I think, right now dealing with what... is going on our block. Something
like the greenway would be down on the priority list. Because the first
thing would be their houses and the second thing might be the school

situation; the third thing might be the accessibility to certain types of jobs.

So I think that maybe an initiative like a greenway is very wh_ite middle

 

gigs; These folks will look around here and say we got trees and weeds.
Literally, and that 's green enough; we have some other issues that are
much more a priority. ”

“I mean we do have young African American professionals who would
like more amenities like parks and older African Americans who would
like to have more amenities like bike trails. You know work out and stufl.‘
Those kinds of things are the foundations of a world class city, so those
are the types of things that we should kind of want. But then it seems like
I ’11 never see them in my lifetime, you know when streetlights aren ’t on

and these lots are overgrown... "

In general, those concerned with the racial and class undertones of the concept
still felt greenways could address real community needs. However the suburban image
associated with the concept along with its racial connotation, whether promoted or
perceived, meant that work was needed to convince residents and other stakeholders of
the need for greenways in the city. Thus many of these interviewees conditioned the

potential of greenways in the inner city to the creation of a culturally acceptable ideal.

105

And they indicated that effective mechanisms for community participation were

necessary for the generation of this idea:

“I think it would if it ’s done correctly. If the people, the residents are here,
if they feel that they are being catered to and this is not you know some pie
in the sky suburban little idea. If they felt a part of it, they would be really

proud of it and it would be a part of revitalization. ”

The ccncem expressed by residents, community activists, and minority actors in
general, stands in stark contrast to the lack of attention that most non-resident whites
involved in greenways paid to race and class issues. In some cases this lack of attention
represented a belief that race, class and culture were not important factors in greenways
development, or a professed ignorance on the matter. Others admitted to its importance

but felt that either they were unable to address those issues or that their efforts at creating

a more inclusive image were unsuccessful.

5. 2.3. The urban crisis: the background to greenways ideas in Detroit

The legacy of Detroit’s transformation in the post-World War 11 years is a
recurring theme in conversations with a wide range of actors involved in greenways in
Detroit. The city was once home to the highest paid blue collar workers, and known both

as the “Motor Capital” and the “Arsenal of Democracy”22 for its central role in

§_

22 The name “Arsenal of Democracy” referred to the city’s central role in the military-industrial complex
dlfring World Warll,astheautoindustryrecoveredfrcmthe depressionandturnedits fullpcwertc
military related production. To illustrate, the Willow Run bomber plant is cited as employing 100,000

Workers and producing a B-24 bomber every hour (Micheal, 2001).

106

manufacturing in the mid-20th century. However, it was transformed as major industries,
businesses and residents begun abandoning it for the suburbs in the 19403 as a result of
post-World War II restructuring of the auto industry, and highway and housing subsidies
promoting suburban development.

Racial discrimination played a pivotal role in this transformation process.
Suburbia may have offered new opportunities for inner city whites but African-American
residents were in practice barred from suburbia as a result of federal housing policies and
regulations set up by private neighborhood associations”. Indeed, white residents and
businesses alike abandoned the city partly in search of the segregated neighborhoods and
life styles offered by the suburbs. Furthermore home rule laws in Michigan facilitated
incorporation and limited annexation of territory, thus impeding the inner city from
growing and increasing its tax basez". As a result the inner city became increasingly poor
as businesses, jobs and more affluent residents moved out. The city was left with high
unemployment rates and an increasingly low-income, segregated population (Sugrue
1996; Thomas 1997).

To different degrees, all interviewees reflected upon the social and/or

environmental conditions resulting from the city’s transformation as they framed

 

23 Both Sugrue (1996) and Thomas (1997) describe and analyze the multiple ways in which federal housing
policy combined with local resistance by whites to integrated housing perpetuated discrimination against
African-Americans in housing developments. For example, the Federal Housing Administration regularly
refused loans for the construction of homes for African Americans, while at the same time underwriting
construction in similar conditions for whites. Private neighborhood associations routinely included racially
discriminatory restrictive covenants enacted to maintain “desirable residential characteristics of a
neighborhood” (page 44. Sugrue, 1996). To complicate matters even further, the appraisals by the Home
Owners Loan Corporation (a government entity) awarded higher ratings to white neighborhoods whose
homes were covered by these types of covenants, as they were seen as providing “stability” and ensuring
PIOperty values. At the same time, public housing in Detroit was racially segregated, concentrated in the
iliner city and insufficient in amount. As Sugrue (1996, pg 44) succinctly puts it: “Federal housing policy
lfigitimated systematic discrimination against African-Americans in housing.”
acilitating annexation would have required nothing short of changing state law. Given the state’s legal
work, adjacent territories continued to incorporate, making it increasingly harder for the city to
exPand via annexation. In effect, Detroit’s boundaries stopped expanding in 1926 (Thomas, 1997).

107

greenways ideas. On one hand, the city’s industrial past has left behind many
environmental problems which the city must now redress. Toxic waste (brownfields),
abandoned lots and the poor water quality of the Detroit River represent but a few
examples. Industrial zoning and the nature of current industrial development continue to

create and contribute to the poor environmental conditions of the city.

“You know that we have the only oil refinery, we have the only steel mills
in the state, we have the only waste facilities in the state. You know, talk

about dirty industry! ” (Member of an environmental organization)

“ We currently have 2000 trucks that go through this community every
single day. They want to expand... [the] pressures on the residential
community and the commercial corridor and clearly this industrial
encroachment and kind of fragmenting the residential area and this is a
real concern that if we have 16,000 trucks... “ (CDC staff from southwest

Detroit)

Thus the dramatic effect of deindustrialization — understood as the closing,
downsizing and relocation of industry - on the landscape of the city was one of the most
Prominent elements shaping the way in which actors interpreted and defined greenways
and their potential contribution to the city. Many interviewees talked about the

difficulties of working with a landscape so highly urbanized and adversely affected by

108

industrialization. For some non-Detroiters the post-industrial landscape clashed with their

visions, plans and desires to change the face of the city.

“And coincident with that is the condition of the physical landscape, so
not only is it urbanized but there have been so many areas that have been
contaminated or so adversely altered that the restoration or the return is

going to be daunting. ” (non-resident Greenways advocate)

On the other hand, the racially discriminatory development policies that have
accompanied deindustrialization have increasingly segregated the region as industry and
jobs moved to the suburbs. “White flight” from the city and the on-going
suburbanization of the region at the expense of the inner city are prominent threads in the
complex tapestry against which greenways ideas are set. The image of a “wasteland”
used by one interviewee is a particularly powerful and recurring metaphor that illustrates

the importance of these processes to greenways ideas.

“...that ’s why neighborhoods like ours are left, I call it discard, use and
throw away. Our whole history of Detroit has been: use it and throw it
away. I mean I didn ’t live here all of my life. I lived in the lower Eastside.
That whole neighborhood was used and thrown away. It ’s a wasteland
right now... you don ’t use a neighborhood and throw it away, you make
that neighborhood, you recycle that neighborhood. And that ’s basically

what we ’re trying [to do] “

109

Thus the need to “rebuild”, “revitalize” or “redevelop” the city in the aftermath
the city’s decline emerges as a shared value embraced by different actors. Many felt a
sense of mission about the role of greenways in the city. Greenways definitions are
constructed as part of a particular view of the rebuilding process. On the surface this
appears to create shared meanings about greenways and their role in the city. However
different actors contextualize issues that arise from the city’s transformation in different
ways, creating different greenways discourses. At the heart of these different discourses

lie different views and beliefs about revitalization and the needs of the city.

5. 2. 4. Ecology and greenways: taking advantage of deindustrialization

Ecology is an irnpcrtant defining element of greenways, as community,
environmental and professional actors cfien expressed the importance of incorporating
ecological principles into the rebuilding process. To some extent interviewees felt that the
adverse effects of deindustrialization provided a unique opportunity for ecologically
sound (re)development. Thus redevelopment, defined as a change in land use that
converts formerly industrial (often contaminated) sites to green spaces, constituted a key
element of this particular greenways definition. Through this lens abandoned lots and low
property values are seen as possibilities, in terms of land availability, for reorganizing the
urban landscape. Unlike at the national level, land scarcity does not appear to be an
important element of greenways driven conservation in Detroit.

Some environmental actors expressed this desire within a traditional

environmental fi'arnework, where ecological conservation is the primary goal. This is

110

especially true for those involved with traditional environmental organizations. In this
case greenways are equated with preserving nature and the ecological principles that

sustain it.

“...we have a lot more than I think any inner city that I know off of vacant
land. And I was hoping for kind of a concerted urban planning eflort that
would go toward creating a greenway that would preserve some of the
open space that we have for longevity sake. To me, green space is
valuable as green space, whether or not it has a bike path on it.
Connective, I think is good because I think there is a sound ecological
reason for connecting green space and the value of that for preserving
ecology and for the sort of more sound science. I wasn 't concerned as
much for recreational use in the city. ” (Member of a Detroit-based

environmental organization)

However for most community actors the ecology of greenways was an important
element because of its contribution to the quality of life of city residents. Some actors
echoed the conservation ethic, which values nature independent of the human experience,
expressed in the above narrative. However their ideal tended to highlight the utility of
greenways in combating inner city problems. Thus while preserving nature was an
immrtant goal, it was always mentioned within the context of resolving other issues in

the city.

111

“So this is a step for the fitture of trying to create a better world and if we
can throw in some wildlife habitats where birds will enjoy another resting
place or have a water hole to feed fiom, or we can create a commercial
shopping center with a creek running through it? What a wonderful world
it could be. So the whole ecology side of it is very much a part of this
improving the urban quality of life. You know not everybody can live on a
farm with four acres... if we ’re going to solve the problems that a densely
populated world is creating, then somehow those habitats for humans as

well as wildlife, have to coexist... ” (resident and CDC staff)

5.3. Meanings and perceptions emerging from Detroit

As I described in chapter three, a range of actors from professional elites,
environmental groups and more recently community organizations have contributed to
the development of greenways in Detroit. In the development of their own particular
greenways vision these actors have been greatly influenced by the peculiarities of the
region’s development and its detrimental impact on the inner city, as I discussed in the
previous section. However, views of what the city needs and how greenways can
contribute to its redevelopment differ between program sponsors, greenways advocates,
organizations active in Detroit, and residents. These views tend to represent two types of
perspectives on redevelopment: one that I will call “externally driven” and another that I
will refer to as “community-center ” (See Figure 3). The line dividing these two views,
and their corresponding greenways ideal, was not always clearly delineated, as

definitions and interpretations often merged this distinction. However, these two

112

categories are useful for analytical purposes and to help us understand irnpcrtant, albeit
sometimes subtle, differences in the way in which people framed greenways in relation to

the city.

Greenways interpretations and
meanings

“Externally...............................“Community
Driven” centered”

\ /
Redevelopment

Figure 3. Greenways interpretations and meanings. Greenways ideas and interpretations
tend to represent two, sometimes opposing, views of redevelopment. One perspective can
be described as reflecting external interests and ideas about the needs of the city. The
other tends to reflect a more community centered ideal of redevelopment; i.e. one that
occurs primarily by and for the community.

113

5.3.1. Greenways defined as part of an externally-driven redevelopment
perspective

Some actors interpreted greenways as part of a redevelopment paradigm in which
agents and forces external to the city play a predominant role. The majority of these
interviewees did not live in the city, and they were for the most part professional and
environmental actors. Not surprisingly there were all whites, as most professionals and all
non-Detroit residents interviewed were whites. Their involvement with greenways varied,
fiom a historical connection to the various attempt to promote greenways in the region to
active involvement in current greenways developments. Their particular interpretation of
greenways is characterized by two key, related themes. First, these actors tended to
highlight and emphasize the role that investments and people with spending power play
in pushing forward redevelopment in the city. Secondly, greenways were seen as a means
to reconcile the city with the suburbs. Reconciliation was emphasized in part because of
its potential to bring suburbanites - and their higher incomes - back to the city. But it was
also valued as part of general feeling that the animosity or indifference between the city
and its neighbors perpetuate negative patterns of regional development.

Thus for example, early efforts of the 7 Os interpreted greenways as riverfront
redevelopment in the form of walkways and bikeways, so as to beautify and provide
amenities in the downtown area. These early greenways ideas were in line with
prevailing views on revitalization, particularly those arising fi'om the mayoral office,
which prioritized the need to recapture lost revenue via downtown revitalization over a
more neighborhood focused strategy. This particular view of greenways is shaped by

deindustrialization in its concern for the estrangement between the city and the “outside

114

world” particularly the suburbs. Greenways were to provide a resource for the region, a

connection to the outside world:

“Again, one of the problems with Detroit is that Detroit and the suburbs,
partly because of class, partly because of race, can have, if not
ambivalence, if not hostility, indifi’erence. It ’s more ambivalence, it 's some
hostility, but inditfirence. You are concerned about where you are and
where you live. Therefore, it was very important for me to make sure that
the riverfiont wasn 't just Detroit ’3 riverfront. It is a linear park. It ’s a

greenway for the region. ” (community plarmer)

The official greenways discourse that ensued in the region continued to promote
greenways as a means to reconcile the city with the suburbs. The message of
“reconciliation” is conveyed in the promotional material published throughout the

different stages of greenways development in the region and in the narratives of

advocates, particularly non-Detroiters.

"...it requires comprehensive thinking, careful planning and lots of
communication between groups who may have never before spoken to

each other. " (Excerpt from the 1998 “A Vision for Southeast Michigan

Greenways”)

115

Bringing back the spending power of suburbanites - mostly whites - continued to

be an important and recurring theme within this greenways interpretation.

"The one thing it ’s going to do is bring white people back downtown... I
shouldn 't say white people, I should say people with money. People that
would bring their disposable income downtown and spend it on the
attractions down there. I ’m so excited that we are going to do that but I

don ’t want to get disillusioned. ”(Lansing greenways advocate)

In many ways, the permanence of this idea as part of the greenways ideal reflects
the degree to which deindustrialization, and its accompanying segregation of the region,
has estranged the inner city from the suburbs. Nevertheless the emphasis on making
Detroit attractive to outsiders (via greenways) is more representative of an “outsider’s”
view of revitalization. White suburbanites, professional and environmentalist have
predominated amongst promoters of greenways throughout the different stages of the
“movement.” (While the ‘708 efforts were Detroit-based, most of the actors were white
middle class professionals.) From their perspective the city needs to recapture what has
been lost as the middle classes and whites left the city.

Interestingly race is present in this particular view of greenways in a subtle
manner through general expressions that speak of “linking the city to the suburbs;” i. e.
linking the lower income, mostly minority residents to their wealthier, mostly white
neighbors. A few key, white and suburban actors that participated in the early greenways

efforts were very concerned with the racialized character of the region’s development.

116

However, this concern did not seem to extend in an explicit manner to the greenways
ideal promoted. The language in key documents and in the narratives of actors rarely
makes the racial explicit. Most often “suburbs” and “inner city” are used as proxy for
black and white. The racial component of these inequalities is intermingled with class
differences as suburbia is seen to represent upper middle class whites while the city is

seen as populated by lower income minorities.

5.3.1.1. “Saving Detroit” by creating a world class city

Current sponsors of the GreenWays Initiative extend the notion of making Detroit
a tomist attraction via greenways even further. They aspire to create a “world class city”
through landscape change and ecological restoration. Once again, Detroit is seen as a
place requiring rescue - in the form of external input - in order to bring about a dramatic
turnaround to its current situation. Overall the greenways ideal they promote tends to be

more consistent with an externally driven redevelopment perspective.

“And I would suggest that people think of Detroit, that the public image of
Detroit is that it 's an unlivable city. You go outside this city and you hear
about the murder rate, the fact that it 's not a physically clean city. That
the city downtown has been abandoned, that a few people are moving out
in droves, all of which is true... What you don 't hear about are the
networks of parks in the city, you don ’t hear about Belle Isle. You don 't

hear about the Detroit River. And so when I was thinking about what I

117

want the city of Detroit to look like... I want people to come to the city of
Detroit in the same way that they go to Portland, Oregon. To think about
it the same way they think of Portland, Oregon or they think about
Minneapolis, or they think about San Francisco. I want people around the
world to think about Detroit as a vacation spot, as a cultural Mecca, as an
environment in which virtually everybody can enjoy the amenities. In
order to do that you ’ve got to do something with the landscape. And in
order to do that, you 've got to start putting some money into this

city. ”(GreenWays promoter)

Their perspective is also consistent with the physical determinism that tends to
prevail in the way planners and architects promote greenways; that changes to the
physical infrastructure per se bring about social change. Indeed the narrative above
contains an interesting contrast between the “natural” elements in the city which can
bring about this change and the social characteristics which make the city an undesirable
place.

The concept of “landscape change” embraced by program sponsors emerges as
one type of ecological perspective on redevelopment, which proposes that greenways can
create both ecological impact and social change in the city. From their point of view the
“linkages” created by greenways facilitate impact at a landscape (larger) scale and define
the strategy as one which can sustain much needed changes. Although linkages are
defined as social and physical, their view tends to emphasize the physical/natural

infrastructure as opposed to the social. The positive elements usually highlighted by this

118

perspective - Belle Isle and the city’s parks - are “natural infrastructure” rather than social
elements that arise ficm the communities that populate the city. As the following
narrative illustrates, changes to the physical infrastructure are seen as potentially

changing the nature of even the most devastated neighborhoods.

“That changes the landscape. That changes the neighborhood, it changes
the community entirely. Can you imagine what the Eastside of Detroit
would look like if they had a river that is not quite this size, but a river of
some substance flowing through them? What a cool neighborhood that
would be. You would see massive - I ’m convinced you would see massive
investment in that neighborhood, in new and probably very sizable

residential areas. "

Furthermore, potentially problematic issues that arise fi'om the proposed
redevelopment scenario are overlooked or ignored. For example, whether new residential
areas will accommodate existing residents does not come up as a critical issue, in spite of
the city’s history of displacement and segregation. Here too race becomes an element that
is ignored or overlooked in the way in which greenways are promoted. Like other
interpretations of greenways, race shapes ideas and views through the social position and
experience of their advocates. The fact that most greenways actors and advocates are
middle class whites, and many of them suburbanites, no doubt contributes to a message

which relegates “the racial” to the shadows of unspoken messages.

119

This is not to say that the ideas promoted by this perspective, and particularly
those connected to the GreenWays Initiative, are not innovative, good for the city or even
feasible within a more community driven fiamework. Indeed I have already pointed out
the importance of the GreenWays Initiative in terms of providing innovation and concrete
incentives for change in Detroit. The point is that their predominant interpretation of
greenways can often be formulated without a lot of attention to the issues and needs of
city residents. Rather they respond to an cutsider’s view of what Detroit should look like,
and as I have discussed before they are likely to be perceived as promoting a suburban -

mostly “white” - perspective on redevelopment.

Another interesting characteristic of this perspective is the sense of personal
mission that some key actors have relating to the plight of the city. In some ways the
strength and personal connection is symbolic of the ties and desires that bind many
middle and upper middle class whites - ofien “expatriates” - to the city. It also constitutes

part of a broader perspective embraced and promoted by elite actors connected to the

city.

“They would say there isn ’t another institution that can save Detroit and
there isn 't another individual that can save Detroit, you have to save
Detroit. Well for 20 years, I struggled with that because in fact, looking at
it from afar, I kept thinking that 's what I want to do. I mean I want to

figure out how to do that. " (GreenWays advocate)

120

“If I was going to do what Bill Ford and Peter Stroh and Dean
Richardson told me to do, which is I had to save Detroit... " (GreenWays

advocate)

The conviction and strength expressed by this actor is particularly striking as it
appears to embody a nostalgic desire to do something for a city, which while estranged in

the present, constitutes a central part of one’s personal history.

“I have a personal attachment in Detroit. My parents in fact, actually still
live in the city...I ’m in my mid 50 's, so my recollection of Detroit of years
gone by is quite different than the city that I ’ve seen today. But in my
recollection is, as I thought about my experiences, my personal
experiences, I remember very vividly playing baseball in the streets for
example, football in the streets. I mean I ’m a concrete canyon boy, I 'm a
city boy...and then for our... outdoor adventure, we would hike down to

the Rouge River... ” (GreenWays advocate)

Perhaps it is the case that having left the city, these actors are now ready and
Willing to rebuild and recapture its past glory. However, saving the city, fiom their
Perspective, implies making it acceptable to the standards of middle class, typically white
Suburban residents. In this sense, they are likely to promote a greenways ideal that looks

more to satisfy an external demand rather than an internal one.

121

It is important to note that “community” elements are not completely absent from
these “externally driven” greenways interpretations. Indeed as key actors indicated, in the
19703 the interest in public access to the riverfront was also driven by a desire to provide
access to city residents. Particularly in these early efforts, some groups and key actors
that participated were community oriented, and thus interested in neighborhood
redevelopment. However the majority belonged to professional circles, and admittedly
represented the views of institutions rather than communities. The GreenWays Initiative
too has an important community component via their grants program and many if not all
of the local projects sponsored are neighborhood centered. However the message that
prevails in the discourse of its leaders is about making or “remaking” Detroit into place
that is attractive in the eyes of outsiders. Thus the common denominator of these
interpretations is that of greenways as part of an “incentive package” to lure investments

and people back to Detroit.

5. 3. 2. Greenways defined as part of a neighborhood driven redevelopment

perspective

Unlike the externally driven perspective, the potential for more equitable
redevelopment was a key and explicit element of the greenways discourse of community
actors in Detroit, particularly activist involved with local level organizations and
development. These actors include both white and minority city residents, many of whom
work or volunteer in the community development field. But it was also expressed by
environmental actors, both white and minority, directly involved with local level

organizations. These narratives reflected their belief that city residents, most often low

122

income minorities, suffer the most fi'om the dysfunctions of the region. Greenways were
seen as having the potential to alleviate some of the burdens created by the region’s
unequal development. For many of them the “green” in greenways is about
environmental protection that is compatible with social justice. Thus these actors stress
that the benefits of greenways should accrue primarily to local residents. Not surprisingly

they often define greenways as community spaces.

“I lived in Detroit at the time and Detroit has the most people, it has the
most people of color, it ’s percentages of poor people... there are probably
more people here that could benefit from a clean environment, a sense of
community, and better health ...I believe it would be a major spur to

redevelopment and a major deterrent to blight. ” (Community activist)

“I would like to see a place that 's safe for the community because they 're
missing a lot... We don ’t need to bring anymore people over there. Let 's
just make it safe for them and a place where they can go...I think
communities need their own spaces... 1 think Southwest and Eastside need
their own places... where the elders can go and feel comfortable and the
kids can go and have a barbecue. And maybe people would be more likely

to live here and stick around " (Resident and environmental activist)

123

In contrast to the physical determinism of more external views, some community
actors talked about the social richness of the city, both past and present, as essential

elements of a greenways ideal that seeks to change the city.

“And these areas are where you tell the story. And that ’s the whole
concept of cultural tourism, which is an economic generator, which brings
people in fiom all over the world to see Detroit 's uniqueness in the world.
It ’s the automobile and it 's our music and it ’s our culture. And it 's the
people like that woman who stood up at that meeting and said so what,
these are great plans but what is it going to do for me? Having that you
know earth rootedness, being real about something and all the suits and
ties [present at the meeting], that [comment] scared the shit out of them,
right? Because it [ the comment] hit them right there [in their heart and

conscience]. " (Activist)

In contrast to more external views on redevelopment, this perspective is not as
concerned with decreasing the tensions between the city and the suburbs, or providing
amenities for suburbanites. These actors do not ignore the importance of these tensions to
redevelopment in the city, but rather their focus is on issues of equity and opportunities
for local residents. Indeed greenways are defined as one more element of a
redevelopment strategy focused on neighborhoods and driven by the community. In the
next sections I will explore in more detail the key elements of this perspective, as

constructed by the organizations and individuals involved with local greenways projects.

124

5.3.2.1. Equity is a central piece of the community perspective on
Greenways

Actors fiom different parts of the city expressed a desire for greenways to
contribute to more equitable redevelopment in the city. The perspective prevailed among
minorities interviewed but was also expressed by many white city residents, most often
community activists. These actors participated at different levels of on-going greenways
planning in different parts of the city, fiom direct participation to peripheral involvement
(see Table 8).

The central element of this perspective focused on making greenways part of a
bottom-up approach to redevelopment, i. e. one that is defined by community participation
and equitable distribution of benefits. Equity thus becomes an inherent part of this
particular greenways vision. Furthermore greenways should be about creating equity at
all levels of greenways project development. Thus the definition of “equity” goes beyond
physical access to the green infrastructure. In Detroit, this translates into ensuring that
greenways development creates local opportunities, particularly jobs and affordable

housing.

“My whole thing is, use the young people and use the unemployed and get
employment training programs together where the city is spending the
money on a contractor to build these projects, force that contractor to hire
some people. Because the best way to do community development is to

involve the people that live in the community, rebuilding their community.

125

Now, if they run into some problems in the process of doing that, then you

have to just manage those problems. "

As they talked about greenways and the city, they often contrasted the negative
consequences of top-down redevelopment scenarios. The issue of non-Detroiters
benefiting from redevelopment in the city is a hot topic for area residents (and many of
these actors were city residents). The misuse of redevelopment possibilities is seen as
further contributing to the abandonment of city residents. In their narratives, key actors
illustrated their ideal of redevelopment by contrasting it with the negative consequences

accrued by the redevelopment framework that has often prevailed.

“In a crude way, a poverty pimp is somebody who takes advantage of
people that are needy to benefit their own agenda and not be real about
what they are doing. Detroit has a tremendous history of that -
government, private sector, and non-government sectors. And it creates
a level of politics where there is a lot of competition for a tremendous
amount of money. There has been a tremendous amount of money
wasted. The problems of poverty have gotten worse through the years. If
you look at the demographics in the City of Detroit, a lot of people said,
all these greenways are just for the rich people. Well, my whole idea
was no they are not. The greenways are the opposite, especially along
the Detroit River. If you look at any major cities in the United States

and in the world, the waterfi'ont is where money is. But if you make it

126

public space where people can walk, can sit and watch the water, I am
thinking of those people who don 't otherwise - who are just who have to
work 60 hours a week and they only get 30 hours a week pay and you
know life is hard and this town is tough. We have some tremendous

spirited people. ” (City resident and activist)

“...because people are sick of hair salons, beauty supply places, pager
shops. If you build a strip mall in Detroit and don ’t put any sign on it,
people could tell you the four things that are going to be there. It ’s going
to be a beauty supply place, it ’s going to be a Chinese food place, it ’s
going to be a pager store and maybe a dollar store or something. But
it ’s generic and people are really, really sick of it. At first we were
starving, begging for development. And then when they started coming
in, in the forms of these little strip mall like - we don 't want this, this is
not what we imagined!

Because revitalization... doesn ’t build new homes that residents can 't
afford and the influx of people from the suburbs. That ’s not really where
I ’m comingfi‘om when I think of revitalization. But I really think it ’s
reenergizing the residents, the citizenry that we have. And you know
making them more proud and making them more of a part of the
city...we need revitalization and we need at least aflordable housing for
the residents that are here. And taking - getting rid of the dilapidated

and starting anew. I mean we have to do it a section at a time. We have

127

the space to do it because of so many people leaving... you brow whole

areas being abandoned... ” (City resident and employee)

The negative consequences of redevelopment “at any cost” are used as way to
describe what greenways development in the city should not be about. The greenways
concept thus defined implies creating community opportunities. Access to the
recreational and environmental amenities offered by greenways is an important part of
this set of opportunities. But they are also broadly defined to include access to jobs,
having the option to live in the new residential developments and most importantly

having some control over the redevelopment process.

But the needs for the health benefits of the greenway, the community
building aspects of it. The fact that people will get out and exercise and
the children especially. And the fact there are parks, there are schools,
there are bus lines along these places all over the city of Detroit. I believe
it would be a major spur to redevelopment and a major deterrent to
blight... but the key is the people not only have to get a stake in planning
it, but also in the building of it... Whoever the contractor... people that
live in the neighborhood should get first cracks at those jobs and
somebody is going to have to train them in the proper way... Otherwise.
they are going to trash the place. They are going to say ah, so what, you
built this. What the hell is it? What does it do for me? They are not going

to take ownership in it and the vandalism and the negative stufl will

128

happen. And it doesn ’t have to be that way. ” (Emphasis added. City

resident and activist)

“ We need to get it-you brow we need rooftops and we need new people.
And I ’m not against people fiom the suburbs coming back to the city, but
we definitely need to serve our population. I think that 's kind of being lost
in the shuflle. There are new walls along Woodward, new housing along
the riverfiont and I can 't afford that, you brow? I mean it ’s... “ (City

resident and employee)

“And as a result you brow in a 20 year period... about half the housing
stock was lost to abandonment, arson, vandalism. And so you have this
phenomenal concentration of vacant land that has emerged. And so it 's in
that context... that if the community was going to be revitalized, rebuilt,
we wanted it to happen fi'om a community base... And over a ten year
period we kind of took what was a I 5-block area and effectively stabilized
it... it ’s a neighborhood where people are in control of and people feel

good about raising their children... ” (City resident and CDC employee)

Some of these actors also stressed the importance of making nature a part of the
everyday life of city residents, and of an equitable redevelopment strategy. Yet in this
case access to nature becomes part of a broader enviromnental justice discourse. Equity

in this context implies making nature accessible to the poor. It also means using nature to

129

address issues that specifically affect the inner city population, such as allergies and noise

pollution.

“Just because we are from south Detroit means we don ’t deserve a
greenways? Nature doesn ’t belong to any one class, it belongs to all of us,
and we all deserve good health. And to have a polluted environment when
we could have strips of trees that could not only beautify but prevent
allergies in the hundreds of children that we have with allergies...I see it
as extremely functional also. As a public health issue. The noise. I can
bufler the noise in two ways: using strips of trees or with a concrete wall

which is not very pleasant. ” (SWD resident)”

“F or me it ’s the connection to nature, it 's the connection of man to
nature, it 's the reliving of man and nature, because it ’s been lost by the
concrete. A greyway is very drfl’krent from a greenways, that ’s my, it '3
different, it ’s the green, it ’s to revalue that green...[It ’s] beauty, it ’s
admiration, revaluing and admiring the landscape. It ’s the rebirthing of

that sense of urban landscape in us. ” (idem)26

 

2’ Original in Spanish: “gEs que no merecemos porque somos de, somos del sur de Detroit no merecemos
tener una... ? Es que la naturaleza no es de closes, la naturaleza es para todos, y la salud es para todos, y
tener un aire tan contaminado sabiendo que podemos tener un cordén de drboles que nos puede servir, no
solamente para embellecer si no para quitarle la alergia a los cientos de nir'ios que tenemos alérgicos.

Lo veo extremadamenteflrncional también. Como salud publica. El ruido. Yo amortiguo el ruido, yo puedo
amortiguar el ruido de dos maneras: con una barrera de a'rboles a con una pared de concreto que no es
delicioso. ”

26 Original in Spanish: “Para mi es la conexio'n con la naturaleza, es la conexio'n del hombre con la
naturaleza, es el revivir del hombre con la naturaleza porque se ha perdido por el concreto, entonces es
muy distinto un greyway a un greenway, ese es mi, es que es distinto, es el verde, es retomar ese verde.

[es] Belleza, es admirar, retomar y admirar el paisaje. Volver a renacer en nosotros ese sentido del paisaje
citadino. "

130

5.3.2.2. The importance of CDC participation to greenways definitions

in Detroit

The link between neighborhood redevelopment and greenways emerges more
clearly for projects lead by Community Development Corporations (CDCs). As the
primary recipients of the CPS GreenWays grants, these organizations have become
important players in the development of greenways projects in the city. This link is less
evident for the city’s Linked Parks Project in Southwest (discussed in the next section),
thus indicating the importance of CDCs to creating a local greenways vision. CDCs are
defined as community based non-profits dedicated to the revitalization of distressed
urban areas, usually defined by traditional neighborhood boundaries. They are typically
governed by a board consisting primarily of neighborhood residents and business leaders.
CDCs have played an important role in Detroit’s revitalization process, often filling in the
community development vacuum created by public and private sector abandonment of
many communities. Many of these organizations are involved with community planning
and sponsor programs aimed at creating affordable housing, area business development,
job training and community policing among others.

CDCs in different parts of the city share a view which fiames greenways as part
of a community development strategy. Key community actors indicated that interest in
greenways partly dates back to the ideas and plans developed during the Detroit

Community Reinvestment Strategy27 (CRS) of 1996. Green spaces and parks were

 

27 The CRS was a city-wide effort instituted to develop a community-based planning strategy for
redevelopment in the city. The city developed the CRS as a response to criticism from community groups
of the 1994 “Land Use Task Force”, formed by Mayor Archer and charged with creating a vision of land

131

mentioned by many community groups as important for redeveloping their neighborhood
and were included in the final CRS reports for the different sectors of the city (see
http://www.ci.detrcit.rni.us/plandevl/crs/reports.htm). Greenways were specifically
mentioned in the CRS final reports for two areas where current projects exist
(SmithGroup Technical Assistance Team 1997a and 1997b). While they may struggle to
convey the importance of greenways to their constituents, CDCs staff felt that the

projects were a good match for their goals.

“And that ’s not to say that we won 't be going back to the community as
part of this planning process. But I think the one thing that we all feel
comfortable about that this is called for and the people would support
it... We wouldn 't have pursued it if it wouldn ’t fit. No one has the time or
the energy to try to go chasing the money, if it doesn 't fit. ” (DECC

member)

Throughout the city the driving forces for embarking on a greenways project seem
to be aligned with the missions and objectives of leading organizations, be they economic
development, neighborhood stabilization or revitalization. In Northwest Detroit for
example, stabilizing the area and providing a safe family environment for current low
income residents is a key goal of the greenways project. The area has undergone several
neighborhood transitions in the last decades. Currently, lower income neighborhoods co-

exist with more affluent, middle class ones. CDCs in the area struggle to maintain ethnic

 

use in the city. Community groups felt that planning process developed by the task force was too
centralized and not participatory enough.

132

and income heterogeneity in the area, an element that they describe as an asset for the
community. Their vision of greenways therefore focuses on creating family oriented
environmental amenities without increasing the cost of home ownership for current

residents.

“No, I think that, well, we developed a sense that we were trying to
stabilize the neighborhood and thinking about the neighborhood on a
broader scale. We ’ve identified its open spaces as of course an important
asset... The lack of value placed on the land was an opportunity that we
had to pass onto the low-income residents where often in development
situations land has an inflated value... it ’s only rarely that the poor have
the opportunity to own land and control land. Our thought was that land
in this situation was actually an asset and an amenity that we can ofi’er
people given the problems of noise and violence and congestion in our city
that you brow to the extent that we could just offer family space. That was
actually something that would be of value for those families in this overall
community. So then if you go through it, it was a preserved sense of
attractiveness because of the green that was there. So right fiom the
beginning, we built on larger lots. We ’ve tried to demolish you brow if
homes are tightly packed together we would demolish a house between
two houses in order to create larger lots and we renovated and improved

houses. " (Northwest)

133

In Southwest on the other hand, economic development and the marketability of
housing emerge as critical elements of the vision espoused by one community
development organization leading a greenways project”. This particular greenways
vision responds to a perspective on the needs of the area which highlights its population
and business growth (a stark contrast to the population loss in the rest of the city). New
Latino migrants continue to move into the area attracted by the job market and low cost
of living. Area organizations therefore seek to create incentives that will consolidate the

neighborhood for current residents and continue to attract new migrants.

“Anyway, what made us take this on? It certainly, we see greenways as an
economic development asset. We believe if there is a place in the city of
Detroit that ought to be addressing this stuff it ought to be in Southwest
Detroit. 1 mean we have so few park spaces, we have no access to the
river. If you want to market in a neighborhood, you got to have more than
just a great price on a house to market a neighborhood. ” (Staff economic

development organization)

5.4. Working examples of the two definitions of Greenways

y

2" This project is independent of the Linked Parks Project headed by the Recreation Department.

134

5. 4. 1. The Eastside ’s “Conner Creek Greenways ” as an example of a

comm unity oriented vision

The Conner Creek Greenways project developed by the Eastside coalition DECC,
serves as an example of how organizations in Detroit attempt to shape and develop a
greenways vision that is more responsive to community needs. DECC’s interest in
greenways seemed to be especially motivated by past efforts to redefine a revitalization
strategy for the area (see chapter four for more details). The Eastside is one of the most
devastated areas of the city in terms of poverty, abandoned and decaying property, lack of
business investment and segregation. It also borders some of the older, exclusive mostly
white suburbs of Detroit, the “Grosse Pointes”, making dramatic contrasts between rich
and poor and black and white. Eastside actors expressed a range of views on the meaning
of greenways in interviews and in discussions throughout the planning sessions. Some
equated greenways with bike trails, nature walks and preservation. Others were more
interested in recovering their neighborhood’s history, while still others were attracted
mainly by the alternative transportation possibilities offered by greenways. Many felt that
greenways could provide Eastside residents with a much needed refuge from the stress of
urban life. A “slice of nature...getting back to a bucolic presence in the middle of an
urban chaos, ” as one interviewee poetically indicated. However, as the following
narratives indicate, most community actors defined greenways in terms of how these

could contribute to creating change at the neighborhood level.

“ Warren Conner has a specific interest in the overall planning process

that stems fiom work we are doing within with the community with block

135

clubs on beautification. And because of that work, we are constantly
wrestling with how you fund greenways and maintain greenways, create

greenways, etc? "

“See, as we started to study this history, it made such good sense when we
looked from an urban planning position, of how we can fortify our
neighborhood and diminish the threats to the quality of life. When you flip
that equation around, then you say well then you become proactive and
you capture your assets, which is this Connor Creek story and you make it
work for you by establishing this greenway to safeguard that quarter of a

mile stretch. ”

“ We were totally envisioning it to be something that would be Mtional
a that it would somethin I could o sed t somethin
that we are preserving, ecolpg’callz or wgteverI which is still a good
thing, but... So the transportation and the recreation and the
beautrfication aspect of it, the bringing more wildlife back into the city

and then it can also be like an educational thing too. ” (emphasis added)

These three narratives reflect the views of actors critical to the development of the
Conner Creek project; all three of them define greenways as a community development
tool as opposed to a conservation strategy. This is not to say that ecological conservation

is not an important element, but rather that the driving force lies elsewhere given

136

Detroit’s urban context. Phrases like “long bike trail,” “nature trail, like in DC,” “trees
and flowers, habitat” were often used to describe greenways during planning meetings.
However the key word finally used by DECC to link greenways to community needs is

“revitalization”.

“Vision: a beautifirl and functional greenway that revitalizes Detroit ’3
Eastside ” (excerpt from mission statement in the consultant RFP for the

Conner Creek Greenways project)

The two key words used to define the greenways in this vision statement,
“beautiful” and “functional”, attempt to create an image of greenways as a realistic and
valid endeavor for the community. Beautification of neighborhoods is already an area of
focus for many organizations. Warren Conner for example, the area’s largest CDC,
already maintains large green spaces through their programming. Greenways are thus
linked to on-going programs and efforts. Using the word “functional” is perhaps an
attempt to illustrate that green spaces have important uses in a distressed urban area; i. e.
they are not a luxury item imported fiom the suburban, middle class world.

The vision statement then goes on to detail a set of objectives, in an effort to

clarify how greenways contribute to the overarching goal of revitalization:
0 Improve physical health of people

0 Improve environmental quality of the Eastside such as air and water quality

0 Improve economic atmosphere of Detroit ’s Eastside

137

0 Strengthen a sense of community, culture, and history by linking neighborhoods
0 Improve the appearance of Detroit ’s Eastside

0 Connect residents to and educate them on their unique urban environment

0 Create a safe environment for using alternative modes of transportation

(From Conner Creek Greenways Vision statement)

To some extent these objectives reflect critical issues that residents of the Eastside
are currently facing and which DECC organizations attempt to address. For example the
objective related to “strengthen a sense of community”, in particular via the linking of
neighborhoods, speaks to the physical and social barriers that have eroded away the
Eastside’s social fabric. Like other areas of the city, entire neighborhoods have been
divided and physically cutoff from each other by the construction of highways (1-94 is
the most acute example). This has further contributed to the social isolation of residents
in the Eastside. Thus greenways are portrayed as an element which can help rebuild the
social fabric.

The importance of “improving the economic atmosphere” is also rooted in
historical needs of area residents. The Eastside was hit hard by deindustrialization. Once
a prosperous part of town, it decayed as automobile-related industry started moving out in
the early 508, followed by retail and other commercial businesses. The legacy of
abandoned industry and retail space still haunts the area. Thus business and retail

development are high up on the list of priorities for many CDCs in the area.

138

5.4.1.1. Safety, beauty and reconstituting the social fabric of the

Eastside

Greenways ideas for the Conner Creek Project evolved and changed throughout
the planning process. Initially traditional elements such as biking and hiking trails
prevailed among greenways definitions and interpretations. As the planning process in
the Eastside progressed, safety, beauty and reconstituting the social fabric became
increasingly important defining elements for Eastside greenways. This appears to be a
clear attempt to make greenways acceptable to the community, as well as a result of a
broader range of actors becoming actively involved in the discussions. While not all
actors seemed equally concerned, key leaders who participated in the planning expressed
concern that residents might think the project was disconnected to the Eastside reality.
Their perspective on geenways seemed to prevail, as those greenways elements which
filled a community need became important to the definition of the project and to its
public image.

For example, the first time the project was presented to the public was at the
annual town forum which focused on increasing safety and reducing crime in the
Eastside. Project leaders attempted to frame greenways as one of the many strategies
which could be used to combat crime. As I discuss in chapter six this effort was only
partly successful, as the overly technical nature of the presentation by the consultants and
other barriers to participation prevented a more profound discussion by residents.
Nevertheless the effort was a first attempt at defining greenways as a crime fighting
strategy, and it helped to position the project as part of larger community endeavor. For

example an exchange between project leaders and area police officers present at the

139

meeting brought to the forefront specific issues relating to the use of specific design
elements in order to create safer environments along the greenways. It also raised the
possibility of collaboration with area officers interested in assisting the project.

As participants debated and decided on which section of the greenways to
prioritize for the construction phase, they really began to make choices about those
elements which were more important for their particular definition of greenways. Thus
taking advantage of existing community assets and making them accessible to residents
became a priority. For example they chose an area where there is a community college, a
well-used park and a future public transportation hub. To some extent this area already
attracts people. The idea was that the greenways could help to link these resources and
create a space where residents of the area could safely congregate as well as move
around. Thus greenways could help to consolidate and create incentives for social
interaction, ultimately contributing to strengthening the social fabric of the Eastside.

The area community college participated in the planning and expressed great
interest in supporting the project as well as firture greenways-related programs. This was
an important factor in the decision making process, as the institutional backing would
help to push the project through. The college was particularly interested in linking the
greenways to their educational programs and those of other area organizations. For
example they mentioned their work with a black farmer’s organization on urban gardens
as one collaboration which could be tapped to make greenways part of on—going efforts.
And while it’s not clear whether this or other collaborations would actually be carried
through, the possibility of a greenways linked to broader community efforts begins to

emerge.

140

Other elements, such as transportation, for example, became subordinate to
broader objectives as participants began to ask how they could create synergies between
their project and other community efforts. Bike paths, envisioned as recreational and
alternative transportation modes, were important elements of greenways definitions for
many - though not all - participants. However in the end, facilitating residents’ access to
public transportation became more critical than just the creation of bike paths. For
example in choosing the first construction phase, participants focused on an area where
synergy with the city’s future public transportation hub was the greatest. This is not to
say that bike paths are not an important defining element of the Conner Creek
Greenways. In many ways the project is still largely about creating urban bike and
walking paths. But in some instances at least they take a back seat to other elements -
access to public transport, rebuilding the social fabric, combating crime - that appear
more related to community needs.

In summary, community organizations and activists involved with greenways in
Detroit tended to define greenways as a neighborhood centered redevelopment or
revitalization strategy. Within this context greenways were interpreted as community
spaces, crime fighting strategy, means to link to existing assets within the community and
most importantly as a set of opportunities for existing residents. Traditional definitions of
greenways as bike and walking trails were also part of the way in which these actors
defined greenways. However as the Eastside case illustrates, they were often part of a

broader interpretation centered on community issues.

141

5. 4. 2. The Linked Parks project’s interpretation of greenways

The Linked Parks project in Southwest illustrates how weak connections between
greenways and community development hinder the development of a more neighborhood
or community-centered vision of greenways. Historically the ideas behind the Linked
Parks Project have been externally driven, never really taking a strong hold among
community groups (see chapters three and four for more details). In addition, planning
decisions for the project were made largely by (white) professionals with very limited - if
not nonexistent - public input, an issue I discuss in detail in chapter six. As a result the
vision promoted by the project tended to conform to the greenways ideal held by these
professional actors; i. e. one which highlights the typical recreational and “environmental

linkage” components.

I ’m going to see it as a green connection between - relatively green
public use areas and that green connection doesn ’t necessarily have to be
a public way. It can simply be an environmental green connection, a
habitat connection... At a minimum, that ’s what it is... an environmental
enhancement fiom one end to the next. That is at least a connection

environmentally. ” (Consultant)

“We see them as recreational, primarily. And hopefully there are other
benefits like going to work, going to school, a safe presence that whole
Rails to Conservancy Services program that they 're working on. You brow

the whole mayor ’s kids, cops, clean, fitting into that, making it safia, a safe

142

way to get around your neighborhood and to connect the amenities

recreationally. " (City professional)

Thus in some ways the Linked Park projects developed a narrower interpretation
of greenways as primarily recreational and biking paths. Overall the image conveyed by
the project was more reflective of a “textbook” or generic greenway rather than one
rooted in the realities of the community. The consultants were more concerned with the
technicalities of the greenways, and the city staff with making sure it fit into their
departmental and the program sponsors’ vision. This is reflected in the written material
used to promote the project as well as in public presentations, where technical issues

prevailed.

“The greenways will provide residents of Southwest Detroit with new
recreational opportunities and safe, environmentally enhanced, non-
motorized linkages between the Detroit Riverfi'ont and existing amenities

of the area ” (Excerpt from public meeting notice)
“Our priority is to provide an amenity that will enhance the quality of life
of the city of Detroit, especially. Frankly it ’s a rubber stamp statement

that we use all the time... ” (City professional)

To some extent the focus on recreational and non-motorized linkages is expected,

an indeed appropriate as this interpretation is well aligned with the Recreation

143

Department which headed the project. There is nothing inherently wrong with seeing
greenways as recreational paths, or even with planning them for Southwest. The
narrowness of the interpretation becomes an issue when the project is unable to
accommodate other views or respond to community concerns. In this case the project
doesn’t really get contextualized as a part of other community development efforts in
southwest.

Indeed independent actors ficm Southwest expressed some concern over the
concept as it was being promoted by project leaders. This is in spite of the fact that most
of these actors tended to support the general idea. The issues raised by community actors
really accentuated the distance between the project ideal and the needs of the community.
In this sense the project was clearly more responsive to the ideas of program sponsors
that than those of the community, insisting on linkages and paths that raised some
questions amongst community members but which accommodated the views of program
sponsors.

Community members for example raised a set of issues that not only remained
unaddressed but were to some extent ignored during the planning process. These actors
talked about the need for green spaces and green connections, but they also talked about
the need to build safety features into the greenways, to involve not only residents but
community organizations at all levels of greenways planning and implementation. Most
importantly they indicated the importance of accommodating the specific needs and
interests of area users. Some residents for example expressed concerns about loss of
already scarce parking space along the greenways route, an issue that did not seem to

resonate or greatly ccncem project leaders.

144

“No, I think it ’s beneficial. Yeah, I think it ’s beneficial in our community.
I ’m glad they are considering doing it here and I hope that it goes off well.
But there are issues that need to be addressed like the truck trafl‘ic, like the
safety, like you know getting people there and getting people utilizing...
You brow you want get the community involved in it, otherwise, what ’s
going to happen is you ’re going to create something that 's wonderful and
beautifid and you may get the wrong people that are attracted to it. You
brow you may get people that want to set up shop somewhere along the
border... They ’re not going to have issues about you know lighting and
police, safety. They ’re hoping the police don 't go over there... and I
wonder how they ’re going to keep up the beautification part of it. It '3
going to get tagged and there ’s grafliti, who ’s going to clear that ofif You
brow is it going to be the city? Is it going to be community organizations?
It might be more efi'ective if it ’s community organizations. They can do it
on a more timely basis you brow those types of things. If you have people
walking on the path and utilizing, it should go from one place to another.
It ’s going to be - those are the types of people that you ’re going to
attract. " (Hispanic Staff fi'om a community organization)

“And my concept, not just as a resident but as a professional in the field,
is that for this type of project you have to work with the community. Yes,
because I ’m not going to enjoy - for example there are some areas where

they are proposing the greenways which I would never walk around, not

145

even if they planted a tree...it 's not the tree. It 's just that how am I going
to go to a warehouse where they sell drugs, where it ’s dark at night? no!
Either I do it where the community walks or I don ’t do it ” (Resident and

landscape architect fi'cm Latin America)29

These independent voices fiorn southwest expressed a desire for a more
community based vision of greenways which has parallels with the vision emerging in
the eastside, and which I will discuss in the next section. They too shared a ccncem for
community use, safety and crime, and in general making greenways a more integral part
of neighborhood life. It is interesting to note that the two projects, Conner Creek and
Linked Parks, hired the same consultant for their planning process. As I discuss in
chapter six there were clear differences in terms of leadership and participation between
the two projects. This underscores the importance of community collaboration and
leadership to the development of more context-specific greenways vision for a given
area.

The differences that emerged between the professionals leading the project in
Southwest and community actors in the area illustrate how values shape the definitions
and ideals behind the concept. Clearly each set of actors bring their own values to bear on
their particular vision of a greenways. In some ways the professionals behind the Linked

Parks project tended to promote - consciously or unconsciously - a technocratic,

 

29 Original in Spanish: “Y, mi concepto ya no coma residente de aqur', sirnplernente coma profesional err esa
rama, es que para un tipo de proyecto de esos tienes que trabajar con la comunidad. Si, porque yo no voy a
ir a disfi'utar, por ejemplo hay unas dreas donde van a plantear el greenway, que yo no me voy a ir a
caminarpor ahi, ni siquiera porque me planten un arbolito...No es el arbolito. Es que coma voy a ir ya con
una bodega donde venden droga, una bodega donde esta' oscuro en la noche, no. 0 lo hago por donde la
comunidad camina o no lo hago. "

146

traditional suburban perspective on greenways which aligned more with an external view
of redevelopment.

Greenways interpretation by key advocates in the region and particularly by
program sponsors greatly influence the development of local greenways interpretations,
particularly in the in the absence of mechanisms for community participation. As I
discussed earlier in the chapter, sponsors created an environment where greenways were
perceived as a suburban idea by some actors in the city. In Detroit, the term “suburban”
has a racial connotation, and is often used to imply an idea developed by and for the
white middle class. In addition an externally driven redevelopment perspective underlies
a prominent - if not dominant - interpretation of greenways amongst advocates. Added to
this layered understanding of greenways are images of hiking and biking trails that have
historically been associated with the concept. Altogether these elements reinforced in
Southwest Detroit, a notion of greenways as a strategy developed by - and perhaps for -

outsiders.

5.5. Summary and conclusions

Multiple elements interact and emerge as critical to the development of
greenways interpretations in Detroit. At one level program sponsors created an
environment that reinforced the traditional notion of greenways as a suburban, white
middle class strategy for conservation and outdoor recreation. A strategy that a range of
actors felt was out of touch with the needs of the city they live and work in. During the

initial grant rounds the guidelines, intended scale of projects and the overall program

147

image made for some community actors, in particular, to envision greenways as
effectively contributing to redevelopment.

Racial segregation and inequality, inextricably linked to the region’s
development, provided yet another level of complexity to greenways understandings.
Race shapes greenways in subtle and not so subtle ways. For those external to the city,
race is rarely seen as an explicit part of greenways issues, emerging most often as the
hidden subtext of a message that speaks to the “tensions in the region”. This was most
evident in conversations with whites who live outside of Detroit. In many ways this
message ignores and, as a consequence, ascribes only a superficial importance to race. In
contrast, greenways interpretations and understandings by community actors raised
critical questions about the distribution of benefits accruing fiom redevelopment
potentially spurred by greenways. The question raised by one city actor exemplifies the
concern raised by many: Are these greenways for me?

On the other hand the conditions created by deindustrialization underlie and
permeate all greenways ideas relative to Detroit. The dramatic environmental and
infrastructure conditions of the urban landscape together with the social consequences of
suburbanization constrain and at the same time provide new possibilities for greenways.
The task at hand is often seen as daunting, yet at the same time it provides an opportunity
for alternative and ecological redevelopment in the city. Greenways are invariably
defined as part of a general discourse relating to the need to “rebuild”, “revitalize,” and/or
“redevelop” the city.

In spite of this shared understanding, greenways meanings and definitions reflect

different, and sometimes opposing, views of redevelopment. On the one hand many

148

advocates in the region have historically promoted greenways as a way to attract
investment and people back to the city. This view often forms part of broader perspective
on redevelopment in which change occurs by and for suburban, most often white, agents.
More recently, program sponsors define greenways as a way to “save Detroit” and create
a world class city. Their vision promotes greenways as dramatic changes to the physical
infrastructure and landscape, in the belief that social change will ensue. This particular
interpretation appears connected to the views of elite actors, often white “outsiders”, who
claim a deep personal connection to the city.

On the other hand, activists and community actors in the city define greenways as
part of a neighborhood centered redevelopment strategy. This interpretation highlights
the importance of and potential for greenways to contribute to more equitable
redevelopment in the city. Greenways are interpreted first and foremost as a set of
opportunities for city residents, which include elements such as green and safe
community spaces, access to better transportation, beautification of city streets, and

access to jobs and housing opportunities arising fiom greenways, among others.

The two projects studied further illustrate the importance of the context to the
development and evolution of greenways ideas in Detroit. The two projects provide an
interesting contrast in ability to create local level greenways interpretations in the inner
city. The Linked Parks project in Southwest illustrates how external views of greenways
can lead to very weak connections between greenways and community development.
Differences in greenways understandings between professionals and community actors

highlight the centrality of values to the definitions and ideals behind the concept. In some

149

ways the white middle class professionals behind the Linked Parks project promoted -
consciously or unconsciously - a technocratic, traditional suburban interpretation aligned
more closely with an external view of redevelopment, in particular that of the program
sponsors. In contrast the Conner Creek project in the Eastside illustrates how community
actors interpreted and defined greenways so as to provide clearer and stronger
connections to community development goals and objectives. While the projects share
elements which can be seen as “universal” to greenways - biking paths, connections
between green spaces, etc. — their differences illustrate the importance of having
community development actors shaping greenways meanings. Safety for example was a
key element of the greenways discourse in the Eastside (Conner Creek), while it received
little attention in Southwest (Linked Parks) in spite of its importance to both

communities.

150

CHAPTER 6

The Realities of Participation

151

6.1. Introduction

Calls for community and citizen participation have become increasingly
prominent in a wide range of environmental management contexts. International
conservation efforts, enviromnental impact assessment, public lands management,
watershed management and other environmental decision-making scenarios are all part of
the trend towards a more participatory paradi gm. Participatory approaches have been in
fashion for the last decade but intended and actual approaches may diverge. This chapter
analyzes the nature of participation in greenways planning for the case of Detroit,
drawing on both my original data and the theory of participation in the field of natural
resource management. To the extent that the work of scholars in other areas helps us to
understand the social and political context of participation in the inner city, I use selected
literature from urban studies to enrich the discussion. It unravels the complexity
underlying the reality of participation and the implications for equitable conservation in
urban areas.

In section two I discuss definitions and typologies of participation, with an
emphasis on community empowerment and power sharing, as analytical tools to
understand different approaches. Section three analyzes participation at two levels of
greenways-related activities: 1) in the CF’s GreenWays program and, 2) in local level
greenways planning. The section highlights the differences in the nature and roles of
organizing entities and opportunities for actual participation of the two Detroit projects.
Section four analyzes factors affecting participation and is divided into two parts. The
first part addresses the forces leading to a technocratic approach to environmental

planning and its impact on participation. The second part analyzes the importance of race

152

and ethnicity to participation in Detroit. It illustrates how greenways are inextricably
imbedded in a community development context where racial politics are a strong, albeit

subtle, presence.

6.2. Definitions and typology of participation

6.2.1. Differentiating between top-down and bottom-up approaches to
participation

Intended and actual approaches to participation often diverge and contribute to the
difficulties encountered in their implementation. In the area of natural resources, scholars
differentiate these approaches according to the degree of decision-making power held by
citizens or communities. Typically, it is described as a continuum ranging from top-down
approaches with little or no participation from the community to self-mobilization.
Roberts (1995), writing about public involvement within the context of the National
Environmental Protection Act’s (N EPA) Social Impact Assessment (SIA) process,
specifically differentiates between the widely used terms consultation and participation.
He defines consultation as “education, information sharing, and negotiation” and
participation as “actually [bringing] the public into the decision-making process”. Public
involvement, he argues, is typically a consultative process with no intent for greater
public participation. In his description of participation within the SIA context, Robert
outlines a continuum ranging fi'om “persuasion,” defined as a PR exercise, to “self-
determination,” a process where the organizing entity accepts the outcome of the public’s
participation (see Figure 4).Within the SIA context organizing entities are assumed to be

external to the community.

153

Passive Participation
Participation In Information giving
Participation by consultation
Participation for material Incentives
Functional Participation

   

Interactive participation
Soil-mobilization
Persuasion Inicnnatlon Joint planning or Self determination
Feedback shared decision
. making
Education Consultation Delegated
authority

Figure 4. Summary of participation continuums. The red categories represent the
continuum described by Roberts’ and the black those by Pimpert and Pretty. The arrow
direction indicates higher levels of community empowerment and involvement in
decision making.

Pimbert and Pretty (1997), whose work focuses on conservation in developing
countries, place greater emphasis on problem definition and generation of solutions as
one way to gauge the degree to which a process is driven by external versus community

interests in their typology (see Table 13). Power is a central element defining the nature

of a participation approach according to their definition. As described in Table 13 and

154

Table 13. Participation typology [1]

 

I )lrtrltig)

Passive Participation

Participation Components

People participate by being told what is going to happen or
what has already happened. It is a unilateral announcement
by an administration or by a project management; people’s
responses are not taken into account. The information
being shared belongs only to external professionals.

 

Participation in
information giving

People participate by answering questions posed by
extractive researchers and the project managers using
questionnaire surveys or similar approaches. People do not
have the opportunity to influence proceedings, as the
findings of the research project design are neither shared
nor checked for accuracy.

 

Participation by
consultation

People participate by being consulted and external agents
listen to views. These external agents define both problems
and solutions, and may modify these in light of people’s
responses. Such a consultative process does not concede
any share in decision-making and professionals are under
no obligation to take on board people’s views.

 

Participation for
material incentives

People participate by providing incentives, for example
labor, in return for food, cash or other material incentives.
Much in-situ research and bioprospecting falls in this
category as rural people provide resources but are not
involved in the experimentation or the process of learning.
It is very common to see this called participation, yet
people have no stake in prolonging activities when the
incentives end.

 

155

Table 13 (cont’d).

 

Functional
Participation

People Participate by forming groups to meet
predetermined objectives related to the project, which can
involve the development or promotion of externally
initiated social organization. Such involvement does not
tend to be at early stages of project cycles or planning but
rather after major decisions have been made. These
institutions tend to be dependant on external initiators and
facilitators, but may become selfrdependant.

 

Interactive
participation

People participate in joint analysis, which leads to action
plans and the formation of new local groups or the
strengthening of old ones. It tends to involve
interdisciplinary methodologies that seek multiple
perspectives and make use of systematic and structured
learning processes. These groups take control over local
decisions, and so people have a stake in maintaining
structures or practices.

 

Self-mobilization

People Participate by taking initiatives independent of
external institutions to change systems. Such self-initiated
mobilization and collective action may or may not
challenge existing inequitable distributions of wealth and
power.

 

[l] Reproduced from Pimpert and Pretty, 1997.

illustrated in Figure 4, at one extreme they identify a passive process where information

is generated largely by professionals and shared with the community. This could simply

be information about an event that has happened or will happen in the future. In this

process, there is no expectation that the community’s response (if any) will be taken into

account. As we move along this continuum of participation, the level of influence of

community members increases. Thus the community may participate in a process where

156

they give information to project leaders or professionals but receive very little in return.
Consultation, according to this typology would involve information sharing both ways. In
this case the community still holds no real decision-making power and does not
participate in defining problems or issues. Their influence is limited to the degree to
which project managers are willing to incorporate community views. Other forms of
participation involve information sharing in both directions and varying levels of
community involvement in decision making. At the “participatory” extreme, we have a
community initiated process where problems and solutions are defined by the community
in the absence of an external institution.

Buchy and Race (2001) suggest that rather than typologies, a better distinction is
whether participation is an end itself (transforrnative) or a means to an end (instrumental).
Differentiating between these two, they argue, has profound implications for the type of
participatory process chosen. In a transforrnative process, there is the expectation that
participation will empower local communities in an enabling way. Instrumental
participation on the other hand seeks to disseminate and gather information in order to
make better decisions about a specific proposal or problem. Problems usually emerge
because organizers see participation as instrumental, while community members may
have expectations of social change or empowerment. As many scholars have pointed out,
examples of “transformative participation” or actual power sharing in the arena of NR are
still rare (Buchy and Race 2001; Little 1994).

In the practice even the most participatory processes are likely to have some
influence from external agents. Programs and projects are often a compromise between

top—down and bottom-up approaches. In many cases participation is intended to fall along

157

the middle of a “participatory continuum”, as resource planning is mostly directed by
external agents. Such is the case for the SIA process, mandated by federal law and lead
by government agencies. But it is also true for many conservation projects where the
participation component refers mostly to the provision of opportunities for community

input.

6.2.2. The importance of quality in participation approaches

Participation typologies tend to imply that more participation is always better.
Clearly there are ethical, moral and political reasons that justify the urgent need for
participation in resource planning. But not all processes need to be or indeed can be
completely “community based”. Decisions pertaining to the environment often affect and
are affected by people and organizations at various levels, ranging fiom the local to the
international. Participation requires time and energy, and not everyone can be involved at
all times. Indeed some forms of non-participation may be a political stance that seeks to
challenge existing power structures. The issue thus becomes to identify the most
appropriate level of participation for a given issue or problem, and to make the nature of
participation explicit.

Buchy and Race (2001) for example suggest that the apprcpriateness of a
particular strategy depends as much on its quality as on the type of technique or process
implemented. They suggest four basic “principles of good practice” to guide both the
implementation and analysis of various participatory processes: (1) Commitment to and
clarity about the process (2) Adequate time and attention to group dynamics, as one

measure of commitment (3) Addressing issues of representativity (4) Transfer of skills to

158

the community. They argue that instrumental participation can play a role in resource
planning, if canied out effectively.

Many scholars have pointed out the difficulties and mis-representation of
“participation” within the context of resource planning and conservation (Agrawal and
Gibson 1999; Belsky 1999; Few 2001; Leach, Meams and Scoones 1999; Pimpert and
Pretty 1997). Participation approaches have often ignored or been oblivious to power
differences, particularly within communities, to the detriment of the quality of the
process. In some cases, token participation is used as a means to “contain” the public and

neutralize opposition and divergent views (Few 2001).

6.3. The role of non-profit and public sector organizations in

greenways planning in Detroit

In Detroit participation in greenways events occurs at two principal levels,
organizational participation in the CF’s GreenWays pro gram, and community (organized
entities and residents) participation in local level project planning. As I discussed above,
it is important to understand both the type and quality of participation. Furthermore, as
the typologies suggest, the degree to which issues and solutions are framed by local
entities is one key component of participation. My analysis therefore begins with a

description of participation at the two levels, program and local greenways planning.

159

6.3.1. Participation at the program level: issues of inclusiveness in the

Green Ways Program

The GreenWays program developed by the Community Foundation is a typical
example of a donor organization 30 attempting to influence environmental decisions at the
local level. In this case, as in many others, the influence is through a grants program
designed to create incentives for environmentally-fiiendly local planning. As such it
illustrates an attempt to merge top-down with bottom-up strategies. As I discussed in
chapter three, the program originated after many years of on-going discussions about
greenways in southeast Michigan. It was designed to ground greenways ideas in the
realities of the different localities in the region. Getting local organizations interested in
greenways was central to their objectives, as was ensuring that there was community
support for the projects. As the grant guidelines indicated, “evidence of local community
support for the proposed project” was one element of the selection criteria. Program
sponsors often highlighted and stressed the importance of community support at public
meetings, as well as in private conversations.

Thus the program illustrates the struggles of organizations attempting to merge
top-down and bottom-up approaches. As this research shows, the struggle begins with

initial attempts to interest and involve local level organizations. In this case the program

 

3° The Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan has a long history and tradition of community grant-
making in the area. Their offices are located in downtown Detroit, no doubt intended as a sign of their
commitment to the city (their work spans the entire metropolitan region). The GreenWays Program was
one of their first excursions into the environmental arena. The program was lead by a prominent Michigan
environmentalist with a vast experience relating to land conservation issues (including fundraising). Many
interviewees felt the GreenWays Program embodied ideas external to Detroit, in spite of the CF’s
organizational backing. (See chapter five for a more in-depth discussion of this issue.) In addition, even
donor organizations committed to a “community based appro The prominence of urban areas as places to
protectnamralresourceshasincreasedasach”andwithauaditionandhistoryinaplacemayhavean
agenda that varies from that of community organizations.

160

wrestled with an apparent lack of interest fi'om Detroit-based organizations. While
grantrnaking to Detroit increased during the time of writing of this dissertation, the first
rounds had low participation from Detroit organizations (see Table 12 in chapter three for
more detail). This was not the case for the wider metropolitan region, where the program
seemed to be received with greater enthusiasm. Presumably the suburban regions were
more in tune with the ideal behind the program.

The Program sponsored a series of “GreenWays Forums”, with the purpose of
promoting the program and getting a wide range of organizations ficrn the region
together to discuss ideas, possibilities and challenges. The forums were free of charge,
provided food, included guest speakers and were located in or close to the city.
Participation of Detroit community organizations at the forums was low according to
organizers and other key actors. The forums were also striking in their lack of ethnic and
racial diversity as they were attended by whites, mostly middle class professionals and
environmentalists. In a city with an overwhelming minority population the almost

complete absence of Afiican Americans, to cite one group, was hard to overlook.

6.3. 2. Two contrasting models of greenways planning: differences and

similarities between the Eastside and Southwest

As I described in detail in chapter four, both greenways projects that served as the
basis for this dissertation were part of activities occurring within the framework of the
CF’s GreenWays program. The Conner Creek Greenways project in the Eastside and the
Linked Parks project in Southwest were both predevelopment grants aimed at planning

greenways for their respective areas. They both had a project life cycle of one year, and

161

presumably some of the same constraints associated with the granting guidelines and
specifications. The Conner Creek Greenways covered a larger geographical area than the
Linked Parks project, but both spanned more than one neighborhood.

In terms of participation, both projects fall somewhere in the middle of a
participation continuum. They advocated community participation as a way to obtain
feedback ficm residents and the community at large, seeing it mostly as an instrumental
process. Neither project can be seen as “community-based” in the strict sense of the
terminology, as both were partly driven, influenced and constrained by the grants
program. Nevertheless there are important differences in the inclusiveness and level of
participation of the two planning processes. In the practice, they represented different
types of processes and illustrate the importance of quality to participation. Three basic,
defining characteristics mark the differences between the two projects: the genesis of
project ideas, the nature of project leaders and the both actual and intended opportunities
for community involvement. Table 14 provides an overview of the differences, which

will be discussed in detail in the next sections.

6.3.2.1. Genesis of project ideas: defining the problem as the first level
of participation

One of the differences between the two projects relates to how and by whom the
idea and scope of the projects were generated; in other words who defined the problem

and its solution. In the Eastside a collaborative of community organizations (DECC)

162

Table 14. Differences in participation between Southwest and the Eastside. Basic and
defining differences in participation approaches between the two planning processes.

Southwest Eastside

 

 

 

genesis external internal
external community
leaders
agency organization
opportunities limited “mum-Layered”

 

 

defined the issues while professionals from the city’s Recreation Department (central
office) developed the proposal in Southwest. The Recreation Department received some
community feedback at the proposal formulation stage. However it was informal and
limited to very few actors. In addition, in contrast to its local offices, the Recreation
Department’s central office does not have strong links to the community. As I will
discuss later, the Recreation Department did not take full advantage of the knowledge and
credibility of local representatives in the development of the project.

Both proposals trace their roots to earlier efforts in the community. However in
the case of the Eastside, the evolution of greenways ideas appears to be more grounded in
the activities of area community development organizations. Some actors trace the
origins of the Conner Creek project to the Community Reinvestment Strategy (CRS) of
1994-97, a community planning process that highlighted the importance of green spaces
for the community. In at least one of the sectors, the final CRS report identifies a
greenways route very similar to that of the current proposal (SmithGroup Technical
Assistance Team 1997a). Other reports highlight the importance of green spaces to

quality of life in the area, which some see as antecessors to greenways ideas (see

163

http://www.ci.detroit.mi.us/plandevl/crs/reports). Other area actors trace the origins to
earlier attempts to recover and highlight the area’s historic Conner Creek.

In the Eastside most of the participating organizations were active during the CRS
process. Warren Conner, the area’s largest CDC was a key player during the CRS process
and continues to be a key player in the development of greenways today. In addition the
decision to apply for greenways funding was made because community organizations felt
the time was ripe for the project.

In contrast, from the onset greenways ideas in Southwest were more externally
driven. The idea for the Linked Parks Greenways can be traced to earlier versions of
greenways proposals for the area. These were also presented at area CRS meetings and
debated among some community groups. But as I discussed in chapter three, the impetus
for these ideas came mostly from external agents and did not achieve prominence in the
community. In addition there is some discontinuity between advocates for early
greenways ideas and current project leaders. The Recreation Department decided to take
on the Linked Parks project largely due to the influence of external agents, mostly
professionals and greenways advocates. Thus the city professionals leading the project

were relative newcomers to both the geographical area and the proposal.

6.3.2.2. Decision making and participation opportunities during the

planning processes

Involvement of “local community groups” is required by the GreenWays granting
guidelines, though the nature of that participation is obviously not specified. Figure 5

illustrates intended and actual approaches to participation in the planning of greenways in

164

Detroit. The model includes a range of opportunities for involvement, lists the different
actors and indicates if and at what level they were involved.

At the level of intentions, key actors fi'om both projects maintained that the
objectives of participation were to (1) educate residents about greenways in general, (2)
inform residents about the specific project and its activities, and (3) incorporate
community viewpoints into the proposal. In the specific case of the Eastside, these
objectives extended beyond residents to “community actors” in general. In either case
participation was constructed to mean a two-way exchange of information, with the

intention of letting community viewpoints affect planning decisions.

165

'OIUIOICOI.......IIIOIIIOUIIIIICIII‘

Southwest

Eastside _ organizers:
organizers: DECC 5 Recreation Dept.

$IIIIIIOIIIIII .2..1 IIIUOOIOIOIIII'

ICC-III...

IIIIOIII ...IIOIOUCIIIII. 0...... I.’

 

oeccecw .--.

 

 

 

 

 

Board
professional
consultants : Intended:
information
exchange,
consultation

 

 

Monthly PW‘MW ‘ City government

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mooti
"98 actors
Special committees
I I I I I ‘ Organized
Sta r "9’ community actors
A
parflcpation
via?
‘L .9.
Town Forum and J .°
Public meeting ‘ l ”flaw“ l'

 

 

 

Figure 5. Approaches to participation in greenways planning in Detroit. The grey boxes
illustrate participation opportunities for two greenways planning projects in Detroit. The
solid line boxes depict the actors involved and the level at which they participated in the
process. Two-way arrows indicate that there was an exchange of information between
project organizers and the different actors. Dotted lines suggest lower and full lines
higher participation levels. EC: Executive committee.

166

Nevertheless actual participation and decision-making varied greatly between
the two projects. In Southwest decisions were made by the city professionals in charge of
the project, with the consulting team providing information and technical support. All of
these actors were landscape architects. The consultant was in charge of designing and
implementing the participation process. Opportunities for community input were limited
to two public meetings that focused on the greenways project. The format and style of the
meetings provided few opportunities for two-way exchanges of information (though the
first presented a more participatory format than the second). The first meeting was
moderately successful in terms of attracting local organizations. Resident participation
however was very low. Overall “outsiders” still outnumbered the locals. The second
meeting was even less successful, attracting less organizations and residents than the first.

The decision making formula also limited potential input by other relevant actors,
not just residents. Opportunities for inter and intra-departmental exchange among
professionals working for the city was virtually non-existent. As key actors indicated,
inter-departmental collaboration is unusual in the development of city projects. Therefore
there was little information sharing between local city representatives who work on the
ground and those fiom the central office. In essence decision making was limited to
closed door meetings between the city professionals in charge of the project with input
fi'om the consultants.

In the Eastside, several layers of participation interact and affect decisions during
planning as illustrated in Figure 5. The most prominent instance of participation was the
planning committee created by DECC where, at least formally, issues could be debated

and decisions made. DECC is a coalition of 20 plus organizations that converge on a

167

range of topics, all related to Eastside (re)development. The committee provided (1) a
way to manage the project and (2) a venue for member organizations most interested in
the greenways to become actively involved. Technically the committee was open to the
public at large. In the practice it was intended as a space where a range of organized
community actors, including non-DECC members and city staff, could converge to
discuss the project. In fact meetings were often attended by various representatives of the
city at the local level, including staff from the city’s planning, transportation and
recreation departments. Some local business interests were also present occasionally.
Attendance from local organizations varied greatly from meeting to meeting but the
presence of a few DECC members provided the basis for continuity. Organizations
present at different times represented a wide range of interests, from the local YMCA,
housing organizations and community college to city-wide environmental organizations
such as The Greening of Detroit.

In addition, smaller ad-hoc committees were set up occasionally to deal with
specific issues. One example of these was the committee charged with developing the
RF P guidelines at the beginning of the process. These committees also represent
instances of decision-making, albeit more limited and temporary ones.

All critical decisions made by the planning committee were ultimately subject to
approval by DECC’s executive committee and/or board, as is typical for non-profits.
Indeed there was a constant flux of formal and informal information sharing between the
planning committee and other decision-making structures of DECC via key, influential
members. Thus in some cases decisions seemed to be made at other levels and simply

communicated at the planning meetings.

168

The planning process in the Eastside also included two public meetings intended
to provide participation opportunities for residents and the broader public. One of these
was in the form of a town forum, an event sponsored by DECC annually with the aim of
dealing with pressing community issues. The November 2002 town forum focused on
“keeping the Eastside safe”, and the greenways project was one of several initiatives
highlighted at the meeting. Attendance ranged from residents, elected local
representatives, city staff, area police officers and community organizations. The second
meeting focused solely on greenways and followed a more traditional public-meeting
model.

In addition, DECC sponsored 3 semi-public sessions that they called
“stakeholders” meetings. The purpose of these was (1) to keep organizations interested in
the project informed of progress, particularly when they were not interested in attending
monthly planning meetings, (2) inform and generate interest among other key community
actors (3) receive feedback on project ideas, scan for and avert potential conflicts of
interest. These stakeholder meetings followed the format of a one - to two hour
presentation sessions followed by a Q&A sessions. The target audience for these
meetings varied greatly in terms of size and type of organization, but there was strong
emphasis on attracting business and area institutions (such as the City Airport, the local
community college, hospital etc). Nevertheless it still included smaller non-profits from

the area and city government departments.

169

6.3.2.3. The Southwest model conforms to a public involvement format

Participation in the sphere of government environmental decision making was
instituted as a result of the NEPA mandate which calls for “public involvement”
(Solomon, Yonts-Shepard and II 1997). The practice of including some kind of
participation component has extended to governmental decision-making at all levels
whether by law or de facto. The planning process in Southwest seems to conform to the
public involvement model of NEPA, where an external agency implements a project at
the local level and where local participation is at best consultative. Indeed key actors
often described participation for the project as “the public involvement component”. As
Roberts (1995) argues, public involvement is typically a consultative process where there
is no intention of bringing the public into the decision making sphere. It is therefore not
surprising that project leaders framed participation within the limits of consultation.
However, the consultation process was ambiguous and highly ineffective.

The process seemed to suffer fi'om lack of “basic good principles” of participatory
practice. Organizers did not allocate the time or resources needed for effective
implementation, indicating a lack of commitment and clarity. The process also suffered
from a lack of representativity. In the practice, the process can best be typified
somewhere in between “passive participation” and “participation by information giving”
according to the categories represented in Figure 4. Project leaders attempted to inform
the public about the project and collected some feedback (in the form of a “survey”) from
a limited range of actors. The degree to which the public was informed about the project
is questionable as few people and organizations actually attended meetings. Furthermore,

in some cases participants came away fiom the meeting with more questions than

170

answers. The extent to which the resident feedback was incorporated into decision-
making was minimal if at all, further exacerbating the limitations of the process. I will
discuss the specific issues and factors that affected participation in more detail in sections

three and four.

6.3.2.4. Elements of a “community-based” strategy in the Eastside

In its genesis the Conner Creek greenways project has elements of a community-
based strategy. The organizations behind the project have a long history in the
implementation of revitalization strategies for the Eastside and indeed the city. DECC is
one of the city’s largest and most prominent community organizations. Some of its
member organizations, such as Warren/Conner and U-SNAP-BAC, are icons for their
contributions to community economic development in Detroit (see Bockmeyer 2000), for
the role of CDCs in the revitalization of Detroit). Thus planning in the Eastside represents
a case of local community organizations taking advantage of an externally created

opportunity in order to implement their agenda. As one interviewee explained:

“There 's a process that happened about four years ago called the CRS
Project, Community Reinvestment Strategy, it ’s a community based
planning process. And in that plan it showed Connor Greenway. Several
of us and several of our organizations participated. So there was no- like I
said, no one out here has the time or the energy to try and force fit
fimding... but part of why we spent so much time thinking about the

feasibility of it, is just to make sure that people were comfortable, there

l7l

was a lot of interest, there 's a willingness to go forward. So there wasn ’t
really any modification. It was really all about looking at the history,
recognizing the assets, looking at the CRS plan, Dying to get a handle on

some of the challenges that we have. And then deciding to do it. ”

From the perspective of devolving power to the local level, the Eastside project
could represent a typical example of a community-based planning effort. Key
community organizations have identified the issues affecting their community and
decided that greenways are part of the solution. They have taken it upon themselves to
plan for change in their community, in a proactive approach to development. In some
ways, external agents - city government and non-profits - become instrumental to their
goals and not vice-versa.

But even a commurrity-initiated planning process needs to have input from a
range of local actors, as key Eastside actors commented. The issue then becomes the
degree to which the planning process incorporates a broader range of interests. Compared
to Southwest, the Eastside process provides many more instances for residents and other
community actors to converge. In fact, the planning provided layers of participation
which could potentially accommodate the different interests and needs existing within a
community.

One of the most unusual and positive elements of the process was the
convergence of multiple interests at the monthly planning committee. As interviewees
indicated, having the range of actors discussing issues face to face was as unusual as it

was beneficial.

172

“Yeah it is. It doesn 't really happen that often, that way. So yeah, it 's an
experience. I never know what to expect when you Imow - It ’s like, ‘Gee,
can you help me, ’ and I ’m like, ‘Wow, ’ you know? I think it ’s a good thing
though. I learned more about the city. I haven ’t been here [in the city
department] that long. But I learned more about the city after going to one
of those meetings, because when I ’m asked to do something, I meet new
people, making new contacts with a new department and I get information
that I have not known before. So while I ’m solving their problem, I 'm

actually you know - [learning]. ” (City employee and resident)

Thus the committee played the role of a space for information exchange and
discussion of ideas very well. The executive nature of the committee seemed more
ambiguous, as resolutions were subject to approval by higher levels of DECC’s
organizational structme. As I mentioned above, decisions often seemed to be made
elsewhere. Participants from city departments were present only as “passive” members,
participating in discussions and providing feedback but with no expectation of real
decision making power (nor should they). From their point of view, the meeting provided
an unequaled opportunity to learn about the issues affecting the community they were
serving (most of them worked on the ground). Indeed they often abstained from making
comments on critical issues, one way or the other, even when they held strong opinions.

Nevertheless the information they provided was an important element in the discussion. It

173

would be fair to say they had some influence on decision-making. But ultimately the
decisions rested with DECC members, as they were the leaders of the project.

While there were various levels at which participation from organized entities
could occur it tended to be limited to either DECC members or larger institutional actors.
DECC for example made an effort to bring on board business and commercial interests
fiom the community, most notably through the stakeholder meetings. Their idea was to
build a constituency base in the community which could help move the project forward.
But there was no such effort to bring on board a broader range of community
organizations, at least at that stage. Presumably, they felt DECC was sufficiently
representative of area organizations and/or greater participation would occur at other
project stages, as one participant suggested. However some interviewees felt that smaller
organizations could potentially be lefi “out of the loop,” in effect limiting resident
participation and representation.

Direct resident participation was more limited than that of organized entities, even
though the process was far more participatory than in Southwest. In the practice residents
participation was limited to two meetings where they received information about the
project and were asked for their feedback. Residents were asked to answer a “survey"3 ',
and provide verbal feedback during the sessions. No other methods of participation were
implemented, although they were debated. Ultimately the degree to which the process
was participatory depends in part on the degree to which DECC organizations represent

area residents. I will discuss this issue later on in section four.

 

3' The “survey” presented several problems from the standpoint of a social science method, relating to
sample, wording of questions, analysis etc. Furthermore its actual use by the consultants seems debatable.
Verbal feedback seemed to be much more effective in this case and often took the form of an exchange
between the public, DECC representatives and the consultants.

I74

in summary, planning in the Eastside was much more participatory than in
Southwest (see Table 14 for a summary). It presented elements of a community-based
strategy in the genesis the proposal and in the nature of the actors making the decisions.
At the organizational level participation could be situated close to the self-mobilization
extreme. At the level of individual participation (residents) it represents a consultative
process, with information sharing both ways and residents’ viewpoints having some

impact.

6.4. Many factors affect participation

6.4.1. The predominance of a technical approach to environmental
planning

The impetus behind the call for more participation in environmental decision-
making is rooted, in part, in the growing acceptance of the political nature of
environmental problems and the failure of technocratic approaches to solving them.
Technocratic approaches, based on the notion that decisions are best made by experts,
often exclude citizens and communities from the decision making arena. Furthermore
critics contend that they increase the level of conflicts about resources and create
inequalities (Cortner and Moote 1999). Similarly, scholars of planning have increasingly
shunned the so-called rational planning model, largely a technocratic approach to the
practice (see Forester (1989) for a critical reflection on the discipline). Congruent with
the trend in the conservation arena, many schools of thought in the planning field are

concerned with developing shared solutions to issues. They too advocate participatory,

175

c0"

-—-——=— h

decentralized styles of planning (see Lane 2001) for a discussion on the convergence
between these two fields).

It is therefore telling that one of the key elements affecting participation in
greenways planning in Detroit relates to the overly technical approach to the process.
This research illustrates that in spite of the academic debate and many experiences,
resource planning and environmental decision-making still occrn' within a technocratic
framework. Why does a technical approach predominate even when citizen participation
is valued? This section explores the forces that promoted a more technical approach to
planning in the two areas studied. Differences between the two planning processes will be
highlighted wherever possible. However they may not be indicated at all times in the
interest of interviewees’ privacy. Some of the data for this section also stems fi'om

interviews with key actors involved in greenways planning in other areas of the city.

6.4.1.1. Emphasis on change at the landscape level affects participation

in the GreenWays program

Participation by organizations at the program level was affected by the guiding
goal of program leaders and of greenways in general: the idea of creating change at the
landscape level. Briefly, program leaders felt strongly that projects needed to have an
impact at the scale of landscapes, i. e. a scale that was larger than the local. Their
reasoning is supported by sound ecological principles for nature protection. Projects at
smaller scales often result in “green” islands which are disconnected and offer no real

advantages for the protection of wildlife and plant species. In addition program sponsors

176

felt that the degree of devastation in the city was so great, that only projects with an
impact at larger scales could make a difference in the city’s infiastructure.

However, this expectation meant that smaller organizations had to collaborate
outside of their boundaries in order to have an impact beyond their service area. Indeed,
the program was set-up with the idea of promoting such collaboration. While a worthy
goal in principle, collaborating across boundaries on an issue that likely escapes their
central goal is probably as unattractive as it is difficult for many development
organizations. Community development organizations typically service neighborhoods.
The social scale in which the city’s development organizations typically function does
not easily find a fit with the physical/technical scale promoted by the program. Indeed
DECC is unusual and likely unique in the city in the extent of their territorial scope. They
are one of the most prominent development organizations in the city. As such we would
expect them to have the capacity to take on such a large scale project. In some cases,
small scale projects may have implications at a larger scale without the need for
collaboration across boundaries, such as for example having the potential to link an area
to existing resources or other on-going projects,. Such is the case for at least one of the
grantees. But these examples are likely rare, representing the exception rather than the
rule.

On the other hand, the program was, in the practice, unsuccessful at creating and
promoting collaboration among organizations in the city. In their beginnings at least they
admitted to having difficulties identifying target organizations at the community level, so

as to promote the program and find ways to make it attractive to area organizations.

177

“One of the dilemmas that we have is that we don 't brow who these
people [community groups] are. I mean - yeah, we don 't brow where to
look for them or how to look for them. It 's real easy to contact the 249
municipalities...1t’s real easy to contact them because we just go down the
street to SEMCOG” and ask them a mailing list of all 249 communities
and we send them a letter. The bigger challenge is trying to figure out who
is doing what in what neighborhood. I mean the community foundation is -
obviously has a shopping list of people they 've given money to. And we
have a list of people who have shown up at our events, the Belle Isle event
or the event out in Birmingham or the- yeah, it is [limited]. It 's generally
people who have already heard about us, which means that there are
groups who haven 't heard about us or we haven 'tfigured out to reach yet.
And I would say that ’s probably one of the biggest challenges, wouldn 't

you say? I don 't think we ’ve got actually an answer for that. ”

In some ways program organizers did not truly connect to the community

development world where their target audience would most likely be found. While it is

true that the CF has a vast and rich community development history in Detroit, the

organizers for the GreenWays program were mostly outsiders to the community

development world and to the city. Their expertise and experience resided more in the

realm of traditional environmental issues. As a result they tended to focus their energies

on other aspects of the program. Altogether, this likely hindered their ability to find

recipes for attracting organizations to the program more in tune with Detroit’s reality.

 

32 Southeast Michigan Council of Government (SEMCOG)

178

6.4.1.2. The product vs. process emphasis of the GreenWays Program

The most important outcome of the GreenWays Program’s predevelopment
(planning) grants is the generation of a tangible product that advances the goal of
greenways construction forward. As I discussed in chapter three, the pro gram was born
after many years of discussions about greenways possibilities for the metropolitan area.
The city’s continued loss of revenue and apparent inability to make a comeback also
influenced the predicament in which program sponsors no doubt felt they were in. One
interviewee, alluding to the many unsuccessful efforts to change the face of the city,
commented, “This city has been planned to death.” Thus in the minds of advocates and
potential donors, it was necessary for the program to have concrete and tangible
outcomes in order to create a real impact. This pragmatism and sense of urgency
translated into a strong emphasis on construction documents as the most important
outcome of the predevelopment grants. The perception was that this was the best way to
channel efforts to the ultimate goal of building greenways, in particular by better

positioning organizations to obtain development (construction) grants from the CF.

“You hear all of this rhetoric and a lot of things that have been espoused
as ways to save Detroit have not happened ...And so it ’s incumbent upon
us, especially I mean we 're again, a small fish in a pond. Which means
that in order for us to have an efiizct, in order for changes to happen, we
have to force them to happen... You 're not going to write a plan and put it

on somebody ’s shelf because we ’re not going to fund a plan. If you ’re

179

find-OH" w

going to write a plan, the next thing that happens when that plan is public,

is you get a shovel and you get cement and you start building something. "

(Donor organization representative)

As a result, GreenWays grantees perceived the CF’s message as stressing that the
grants should give priority to the product, in the form of construction documents, over the
process. In this way, program sponsors - unwittingly or not - created incentives for a
more technically oriented plarming. Within this planning context issues of participation
necessarily had to take a back seat to other matters. As a result, when faced with time

and resource constraints grantees often compromised quality or reduced instances of

participation.

“And we don ’t have the money or fimds for that. Because if we had
more money for that [public participation] - if everyone thinks it is so
important and raves about it, like, ‘Oh we have to get the public
[involved], we have to get the public, we have to get the public ', and then
it falls short... We need to somehow reach those people that totally don ’t
give a shit at all. It definitely falls short because the role is a
construction document because that ’s where they, the community

foundation, will fund in the firture. ” (Southwest project participant)

“Their focus on construction documents is a little bit ahead of the game...

these funders they have strings attached to their money. They want to sort

180

of have their fingers on you watching all the way to make sure you 're
spending the money the way that they see fit and I think that these big
names, these foundations that have donated this money they, they don 't
want to be party to something that ’s just this planning, you brow this little
study they want to see something for their money. Everyone wants to see

something for their money. " (Detroit landscape architect)

The CF’s sense of urgency about the grants also seemed to translate into a lack of
flexibility with deadlines, further reinforcing the grantees’ perception of the foundation’s
priorities. In some cases, community actors involved with the grants program expressed
frustration that there wasn’t enough time to “do it all.” In some cases, grantees genuinely
felt that the CF ’s lack of flexibility undermined their efforts at more optimal participation
strategies. As one interviewee candidly expressed, “The community process is driven by

funders. . .It’s all very arbitrary”.

6.4.1.3. The role and values of organizing entities shapes participation
approaches

The planning process in Southwest seemed more affected by the overt and subtle
messages coming from the CF than planning in the Eastside. From the selection of the
consultant to the formulation of a planning strategy, Southwest focused more on the
product and the technicalities involved in generating it. Participation took a back seat to
other issues from the start, never receiving the same level of prominence or priority as

other issues.

181

“The one reason why the one [consultant] was picked, I asked both
companies, ’What is the most important outcome that you see of this if you
get the contract? You brow what the guy said, without hesitation? He
says, ’We are going to produce some construction documents, so when
you go for the new round of funding you will be ready to go. ' The other
group never mentioned construction documents. " (Community activist

involved with Southwest)

“And you brow participation was not always that great. What we finally
wanted to get here is to build a greenway, and realizing that we were
using this budget. They didn 't want to blow all the dough on community
input. We wanted to - they definitely want it and they will be holding

public meetings for that purpose, but not to overdo it. OK? ” (consultant)

The professionals involved with the planning in Southwest cited time and budget
constraints as the main reason for relegating participation to the bottom of a priority list.
But they also conceded that lack of expertise and community knowledge affected their
ability to do a better job, even within the limitations of the project. Narratives from key
actors and the dynamics of public meetings suggest that participation was valued to a

lesser degree than other technical elements.

182

“Well the consultants, if we don ’t make it [participation] a priority then I
mean they ’re not going to put the time into it. And we can ’t have them
spending any additional time on anything really because we need the
money for the construction part. Public involvement was a priority, but to
the extent of what we did. That was our priority and the meeting and

everything. “

In contrast, Eastside organizations gave more attention and prominence to
participation the planning process. Participation issues were discussed more often at
planning meetings and key actors stressed the importance of having feedback fi‘om the
broader community (resident and beyond). Thus from the start project leaders conveyed
the notion to the consultants that they valued public participation, often stressing that it
had to happen in spite of time and budget constraints. (The consultant team was the same
as for Southwest.)

This is not to say that planning in the Eastside was a completely participatory
process. In the “race” to produce construction documents, budget and time considerations
did affect participation in the Eastside. In order to meet deadlines, organizers cutback on
Opportunities for involvement and decided against using more “participatory” but time-
intensive methods, particularly as means for involving local residents. In addition not all
actors involved placed the same importance on issues of participation. Many were more
concerned with the technical difficulties surrounding the project. However the Eastside
seemed more resilient to the subtle messages and constraints that accompanied the grant

framework in which the project was imbedded.

183

The difference with Southwest likely stems fi'om the fact that the Eastside project
was lead by a coalition of community groups; key players within the coalition valued and
pushed for participation, and the process had built in participation fiom organized entities
in a structured, formal way via the planning meetings. This combination of elements
probably buffered the Eastside process from external constraints, thus balancing some of
the tendency for a technical approach to planning. Alternatively, project organizers in
Southwest may have been more receptive to a message which seemed to call for a
technical approach to planning, whether because of their own professional biases or their

position as an agency external to the community.

6.4.1.4. The role of professionals in greenways planning

Professionals, mostly landscape architects (and to a lesser degree planners) played
a key role in the planning of greenways in Detroit. This is not surprising, as greenways
are rooted within the traditions of landscape architecture and planning (an issue I discuss
in chapters three and five). In addition to their role as consultants, they played key roles
in the development of grant proposals and in general via their contacts and employment
in the non-profit sector. The strong presence of professionals during the planning
functioned as a sort of feedback mechanism that further reinforced a technical view of
planning. Project organizers viewed the technical elements as critical to obtaining their
product, assigned more prominence to professionals’ role within the process and these, in
turn, re-focused attention on technical matters (whether because of a professional bias or

as a result of the message conveyed to them by the client).

I84

On the surface the majority of the professionals involved claimed that “public
involvement” was important. However views on the role of participation varied greatly
among them, illustrating a range of beliefs. Some expressed contradictory disbeliefs,
questioning the community’s ability to provide meaningful feedback at the same time that
they professed the importance of “public involvement.” This would help explain the low

commitment to participation that seemed to prevail in some instances.

“1 think, you know half of them [residents] are not even going to brow
what 's going to happen out there, not understand it and the other half that

does understand don 't care, ‘It ’s not going to do anything for me. ' ”.

Many admitted they lacked the “expertise” to implement effective participation
strategies. Yet they often resigned themselves to disregarding or shrugging off the
complexities involved in participation. Sometimes participation events seemed a routine,
undesirable chore to be carried out quickly and quietly. In these cases they seemed to
attach, in the practice, token importance to the issue as they did little to actually create
meaningful participation. In some cases they were surprisingly naive about issues of race,
class and power that could affect participation, even professing “ignorance” on these
matters and their relationship to the planning. Indeed these actors seemed more

comfortable with the technicalities of the planning process, far from the “public.”

“ummm...As far as race goes and that? I don 't...on this one I ’m coming I

guess I ’m kind of illiterate or ignorant. I don ’t see it, this thing being as a

185

kind of a race issue. I don ’t brow - it 's, you brow, I don 't brow any
boundaries and borders or anything like that in the area. I don ’t look at
the - You brow, people using the greenway, and it could be basically

they 're opening up so kids can meet other kids and that kind of stufl and it
helps bring the neighborhood - help connect. ” (Professional involved with

greenways planning in Southwest)

“And really I don ’t have time to sit around and think about oh I wonder if
we should put welcome in Spanish on this sign, like oh it looks good and it
looks nice, but we have to move on here, unfortunately... And maybe it 's
almost the perception that we can do it adequately, so we don ’t need
someone like that? [a community organizer] I think And then to pay
someone to do that again that you don 't have the funds for, so we think
that we can accomplish it but then the meeting comes around and then all
we get are supporters, people that we already brow. Like okay, how are
you? How are you? Who brow about the project and everything, so I don ’t
brow. Does that answer your question?

We just, we feel that we can do it and then we fall short and then we just
move on, well we didn ’t get enough residents. Well we have to move on
because we have this year deadline. ” (Professional involved with

greenways planning in Southwest)

186

Some professionals expressed genuine concern about the lack of meaningful
participation that frequently accompanies these types of projects and the implications
thereof. In their view budget and time constraints were the usual culprits preventing the
development of more effective participation strategies. In a few, rare instances they
reflected on the profession’s bias towards a technical approach and their narrow academic
training, which does not prepare them to address planning in a broader sense. At least in
one case, the consultant felt trapped in no-win situation in which they felt more
participation was needed for the project to be effective, but no budget (or authority) with
which to carry it out. In this case, the consultant felt planning should be more of a
collaborative process where basic project ideas and elements are worked out with the
community.

The planning process in Southwest was more dominated by professional actors
due the nature of the organizing entity and the decision making process. A more technical
view of planning prevailed, in the practice, among these actors. In addition, the
organization and implementation of a participation component was left entirely in the
hands of the consultant. Project leaders relied largely on the consultants to identify and
establish links with community organizations and residents. The consultants were also the
visible face of the project to the public. Instead of taking advantage of the networks
established and nurtured by staff working on the ground, project leaders relied on the
knowledge of external professionals. This further reinforced the tendency towards an
overly technical approach to planning in Southwest. Professionals in Southwest, in the
practice, promoted a process more akin to a PR exercise or “passive participation,” where

they shared technical information with a scant public.

187

Again, the Eastside was not immune to issues relating to the influence of
professionals, as I illustrate in the section below on the effectiveness of public meetings.

But the extent of their influence was to a much lesser degree.

6.4.1.5. The problem with the “public meeting” as the principal vehicle

for resident participation

The principal means for participation, especially for residents, was the public
meeting. Public meetings for both projects involved informational panels and
presentations by the consultants. The public tended to be a passive recipient of
information as more participatory methods of engagement were not used. Although
meetings took on various styles, they shared the problem of overly technical
presentations. Presentations and “information” panels, tended to focus on such details as
the width of streets and sidewalks, rather than on how the project related to the everyday
lives of people. Information was often presented in the form of maps more accessible to
planners and architects than non-specialists. Some professionals were more effective at
creating visuals that engaged the non-specialist. But for the most part presentations and
panels were surprising in their lack of appeal to a general audience. No doubt this
prevented more meaningful participation, even within the limited scope of the public
meeting.

As Forester (1993) argues the activity of planners, in the broad sense of the
terminology is the “reorganizing (or disorganizing) of citizens’ attention to possibilities
of public action.” In this case by organizing attention around technicalities, professionals

can be seen as ignoring the concerns of the public. In some cases, this created

188

indifference to the project and greatly reduced the chance to engage in meaningful
discussions. In other cases it alienated participants, as they felt their concerns went
unanswered. For example the attitude of one resident was to simply walk away when told
her question would be addressed “at the end of the presentation”. Whether intentionally
or not, professionals partly controlled what could or could not be discussed by controlling
what, where and how information was exchanged.

At the extreme, where the meeting was organized and led by the consultants, the
overall effect was an inability to deviate fiom an a priori written script in order
accommodate concerns emerging fi'om the public (scant as it was). Where the meetings
were community organized and the consultants played an auxiliary role there was more
flexibility to accommodate the format in accordance to the flow and dynamics emerging
at the moment. But even then community leaders often had to spend time recasting main
ideas presented by the professionals, in an attempt to communicate and interest the
residents. This wasted valuable time that could have been spent in dialogue with
residents.

Both experience and academic research suggest that despite their wise use in the
U.S., public meetings are often ineffective vehicles to meaningfully engage the public
(McComas 2001). This study further illustrate the degree to which public meetings - as
generally conducted - continue to suffer drawbacks preventing more meaningful citizen
participation. The problems with public meetings likely reinforce low participation by
residents. In part, because when people do not recognize them as effective means to
voice their concerns they simply do not attend. In this sense attendance to the meetings

varied a great deal between the two projects. Eastside organizations were more effective

189

at interesting local residents, no doubt based on their reputation in the area and the
context appropriate nature of the meetings. But even then, their ability to discuss project
ideas and its implications with local residents was reduced by the format and quality of
information exchange.

In summary, the interplay of external and internal forces shaped the views and
actions of key actors, resulting in varying degrees of technical predominance in the
planning processes. Subtle and explicit messages coming fi'om the donor organization,
the strong presence of professionals, the values of project leaders and the use of a public
meeting format all contributed to a specific approach to planning. The predominance of a
technical approach to planning was notorious in Southwest and more subtle in the
Eastside. To the extent that it was present, a technical focus prevented broader and

quality participation.

6.4. 2. Race, ethnicity and power

This section attempts to bring to the forefiont the ways in which issues of race
(often accompanied by those of class) and power affected participation in the planning of
greenways in Detroit. The data for this section stems from observation of greenways
activities, documents and interviews with key actors. All actors interviewed were
involved with greenways in some capacity or other. However their degree of involvement
varied from, for example, a curious resident attending a single meeting to project
organizers. Interviewees were chosen because they could provide a range of perspectives
on the issues; an attempt was made to include minorities (approximately 1/3 of total

interviews corresponded to minorities; see Table l in chapter 2). This was often difficult

190

as most of the key actors involved in greenways were whites. (See Tables 6-8 in chapter
2 more details of interviewee characteristics) Nevertheless, and while some inferences
can be made from the more critical perspectives of a range of actors, the analysis does not

include the voices of true non-participants.

6.4.2.1. Minority participation in greenways planning in Detroit

Perhaps the best way to begin to unravel the complexity embedded in the racial
and political undercurrents of participation is by analyzing minority participation at
greenways planning events and activities. In a city made up largely of Afiican Americas,
Hispanics and other minorities, it is telling that whites tended to predominate at
greenways events. This was especially so for city-wide events sponsored by the donor
agency and local level planning in Southwest. But even the more community oriented
planning in the Eastside suffered from low minority participation at some stages in the
process.

Low minority representation during the initial stages of planning in the Eastside
was somewhat surprising given the community nature of DECC. However as the
planning progressed and the range of actors attending the meetings broadened so did the
diversity of those sitting at the table. In general representatives of environmental
organizations such as the Greening of Detroit, planners and LA tended to be white.
Diversity increased when city staff began participating more often, as they tended to be
African American. Stakeholder and especially public meetings were mainly attended by

Afiican Americans (residents and/or representatives of community organizations). This

191

 

speaks to DECC’s power of convocation within the community, and their ability to frame
greenways as an important redevelopment tool.

Given the scope of the study it is hard to assess minority representation at other
levels of DECC’s decision-making. There is a history within the African American
community of church-based organizing around community development issues which
would lead one to expect them to actively participate in organizations such as DECC. On
the other hand, community based development organizations in the city have
proportionally higher numbers of whites on their staff (most often progressives who have
chosen to stay in the city), compared to their share of the city’s population (Shaw and
Spence 2004). My experience with planning events and interviews suggests that key
positions within DECC are held by Afiican Americans with strong connections to the
community. In at least one case, this person had a very strong influence on the planning
process.

In contrast, minorities tended to be underrepresented in activities organized by the
Community Foundation, an issue its representatives acknowledged in interviews. The
GreenWays Forums are the most obvious example of the lack of minority presence at
greenways activities. The forums were dominated by whites, mostly middle class
professionals, usually there on a professional capacity. Minority participation was also
low at public meetings in Southwest, in part due to the low number of residents attending.
The issue was further exacerbated in the case of Southwest because those directly

involved with the planning were white, middle class professional.

192

6.4.2.2. Towards an explanation of low minority participation in

greenways
Key corrrrnunity and environmental actors indicated that minority participation in
environmental organizations and events in Detroit is frequently low. They believed that
to the extent that greenways represented an “environmental initiative” minorities would
be less inclined to participate. Interviewees felt that inner city residents, most often low
income minorities, are so busy struggling with everyday issues that concern for the

environment just doesn’t make their list of priorities.

“Because we have very good relations with many of the community
organizations in the area and the staff members who work there, but you
do have to understand that it 's always a struggle to involve people who

are actual residents. " (Member of an environmental organization)

“But to get Afiican Americans involved, I don ’t brow partly I think it has
to comefi'om the leadership of the city of Detroit and I don 't think that I -
you brow maybe there is a disconnect between sort of the natural
environment. It feels that that 's the thing that always gets dropped to the
side, people are hungry and they don ’t have a house and they don 't have a
job. But you brow people don ’t want to talk about planting trees. They
want to be over here getting a house or whatever. So I don 't brow, I think
that that ’s part of the challenge is just raise awareness a little bit more. ”

(Greenways advocate)

193

“The basic reason is that if you ’re worrying about survival and you 're
worrying about economics. You can ’t quite look at what we '11 call some of
the fi'inge activities... When you ’re dealing with jobs and economic issues,
when you ’re dealing with complicated family structure problems, when
you ’re dealing with those issues, you don ’t have time or energy to deal
with some of the more...long range issues of environmental sustainability,
of ecological benefits, etc. If you don ’t have transportation to get to ajob,
you can ’t really care about the greenway in your neighborhood. You ’ve
got to think about whether you ’ve got the mass transportation or whether
you 've got a car or whether you 've got a job. So I would view the concept
of environmental justice is very much a middle class concept, because you
can aflord to take the time to think about it. It ’s not that it shouldn 't be
part of these minority communities or the working class or the poor. But
their energy is expended in a lot of different ways. So that ’s why you get
very little minority representation. ” (Community planner and greenways

advocate)

These explanations echo commonly held beliefs about the environmental concern
of minorities. Indeed they are consistent with the “hierarchy of needs” theory, used in the
literature to explain differences between whites and people of color in their concern for
the environment (reviewed in Mohai and Bryant 1998). This theory predicted that whites

are more concerned about the environment than people of color. Presumably the latter,

194

l—

disproportionately poor, are focused on “survival” concerns (housing, education, crime
etc). However, various studies now show that concern for the environment is a widely
held value in US. society, and that whites and people of color share similar levels of
concern (Guber 2003; Mohai 2003). Most importantly Mohai and Bryant (1998), in a
survey of metro Detroit residents, found that Afiican Americans were just as concerned
about the environment as whites33 . Other studies have corroborated these findings in the
Detroit area (Mohai 2003; Parker and McDonough 1999). These and other national and
international studies have also found that contrary to popular belief income does not
correlate positively with environmental concern (see Dunlap and Mertig 1995; Guber
2003).

Thus lack of concern for the environment, stemming from race and class, may not
be the main barrier for participation in greenways. Lack of participation in greenways
activities may be more related to the differences in the environmental paths taken by
minorities and whites. Minorities have been historically underrepresented in mainstream
environmental organizations, concentrating instead in organizations that gave birth to the
environmental justice movement (Taylor 2002). Mohai and Bryant’s (Mohai 2003;
Mohai and Bryant 1998) research indicates that Afi'ican Americans expressed greater

concern for neighborhood environmental problems than whites. Thus to the extent that

 

’3 Their survey showed that overall African Americans and whites did not differ significantly in their
concern for the environment, even on nature preservation issues. Differences between the two groups did
emerge over local environmental problems, with African Americans expressing more concern that whites
on local issues. Some differences also existed on global environmental issues, largely due to whites
expressing more concern over ozone depletion. The authors proposed the theory of “environmental
deprivation” to explain differences at the local level; that is poor environmental conditions in which
African Americans live raise their level of concern for local issues. The authors did not analyze results for
other minorities in the sample because of their low numbers.

195

3" are probably more indicative of the way in which minorities

they exist, differences
flame environmental issues and express concern for the environment. As this research
shows, resident and minority participation in the Eastside, where greenways were clearly
linked to neighborhood safety concerns, was much higher.

On the other hand, concern does not always transform into action in the form of
participation. Attitudes and behaviors are two different things. Understanding why people
choose to whether to participate or not is much more complex than understanding their
concern for a specific issue. We commonly (and often erroneously) assume that people
participate in areas they care most about, and that they participate in decision-making
arenas. Political scientists have long debated issues of participation and non-participation
in civic life. As Gaventa’s (1980) insightfirl work suggests, participation is affected by
different dimensions of power ranging from its effect on access to resources to the setting
of agendas.

In the arena of the environment, various scholars have proposed the barriers
theory to explain the lack of environmental participation of minorities. According to this
theory limited access to resources and lower sense of personal efficacy (powerlessness)
would explain lower minority participation in environmental activities and organizations
(Mohai 1985; Mohai 1990; Parker and McDonough 1999). Presumably then, minority
participation in greenways might be affected by limited resources and feelings of
powerlessness, which correlate with two of the dimensions of power discussed by

Gaventa. Some city residents and environmentalists explained issues of participation

 

3’ Differences may also emerge depending on how researchers define and measure “environmental
concern”. Environmental concern is a multidimensional concept and as such complex to evaluate. As
researchers began to expand what they considered the “environment”, differences in overall concern began
to decrease. Nevertheless, even on issues such as wilderness preservation - the icon of mainstream
environmentalist - whites and blacks express the same level of concern (see Mohai 2003).

196

more along these lines rather than a lack of concern. Others narratives echoed the feelings
of powerlessness that often affect residents in their reflections on resident participation in

environmental activities.

“But it 's just - I don ’t think it 's you brow that they ’re not concerned, it 's

just that there is too much going on. There ’s too much else going on. "

“It is the way it turns out. And I think it still - it has to do with - it ’s kind of
like a powerless idea too. We ’ve got no control of it, you brow. We 're not

going to be making those decisions anyways. ” (Community Planner)

“Because, lets take a look, let ’s go back to that meeting of the greenways
[Green Ways Forum]; I believe that I was the only person of color
representing the community. Most of those other black people in there
were there because of their job. I am the only community person in there.
And then when you start dealing with who is actually writing these
policies, I would be interested just in dealing with the Community
Foundation. How many people of color were involved in even writing this
thing up? You brow. So, I just find that it is not necessarily their fault.
Because, right now I am finding some challenges just getting people
interested in keeping up their front yard. Not everybody, but it 's
something that has to be taught. I think one reason blacks don 't

participate in these types of discussions is because for so long and

197

traditionally they have been excluded. So, they don ’t feel that they ’re
being included - they don ’t feel comfortable in coming, or even brow
about it or what ever the reason. In my following various topics, if you

are not included in something you are going to be excluded. ” (Resident)

As the above narrative suggests agenda setting is another way (whether
intentional or not) to limit participation, particularly if greenways issues are framed
mainly by mainstream environmentalists and professionals. This could explain poor
participation in Southwest and city-wide efforts, where community concerns likely
became non-issues. To the extent that greenways activities are seen as part of a
mainstream environmental agenda, do not reach out beyond a “mainstream
environmental audience”, and lack a clear connection to local problems, minority

participation may remain low.

6.4.2.3. Mistrust and the tension between “outsiders and insiders” in

Detroit

Mistrust emerged as a complex element that affected and shaped people’s
participation in greenways planning in Detroit, particularly in Southwest. Mistrust is
often cited in the literature as a critical element affecting natural resource management.
Mistrust can exist between experts and residents, between community groups and central
government or external agencies, or even amongst community actors (see Holmes and
Scoones 2000; Rhoads et al. 1999). It is often a reflection of power, ethnic and racial

differences, the product of historical relationships between actors and institutions. It can

198

create hostility, indifference and/or opposition to proposals. Participation is often cited a
means to reduce mistrust. In the practice they are interdependent, as mistrust also affects
the way in which people and organizations participate.

In Detroit mistrust emerges as a multilayered construct arising fi'om the historical
antagonisrns between groups in their struggle to control regional development; suburbia
versus inner city: white versus black, affluent versus poor, residents versus
experts/policy-makers. In interviews with various community actors (including residents
and members/staff of organizations) it was most clearly expressed as part of a general
feeling of suspicion about urban redevelopment plans and policies. This was particularly
so if the plans were perceived as coming from agents external to the city or private
business interests. Thus at one level greenways plans were seen as part of a long standing
regional struggle to appropriate scarce resources (housing, revenue, transportation, jobs
etc), which has - in the minds of residents - consistently burdened the inner city. In this
context greenways represent clean, safe and pleasant living and recreational resources, a

scarcity indeed!

“Then I am starting to think, well, is it me? Are they going to let
neighborhood people participate in a greenway? Because there are still
some very, very stereotypical assumptions that whites have about black
people. Especially about Detroit... is there going to be a fence around it
so that community people don ’t have access to it? It is kind of like over in
- a blatant example, would be the border between Detroit and Grosse

Point where they actually built a wall! "

199

“And it will add people being skeptical, people being watchful. People you
brow wanting to brow again, why is this taking place and you brow
maybe being nervous about what is actually - you brow is there a plan to —
as so many people say, to start incorporating Detroit, so that its not such a
segregated city. It’s not 85% African American and 10% Latino, or 5%
Latino, whatever the latest figures are. I mean is there a plan to move us
out and move them in? I mean these are real issues. ” (Resident and

community organization staff of Southwest)

Key actors often talked about these sentiments as deeply embedded in Detroit’s
culture, the result of many years of racism and ineffective development policies. These
narratives suggest that participation in greenways needs to be understood within the
broader context in which Detroit’s development policy is made. If people have
historically been excluded and are suspicious, then barriers to participation are going to

be much harder to break down.

“But it 's keen and essential that their input is there from the get go,
because they feel that things have gone down without their input and they

are suspicious. ”

“...And I hate to say it, but as an African American in the city, and I kind

of have been able to watch people. When people feel like they might be

200

victimized or something to be pushed upon they get upset and they push

back... "

Bockrneyer’s (2000) study of community participation in the Detroit E235
provides a deeper understanding of the sentiments expressed by these key actors. Her
work indicated that distrust, understood as a lack of trust and the expectation of dishonest
and irregular behavior, was deeply imbedded in Detroit’s political culture”. Some
narratives clearly echoed this sentiment of distrust, in the sense of an expectation of
dishonest behavior, whether because they felt it personally or encountered them in the
community. Others talked more about the absence of trust that stems from a belief that a
process is not transparent and/or that like many other ideas and plans, it will not
materialize into something that benefits the community. Various community actors noted
that in Detroit people usually become suspicious when they feel information is being
withheld from them, no doubt a response to the lack of transparency that has
characterized development in the region. In these narratives, as in Bockrneyer’s work,
Detroiters are portrayed as feisty and vigilant participants of everyday life.

The manner in which people participate can however vary greatly. Mistrust may
initially breed indifference accompanied by a lack of participation, yet later transform
into opposition. In the Eastside for example, key actors in the planning process were
cognizant of the importance of these community sentiments to the project. As a result

they attempted to develop a planning strategy that would be appropriate for their

 

3’ Empowerment Zone (El)

36 in the case of the Detroit £2, a mandate for participation was not enough to decrease distrust between community
organizations and the public and private sector. However it did strengthen collaboration and trust among community
groups (horizontal trust), as they banded to fight city hall and the private sector for more allocation of resources to
neighborhoods.

201

community. For example, faced with resident indifference, they adapted the meeting
format to one in which residents expressed their concerns more willingly. Overall those
experienced in working with communities in the city acknowledged the importance of

transparency and partnership to their work.

“ We are not the people who come marching in and tell you what 's good
for your neighborhood. That 's not what we do. We wait until you invite us
in. For several reasons, one, the opposite just does not play in Detroit.
You ’re not going to do that with Detroiters. It does not work. " (Member

of an enviromnental organization)

As some of the narratives illustrate there is clear racial component in the
construction of mistrust (distrust) as it relates to greenways plans. The racial undertones
of mistrust result in part from overt acts of intentional discrimination: the construction of
a wall, the legally sanctioned segregation of the past. Most of the time, however,
discrimination is manifested through more subtle, discreet ways: in our language, social
structures and in our everyday actions. The concept of white privilege, as applied by
Pulido (2000) to the study of environmental justice in urban development in southern
California, is particularly relevant to understanding mistrust in the Detroit region. Pulido
defines white privilege as “the privileges and benefits that accrue to white people by
virtue of their whiteness” differentiating it from overt and institutional racism. She
identifies white privilege as a less conscious but hegemonic form of racism affecting

urban development. In Detroit, overt and intentional discrimination in the region’s

202

suburbanization were reinforced by “white flight” (Sugrue 1996). White flight in Detroit
thus represents a form of white privilege in which residents could by virtue of their
whiteness benefit from opportunities not available to African Americans.

Mistrust is therefore partly driven by the existence of a defacto “suburban
privileged class”. For minority residents their level of trust will likely depend on the
answer to the question: Do these greenways plans reinforce existing privileges? Thus the
issue is not whether people view greenways as unnecessary or that they do not value
them. But rather, given the context in which these plans occur, they may be perceived as

part of an on-going development process which excludes them to the benefit of others.

“Which is a travesty. It ’s the one thing that plagues the Friends of Detroit
River with the greenway movement, is that where are minorities sitting?

Again, a lot of the - there ’s distrust, people are busy with their time. ”

There is also a racial undertone to the mistrust existing between experts/policy
makers and community residents, as professionals involved with greenways tend to be
middle class whites. To the extent that they are the visible face of the project, mistrust is
likely to inhibit or affect participation as they may be seen as “outsiders”. In this sense,
mistrust is less of an issue in the Eastside where the project was clearly part of the agenda
of community groups, with consultants playing an auxiliary role. But even in the Eastside
race issues around the perceived legitimacy of possible consultants were debated, albeit

in an indirect and subtle manner.

203

In Southwest however, there was greater potential for mistrust to emerge in the
planning process. The distinction between consultants and project organizers (city
professionals) is less obvious to a project outsider; neither has roots in the community,
and all are white landscape architects. Indeed one interviewee referred to the project
organizers as “the developers”, before realizing the city was behind the project. He had
assumed that since no recognizable community actors promoted the project, they were all
private developers. To the local govemment’s credit, having the city’s support gave the
project more legitimacy in the interviewee’s opinion. However the oversight illustrates
the degree to which project organizers were ineffective communicators.

As some interviewees suggested, feelings of mistrust can be exacerbated when
they are ignored by “community developers” (whether the private, public or non-profit
sector), particularly the racial nature of mistrust. Even whites working in community
development tend to overlook these issues, intentionally or not. However as one

interviewee insightfully commented that does not make them go away.

“These are real issues that the people have. And so when the heads of
these development corporations- you know even though they have good
hearts and they have the best interest- these might be some issues that they
have to deal with. Now some people like to turn a blind ear and act like
these issues don ’t exist or because that isn ’t their intention, their intention
isn ’t anything negative-they ignore it, because they don ’t feel that that

pertains to them. However, that doesn ’t take away the feeling that the

204

community has and that doesn ’t take away the discussion that is taking

place-in the background, in the community, absolutely.”

In this sense, it is interesting to note that whites tended to bring up race issues
less when they talked about how trust affected greenways planning. Those whites that
mentioned race were often community activists and long-time residents of the city,
presumably with stronger connections to the minority communities in which they live and

work.

6.4.2.4. Lack of culturally appropriate planning and information
sharing reinforce mistrust and exclude residents in Southwest

The planning scenario in Southwest specifically illustrates how ethnic/cultural
differences coupled with a technical approach create barriers to participation. In
Southwest broader participation from Hispanic residents was greatly hindered by the lack
of cultural sensitivity on the part of organizers, in addition to their overly technical focus.
Key community actors in Southwest felt that information sharing, fi'om meeting notices
to actual plans, was poor. They stressed the fact that this often raises suspicions and
feelings of mistrust among resident, with potentially negative consequences to the
project-

Rather than budget or time constraints, the issue in Southwest seemed to be
largely related to the lack of community organizing expertise and low priority assigned to
public participation. First of all organizers did not act through community gatekeepers -

at least not visibly enough - nor create an atmosphere at the public meetings were local

205

residents might feel comfortable. For example, the meeting was full of professionals
dressed in business attire which contrasted starkly with the informality of people at the
recreation center where the first meeting was held. Secondly, they did not use bilingual
material to notify of the meeting or inform about the project during the meeting. In fact
they did not use Spanish at all during the meeting, choosing to act through the consultants
instead of a more locally visible representative. And lastly the presentations tended to be
technical in nature; as one resident who supported the idea suggested “people don’t read
maps, architects read maps.” 37
These are critical elements in a community characterized by a large Hispanic
population, and likely inhibited residents fiorn participating. This is in spite of the fact
that at least one meeting was held at a time when the recreation center had a lot of
activity, and presumably a potential captive audience. As one interviewee indicated, even
if people mingling at the center were curious enough to find out what was going on, they
most likely thought ”Oh, they’re Americans,“8 meaning it was something not meant for
them. The language issue is critical on two levels of communication. First, many
Hispanic residents in Southwest are newer migrants who might not have sufficient
command of the English language. In this case they are likely to be unaware of a meeting
notified in English, or if they know about it be discouraged fiom attending. But most
importantly and as one resident indicated, the critical issue is not whether people
attending were fluent or not in English but rather the message conveyed by project
organizers. The use of Spanish would indicate that project organizers understand,

acknowledge and value the ethnicity of the community. Language communicates at two

 

’7 Original in Spanish: “La gente no lee pianos, los arquitectos leen mapas!”
’8 Original in Spanish: “Ah, son Americanos”

206

levels; it serves the purpose of understanding each other in dialogue and acts as a symbol

conveying respect for the community.

“But at least one person translating, to have at least one person at the
door telling people, a flyer saying: this is going to happen. People don ’t
go in and say: ‘they ’re Americans ’. You know what I mean ?...it [aflects
participation] a lot. I think That makes you a part of something. You
invite them to a soccer game and they all go. Why? Because everyone

there speaks Spanish. ”39 (Resident)

One Southwest resident, a South American immigrant, suggested that the lack of
“pertenencia”, referring to a person’s identification with and feelings of belonging to a
certain place, of some Hispanic residents in Southwest contributes to low resident
participation in general. In her experience, many newcomers long for a return to their

homeland for many years before they really accept their new home as permanent.

“Ifl am leaving, why worry about the garden if I am leaving? What do I
care if the garbage doesn 't get picked up in 10 days if I am leaving... It ’s
the: ‘I am leaving, I am not fi'om here, I am Mexican, I am not fiom here, I
am Puerto Rican, I am not from here, I am Colombian, I am not fi'om

here, I am Chilean, I am not fi-om here... ’ of the immigrant that has a hard

 

’9 Original in Spanish: “Pero por lo menos que alguien hubiera traducido, una sola personita, que hubiera
estado en la puerta contando, un panfletito, diciendo: esto va a pasar. La gente no va y dice: son
americanos. gMe entiendes?.. .[afecta] Muchisimo. Pienso yo. Eso hace parte. Ustedes los invita a un
partido de fr’rtbol y and estén todos. LPor que? Porque todos hablan espaflol.”

207

time. And it is hard. We are diflferent, and will be drfi'erent. Others are
third generation, and they belong here then. But they maintain that same
cultural mindfiame - not the: ‘I am leaving ' - but the: ‘I don ’t care
because it doesn ’t belong to me, ' it 's that feeling of belonging. That ’s my
favorite word: belonging. If you don 't take ownership of your things you
will never take care of them, you don ’t make them a part of your life. Then
the environment goes to hell, and all cultural, economic and community

activity that you do goes to hell. ”‘0

At least for some residents this may be a factor affecting their investment in and
commitment to “community” activities, particularly if they feel an issue does not pertain
to them or their near future. This coupled with feelings of powerlessness that stem from
everyday life experiences in the inner city likely reinforced barriers to participation in
what may have been perceived as an “official” event. As the interviewee explained low
participation is partly due the poor response residents typically experience when they do

voice concerns.

“ Very low, I feel like it 's [civic participation of Hispanics] very low...but

there is also another thing: and that is that they [authorities] don ’t act

 

‘0 Original in Spanish: “... Si yo me voy. Para qué voyatenerunjardin si yo me voy. A mi que me imports
silabasurasequeda lOdiassiyomevoy. Eseeselqueyomevoy,yonosoydeaquLyosoymejicano,yo
no soy de aqui, yo soy puertorriquefio, yo no soy de aqui, yo soy colombiano, yo no soy de aqui, yo soy
chileno, yo no soy de aqui. . .del emigrante que le cuesta. Y cuesta. Somos diferentes, y vamos a ser
diferente.... Hay otros que son tercera generacién ya, entonces ellos ya son de aca. Pero siguen con la
misma mentalidad cultural de que no es que me vaya a ir, si no que es que no me imports porque no lo
siento propio. Ese es el problema, ya relacionado con la comunidad, es dc pertenencia. Entonces, esa es mi
palabra favorita: pertenencia, si no te haces duer'io de tus cosas, nunca 1as cuidas, si no te haces dueilo de
tuscosas,nolashacespartedetuvida. Entoncessevaaltarroelmedioambiente,sevaaltarrotoda
actividad cultural, econémica, comunitaria que hagas. . .”

208

when they should. When they should act, when the government should act
there is a time lapse, and then bureaucracy surfaces and it ’s like
everywhere in the world. Just because this is the world power doesn 't
mean things are difihrent, no...so I call the police, the police that is right
there across the street but they are drinking something, or they are having
lunch, the police doesn 't act. 0h, he ’s gone [the criminal], the guy, now

we don ’t know who he is, nobody, no they don ’t act.”“

The narratives underline the importance of appropriate venues, bilingual material
and the presence of community leaders in order to overcome barriers to resident
participation in Southwest. Yet, none of these elements relating to the social context of
the project were taken into consideration by project organizers when they developed
participation strategies. On the surface this may seem merely an oversight, attributed to a
lack of expertise and/or time constraints. Certainly these factors played into the way in
which organizers went about their business. However, in the practice the development of
an ineffective participation strategy becomes an exercise in power (whether intentional or
not). In the end decisions are made with little or no community input, and community
members lose an opportunity to shape planning efforts for their neighborhood. As one

resident commented when asked about the implications of poor participation for the

project:

 

“ Original in Spanish: “May baja, presiento que es muy baja [participation civica] ...pero también hay otra
razérr: es que no se actria en el momenta preciso. Cuando ya se tiene que actuar, las autoridades tienen
que actuar, cuando ya e1 gobierno tiene que actuar, ya hay una demora, entonces ya la burocracia aparece
y es como en todos los paises del mundo. No porque éste sea la potencia mundial es distinto, no... Entonces
yo llama a la policia, la policia que estd alfi'ente pero esta tomando tinto, a esta' almorzando, la policia no
actua. Ah, se volo', el tipo, ya no sabernos quie'n es, nadie, no, no actriarr. ”

209

“I liked the project a lot from my architect 's perspective, but not from my
community perspective. With my architect ’s eye, yes, wow, very nice, a
summer ’s dream, well for me it may seem a utopia. Hopefully it won ’t be.
But about possible consequences, there ’s another thing and that ’s power.
They are going to go ahead whether people like it or not, whether people
participate or not. Consequences? We '11 see what we do with them later.
For now they say: OK. You didn 't voice an opinion? We gave you a

chance, fine, then we ’11 do it our way. You didn ’t like it? ”‘2

6.4.2.5. Representativity of community organizations

Community approaches assume that local level organizations, usually voluntary
and non-profit organizations, are better representatives of areas residents than external
entities. While true in many cases, issues of representativity can also be raised for
community organizations. In Detroit two issues relating to representation emerged during
the greenways planning process 1) the degree to which a community driven process
included smaller neighborhood organizations 2) the ethnicity/race of the community

development sector’s leadership. The former is illustrated by the dynamics of community

 

’2 Original in Spanish: “Me gusto macho elproyecto, me gusté macho la presentacio'n, con mi ojo de
arquitecto, no con mi ojo de, comunitaria. Con mi ojo de arquitecto, sr', uaaau, muy lindo, an suer'r'o de
verano, bueno, para mt’puede ser una utopia, ojald no sea. Pero, lo de las consecuencias, hay otra cosa y
es el poder. Ellos lo van a hacer, gristele o no le guste a la gente, participe o no participe la gente.
gConsecuencias? Ah, después veremos qué hacemos con las consecuencias. Por ahora ellos dicerr: bueno,
gno opinaron? Se les dio Ia oportunidad, bien, entonces lo hacemos a nuestra manera. gNo les gusto? ”

210

oriented planning in the Eastside, the latter by concerns voiced by different actors
throughout the city.

In the Eastside, the trajectory and commitment of DECC to community
development is undisputed. However in order to survive, and be effective at what they
do, organizations like DECC have had to “professionalize” and become politically savvy.
They’ve built alliances, generated networks, become familiar with the firnding agencies
etc. In that process many small organizations (usually neighborhood, resident based-
organizations) tend to become marginalized. To varying degrees these smaller
organizations lack the resources (time, money, knowledge) which provide entry to the
political spheres that shape and determine the community development world. While
some make-up for it by networking with the larger community organizations, others
simply become more marginal to the process.

Some interviewees cautioned that the inability to reach out to smaller
neighborhood organizations can raise questions about the inclusiveness of the process,

even when led by an organization like DECC.

“DECC is [community based], but I still think that a lot of the smaller fish
slip through the net... But they 're [DE CC] really you brow they brow the
process, they understand the process and they move them forward. A lot of
the smaller groups that fall through the cracks, they don 't really
understand, they just brow that they ’re angry. You brow or something is
not right. And they ’ve made phone calls and sometimes their concerns are

addressed and sometimes they ’re not. But DE CC is more representative of

211

just a well-oiled machine, you know these smaller groups come together
and they form a powerful connection. A lot of the smaller groups don 't
even brow about DECC, you brow...

There 's a lot activism going on, but I think they haven 't been able to plug
into the process to be able to you brow gain anything from organizing...1
think a lot of times, along that greenway, there are probably organizations
that are being left out of the loop. I really...that 's my biggest fear... I ’m
just kind of cautious when I ’m dealing with it because I don ’t know where
the community support is going to come from. The reason being... When
people feel like they might be victimized or something to be pushed upon
they get upset and they push back... You know is this to bring

“suburbanites " into our city? " (Community planner commenting on the

process in its early stages)

The issue, raised by non-DECC Eastside actors, corroborates similar concerns
raised by Bockrneyer’s (Bockmeyer 2000) research into participation in Detroit’s EZ
designation. My observation of planning events also suggests that smaller groups,
particularly non-DECC members, participated less actively throughout the planning
process. One reason for this relates to the timing of the planning meeting during work
hours, no doubt a by-product of the “professionalization” of community development.

Smaller groups are important because they are often directly linked to residents,
such as the case of block clubs. Thus they constitute a key vehicle of expression for

resident voices. Representation of their interests will depend on the degree to which

212

DECC organizations retain their connections to these smaller groups, and their
attendance, as individual residents, to the general public meetings. In the arena of natural
resource management researchers increasingly stress that intracommunity differences -
arising fi'om class, race and gender - and their ensuing power dimensions affect
participation. In some cases, groups are empowered at the expense of others. In others
legitimate claims can be overlooked when smaller groups are not represented in the
process. Likewise, in urban environmental planning in Detroit, differences stemming
from access to political power circles can have similar effects on the inclusiveness of a
process.

In Southwest and the Eastside, issues around the comparatively low number of
minorities in staff and leadership positions of community organizations emerged as
important for greenways planning. The overrepresentation of whites in the staff and
leadership positions of community development organizations has been documented in
the urban studies literature (reviewed in Shaw and Spence 2004). In Southwest, the issue
is critical because organizers relied largely on a couple of community organizations
(staffed predominantly if not exclusively by whites) as one way to gauge the
“community”. In the Eastside, as I pointed out previously, whites predominated at some
point in the planning among the staff of the organizations making decisions. Few people
talked candidly and openly about these issues. However upon probing most interviewees
indicated that the low minority representation was a problem. In some cases interviewees

were more forthcoming about the topic, shedding light on the issue through insightfirl and

complex perspectives.

213

“If you look on the Eastside, a lot of people that are doing the
development stuflI a lot of the people that are getting - you brow about
doing the housing issues even, you brow they ’re mostly Caucasian. And
then of course, there are issues that arise out of that. People want to brow
why. People want to brow why are you here? What makes you care about
our community, if you 're not from here? " (Hispanic staff of community

organization and Detroit resident)

and you do have to have community meetings, and you have to have a
number of dijferent places that you bring people in and the ideas will
percolate up...I don 't believe, maybe because I 'm a white woman
representing a black community that you always have to be exactly a
representative class of color. I do agree unquestionably, that if you don ’t
have people that have had some of the representative experiences that
people have you do miss things... If you want to brow what I care about is
I have a passion for community. That ’s just what I care about. So you are
absolutely correct. You do have to have people with representative
experiences and those are often related to ones color and ones class. In
terms of things changing, I do believe they do percolate up as ideas do

come through. ” (Community development advocate and Detroit resident)

“You brow that ’s basically what we feel, it ’s fighting against - Detroit is

what, 75% to 80% black. And a lot of the people in the decision making

214

aren 't from Detroit or aren ’t really attached to Detroit. The reason I
became a planner is because Detroit was crumbling. I felt like I should be
doing something about it. So a lot of that stufif you know people feel in
general that they should help and that ’s why I ’m not really troubled by
you brow that there are a bunch of white people in the meeting and there 's
a few black people. Because I feel like their hearts are in the right place.
It 's just the community doesn ’t necessarily feel like their hearts are in the
right place, or that they have a real connection to the city...A lot of them
[non-profit community development organizations] are led by white
people...But I think a lot of that is starting to change as groups are
starting to get into, learn more about development. You brow getting
together, getting tax credit partners, for profits, building up. It ’s slowly
but surely changing. So I think we will see more representatives from the
black community... [The community might think] you brow, ‘What 's going
on? Who are these people? Why are you making these decisions for my
community? ’ I think they would be truly bothered by it. But like I said, it
doesn ’t bother me as much because I brow these people are trying to
make the best decisions they can. And in absentia of any other groups
stepping up and taking the matter...I believe they have real concern for
the city. And even though I was born and raised here and live here now,
everything I did in college was basically to come back here and to do this
thing. I don ’t begrudge anybody you brow coming from some place else

and deciding this is where I want to do my work This is where I want to

215

make a diference. Because we can use all the help we can get. ” (African

American community planner and resident)

In Southwest, some community actors felt that ethnically and racially based
tensions between development organizations and residents were not as great as those in
other parts of the city, perhaps due to a greater heterogeneity of the community“3 .
Nevertheless, they and other community actors in Southwest still felt that low minority
presence affected the ability of community development organizations to be effective.
They mentioned language and culture differences as two critical problems arising fi'om

low Hispanics representation among community development advocates in Southwest.

“The people I met were whites also. They are - what happens is that...they
understand and they try, but the communication is so difl'erent, I mean it
gets lost. There is no communication, that 's the problem. No, they don ’t
speak [Spanish]. F or sure they don ’t speak it. Most of them don 't speak it,
so...it ’s very difi‘icult if one person is trying to do all the work and you
can ’t communicate with these others, with the community. You try, you do
.44

one thing, you do another. And the community is hard to reach too... ’

(Resident)

 

’3 Southwest Detroit is home to the city’s Mexican town and Latino community. Some areas of Southwest
are predominantly Hispanic/Latino. However there are important numbers of African American, whites and
residents of other ethnicities/backgrounds in the broader area.

‘4 Original in Spanish: “La gente que ya canacr' son también anglosajones. Son, lo que pasa can ellos es
que... ellos entienden y tratan, pero es may diferente la comanicacian, a sea, se pierde, no hay
camanicacién, ese es el problema. No, no hablan [espariol]. Con seguridad no hablan. La mayort'a no
hablan, entonces... Y es may dificil si es una persona que esta' hacienda todo el trabajo y no paedes
comunicarte can estas otras, con la comunidad. Se trata, se hace urra cosa, se hace la otra. Y la comunidad
también es reacia... " (Resident)

216

The complexity underlying these issues is great indeed, begging the question of
whether in order to represent a group, one must share core life experiences. These
narratives from the community illustrate that regardless of intentions, the race and
ethnicity of development advocates involved in greenways can be a source of community
tension for both externally driven and community based planning. In this case, the
tension arises through the racial differences between some community development staff
and leaders, and the communities they serve. This is in spite of the fact that at least in
some cases community development advocates are themselves residents who have chosen
to stay and live in the city. However, as some interviewees indicated minority residents
may still view these advocates as outsiders, with the ensuing feelings of mistrust and
suspicion. The lack of Afiican American representation has been used in the past in
Detroit to discredit and generate mistrust of multicultural development organizations (in
which whites predominate) opposing city development policies (Shaw and Spence 2004).
Thus racial representation is a particularly sensitive and important issue among Afiican
American communities, and should not be overlooked even within a community planning
scenario. In the case of Southwest, low ethnic and racial representativity of community
organizations used to gauge community sentiments and communicate to the public

becomes even more problematic as the process is externally driven.

217

6.5. Summary and conclusions

The difficulties of developing locally based environmental planning strategies
begin with the way in which program goals and requirements are framed. The
Community Foundation’s GreenWays program struggled to create a grant fiamework that
facilitated broader interest and participation fi‘om Detroit organizations. Its goal of
creating change at the landscape level was difficult to implement at the scale in which
Detroit’s local organizations tend to work. These difficulties were exacerbated by the fact
that program leaders were ineffective at identifying and reaching out to community
organizations, and thus in promoting the collaboration that was needed for landscape
level proposals.

At the local level, planning in the Eastside was much more participatory than in
Southwest. Organizers in both cases tended to view participation as instrumental rather
than transforrnative. In Southwest, organizers were largely ineffective at developing a
“public consultation” strategy. In the end there was little feedback from or information
exchange with the community, a dynamic that has become typical for public agencies. In
the Eastside however, the process presented elements of a community-based strategy.
The generation of the proposal and the nature of the actors making the decisions were all
“community-based”. Indeed viewed fiom this perspective, greenways planning could
represent an empowering process for some Eastside organizations. Given the limitations
of the study in terms of scope and time, it is difficult to evaluate whether the process
empowered a broader range of community actors. Viewed fiom the perspective of
resident participation however, the process was more akin to consultation. The Eastside

case illustrates that in the practice participation approaches can be hybrids presenting

218

different layers of “community” participation. While participation was not equally
effective at all levels, the model of “multi-layered participation” illustrated by the
Eastside has the potential to provide for more participatory planning.

This study illustrates the importance of donor values to shaping local level
actions. The donor organization’s focus on outcomes in the form of construction
documents versus process, contributed to a more technically oriented planning. Other
factors also contributed to shaping a particular approach to planning. In the end the
interplay of external and internal forces shaped the views and actions of key actors,
resulting in varying degrees of technical predominance in the planning processes. Subtle
and explicit messages coming from the donor organization, the strong presence of
professionals, the values of project leaders and the use of a public meeting format all
contributed to a specific approach to planning. The predominance of a technical approach
to planning was notorious in Southwest and more subtle in the Eastside. To the extent
that it was present, a technical focus prevented broader and quality participation.

Minority participation throughout the development of greenways plans in Detroit
was low, particularly for local planning in Southwest and in city-wide events sponsored
by the CF. Low minority participation in greenways seems to be part of the historical
trend in the traditional environmental movement and in the environmental planning
professions. Rather than merely issues of representation, this study highlights the
importance of feelings of powerlessness, issue flaming and the exclusion fi'om decision-
making arenas to minority participation in greenways and the environmental movement

in general. Community oriented strategies were clearly more effective at overcoming

219

 

poor minority participation, particularly when greenways were contextualized within a
broader community development strategy.

In Detroit, mistrust was a prominent theme in discussions about participation in
greenways. Mistrust, as constructed by key community actors, reflected historical
antagonisms between groups in their struggle to control regional development; suburbia
versus inner city; white versus black; affluent versus poor; residents versus
experts/policy-makers. The racial nature of mistrust was an especially prominent element
in the concept’s construction. To the degree that greenways are viewed as externally
driven and promoted by white environmentalists and/or professionals, residents may
regard them with suspicion. Mistrust was further exacerbated by issues of minority
representation among community development advocates in Detroit.

Greenways plans will likely be perceived as one more manifestation of a regional
struggle for scarce resources, with its accompanying racial dimensions. Within this
context race, ethnicity and their ensuing power dimensions are critical elements that can
shape participation. In other words, advocates should not forget that greenways plans
occur within a particular community (re)development context. This study illustrates the
centrality of this context to the development of effective and participatory greenways
planning. In Detroit, as in many inner cities of the U.S., greenways plans cannot be
viewed as separate or distinct fi'om the racial and ethnic tensions that exist in the region.
If they are to contribute to redevelopment that is community-centered, greenways plans

must address issues of race.

220

CHAPTER 7

Conclusions

221

“'71,:—

 

The generation of locally relevant interpretations is critical to conservation
programs developed and driven by actors that are external to the community. The on-
going paradigm shift to more participatory approaches to conservation would suggest that
locally relevant interpretations have become more incorporated into programs. However,
this dissertation suggests that this may not necessarily be the case, even when
participation is a valued element within a program. Furthermore, the case illustrates that
the difficulties of incorporating local visions into conservation programs also occur in
developed nations with strong democratic governance and traditions.

Greenways are predominantly a developed world phenomena, although they are
increasing in importance throughout the world. This dissertation contributes to our
understanding of the social dynamics of implementing greenways. In the case of
greenways in Detroit, some greenways interpretations ignore and to some extent exclude
the concerns of key groups and actors in the city. While not necessarily mutually
exclusive, the two main greenways interpretations outlined in this research provide a
specific example of how this occurs. Figure 6 shows and highlights the differences
between these two perspectives. External or suburban views of greenways tended to
highlight it as change, understood as external investments, dramatic changes to the
landscape and making the city attractive to outsiders. On the other hand community
perspectives constructed greenways as means to contribute to more equitable
redevelopment, more specifically equitable access to nature, safety and a set of
opportunities for city residents. To the extent that external views were perceived as
dominant by some actors, they raised questions about the potential for greenways to serve

the city’s population. In this sense, where local input and leadership were strong the

222

 

 

Greenways interpretations in
Detroit

Suburban .....uuuuuu.....u Community

Are these green ways for me?

Green = change Green = equity
landscape Access to nature
attractive safe
external investment opportunities

[figure 6. Greenways interpretations in Detroit.

greenways concept differed from that of external agents; it was better adapted and
molded to the local reality.

One important yet overlooked aspect is that greenways plans in Detroit must
account for and address issues of race. The history of greenways and the way it was
promoted reinforced the notion of greenways as suburban, white middle-class construct.
Today many of its promoters — more often than not white middle-class suburbanites -
tend to overlook the importance of this for greenways development in the city.
Greenways thus perceived may alienate residents and reinforce barriers to participation.
This can create a vicious cycle, as less participation can on the one hand raise doubts

about the validity and/or representativity of a program, and on the other, leave out

223

precisely those voices which can make a difference in the way the concept is developed
in the city.

As this case shows, effective community participation and leadership were critical
to the development of more inclusive and locally relevant greenways vision. Project
leadership for example, was critical to establishing more effective mechanisms for
community participation, particularly in the presence of constraints. In addition because
of their knowledge and experience, community leaders were more effective at creating a
greenways vision that would resonate with the values and issues of their community.
While this may seem obvious to social scientists working in the intersection of
development and conservation, key actors, particularly professional ones, involved with
greenways ignored or simply overlooked the importance of having the community shape
plans and ideas gar_lv_gg in the process.

If greenways are to serve a broader population, different views must be included
early on in the process of formulating plans and ideas. In addition, it is equally important
to have locally relevant perspectives bear early on in the formulation and creation of the
overall program fi'amework, as well as in the implementation of local greenways projects.
This is particularly so given the importance of donor values to shaping local level actions.

Overall the research illustrates the centrality of the community (re)development

context to generating effective and participatory greenways.

224

APPENDICES

225

Appendix A. Interview request letters

Date, 2002

Dear Ms. XXX,

I am a Ph.D. student at the Department of Resource Development, Michigan State
University engaged in a study on greenways planning in Detroit. The objectives of the
study are to understand how community groups define and plan greenways in Detroit.

You have been identified as an important player in greenways planning activities in
Detroit. [Alternatively, when appropriate the latter was replaced with: XX from Y
organization suggested I contact you for information about greenways efforts in XX.] I
would like to request an interview to ask you some questions about current and past
greenways planning efforts in Detroit. Since the study is concerned with the views and
activities of those involved with greenways planning, I will not be asking any personal
questions or requesting private or sensitive information. Your input and cooperation
would be greatly appreciated.

The interview would last approximately an hour to an hour and half. I would like to tape
record the interview because it both insures the accuracy of the notes and allows me to
concentrate on the substance of the conversation. I value your privacy and will consider
your responses confidential to the maximum extent allowable by law.

Your participation is entirely voluntary, and you may feel flee to withdraw fiom the
interview, to request that the interview not be taped, to skip any items or request that the
recorder be turned off any time during the interview.

I will be contacting you in the following days to answer any questions about our study
that you may have and to request your cooperation. Please feel free to contact me at
(517)-882-3485 or salazarm@pilot.msu.edu should you have any questions. If you have
questions or concerns regarding your rights as a research participant, please feel flee to
contact Dr. Ashir Kumar, Chair of the University Committee on Research Involving
Human Subjects at 517-355-2180.

Again your time and input would be greatly appreciated,
Maite Salazar
Graduate Research Assistant

Department of Resource Development
Michigan State University

226

Dear Mr. XXX,

1 am a Ph.D. student at the Department of Resource Development, Michigan State
University engaged in a study of urban conservation efforts in the city of Detroit. The
objectives of this study are to understand how community groups articulate their needs
for urban conservation and how conflicting views of land and resource use are reconciled.

Your organization has been identified as an important player in community-based
conservation efforts in Detroit. 1 would like to request an interview to ask you some
questions about your organization’s involvement with urban conservation and how it is
linked to others concerned with conservation in the area. Your input and cooperation
would be greatly appreciated.

The interview would last approximately an hour to an hour and half. I would like to tape
record the interview because it both insures the accuracy of the notes and allows me to
concentrate on the substance of the conversation. I value your privacy and will consider
your responses confidential to the maximum extent allowable by law.

Your participation is entirely voluntary, and you may feel free to withdraw fiom the
interview, to request that the interview not be taped, to skip any items or request that the
recorder be turned off any time during the interview.

I will be contacting you in the following days to answer any questions about the study
that you may have and to request your cooperation. Please feel flee to contact me at
(517)-882-3485 or salazarm@pilot.msu.edu should you have any questions. If you have
questions or concerns regarding your rights as a research participant, please feel free to
contact Dr. Ashir Kumar, Chair of the University Committee on Research Involving
Human Subjects at 517-355-2180.

Again your time and input would be greatly appreciated,
Maite Salazar
Graduate Research Assistant

Department of Resource Development
Michigan State University

227

Appendix B. Sample consent form

Consent Form

You are being asked to participate in a study carried out by Maite Salazar from
the Department of Resource Development, Michigan State University on the social role
of greenways in the Greater Detroit area. The objectives of this study are to understand
how community groups define, plan and implement greenways.

I am interested in asking you some questions about your organization’s
involvement with greenways and how it is linked to others concerned with greenways in
the area. Since the study is concerned with the views and activities of those involved with
greenways planning, I will not be asking any personal questions or requesting private or
sensitive information. Your input and cooperation would be greatly appreciated.

The interview will last approximately an hour. I would like to tape record the
interview because it both insures the accuracy of the notes and allows the investigator to
concentrate on the substance of the conversation. All tapes will be transcribed, the
contents reviewed and analyzed. Tapes will be destroyed after the research is completed.
I value your privacy and will consider your responses confidential to the maximrnn extent
allowable by law.

Your participation is entirely voluntary, and you may feel flee to withdraw from
the interview, to request that the interview not be taped, to skip any items or request that
the recorder be turned off any time during the interview.

Should you have any questions about this study and/or interview please feel free
to contact Maite Salazar at (517)-882-3485 or salazarm@pilot.msu.edu. If you have
questions or concerns regarding your rights as a research participant, please feel free to
contact Dr. Ashir Kumar from the university’s human subjects office at 517-355-2180.

Again your time and input are greatly appreciated.

Your signature indicates your agreement to participate in this study

 

 

Signature Date

Please initial below to indicate permission to tape record the interview

 

Initials

 

228

.1.-‘11

University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) approval for
this project expires on Oct. 22, 2002

229

Appendix C. Disclosure of research purpose

Overview of Research

Maite Salazar and John Kerr
Department of Resource Development
Michigan State University
517-882-3485 salazarm@msu.edu

The purpose of this research is to study community-based, collaborative
conservation strategies. Greenways planning is a specific example of community-based
conservation in urban areas. The main focus of the research is to understand issues of
equity that arise in the planning of greenways in Detroit. In this sense the research seeks
to understand:

a) Who are the relevant community actors involved in greenways planning?

b) How is the definition and purpose of greenways shaped by the different participants
throughout the planning process?

c) How do existing inequalities affect greenways planning?

We are also interested in understanding how community development and
conservation goals are addressed and reconciled in the planning of greenways. This is a
key concern and challenge in making conservation efforts more effective.

An important goal of the research is the generation of information that is useful to
those involved in greenways, and to others involved in conservation efforts in Detroit and
elsewhere. Hence the research design allows for flexibility, to accommodate community
input. Should you have any comments and questions, please feel flee to contact Maite
Salazar at 517-882-3485 or salazarm@msu.edu.

Thank-you for your time and consideration.

230

Copy of email message sent to planning meeting participants:

As you are all aware I have been attending the Conner Creek Greenway planning
meetings as part of my Ph.D. dissertation research. I would like to thank all of you for
letting me sit-in on these meetings. My intent in writing this email is to ensure that you
are fully informed and feel comfortable with my role.

The main purpose of my attendance is to observe and document the planning process. I
am particularly interested in understanding how greenways are defined and shaped by the
different participants in the planning process. I also wish to learn about the challenges
that community groups encounter as they plan for greenways.

My research will also look at greenways and conservation initiatives going on in other
parts of the city. I have been interviewing people from various groups, and hope to attend
other community meetings. I expect to finish my data collection in early fall.

Please feel free to let Libby or me know if you have any questions and concerns about the
research.

I look forward to seeing all of you at the next greenways meeting.
Thanks!

Maite

PS I will bring a brief summary of my research objectives to the next
meeting for those of you who have not seen it.

 

Maite Salazar

Ph.D. student

Department of Resource Development
Michigan State University

3100-1A Trapper's Cove Trail
Lansing, Michigan
48910. USA

email: salazarm@msu.edu
phone: (517) 882-3485"

231

BIBLIOGRAPHY

. Agrawal, A., and C. C. Gibson. 1999. "Enchantment and Disenchantment: The Role
of Community in Natural Resource Conservation.” World Development 24:629-649.

. Ahern, J. 1995. "Greenways as a planning strategy." Landscape and Urban Planning
33: 1 3 1-1 55.

. Alario, M. 2000a. "Urban and Ecological Planning in Chicago: Science, Policy and
Dissent." Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 43:489-504.

. Alario, M. 2000b. "Science, democracy and the politics of urban ecosystem
management: ecosystem restoration as a green urbanizing policy." International
Journal of Contemporary Sociology 37:51-65.

. Baum, H. S. 2004. "Smart Growth and School Reform." Journal of the American
Planning Association 70: 14-24.

. Belsky, J. M. 1999. "Misrepresenting Communities: The Politics of Commurrity-
Based Rural Ecoturism in Gales Point Manatee, Belize." Rural Sociology 64:641-666.

. Bockrneyer, J. L. 2000. "A culture of distrust: The impact of local political culture on
participation in the Detroit EZ." Urban Studies 37:2417-2440.

. Bogdan, R. C., and S. K. Biklen (Eds). 1998. Chapter 4: Qualitative Data. Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.

. Brechin, S.R., P. R. Wilshusen, C. Fortwangler, and RC. West. 2002. "Beyond the
square wheel: toward a more comprehensive understanding of biodiversity

conservation as social and political process." Society and Natural Resources 15:41-
64.

10. Brosius, P. J ., A. L. Trsing, and C. Zemer. 1998. "Representing communities:

histories and politics of community based natural resource management." Society and
Natural Resources 1 1 :157-168.

232

11. Brown, K. 1998. "The Political Ecology of Biodiversity, Conservation and
Development in Nepal's Terai: Confused Meanings, Means and Ends." Ecological
economics 24:73-87.

12. Buchy, M., and D. Race. 2001. "The twists and turns of community participation in
natural resource management in Australia: What is missing? ." Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management 44:293-308.

13. Cook, C. 2001. "The sprawling of amerinca: inner city blues." edited by Christopher
Cook: GLTV.

l4. Cortner, H.J., and M.A. Moote. 1999. The Politics of Ecosystem Management.
Washington, DC.: Island Press.

15. Creswell, J. 1998. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design; Choosing Among Five
Traditions. London, New Delhi: Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications.

16. Darden, J.T., R.C. Hill, J. Thomas, and R. Thomas. 1987. "Detroit: race and uneven
development".

17. DeLuca, K. 1999. "In the shadow of whiteness: the consequences of constructions of
nature in environmental politics." Pp. 217-246 in Whiteness: the communication of

social identity, edited by Thomas K. Nakayama and Judith N. Martin. Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications.

18. Dunlap, RE, and A.G. Mertig. 1995. "Global concern for the environment: Is
affluence a prerequisite? ." Journal of Social Issues 41:121-137.

19. Fabos, J .G., and J. Ahern (Eds). 1996. Greenways: The beginning of an international
movement. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

20. Fabos, JG 2004. "Greenways planning in the United States: its origins and recent
case studies." Landscape and Urban Planning 68:321-342.

21. Few, R. 2001. ”Containment and counter-cointainment: planner/community relations
rn conservation planning." The geographical journal 167:111-124.

233

22. Fischer, F. 2000a. Citizens, experts, and the environment: the politics of local
browledge. Durham and London: Duke University Place.

23. Fisher, F. 2000. "Democratic Prospects in an Age of Expertise." Pp. 1-28 in Citizens,
Experts, and the Environment: the Politics of Local Knowledge. Durham and London:
Duke University Press.

24. Flink, C.A., and RM. Seams. 1993. Greenways, a guide to planning, design, and
development. Washington, DC Island Press.

25. F ontana, A., and J. H. Frey. 2000. " From structured questions to negotiated text." Pp.
645-672 in The Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by N. K.Denzin and Y. S.
Lincoln. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

26. Forester, J. 1989. Planning in the face of power. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.

27. Forester, J. 1993. ”Critical dreary and planning practice" Pp. 214 in Critical theory,
public policy, and planning practice .° toward a critical pragmatism, edited by John
Forester. Albany, NY.: State University of New York Press.

28. Freudenburg, W.R., S. Frickel, and R. Grambling. 1995. "Beyond the Nature/Society
Divide: Learning to Think About a Mountain." Sociological Forum 10:361-392.

29. Furuseth, O.J., and RE. Altman. 1991. "Who's on the greenway: Socioeconomic,

demographic and locational characteristics of greenway users." Environmental
Management 15:329-336.

30. Gaventa, J. 1980. "Power and participation." Pp. 1-25 in Power and powerlessness:
quiescence and rebellion in an appalachian valley. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

31. Ghirnire, KB, and MP. Pimbert. 1997. Social change and conservation:
Environmental politics and the impacts of national parlm and protected areas.
London, UK.: Earthscan Publications Limited.

32. Gobster, RH. 1995. "Perceptions and use of metropolitan greenway system for
recreation.” Landscape and Urban Planning 33:401-413.

234

33. Greider, T., and L. Garkovich. 1994. "Lanscapes: the social construction of nature
and the environment." Rural Sociology 59:1-24.

34. Guber, BL. 2003. The Grassroots of a Green Revolution: Polling America on tlie
Environment. Cambridge, MA: the MIT Press.

35. Holmes, T., and I. Scoones. 2000. "Participatory environmental policy processes:
Experiences fiom north and sou ." in IDS Working Paper, 113 Institute of
Development Studies.

36. IUCN/UN EP/WW F. 1991. "Caringfor the Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable Living."
Gland, Switzerland: World Conservation Union.

37. Jones, RE, and RE. Dunlap. 1992. "The Social Basis of Environmental Concern:
Have They Changed over Time?" Rural Sociology 57:28-47.

38. Kellert, S.R., J. N. Mehta, S.A. Ebbin, and LL. Lichtenfeld 2000. "Community
Natural Resource Management: promise, rhetoric, and reality." Society and Natural
Resources 13:705-1715.

39. Lane, MB. 2001. "Affirming new directions in planning theory: co-management of
protected areas." Society and Natural Resources 14:657-671.

40. Leach, M., R. Meams, and I. Scoones. 1999. "Environmental entitlements: Dinaymics
and institutions in community-based natural resource management." World
Development 27:225-247.

41. Lee, J.-H., D. Scott, and M.F. Floyd. 2001. "Structural inequalities in outdoor
recreation participation: A multiple hierarchy stratification perspective." Journal of
Leisure Research 33:427-49.

42. Lindsey, G., M. Maraj, and SC. Kuan. 2001. "Access, equity and urban greenways:
an exploratory investigation.” The professional geographer 53:332-346.

43. Little, CE. 1990. Greenways for America. Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins
University Press.

235

 

44. Little, PD. 1994. ”The Link Between Local Participation and Improved
Conservation: A Review of Issues and Experiences." in Natural Connections:
Perspectives in Community-based Conservation. Washington, DC: Island Press.

45. Loyd, M.F.F., and C. Johnson. 2002. "Coming to terms with environmental justice in
outdoor recreation: a conceptual discussion with research implications.” Leisure
Sciences 24:59-77.

46. McComas, KA. 2001. "Theory and practice of public meetings." Camunication
Theory 11:36-55.

47. Metzger, K., and J. Booza. 2002. "Poverty in the United States, Michigan and
Metropolitan Detroit: an analysis of census 2000.” in Working Paper Series, No. 9.
Detroit, MI: Center for Urban Studies, Wayne State University.

48. Mohai, P. 1985. "Public concer and elite involvement in environmental conservation
issues." Social Science Quarterly 66:820-838.

49. Mohai, P. 1990. "Black environmentalism." Social Science Quarterly 71 :744-65.

50. Mohai, P. 2003. "Dispelling old myths: Afiican American concern for the
environment" Environment and Behavior 45:10-27.

51. Mohai, P., and B. Bryant. 1998. "Is there a race effect on concern for environmental
quality?" Public Opinion Quarterly 62:475-505.

52. Morris, H. 2002. "Trails and greenways: advancing the smart growth agenda."
Washington DC: Rails-to-Trail Conservancy.

53. Orr, M., and G. Stoker. 1994. "Urban regimes and leadership in Detroit " Urban
Aflairs Quarterly 30:48-73.

54. Parker, J .D., and M.H. McDonough. 1999. "Environmentalims of African Amerincas:
An analysis of the subculture and barriers Theories " Environment and Behavior
31 :155-177.

55. Pearce, J. 2001. "Greenways grants to save open space." Pp. 1B & 6B in Detroit
News. Detroit.

236

 

56. Pellow, D.N. 2000. ”Environmental Inequality Formation. ." American Behavioral
Scientist 43 :58 1 -601 .

57. Pimpert, MP, and J .N. Pretty. 1997. "Parks, People and Professionals: Putting
"Participation" into Protected Area Management." in Social change and conservation:

Environmental politics and the impacts of national parks and protected areas, edited
by K.B. Ghimire and M.F. Pimbert. London, UK.: Earthscan Publications Limited.

58. Pulido, L. 2000. "Rethinking environmental racism: white privilege and urban
development in southern California " Annals of the Association of American
Geographers 90: 12-40.

59. Rhoads, B.L., D. Wilson, M. Urban, and BE. Herricks. 1999. ”Interaction between
scientists and nonscientists in community-based watershed management: emergence
of the concept of stream naturalization." Environmental Management 24:297-308.

60. Roberts, R. 1995. "Public Involvement: From Consultation to Participation." Pp. 221-
246 in Environmental and Social Impact Assessment, edited by F. Vanclay and DA.
Bronstein. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

61. Seams, RM. 1995. "The evolution of greenways as an adaptive urban landscape
form." Landscape and Urban Planning 33:65-80.

62. Shaw, TC, and L.K Spence. 2004. "Race and representation in Detroit’s community
development coalitions." ANNALS, AAPSS 594:125-142.

63. SmithGroup Technical Assistance Team. 1997a. "Cluster 3 community reinvestment
report." Detroit.

64. SmithGroup Technical Assistance Team. 1997b. "Cluster 5: Community reinvestment
strategy report."

65. Solomon, R.M., S. Yonts-Shepard, and W.T. Supulski II. 1997. "Public involvement
under NEPA: Trends and opportunities.” in Environmental Policy and NEPA -Past
Present and Future, edited by R. Clark and L. Canter. Boca Raton, FL: St. Lucie
Press.

237

66. Stake, RE. 2000. ”Case studies" Pp. 435-454 in The Handbook of Qualitative
Research, edited by N. K.Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

67. Sugrue, T.J. 1996. The origins of the urban crisis: race and inequality in postwar
Detroit. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

68. Taylor, DE. 1999. "Central Park as a model for social control: urban parks, social
class and leisure behavior in nineteenth-century America." Journal of Leisure
Research 31:420-477.

69. Taylor, D.E. 2000a. "Meeting the challenge of wild land recreation management:
demographic shifts and social inequality." Journal of Leisure Research 32: 171-179.

70. Taylor, D.E. 2000b. "The Rise of the Environmental Justice Paradigm: Injustice
Framing and the Social Construction of Environmental Discourses " American
Behavioral Scientist 43:508-580.

71. Taylor, DB. 2002. "Race, Class, Gender, and American Environmentalism" Pp. 51 p.
Portland Oregon: USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station.

72. The Greenways Collaborative Inc. 1999. ”Detroit’s New Front Porch Report ". Ann
Arbor, MI: The Rails-to-Trails Conservancy.

73. Thomas, J. 1997. Redevelopment and race: planning a finer city in postwar Detroit.
Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

74. Till, KB. 2001. "New Urbanism and nature: Green marketing and the neo-traditional.
community." Urban Geography 22:220-248.

75. Walmsley, A. 1995. "Greenways and the making of the urban form." Landscape and
Urban Planning 33 :8 1-127.

76. WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development). 1987. "Our common
future." Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

238

77 . Weber, E P. 2000. "A new vanguard for the environment: grass-roots ecosystem
management as a new environmental movement." Society and Natural Resources
13:23 7-259.

78. Western, D., and RM. Wright. 1994. "The Background to Community-based
Conservartion." in Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-based
Conservation, edited by D. Western, R.M. Wright, and SC. Strum. Washington, DC:
Island Press.

79. Wilshusen, P.R., S.R. Brechin, C. Fortwangler, and P.C. West. 2002. "Reiventing a
square wheel: critique of a resurgent "protection paradigm" in international
biodiversity conservation." Society and Natural Resources 15: 17-40.

80. Woodgate, G., and M. Redclitt. 1998. "From a Sociology of Nature to Environmental
Sociology: Beyond Social Construction. ." Environmental Values 7:3-24.

81. Yow, V.R. 1994. Recording Oral History: A Practical Guide for Social Scientists.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

82. Zube, EH. 1995. "Greenways and the National Park System." Landscape and Urban
Planning 33:17-25.

239

 

  

 

tiitijjjiitiijtlimit:

3 .