No Other Way in but through: A Model of Community-Driven, Participatory Action Research As a Catalyst for Advocacy and Influence Toward Sustainable Development in Detroit

Background:This study examined the efficacy of strategies employed by community members in neighborhoods surrounding the State Fairgrounds in Detroit, Michigan. In 2011, the SFDC coalition organized to represent community interests and influence redevelopment of the 160-acre site. The developer’s original proposal favored chain retail and upscale housing. By contrast, the SFDC’s Platform advocated: Energy/Sustainability, New Economy Jobs, Historic Preservation, Multimodal Transit, Mixed-Use/Affordable Housing, and Urban Agriculture.

The SFDC initially employed traditional strategies to raise awareness; commissioned an alternative proposal including the SFDC Platform; and appealed to city officials, which led to some changes to the developer’s plan. Finally, the SFDC engaged a consultant to coordinate Community-Based Participatory Research using Asset-Based Community Development principles, to address: 1) The relationship between constituents’ identification of neighborhood elements as “assets,” treatment of identified assets in the Fairgrounds proposals, and community support for the ultimate redevelopment scheme; and 2) Which factors predicting participation in SFDC organizing efforts are attributable to the individual, community, and/or campaign strategies.

Methods: Data were collected using a community-based survey, focus groups, and individual interviews; a team of SFDC members and consultant designed the instruments. The survey was offered online and paper; focus groups and interviews were held in person, near the Fairgrounds. Respondents were recruited via social media, email, community newsletters, at community events, and door-to-door canvassing.

Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the survey data for what respondents considered assets and important elements in neighborhoods and the Fairgrounds redevelopment; comparative analysis of the survey data and focus group/interview narratives uncovered significant elements and cross-cutting themes within and among groups’ satisfaction in neighborhoods, preferences for future development, and reasons for participating.   

Results: Most participants resided in the two most populous neighborhoods adjacent to the Fairgrounds; most survey respondents identified as White (56%) or Black (28%), female (62%), 46 or more years old (52%), highly educated (87% held a bachelor’s degree or higher), and relatively wealthy (24% reported annual income between $48,000 and $96,000; almost 40%, >$100,000 a year).  

Assets identified as important to existing communities and future development included sustainable building, energy use, transit options, local hiring, business opportunities, green space, and mixed-income housing; however, satisfaction with these features in neighborhoods varied. Factors associated with engagement in organizing were also mixed: Individual factors (e.g., age, race, income, education) contributed, as did mezzo-level factors (e.g., sense of community, shared responsibility/“stewardship”), and organizing/campaign tactics, notably the introduction of CBPR.

Conclusions/Implications: Interpretation of the survey sample reflects apparently racially and economically privileged groups; but those who participated actively in focus groups, interviews, and volunteered to assist with the research, outreach, and advocacy identified themselves as lifelong activists who care about their communities assets and believe there is power in collective action. Active volunteers were more likely to identify with historically oppressed groups, civic pride, and a sense of communal obligation. The outcome of the campaign to influence change and development related more to participants’ values, sense of dignity, and belief in the worth of their contributions than to characteristics traditionally associated with privilege and power.