The Rapid Ethnographic Assessment Procedures (REAP) of the Civil War Defenses of Washington (also known as the Fort Circle Parks) and Anacostia Park in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area were designed to assist the National Park Service in preparing management plans. The study builds on the National Park Service's commitment to collaborate with communities in the vicinity of its park units, and to use applied ethnographic research to learn of cultural issues and other local concerns. The study had two overarching goals: to identify and document cultural meanings and traditions people attach to the parks, and to solicit concerns and suggestions for change from park neighbors and visitors. Researchers were to report these concerns without acting as their advocates.
The study was carried out from December 1996 to March 1997. The research questions focused on historical and contemporary links between parks and communities, categories of park users and non-users, the resources visitors used, the meanings and values they attached to those resources, their relations with the National Park Service (NPS), and the changes they would like to see. The research questions were answered using Rapid Ethnographic Assessment Procedures, modified to account for the winter research season and for the diversity of parks in size, location, and function.
Anacostia Park contains seven different sections, officially designated by the National Park Service as sections A through G. However, most visitors and neighbors do not use those letter designations. They refer to Sections C, D, and E of the park as "Anacostia Park" and to the other sections by other names (such as River Terrace or Kenilworth Park). Understanding how park users identify the parts of the park is essential to clarifying their concerns, which differ for each section.
Anacostia Park receives heavy, year-round use and serves visitors of different class and ethnic backgrounds from around the region. The smaller sections serve mostly neighbors, except for the Kenilworth Aquatic Gardens, which attract tourists. Use at Kenilworth Park is uneven. This unevenness is primarily seasonal. Kenilworth Park lies empty, for example, throughout the winter. However, the uneven use is more complicated. Park visitors report that on some summer weekends Kenilworth Park is very crowded, while on other summer weekends the picnic area and playing fields lie unused.
Anacostia Park is very important to the "traditional users" who live nearby and come to the park to fish, picnic, gather with families, and find peace. They express a sense of identification and ownership for the park. A number of these users also express concerns about the recent influx of new users from other areas. Many favor better maintenance or light development of park facilities. These traditional users do not communicate as easily with the National Park Service as do the more organized user groups.
Kenilworth Park is a contested space. Some would like to see it developed as a soccer complex, and others would like to see it as a nature preserve.
A number of area residents are concerned about the relationship between Anacostia Park and the Anacostia River. These individuals urge environmentally appropriate actions.
Based upon our research, we characterize the parks as falling into four types: multiple use, neighborhood, serendipitous, and orphan parks, as follows. Forts Foote, Dupont, and Reno are "multiple use parks" that offer a variety of activities and attract people of various ethnic groups who live in different parts of the city and region. Forts Greble, Stanton, Chaplin, Bunker Hill, Slocum, Stevens, Bayard, and Battery Kemble Park are "neighborhood parks" used extensively by individuals of all ages living close to them for dog-walking, hiking, sports, and contemplation. Forts Davis, DeRussey, and Marcy are "serendipitous parks" that visitors walk or drive through, happen upon, or visit impulsively. Battery Carroll and Forts Mahan and Totten are "orphan parks" that appear to receive little care or use.
With the exception of Forts Foote, Bunker Hill, and Reno, there is little cross-cultural interaction in the parks that experience regular use. As might be expected, the neighborhood parks are used by the ethnic group that predominates in a particular neighborhood. In the multiple-use parks, certain activities tend to be the domain of particular ethnic groups.
Fort Dupont Park is the site of important African American cultural practices, including community gardening that preserves southern food traditions; family reunions that honor the theme of "coming home"; and musical performances featuring gospel, rhythm and blues, blues, jazz, and go-go music, a genre indigenous and unique to Washington. Fort Dupont Park also houses the nation's only all-African American ice hockey team.
Many of the parks have a strong cultural relevance for users and play a crucial role in the city's public life. Residents express pride, affection, ownership, and identification regarding particular Civil War Defenses of Washington. However, knowledge of individual parks' historical importance is limited to personal family and community histories. Almost none of those interviewed could describe the historical significance of individual parks or the Civil War Defenses of Washington in general, and in some cases had erroneous perceptions of the history of the parks.
Park users tend to define their concerns in terms of personal interest or uses of the parks. However, there is a general feeling among African American residents that financial resources among different parks are not distributed equitably.
Park visitors and neighbors tend to favor light development of the parks. We detected four themes in their views. Some emphasize the importance of the Civil War Defenses of Washington as green space and urge that they be kept natural. These users prefer unspoiled woodlands that offer habitats to plants and animals, such as Fort Bunker Hill. Others favor facilities for organized sports use. For example, some users would like to see a baseball diamond constructed at Fort Reno. Some would like to see more historical, educational, interpretive programs, such as rangers on site, youth-led tours, or more informative historical signs. Many "traditional users" would appreciate improved facilities for picnicking, playing, fishing, and seeking solitude. As examples, they requested more picnic tables, safer recreational equipment, and improved park maintenance at several of the parks.
TABLE OF CONTENTS (To Full Document)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ix
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. METHODOLOGY 7
III. ANACOSTIA PARK 21
IV. CIVIL WAR DEFENSES OF WASHINGTON, DC 87
V. ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS 215
VI. CONCLUSIONS 227
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS 231
VIII. BIBLIOGRAPHY 239
List of Exhibits
List of Tables
List of Appendices
APPENDIX A: MAPS OF PARKS AND NEIGHBORHOODS 257
APPENDIX B: ILLUSTRATIVE NEWSPAPER AND MAGAZINE CLIPPINGS 269
Farrington, Max
Kennedy, Will P.
Wheatley, William
The Washington Daily News
The Washington Post
Kelly, Tom
Lewis, Alfred and Harry Gabbett
The Washington Post
Rosenbaum, Claudia
Kirby, Brendan
APPENDIX C: ILLUSTRATIVE FLIERS AND BROCHURES FROM NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS 285
APPENDIX D: ILLUSTRATIVE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE FLIERS, BROCHURES, AND MEMORANDUMS 299
APPENDIX E: INTERVIEW CONSENT FORM 327
APPENDIX F: MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE CONSULTED FOR THIS STUDY 331
APPENDIX G: SUMMARY TABLES OF METHODOLOGY USED TO CONTACT PARK USERS 337
Submitted by:
Ju rez and Associates, Inc.
1725 K Street, NW Suite 608
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 331-7825 / (202) 331-7830 Fax
Submitted to:
Lawrence F. Van Horn, Ph.D.
Contracting Officer's Technical Representative
Denver Service Center
National Park Service
12795 W. Alameda Parkway
Denver, CO 80225
(303) 969-2255 / (303) 987-6679 Fax
We thank the park visitors and community members who participated in our study. Although we have promised not to publish their names, we appreciate their time, their concern for the parks, and their sincere and substantive comments.
We also thank all of the National Park Service (NPS) staff who assisted us with this study. The names of the NPS staff members whom we consulted are listed in Appendix F. They provided us with valuable information and guidance at all stages of our research and we sincerely appreciate the time they took to collaborate with us.
We are ethically bound to report these criticisms whether or not justified. We note here, however, the little-known contributions the NPS has made over many years to the District of Columbia beyond providing its citizens with perhaps the most abundant and beautiful parkland of any city in the United States of America. Readers will discover in this report, as we did in our research, that the NPS has brought funding for parks and creative ideas to Washington during some of its hardest times.
We gratefully acknowledge past NPS superintendents and staffers who stepped up for the citizens of Washington. Today, as many city departments have fallen under receivership, and an appointed Financial Control Board has assumed many of the city's governing functions, there is no particularly self-serving reason to solicit the views of the citizens of Washington. Yet the NPS has once again stepped up. We appreciate the opportunity to participate in that process.
We are also grateful to Pennelton Clark, Donald Peterson, and Sylvia Pitt, who volunteered their time as unpaid researchers to help us at three of the most challenging parks. They proved to be sensitive field workers at parks they know well, and they sparked illuminating discussions with visitors there.