essay on community gardens

Case Studies on Children in Community Gardens and Gardening with Children

Published by each green corner on november 12, 2020 november 12, 2020.

Written by Casey Wu, Grant Writing and Development Intern

Community gardens are increasingly becoming a part of the urban landscape in which we live, work, and play in. These gardens, often built on underutilized land, have a number of positive health benefits, including but not limited to: improved access to food and better nutrition, increased physical activity, improved mental health, and improved safety and security in local communities. Representing a universal public good, community gardens provide a central space for residents to gather and contribute to the overall health of their communities. Particularly for young children, participation in community based gardening can help with physical, cognitive, and social development. In turn, this leads to a reduced risk of childhood obesity and better long-term health outcomes—leading to a net-benefit for the entire community at large.

Studies have shown that a sustainable community gardening program can reduce food insecurity, improve dietary intake, and strengthen family relationships. Considering that “more than 10% of US households experience food insecurity in any given year,” a community garden can significantly lessen and alleviate some of the stresses related to issues surrounding food scarcity. In one study conducted by Carney et al., where researchers used popular education techniques to support and educate Hispanic farmworker families in planting and maintaining organic gardens, results showed that community gardens led to a “nearly four-fold increase in vegetable intake among adults and a three-fold increase among children.” Additionally, many families involved in the study found that they felt a particular sense of satisfaction in knowing that their gardens allowed them to pass down long-standing family traditions while simultaneously reducing the amount of money spent on food. Moreover, out of the 42 families involved in the study, 31% had cited food security as a major concern, with this number dropping to 3% after the study had concluded.

The benefits of community gardening, while having a positive impact at the family level, also filter down to the children within individual households. A survey conducted by Waliczek et al. on the benefits of children gardening found that “adults gardening with children reported benefits to children’s self-esteem and reduction in stress levels.” Results from this survey also suggest that community gardens, by providing an outdoor environment for children and adults to interact, not only strengthens childrens’ connection to the outdoor world, but also allows adults to nurture their children’s connection to their surrounding environment. While people typically garden for food and health reasons, there is also a strong secondary effect in improving one’s self-esteem and social well-being. In this sense, a community garden has a tangible effect on food security and long-term health outcomes while also having an intangible effect on one’s overall happiness, level of anxiety, and environmental consciousness—leading to an overall healthier body, mind, and spirit.

A core aspect of community gardens is to provide a central open space for people of all ages, not just adults. For younger members of the community, namely teens and young children, the community garden becomes a space which fosters social integration, community involvement, and civic engagement. By providing a space for the youth, the garden becomes a central site where younger members of the community can actively participate and contribute, gain knowledge, and engage in dialogue. These outcomes are directly supported by a study conducted by Fulford and Thompson on the impact of community development programs focused on urban agriculture and community gardening. Evaluating the impact of Youth for EcoAction (YEA), an after-school gardening program, the researchers found that there was a widespread positive benefit on “skill building and job training, self-esteem, nutrition and food security, environmental awareness and behaviour, and community building.” For neighborhoods experiencing social, economic, and physical barriers, community gardens can be an effective strategy for community development and youth empowerment.

Despite the overwhelming benefits of community gardens, the effectiveness of these green spaces is continuously undercut by bureaucratic resistance, ineffective planning, and a lack of sustained financial support. Having an individual, or group of individuals who are passionate, dedicated, and skilled in developing garden spaces is key to the long-term success of new community garden projects. However, despite these barriers, the benefits of community gardens and community gardening as a whole greatly outweigh the cost of overcoming logistical and financial obstacles. At Each Green Corner, it is our mission to educate and assist community members in growing sustainable, permaculture-inspired and culturally-diverse food gardens. By providing for the design, installation, upkeep of our gardens, we hope to make community gardens more accessible, approachable, and advantageous for all.

How To Compost In an Apartment

Written by Taylor Mogavero, Program Coordinator When I ask people if they compost, I get this answer a lot: I would love to compost, but I live in an apartment and my building doesn’t have Read more…

Earth Day: Past & Present

Written by Clare Carlson, Grant Writing and Development Earth Day has long been an important day for the world as individuals are able to come together to voice their concern for the state of the Read more…

Food Miles: From Plough to Plate

Written by Nicole Shimizu, Communications and Outreach The miles that your food travels to get to your plate on average in the US is about 1,500 miles (CUESA). Food miles refers to the distance a Read more…

Earth Care: A History of Community Gardening From Schools to Prisons

In early 2020, as lockdowns went into effect, pandemic gardens began popping up everywhere . It wasn’t the first time a crisis led to a resurgence of interest in gardening. After Hurricane Katrina hit — and then again in the early days of COVID-19 — Marguerite Green, executive director of Sprout NOLA, a New Orleans nonprofit related to community gardens, stressed the importance of growing food during a crisis. From maintaining garden plots and delivering food to those most vulnerable to having experienced gardeners raise seedlings at home to be distributed for home gardens, Sprout NOLA developed a number of activities designed to meet crisis or post-crisis needs. “This is actually why we build community,” she told the New York Times . “It’s to take care of each other in a time of need.”

Gardens have long been a source for care, comfort, creativity, and connection to others, as well as a source of fresh food. The Victory Gardens during World War II and an earlier version (the War Garden or Patriotic Garden) during World War I, for example, emphasized the importance of increased food availability. As many as 20 million people participated in the World War II Victory Gardens, and they were estimated to have provided as much as 40 percent of the country’s food supply at one point to help offset the food shortages and rationing due to the war. The 40 percent number has since been widely cited by garden advocates to identify the potential of gardens to supply a major quality food source during a crisis, particularly in low-income communities that lack access to fresh food, including fruits and vegetables.

As many as 20 million people participated in the World War II Victory Gardens, at one point providing as much as 40 percent of the country’s food supply.

But gardens have served multiple functions besides their food security role. Community gardens, for example, were first developed more than a century ago with the potato patch farms in Michigan in the midst of the recession of 1894 to provide not only a source of food but an important source of income for the unemployed. One hundred years later, in the midst of the industrial decline in Michigan and most notably Detroit, African American activists began to look to urban gardens as a source of renewal. That situation became especially pressing with the 2008–2009 Great Recession that led to large numbers of mortgage foreclosures, abandoned houses, and empty lots, most dramatically in low-income, African American neighborhoods.

As efforts were made to revive the auto industry and jump-start an industrial renewal in Detroit, the venerable organizer Grace Lee Boggs juxtaposed what she called illusions about industrial revival with a renewal of the city through urban gardens and related greening strategies. “You can bemoan your fate, or, as the African-American elders taught, you can plant gardens,” Boggs wrote in the Michigan Citizen . Boggs, who had been mentored by C. L. R. James and also interacted with civil rights activist Ella Baker, spoke of the need to reimagine the concept of work as opposed to jobs. We need to “take more responsibility for each other and for our community,” she wrote to promote Detroit Summer , the organization she and her husband, James Boggs, helped create in 1992. Her organization sought to have her celebrated African American elders (the “Gardening Angels”) interact with youths to undertake planting community gardens, painting public murals, creating bike programs, and hosting poetry workshops “to express their new thoughts.” These activities, she hoped, could serve as a “reconnection with earth and community” — a need magnified by Detroit’s search for renewal.

Aside from the environmental and community roles that Boggs referenced, gardens have served as a type of reconnection in other settings, such as schools and prisons. School gardens, similar to community gardens, have a history that dates back to the early 20th century. Part of the early impetus for developing school gardens was the desire for children, including from immigrant families, or families whose parents or grandparents had moved from the farm into the cities, to regain the language and skills of growing food. School gardens also became a source of fresh food for children during the two world wars, and a central feature of the farm-to-school program initiated during the late 1990s that soon extended to thousands of schools and in all 50 states in a little more than a decade.

One of the first farm-to-school programs in the United States at the Santa Monica–Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD) was facilitated by the role of a school garden. Rodney Taylor, SMMUSD food service director, was a savvy food service buyer who had food service industry experience through a job at the Marriott hotel chain before joining the school district. Taylor, who grew up in a working-class background in Compton, California, initially expressed skepticism about a farm-to-school program, but reluctantly agreed to try it out as a pilot that he was convinced would fail.

The SMMUSD program called for farm direct produce to be offered as an alternative lunch option through what Taylor subsequently called a “farmers market salad bar.” Fifty percent of the children in the pilot school selected for the program qualified for free or reduced lunch — meaning their family’s income had to be below or slightly above the poverty line. Taylor decided to do an initial one-week test run, and gave the students on the first day the option of either pizza or the salad bar. To his astonishment, nearly three-quarters of the students chose the salad bar. Unbeknownst to him, the students had been provided a taste sampler in the weeks prior to the test pilot run of items that would be part of the salad bar. Many of the children compared the look and taste of the samples to the food they had grown, harvested, and tasted from the school garden, which had been established the previous year and was beloved by the students. “It’s from the garden,” they proclaimed, and that proved to be a tipping point for their willingness to try the new lunchtime salad bar. It also was a tipping point for Taylor, who would become one of the foremost advocates among school food service directors of farm-to-school programs and school gardens. He would later say that the experience helped him redefine his own position as a health champion who cared and was deeply engaged in providing fresh and healthy food to students who often lacked access to such food choices.

Both school and community gardens became enormously popular prior to the pandemic, even as they faced numerous barriers. Despite their ability to provide food, green and beautify the urban (and rural) landscapes, allow for much-needed physical activity, and create quiet and peaceful places, many community gardens have faced precarious futures, depending on the ownership and uses of the land. In a neoliberal age, private property trumps community benefits. Once private owners and sometimes public entities decide the land value has improved (often due to the community gardens), and that development can then proceed, gardens are plowed under, even when developments are then postponed, with the former garden sometimes reverting to vacant land.

Similarly, school gardens, despite their value as teaching tools, a source of physical activity, and ability to green school grounds, have been constrained by uncertain upkeep and limited resources, particularly during periods when schools are not in session. Teachers who help supervise garden work and do it as volunteers see it as an additional time burden in an already-overburdened schedule. Parents who help with school gardens, when allowed to do so (liability factors can sometimes prevent parent participation), are also limited by their own time constraints, including any long-term commitments. Even when policies by local and state governments, or school districts and school superintendents, identify certain goals, such as a 1995 proclamation by California superintendent of schools Delaine Eastin for “a garden in every school,” they often are unable to provide the resources or establish actual policies to implement such goals.

In a neoliberal age, private property trumps community benefits.

Nevertheless, community and school gardens have continued to flourish, and the benefits of gardens and gardening have extended to other institutions and places, such as prisons, domestic violence and abuse shelters, hospitals, and veterans’ facilities. During the past two decades, prison gardens, for example, evolved from innovative pilot projects at a handful of locations to a widespread initiative in a number of states, sometimes in conjunction with corrections departments that have come to recognize its benefits, sometimes belatedly — not least the reduction of recidivism rates. Aside from prisons, the concept of healing through gardening, a type of care-based horticultural therapy, has been widely applied in multiple other settings where the need for changed behavior is crucial, such as for batterers and those suffering from substance abuse. Unfortunately, the 2020–2021 pandemic impacted many of these programs, although adjustments were made to allow for continuing participation and even to expand their reach. This included programs enabling prison gardens to become a source of fresh food for pandemic-impacted and overextended food banks.

Backyard gardening and in the home is where gardens and gardening expanded most quickly during the pandemic, as they have after climate change-related events too. “People have always gardened in hard times, but food is only one part of that story,” argues Jennifer Atkinson, author of “ Gardenland ,” a 2018 book that highlighted the importance and value of gardening in seeking a connection with nature as well as desire for a sense of community. “There’s immense gratification that comes from work that gives you tangible results,” Atkinson told reporter Petra Mayer in a May 2020 interview with National Public Radio. Mayer then wrote about her own newfound pandemic-related obsession with gardening and how she wanted to share her passion with others, including colleagues at NPR.

The pandemic’s explosion of gardening itself emerged as a quintessential care activity in stressful times. Garden stores, seed stores, and mail-order businesses sold out many of their items, noting that among the buyers were numerous first-time home gardeners. First-timers often had little idea of how to proceed, but soon discovered the joys, comfort, and stabilizing aspects of gardening activities. “It’s that positive control” that gardening provides and that we so badly need in moments of uncertainty, says Rutgers University professor and agriculture extension agent Joel Flagler. “A feeling of ‘Hey I did something good here.’”

Robert Gottlieb is Professor Emeritus of Urban and Environmental Policy and the Founder and former Director of the Urban & Environmental Policy Institute at Occidental College. He is the coauthor of “ Food Justice ” and “ Global Cities ” and the author of “ Care-Centered Politics ,” from which this article is adapted.

	"Mein Kampf" is both a manifesto of ideological hatred and a strategic guide for manipulation. Its tactics remain disturbingly relevant. \|
	Times Square's fame owes itself to a lucky twist of urban design and a charismatic promotional genius. \|
	Giovanni Aloi maps the ideological currents that led right-wing political exponents to protest and burn palm and banana trees in Milan’s Piazza del Duomo. \|
	The Parisian Cabaret du Néant pioneered shock entertainment, using magic to conjure macabre illusions for its audience. \|

Support our educational content for free when you purchase through links on our site. Learn more

[2023] The Importance of Creating Community Gardens: A Comprehensive Guide

November 7, 2023
Benefits of Community Gardens

Quick Answer: Community gardens are vital for fostering a sense of community, providing educational opportunities, promoting environmental sustainability, and improving overall well-being. They bring people together, bridge the gap between schools and communities, support local pollinators, and transform urban spaces into green havens. Explore the benefits and practical tips for creating and maintaining a successful community garden.

Table of Contents

Quick Answer

Quick tips and facts, background and history, the benefits of community gardens, how to create a community garden, what to include in a community garden, maintaining a community garden.

What is the purpose of community gardens?

Community gardens serve multiple purposes, including:

Fostering a sense of community and social connection.
Providing educational opportunities, especially for children.
Promoting environmental sustainability and supporting local ecosystems.
Improving overall well-being through exposure to nature and physical activity.
Transforming urban spaces into green havens.

Read more about “… The Global Impact of Community Gardens: A Comprehensive Guide”

What should be included in a community garden?

A community garden should include:

Individual garden plots for community members.
Communal areas for gathering and group activities.
Accessible pathways for all visitors.
Water access for irrigation purposes.
Compost bins for waste reduction and soil enrichment.
Educational signage to promote learning and environmental awareness.
Native plants and pollinator gardens to support local ecosystems.

Read more about “… 20 Ways to Help Your Community Garden Thrive”

Community gardens are powerful catalysts for positive change within communities. They bring people together, foster a sense of belonging, and promote environmental sustainability. By creating spaces where individuals can connect with nature, learn new skills, and engage in meaningful activities, community gardens contribute to the overall well-being of both individuals and the community as a whole.

If you’re passionate about creating a community garden, follow the steps outlined in this guide. Remember to engage the community, secure necessary resources, and foster a culture of collaboration and learning. By doing so, you’ll be creating a vibrant and thriving community garden that will benefit generations to come.

Community Garden Events
Community Garden Policies
How do you Build a Community Garden at School?
The Importance Of Creating Community Gardens
Official Website of Community Gardening™
Official Website of Seeds and Plants
Official Website of Gardening Tools
Official Website of Compost Bins

Are Community Gardens Successful? Discover 15 Reasons Why They Flourish in 2024! 🌱

July 24, 2024

What Are the 10 Hidden Disadvantages of a Community Garden? 😲 [2024]

Trending now.

Open access
Published: 23 June 2022

Community gardens and their effects on diet, health, psychosocial and community outcomes: a systematic review

Clare Hume 1 ,
Jessica A. Grieger 2 , 3 ,
Anna Kalamkarian 1 ,
Katina D’Onise 1 , 4 &
Lisa G. Smithers 1 , 3 , 5

BMC Public Health volume 22 , Article number: 1247 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

17k Accesses

31 Citations

17 Altmetric

Metrics details

We systematically reviewed the effects of community gardens on physical and psychosocial health, health behaviors and community outcomes.

Quantitative studies that examined associations of health, psychosocial or community outcomes with community gardens were included in the review. Studies up to December 2020 were captured from searches of Medline, Web of Science, PsycInfo, EBSCOHost and CAB Abstracts. Data were extracted and study quality including risk of bias was examined.

There were 53 studies that met the inclusion criteria. Studies examining associations between community gardens and nutrition or food security were most frequently reported ( k = 23). Other factors examined for associations with community gardens were health ( k = 16), psychosocial ( k = 16) and community outcomes ( k = 7). Effects appeared positive for fruit and vegetable intake, some psychosocial and community outcomes, but mixed for physical health outcomes. Evidence quality overall was low.

Conclusions

Community gardening was associated with higher fruit and vegetable intake, positive psychosocial and community outcomes, but poor evidence quality suggests the effects of community gardening may be overestimated.

Peer Review reports

Poor diets and physical inactivity are prominent contributors to chronic diseases [ 1 ]. Dietary risks factors are thought to directly contribute 5–14% to all death and disability in high-income countries like Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States [ 2 ]. Interventions to improve diet and physical activity have become an important focus for public health and for governments, with environmental factors receiving attention [ 3 ]. Interventions that involve environmental activities such as gardening are thought to have several health benefits including physical, mental and psychosocial outcomes [ 4 ].

Conceptual models such as the one proposed by Lovell and colleagues [ 5 ] suggest several health and community benefits of participating in gardening, particularly in communal spaces. Gardening is a physically active pastime [ 6 ] and may also address food and nutrition-related factors, through fruit and vegetable production and consumption [ 7 ]. Gardening also encourages experiences in nature which may have effects independent of other health behaviors such as stress reduction [ 8 ]. Participation in community gardening activities may encourage social interactions and the development of social support networks, as well as broader community-level components such as social cohesiveness and neighborhood attachment [ 5 ]. Thus, gardening in communal spaces may be useful for chronic disease treatment and prevention by targeting multiple health behaviors, but also concurrently addressing individual-level psychosocial outcomes such as social isolation, mental health and general wellbeing. Community gardens fall under the umbrella of ‘urban agriculture’, which incorporates both domestic or home-based gardens, as well as gardens open to community members for the purposes of growing, cultivating and taking care of plants and flowers for non-commercial outcomes [ 4 ]. The current review will specifically focus on the latter type of garden, spaces open to the general public or community.

Previous publications have reviewed the evidence primarily for the effects of community gardening on food and nutrition-related outcomes. Garcia and colleagues [ 9 ] reviewed studies examining urban gardens and food and nutrition outcomes among adults, with evidence of positive outcomes on fruit and vegetable consumption, access to healthy foods, as well as improved food perceptions such as the value of organic production and cooking. Importantly, that review was limited to studies among adults, food and nutrition outcomes, and studies of home-based gardens rather than community gardens. McCormack and colleagues [ 10 ] reached similar conclusions from their review of community gardens studies conducted only in the United States, as well as methodological issues identified in the studies reviewed. Such findings were echoed by Audate et al. in their scoping review of urban agriculture and its effects on health, wellbeing, food security and social capital [ 11 ]. Recently, Kunpeuk et al. [ 12 ] conducted a meta-analysis on the health and nutrition-related outcomes associated with community gardening, which suggested a positive effect of community garden participation on body mass index (BMI).

While there have been reviews on community gardening, most past reviews only consider nutrition-related outcomes in isolation from other, broader health factors, or behavioral and psychosocial outcomes. The potential for wider neighborhood-level benefits of community gardens have been understudied. By bringing together information on multiple outcomes we hoped to establish a comprehensive view of the evidence on community gardens that is broader in scope. Therefore, the aim of this work is to systematically review the evidence on effects of community gardens for effects on the following outcomes:

Food consumption, with particular attention to vegetable and fruit intake

Health outcomes, with particular attention to physical activity

Psychosocial measures, such as (but not limited to) social isolation, mental health and wellbeing

Community sentiment, such as (but not limited to) social cohesiveness

Additionally, we aimed to collate information on the characteristics of people who use community gardens and whether the effects of community gardens on outcomes might differ according to location (urban, regional, remote) or socioeconomic position.

Materials and methods

The methods were undertaken according to a pre-written protocol which is available from the authors upon request. The review was undertaken using standard systematic review methodology following the Cochrane Collaboration methods and is reported according to the PRISMA guidelines [ 13 ].

Search strategy

We searched Medline via PubMed platform, Web of Science, PsycINFO, EBSCOhost and CAB Abstracts from inception until 4 th December 2020. To capture literature across all the key outcome areas, the search strategy was deliberately broad in scope, covering databases from health, psychology and sociology. The search strategy was tailored to each database and search terms were pilot tested. MeSH terms and keywords from relevant articles were reviewed to design searches most likely to identify relevant articles. When possible, searches were limited to articles published in English and to humans, and searches were not limited by date or by setting (e.g. high and low-middle-income countries were eligible). In addition to the search strategy described above, we reviewed the reference lists of systematic reviews in this field for potentially relevant studies. The search strategies for each database are included in Supplementary Table 1 .

Eligibility and PICO (Participants, Intervention, Comparator and Outcomes) criteria

Studies that make inferences about community gardens were included. Quantitative studies were prioritized for evaluation; qualitative studies were excluded from the review unless they also reported quantitative data. Evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were considered separately from observational studies and case studies were excluded. Ecological studies were eligible for inclusion as implementation of community gardens may often occur at the higher community (and not individual) level.

Type of participants

‘Participants’ refers to all community members who may freely access community gardens. Participants were not limited to any particular subgroup of the community or by any characteristic (e.g. age, gender).

Type of intervention (for RCTs) or exposure contrast (for observational)

Community gardens were conceptualized as publicly accessible spaces that are used to grow vegetables and fruit. This definition included council median strips or verges that are made accessible and permissible for food production by the public, but excluded incidental use of verges by individuals for growing vegetables or fruit for personal purposes. The definition excluded production of crops for profit and animal-based food production, such as using community spaces for animals that produce milk and eggs, or for collection of honey. It also excluded fruiting trees on government properties (e.g. botanical gardens) or gathering native and non-native foods from national parks. The motivation for developing such gardens was not considered; whether they were designed for example, for food production in response to food insecurity issues in that area, or to create social and community connection. The key concept of the definition of community gardens was that they reflected public access to spaces; therefore studies that did not involve free access to the public were excluded (e.g. gardens in schools, hospitals or jails that are not freely accessible to the public).

Type of comparator

We adopted the counterfactual approach to understanding the effects of community gardens. For RCTs, the comparator was community members who did not receive the intervention (community gardens) and for observational studies, the comparator was non-exposed controls, or a pre-exposure group for pre-/post- designs.

Types of outcome measures

Outcomes were categorized as:

Characteristics community garden users and differences on effects of community gardens according to location (urban, regional, remote) or socioeconomic position were also explored.

The titles and abstracts of all identified articles were examined using Rayyan software (a software program used to collate and screen papers for systematic reviews). The authors conducted the screening process and each title/abstract was viewed by two authors. Only articles that were irrelevant were excluded at this stage. The full text of the article was retrieved if either of the authors indicated that the title/abstract was eligible or unclear.

Data extraction, management and synthesis

The full text of each article was reviewed and data were extracted systematically. For RCTs, study quality was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool [ 14 ] and the quality of non-randomized studies was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool [ 15 ]. A narrative meta-synthesis was undertaken because a meta-analysis was not possible due to differences in study designs and outcomes.

Changes to the protocol

After commencing the searches it became apparent there were more systematic reviews on this topic than anticipated. A post hoc decision was made to include a table summarizing the main findings of each systematic review to collate the full body of literature. No assessment of the quality of each systematic review was undertaken since individual publications were being judged for quality as part of the current review.

The search strategy captured 7,355 articles for screening after duplicates were removed. There were 66 papers judged as eligible for inclusion, but the full text was unable to be obtained for two papers. The flow of studies through the systematic review process is shown in Fig. 1 . At least two authors extracted data from 12% of articles. Any discrepancies in data extraction or quality ratings were resolved by discussion at meetings involving all authors.

Flow of studies through the systematic review process

Systematic reviews

The searches identified 14 systematic reviews in related topic areas. Table 1 shows the number of studies included in each review, as well as their aims and conclusions. These systematic reviews extended to areas beyond the scope of the current review (e.g. peri-urban agriculture), making only some components of these reviews directly relevant to our research aims. There were 10 to 196 articles included in these reviews. Nutrition and food security were the most commonly studied outcome (9/13 (69%)). The earliest systematic reviews indicated that various forms of community gardening had potential to improve fruit and vegetable intake and food security [ 16 ] although this view was not uniform with some suggesting gardens had little impact on food access [ 17 ]. Many systematic reviews agreed upon the poor quality of evidence [ 11 , 12 , 16 , 18 ]. Recently, Spano et al. described that community gardening may benefit psychosocial wellbeing and this effect was more pronounced among individualist societies compared with collectivist societies [ 19 ].

Diet and food-related outcomes

The 23 studies that reported diet and food-related outcomes are summarized in Table 2 . Of these, the majority were conducted in the Unites States (16/23 (70%)), with two studies from France and one each from Canada, Japan, the Netherlands, South Africa and the United Kingdom. Most were cross-sectional surveys (15/23 (65%)), four were pre-/post reports of feasibility/pilot studies (4/23 (17%)), one quasi-experimental study, one longitudinal cohort study, and two pilot RCTs. Sample sizes varied from 20 [ 25 ] to 1000 [ 26 ].

Studies that compared community gardeners with non-gardeners generally reported higher fruit and vegetable consumption by gardeners [ 26 , 27 , 30 , 31 ] or with higher frequency of gardening [ 26 ]. However comparisons between community gardeners and home gardeners indicated that fruit and vegetable consumption did not differ [ 28 ]. Some community gardeners grew food outside of the community garden [ 36 ].

Health outcomes

Table 3 summarizes the 16 studies reporting health-related outcomes (one of these studies was reported in two papers). Eleven (11/16 (69%)) of these studies were conducted in the United States, with two studies from Japan, 1 each from France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Most were cross-sectional surveys (9/16 (56%)), in addition to 3 pre-/post- designs, one quasi-experimental, one longitudinal and two RCTs. Studies ranged in size from 13 participants at follow up [ 48 ] to 794 [ 29 ]. The diverse outcomes reported in these studies included weight-related outcomes such as BMI, overweight and obesity, self-reported outcomes such as health, physical activity, number of general practitioner visits and the number of chronic illnesses, and clinical measures of hypertension and blood glucose (HbA1 c ).

Weight-related outcomes were reported most frequently (11/16 (69%)) and the findings were mixed. Gardening was sometimes associated with lower weight-related outcomes, for example, there was less overweight and obesity among families participating in weekly gardening sessions [ 31 ]. However, studies also reported no difference in BMI, for example, in a cross-sectional survey of allotment gardeners compared with other active groups such as home gardeners and walkers [ 49 ], and a survey comparing gardeners to other local residents [ 50 ]. With respect to the five studies (5/16 (31%)) reporting blood pressure outcomes, a quasi-experimental study involving a non-randomized intervention suggested the odds of hypertension were lower [ 29 ] for gardeners compared with residents at a nearby county with no community garden, or that there were small or no differences in blood pressure [ 32 , 48 ]. For other health outcomes such as physical activity, lung function, sleep and HBA1 c there were too few studies to synthesize evidence or outcomes were measured inconsistently or were inadequately powered to detect changes.

Psychosocial outcomes

The 16 studies that reported psychosocial outcomes are summarized in Table 4 . Seven of these studies were from the United States (44%), with two studies from Japan and the United Kingdom, and one study each from France, the Netherlands, Portugal, Singapore and Switzerland. The study designs were either cross-sectional surveys (12/16 (75%)), RCTs (2/16 (13%)), pre-/post (1/16 (6%)) or longitudinal (1/16 (6%)). Studies included between 20 [ 25 ] to 469 [ 38 ] participants. Outcomes were diverse, with community gardening associated with improvements in happiness [ 54 ], social support, social cohesion [ 35 ], mental health [ 50 ] and quality of life [ 55 ], as well as reductions in perceived stress [ 49 ]. In contrast, there were no differences observed in perceived health [ 38 ], although some outcomes such as effects on depression were not reported [ 33 ].

Community outcomes

Table 5 summarizes the seven studies that reported community outcomes. Three of these studies were conducted in the United States, with one each from Canada, Japan, Portugal and the Netherlands. All were cross-sectional in design and sample sizes ranged from 25 [ 40 ] to 500 [ 39 ]. Findings were generally positive for gardening and community-related outcomes. For example, gardeners had higher neighborhood attachment [ 61 ], perceptions of neighborhood aesthetics [ 38 ], measures of social cohesion [ 50 ] and civic participation [ 42 ], compared with non-gardeners, although Machida et al. did not report greater connection among neighbors among community gardeners compared with non-gardeners [ 39 ].

Effects of community gardens according to location or SEP

No studies were identified that directly compared effects in different locations or by socioeconomic position (SEP).

Characteristics of community gardeners

We located 24 studies that described users of community gardens (Table 6 ). Studies were from cross-sectional surveys (23/24 (96%)) except for one longitudinal study. Sample sizes ranging from 37 [ 62 ] to 1916 [ 63 ]. Seven studies were from the United States (8/24 (33%)), with two studies each from Canada and the Netherlands, and one each from Australia, Czechia, Denmark, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Nigeria, Portugal, Spain, South Africa and Zimbabwe. Of these studies, 16 (67%) made no comparisons to non-gardeners and therefore little inference can be made from these studies but they have been tabulated for completeness. Of the eight studies (33%) that compared community gardeners against some other community group (such as non-gardeners or home gardeners), some reported that gardeners had higher educational attainment and income [ 42 , 64 ] although this was not consistent as other studies reported no differences [ 50 , 51 ]. Gardeners also tended to be older or were retirees [ 50 , 51 , 65 ].

Quality of included studies

The quality assessment of the two RCTs have been included as Supplementary Table 2 , and the quality assessments for other study designs are in Supplementary Table 3 . Of the 34 non-randomized studies included in the review, only two were rated overall as having a low risk of bias. The most common problems were poor or no adjustment for confounding and the potential for selection bias. Deviation from any intended intervention was frequently unclear due to inadequate reporting, as was reporting of missing data.

Discussion and conclusions

The results of this systematic review describe quantitative evidence from 53 studies (54 papers). The outcome with the largest amount of quantitative information was for fruit and vegetable intake, overall diet, nutrients or nutrition knowledge ( k = 23 studies). Sixteen studies included health related outcomes, such as physical activity, BMI or blood pressure, and sixteen reported a diverse range of psychosocial outcomes such as happiness, stress and quality of life. Fewer studies reported community-related outcomes of gardeners ( k = 7). Importantly, there were few studies located that were conducted in developing countries; the vast majority of studies reviewed here were from developed countries, particularly the United States.

Quite unexpectedly, 14 systematic reviews that had not been identified during the preliminary searches of databases were located. This is testament to how difficult this literature is to capture due to the varying terminology, breadth of outcomes examined, and places where this type of work has been published. Many of the other systematic reviews focus on specific content areas or a particular definition of gardening such as peri-urban agriculture, which has a different scope to our review. Where there was crossover, findings of the current review are somewhat similar to past reports though the current review is more up-to-date and suggests that ongoing (poor) quality of publications is proving difficult to shift.

For dietary outcomes, the results of the current review suggest that users of community gardens consume slightly more fruit and vegetables than non-users of community gardens, with little difference between findings of studies of low, moderate or serious risk of bias. Overall, the quality of the evidence is low with many studies at risk of selection bias and poor adjustment for confounding.

Harvesting fruit and vegetables from community gardens is typically seasonal and this may have influenced data collection, with few studies stating that had been taken into consideration. Of note is one publication indicating that community gardeners purchased more fruit and vegetables than other members of the community [ 41 ]. This might indicate that community gardeners are more interested in consuming fruits and vegetables than non-gardeners. Teasing apart the effects of community gardens from the effects of people who choose to use them is particularly challenging. The trial by Heilmayr and Friedman is neatly designed to tease apart the mechanism by which community gardens are purported to have effects, by using different comparison groups that focus on social contact, physical activity or outdoor exposure [ 34 ]. While this is a clever design for understanding the mechanisms, the RCT was underpowered and no effects on diet, activity or psychosocial outcomes were noted. Counter to expectations was that food security was consistently higher among community gardeners, as one study suggested highly food insecure participants were less likely to be involved in community gardens [ 42 ]. It is plausible to hypothesize that the community gardens may have made participants less food insecure or that gardens are not viewed by people experiencing food insecurity as a possible solution.

With respect to health outcomes, a wide variety of measures were reported in the included studies. It was common for articles to not report whether the more frequent measures such as BMI were self-reported or measured. Self-reported measures of BMI are often lower than measured BMI, and measured BMI is preferable particularly for pre/post designs, which might be vulnerable to outcome reporting bias. Nevertheless, studies indicated that community gardeners perceived themselves as having good to excellent health and as having lower odds of hypertension and overweight/obesity than non-gardeners. However the evidence was not consistent as one study [ 49 ] found no differences in physical activity, BMI, blood pressure and lung function between community gardeners and people in other active pursuits (such as home gardeners, walkers). This issue in particular, points to a need for careful consideration of who is being compared in each analysis, as well as the problem of self-selecting into active pursuits, such as community gardening, by healthy people.

Of the psychosocial outcomes, it is important to keep in mind the context. For example, psychosocial outcomes of community gardening from highly impoverished areas in low-income countries are not generalizable to high-income countries and vice versa. However, studies involving immigrants, refugees or culturally and linguistically diverse communities may be relevant. Among many potential benefits, the growth of culturally relevant produce may support resettlement. Gardeners tended to have more social contact and higher indicators of wellbeing than comparators, but again the body of evidence is both small and low in quality.

Of the seven studies reporting on indicators of community sentiment, gardeners rated neighborhood aesthetics and neighborhood attachment more highly than other members of their communities, and their civic participation is higher. Importantly, the current review did not distinguish between community gardens developed for the purposes of creating positive community sentiment or connection, and those gardens developed for the purposes of alleviating food security concerns. The differences in motivation for developing and participating in community gardens may well be important to consider as suggested in a review by Guitart and colleagues [ 80 ] and in empirical research from Trendov [ 81 ] and Bende and Nagy [ 82 ]. Despite motivational differences in community gardening, the current review suggests that the effect on social interactions and community connection appears to exist regardless. Once again, whether this finding is a result of community gardening or because people seeking social interactions self-select into gardening cannot be clearly delineated from the literature due to poor control of confounding and possible selection bias.

The aim to collect information on characteristics of community gardeners was made difficult by the majority of studies not comparing gardeners to either non-gardeners or to the general population. It would appear that community gardeners were generally older members of the community, with a higher proportion of retirees, and with more years of formal education. However, the samples included in individual studies are entirely dependent on the eligibility criteria (and research questions) of individual studies.

Limitations

The limitations of the current review fall into two areas, those that arise as limitations of the studies included in the review and those that are limitations of the review processes itself. With respect to limitations of studies included in the review, there were no high quality well-powered RCTs and most of the evidence from observational research was rated as having a high risk of bias. The lack of randomized trials in this area is not surprising as it is difficult to randomize individuals to involvement (or not) in community gardens. Non-compliance within intervention and control groups would be problematic as some individuals in the treatment group would not interested in gardening, and some individuals in the control group would want to be gardening. This reflects the ‘problem’ of selection bias through self-selecting into desired activity (common to observational studies reviewed here). Other possibilities that could help elucidate the effects of community gardens could involve randomizing individuals as part of a prescription or treatment for health conditions, or randomizing entire communities to the implementation of a community garden though this would involve large commitments by councils and residents. Thus, the small amount of evidence from ‘gold standard’ RCTs will likely continue, and more attention should be paid to improving the quality of the observational evidence. Many studies had poor or no adjustment for confounding. Furthermore, careful attention needs to be paid to what is being compared in each study. For example, a comparison of food security outcomes from more advantaged community gardeners versus individuals accessing food banks could lead to over-estimates of the beneficial effects of gardens [ 42 ]. Even though such comparisons may be adjusted for confounders, it is unlikely that individuals are exchangeable on all other factors, and residual confounding is likely to be present. Thus, the evidence from individual observational studies are probably overly optimistic effects across all outcomes. Such challenges with research in the community gardens setting and the poor quality of evidence is unsurprising given the diversity of likely motivations for developing and participating in community gardens, the length of time needed to develop such gardens and then see any health or behavioral changes resulting from participation and the unique nature of each community garden and of the users themselves. Future research should not be dissuaded from investigating the benefits of community gardens, rather as much as practical, attention paid to the issues such as selection bias, adjustment for confounding and exchangeability.

Another potential limitation of the included studies is around external validity or in deciding whether the evidence from this review is applicable to other settings. Studies from low- or middle-income studies may not be directly applicable to high-income countries, and vice versa. However, there may also be external validity problems with the high-income country settings (where there is more evidence). For example, studies conducted in highly disadvantaged rural areas of the United States are not likely to be applicable to affluent areas of Europe or Asia, or to high-density living. Hence, the benefits observed in one setting may not be transferable to others.

Potential limitations from the systematic review process are predominantly around the inclusion of relevant literature and the scope of the outcomes. Databases that would have outcomes to inform the review were deliberately searched but no grey literature was searched and it is possible that potentially relevant studies were missed. Finding all sources of grey literature would be unrealistic for an academic review of this nature. If the results of grey and unpublished literature differed from the published literature, the current paper may have a potentially biased view of evidence. No formal tests of the potential for (positive) publication bias, were undertaken as the outcomes of studies were too disparate. As mentioned earlier, the literature in this field is published across many areas and there are many different terms used to reflect conceptualizations of ‘community gardens’. This became apparent during the search and screening processes. Potentially negative outcomes such as community gardens conducted in areas of poor or contaminated soil quality were also not considered. Although the search strategy located such articles, these studies were out of scope.

In conclusion, the results of the studies included in this review indicate that community gardeners tend to consume more fruit and vegetables, are healthier and participate in civic settings more frequently than non-gardeners. However, the observational evidence that involves selected populations have poor (often no) adjustment for confounding, are at risk of bias. Thus, although the evidence is positive for all outcomes, the potential for bias is sufficiently high that the findings are likely to be overly optimistic effects of community gardens.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated and analysed during this study are included in this published article.

World Cancer Research Fund. Food, nutrition, physical activity, and the prevention of cancer: a global perspective. Washington DC: WCRF; 2018.

Google Scholar

Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation. Country profiles US: University of Washington; 2020 [cited 15 Dec 2020]. Available from: http://www.healthdata.org/results/country-profiles .

French SA, Story M, Jeffery RW. Environmental influences on eating and physical activity. Annu Rev Public Health. 2001;22:309–35.

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Soga M, Gaston KJ, Yamaura Y. Gardening is beneficial for health: a meta-analysis. Prev Med Rep. 2017;5:92–9.

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Lovell R, Husk K, Bethel A, Garside R. What are the health and well-being impacts of community gardening for adults and children: a mixed method systematic review protocol. Environ Evid. 2014;3(1):20.

Article Google Scholar

Ainsworth BE, Haskell WL, Leon AS, Jacobs DR Jr, Montoye HJ, Sallis JF, et al. Compendium of physical activities: classification of energy costs of human physical activities. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1993;25(1):71–80.

Kamphuis CB, Giskes K, de Bruijn GJ, Wendel-Vos W, Brug J, van Lenthe FJ. Environmental determinants of fruit and vegetable consumption among adults: a systematic review. Br J Nutr. 2006;96(4):620–35.

CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Kondo MC, Jacoby SF, South EC. Does spending time outdoors reduce stress? A review of real-time stress response to outdoor environments. Health Place. 2018;51:136–50.

Garcia MT, Ribeiro SM, Germani A, Bogus CM. The impact of urban gardens on adequate and healthy food: a systematic review. Public Health Nutr. 2018;21(2):416–25.

McCormack LA, Laska MN, Larson NI, Story M. Review of the nutritional implications of farmers’ markets and community gardens: a call for evaluation and research efforts. J Am Diet Assoc. 2010;110(3):399–408.

Audate PP, Fernandez MA, Cloutier G, Lebel A. Scoping review of the impacts of urban agriculture on the determinants of health. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):672.

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Kunpeuk W, Spence W, Phulkerd S, Suphanchaimat R, Pitayarangsarit S. The impact of gardening on nutrition and physical health outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Health Promot Int. 2020;35(2):397–408.

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.

Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The cochrane collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2011;343:d5928.

Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919.

Robinson-O’Brien R, Story M, Heim S. Impact of garden-based youth nutrition intervention programs: a review. J Am Diet Assoc. 2009;109(2):273–80.

Smith D, Miles-Richardson S, Dill L, Archie-Booker E. Interventions to improve access to fresh food in vulnerable communities: a review of the literature. Int J Disabil Human Dev. 2013;12(4):409–17.

Warren E, Hawkesworth S, Knai C. Investigating the association between urban agriculture and food security, dietary diversity, and nutritional status: a systematic literature review. Food Policy. 2015;53:54–66.

Spano G, D’Este M, Giannico V, Carrus G, Elia M, Lafortezza R, et al. Are community gardening and horticultural interventions beneficial for psychosocial well-being? A meta-analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(10):3584.

Article PubMed Central Google Scholar

Artmann M, Sartison K. The role of urban agriculture as a nature-based solution: a review for developing a systemic assessment framework. Sustainability. 2018;10(6):1937.

Iacovou M, Pattieson DC, Truby H, Palermo C. Social health and nutrition impacts of community kitchens: a systematic review. Public Health Nutr. 2013;16(3):535–43.

Opitz I, Berges R, Piorr A, Krikser T. Contributing to food security in urban areas: differences between urban agriculture and peri-urban agriculture in the Global North. Agric Hum Values. 2016;33(2):341–58.

Poulsen MN, McNab PR, Clayton ML, Neff RA. A systematic review of urban agriculture and food security impacts in low-income countries. Food Policy. 2015;55:131–46.

Schram-Bijkerk D, Otte P, Dirven L, Breure AM. Indicators to support healthy urban gardening in urban management. Sci Total Environ. 2018;621:863–71.

Brown B, Dybdal L, Noonan C, Pedersen MG, Parker M, Corcoran M. Group gardening in a Native American community: a collaborative approach. Health Promot Pract. 2020;21(4):611–23.

Barnidge EK, Hipp PR, Estlund A, Duggan K, Barnhart KJ, Brownson RC. Association between community garden participation and fruit and vegetable consumption in rural Missouri. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2013;10:128.

Alaimo K, Packnett E, Miles RA, Kruger DJ. Fruit and vegetable intake among urban community gardeners. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2008;40(2):94–101.

Algert S, Diekmann L, Renvall M, Gray L. Community and home gardens increase vegetable intake and food security of residents in San, Jose California. California Agriculture. 2016;70(2):77–82.

Barnidge EK, Baker EA, Schootman M, Motton F, Sawicki M, Rose F. The effect of education plus access on perceived fruit and vegetable consumption in a rural African American community intervention. Health Educ Res. 2015;30(5):773–85.

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Carney PA, Hamada JL, Rdesinski R, Sprager L, Nichols KR, Liu BY, et al. Impact of a community gardening project on vegetable intake, food security and family relationships: a community-based participatory research study. J Community Health. 2012;37(4):874–81.

Castro DC, Samuels M, Harman AE. Growing healthy kids: a community garden-based obesity prevention program. Am J Prev Med. 2013;44(3, Suppl 3):S193–9.

De Marco MM, Smith TW, Kearney W, Ammerman A. Harvest of hope: the impact of a church garden project on african American youth and adults in the Rural American South. J Hunger Environ Nutr. 2016;11(3):317–27.

Hartwig KA, Mason M. Community gardens for refugee and immigrant communities as a means of health promotion. J Community Health. 2016;41(6):1153–9.

Heilmayr D, Friedman HS. Cultivating healthy trajectories: An experimental study of community gardening and health. J Health Psychol. 2020;25(13–14):2418–27.

Hopkins LC, Holben DH. Food insecure community gardeners in rural Appalachian Ohio more strongly agree that their produce intake improved and food spending decreased as a result of community gardening compared to food secure community gardeners. J Hunger Environ Nutr. 2018;13(4):540–52.

Kim JE. Fostering behaviour change to encourage low-carbon food consumption through community gardens. Int J Urban Sci. 2017;21(3):364–84.

Litt JS, Soobader M-J, Turbin MS, Hale JW, Buchenau M, Marshall JA. The influence of social involvement, neighborhood aesthetics, and community garden participation on fruit and vegetable consumption. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(8):1466–73.

Litt JS, Schmiege SJ, Hale JW, Buchenau M, Sancar F. Exploring ecological, emotional and social levers of self-rated health for urban gardeners and non-gardeners: a path analysis. Soc Sci Med. 2015;144:1–8.

Machida D. Relationship between community or home gardening and health of the elderly: a web-based cross-sectional survey in Japan. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(8):1389.

Mangadu T, Kelly M, Orezzoli MC, Gallegos R, Matharasi P. Best practices for community gardening in a US-Mexico border community. Health Promot Int. 2017;32(6):1001–14.

PubMed Google Scholar

Martin P, Consales JN, Scheromm P, Marchand P, Ghestem F, Darmon N. Community gardening in poor neighborhoods in France: a way to rethink food practices? Appetite. 2017;116:589–98.

Roncarolo F, Adam C, Bisset S, Potvin L. Traditional and alternative community food security interventions in Montreal, Quebec: different practices, different people. J Community Health. 2015;40(2):199–207.

Schmidt MI, Vorster HH. The effect of communal vegetable gardens on nutritional status. Dev South Afr. 1995;12(5):713–24.

Spees CK, Hill EB, Grainger EM, Buell JL, White SE, Kleinhenz MD, et al. Feasibility, preliminary efficacy, and lessons learned from a garden-based lifestyle intervention for cancer survivors. Cancer Control. 2016;23(3):302–10.

Spliethoff HM, Mitchell RG, Shayler H, Marquez-Bravo LG, Russell-Anelli J, Ferenz G, et al. Estimated lead (Pb) exposures for a population of urban community gardeners. Environ Geochem Health. 2016;38(4):955–71.

Tharrey M, Sachs A, Perignon M, Simon C, Mejean C, Litt J, et al. Improving lifestyles sustainability through community gardening: results and lessons learnt from the JArDinS quasi-experimental study. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):1798.

Veen EJ, Bock BB, Van den Berg W, Visser AJ, Wiskerke JSC. Community gardening and social cohesion: different designs, different motivations. Local Environ. 2016;21(10):1271–87.

Weltin AM, Lavin RP. The effect of a community garden on HgA1c in diabetics of Marshallese descent. J Community Health Nurs. 2012;29(1):12–24.

Hawkins JL, Thirlaway KJ, Backx K, Clayton DA. Allotment gardening and other leisure activities for stress reduction and healthy aging. HortTechnology. 2011;21(5):577–85.

Soga M, Cox DTC, Yamaura Y, Gaston KJ, Kurisu K, Hanaki K. Health benefits of urban allotment gardening: improved physical and psychological well-being and social integration. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017;14(1):13.

van den Berg AE, van Winsum-Westra M, de Vries S, van Dillen SME. Allotment gardening and health: a comparative survey among allotment gardeners and their neighbors without an allotment. Environ Health. 2010;9:12.

Weltin A. A community garden: helping patients with diabetes to better care for themselves. Am J Nurs. 2013;113(11):59–62.

Zick CD, Smith KR, Kowaleski-Jones L, Uno C, Merrill BJ. Harvesting more than vegetables: the potential weight control benefits of community gardening. Am J Public Health. 2013;103(6):1110–5.

Mourao I, Moreira MC, Almeida TC, Brito LM. Perceived changes in well-being and happiness with gardening in urban organic allotments in Portugal. Int J Sust Dev World. 2019;26(1):79–89.

Porter CM. What gardens grow: outcomes from home and community gardens supported by community-based food justice organizations. J Agric Food Syst Community Dev. 2018;8(Special Issue 1):187–205.

Gerber MM, Callahan JL, Moyer DN, Connally ML, Holtz PM, Janis BM. Nepali Bhutanese refugees reap support through community gardening. Int Perspect Psychol. 2017;6(1):17–31.

Grier K, Hill JL, Reese F, Covington C, Bennette F, MacAuley L, et al. Feasibility of an experiential community garden and nutrition programme for youth living in public housing. Public Health Nutr. 2015;18(15):2759–69.

Koay WI, Dillon D. Community gardening: stress, well-being, and resilience potentials. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(18):6740.

Swami V. Body image benefits of allotment gardening. Ecopsychology. 2020;12(1):19–23.

Young C, Hofmann M, Frey D, Moretti M, Bauer N. Psychological restoration in urban gardens related to garden type, biodiversity and garden-related stress. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2020;198:103777.

Comstock N, Dickinson L, Marshall JA, Soobader M-J, Turbin MS, Buchenau M, et al. Neighborhood attachment and its correlates: exploring neighborhood conditions, collective efficacy, and gardening. J Environ Psychol. 2010;30(4):435–42.

Dubova L, Machac J. Improving the quality of life in cities using community gardens: from benefits for members to benefits for all local residents. Geoscape. 2019;13(1):68–78.

Alaimo K, Reischl TM, Allen JO. Community gardening, neighborhood meetings, and social capital. J Community Psychol. 2010;38(4):497–514.

Christensen S, Dyg PM, Allenberg K. Urban community gardening, social capital, and “integration” - a mixed method exploration of urban “integration-gardening” in Copenhagen, Denmark. Local Environment. 2019;24(3):231–48.

Mwakiwa E, Maparara T, Tatsvarei S, Muzamhindo N. Is community management of resources by urban households, feasible? Lessons from community gardens in Gweru, Zimbabwe. Urban For Urban Green. 2018;34:97–104.

Bussell MR, Bliesner J, Pezzoli K. UC pursues rooted research with a nonprofit, links the many benefits of community gardens. Calif Agric. 2017;71(3):139–47.

Edeoghon CO, Okoedo-Okojie DU. Information needs of youths involved in urban agriculture as strategy for checking unemployment in Epe LGA of Lagos state, Nigeria. J Appl Sci Environ Manag. 2015;19(1):37–42.

Egerer M, Ordonez C, Lin BB, Kendal D. Multicultural gardeners and park users benefit from and attach diverse values to urban nature spaces. Urban For Urban Green. 2019;46:126445.

Filkobski I, Rofe Y, Tal A. Community gardens in Israel: characteristics and perceived functions. Urban For Urban Green. 2016;17:148–57.

Gauder M, Hagel H, Gollmann N, Stangle J, Doluschitz R, Claupein W. Motivation and background of participants and providers of self-harvest gardens in Germany. Renewable Agric Food Syst. 2019;34(6):534–42.

Grebitus C, Printezis I, Printezis A. Relationship between consumer behavior and success of urban agriculture. Ecol Econ. 2017;136:189–200.

Grubb M, Vogl CR. Understanding Food Literacy in Urban Gardeners: A Case Study of the Twin Cities, Minnesota. Sustainability. 2019;11(13):3617.

Langemeyer J, Camps-Calvet M, Calvet-Mir L, Barthel S, Gomez-Baggethun E. Stewardship of urban ecosystem services: understanding the value(s) of urban gardens in Barcelona. Landsc Urban Plan. 2018;170:79–89.

Migliore G, Romeo P, Testa R, Schifani G. Beyond alternative food networks: understanding motivations to participate in Orti urbani in Palermo. Cult Agric Food Environ. 2019;41(2):129–39.

Roberts S, Shackleton C. Temporal dynamics and motivations for urban community food gardens in medium-sized towns of the eastern cape, South Africa. Land. 2018;7(4):12.

Veen EJ, Eiter S. Vegetables and social relations in Norway and the Netherlands a comparative analysis of urban allotment gardeners. Nat Cult. 2018;13(1):135–60.

Zoellner J, Zanko A, Price B, Bonner J, Hill JL. Exploring community gardens in a health disparate population: findings from a mixed methods pilot study. Prog Community Health Partnersh. 2012;6(2):153–65.

Diekmann LO, Gray LC, Baker GA. Growing “good food”: urban gardens, culturally acceptable produce and food security. Renewable Agric Food Syst. 2020;35(2):169–81.

Loopstra R, Tarasuk V. Perspectives on community gardens, community kitchens and the Good Food Box program in a community-based sample of low-income families. Can J Public Health. 2013;104(1):e55-9.

Guitart D, Pickering C, Byrne J. Past results and future directions in urban community gardens research. Urban For Urban Green. 2012;11(4):364–73.

Trendov NM. Comparative study on the motivations that drive urban community gardens in Central Eastern Europe. Ann Agrar Sci. 2018;16(1):85–9.

Bende C, Nagy G. Community gardens in post-socialist Hungary: differences and similarities. Geogr Pol. 2020;93:211–28.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

This work was supported by Wellbeing SA, South Australia, Australia. The funding body had no role in the design of the study, collection, analysis or interpretation of the data. Author KOD from the funding body contributed to the writing of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Public Health, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, 5000, Australia

Clare Hume, Anna Kalamkarian, Katina D’Onise & Lisa G. Smithers

Adelaide Medical School, North Terrace, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia

Jessica A. Grieger

Robinson Research Institute, University of Adelaide, North Adelaide, SA, 5006, Australia

Jessica A. Grieger & Lisa G. Smithers

Wellbeing SA, Citicentre, Hindmarsh Square, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia

Katina D’Onise

School of Health and Society, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, 2522, Australia

Lisa G. Smithers

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

CH, JG, AK and LS were responsible for the screening of studies and data extraction and data analysis. All authors contributed to the writing of the manuscript. The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Clare Hume .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1:.

Supplementary Table 1. Search terms for each database. Table 1a PubMed search for studies on community gardens. Table 1b PsycINFO search for studies on community gardens. Table 1a Web of Science search for studies on community gardens. Table 1d EBSCOhost database searching for studies on community gardens. e CAB Abstracts search for studies on community gardens. Table 1f Summary of database searches for studies on community gardens. Supplementary Table 2. Quality assessment of the RCTs using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (14). Supplementary Table 3. Quality assessment for included articles using the ROBINS-I Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (15).

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Hume, C., Grieger, J.A., Kalamkarian, A. et al. Community gardens and their effects on diet, health, psychosocial and community outcomes: a systematic review. BMC Public Health 22 , 1247 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-13591-1

Download citation

Received : 29 July 2021

Accepted : 15 March 2022

Published : 23 June 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-13591-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Community gardens
Physical activity
Psychosocial

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

General enquiries: [email protected]

Community Gardens

Research & Benefits of Community Gardens

El inglés es el idioma de control de esta página. En la medida en que haya algún conflicto entre la traducción al inglés y la traducción, el inglés prevalece.

Al hacer clic en el enlace de traducción se activa un servicio de traducción gratuito para convertir la página al español. Al igual que con cualquier traducción por Internet, la conversión no es sensible al contexto y puede que no traduzca el texto en su significado original. NC State Extension no garantiza la exactitud del texto traducido. Por favor, tenga en cuenta que algunas aplicaciones y/o servicios pueden no funcionar como se espera cuando se traducen.

Inglês é o idioma de controle desta página. Na medida que haja algum conflito entre o texto original em Inglês e a tradução, o Inglês prevalece.

Ao clicar no link de tradução, um serviço gratuito de tradução será ativado para converter a página para o Português. Como em qualquer tradução pela internet, a conversão não é sensivel ao contexto e pode não ocorrer a tradução para o significado orginal. O serviço de Extensão da Carolina do Norte (NC State Extension) não garante a exatidão do texto traduzido. Por favor, observe que algumas funções ou serviços podem não funcionar como esperado após a tradução.

English is the controlling language of this page. To the extent there is any conflict between the English text and the translation, English controls.

Clicking on the translation link activates a free translation service to convert the page to Spanish. As with any Internet translation, the conversion is not context-sensitive and may not translate the text to its original meaning. NC State Extension does not guarantee the accuracy of the translated text. Please note that some applications and/or services may not function as expected when translated.

Alaimo, Katherine PhD 1, Elizabeth Packnett MPH, Richard A. Miles BS and Daniel J. Kruger PhD, Fruit and Vegetable Intake among Urban Community Gardeners, Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior , Volume 40, Issue 2, March-April 2008, Pages 94-101

“Adults with a household member who participated in a community garden consumed fruits and vegetables 1.4 more times per day than those who did not participate, and they were 3.5 times more likely to consume fruits and vegetables at least 5 times daily.” 1 Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 2 Prevention Research Center of Michigan/University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan

Dibsdall, LA, N Lambert, RF Bobbin and LJ Frewer. 2002. Low-income consumers’ attitudes and behavior towards access availability and motivation to eat fruit and vegetables. Public Health Nutrition, Volume 6, Issue 02, Apr 2002, pp 159-168

Commonly cited barriers to fruit and vegetable intake include cost, availability and acceptance. Community gardens have the potential to decrease these barriers by lowering the cost of produce, increasing access, and eventually increasing acceptance and improving taste perceptions of fruits and vegetables.

Jill S. Litt, Mah-J. Soobader, Mark S. Turbin, James W. Hale, Michael Buchenau, and Julie A. Marshall. 2011. The Influence of Social Involvement, Neighborhood Aesthetics, and Community Garden Participation on Fruit and Vegetable Consumption. American Journal of Public Health: August 2011, Vol. 101, No. 8, pp. 1466-1473.

Community gardeners consumed fruits and vegetables 5.7 times per day, compared with home gardeners (4.6 times per day) and nongardeners (3.9 times per day). Moreover, 56% of community gardeners met national recommendations to consume fruits and vegetables at least 5 times per day, compared with 37% of home gardeners and 25% of nongardeners. The qualities intrinsic to community gardens make them a unique intervention that can narrow the divide between people and the places where food is grown and increase local opportunities to eat better.

Read More: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2010.300111 Morris, Jennifer L., and Sheri Zidenberg-Cherr,. 2002 Garden-enhanced nutrition curriculum improves fourth-grade school children’s knowledge of nutrition and preferences for some vegetables, Journal of the American Dietetic Association, Volume 102 Number 1, January 2002 Pages 91-93

Nutrition knowledge scores for students in the nutrition education only (NL) and the nutrition education plus gardening(NG) were significantly great than those in the control group (CO) and these differences were maintained at the six month follow-up. Posttest Vegetable Preference scores for the NL and the NG groups were each significantly greater than those of the CO group for broccoli and carrots. In addition the NG group was significantly greater than both the other groups on snow peas and zucchini. At the six month follow up both the NL and NG groups remained significant for carrots and the NG was also still significant for broccoli, snow peas and zucchini. Their was no significant difference among the 3 sites in relation to the student’s willingness to taste the vegetables.

Ober Allen, Julie, Katherine Alaimo, Doris Elam; and Elizabeth Perry. 2008 Growing Vegetables and Values: Benefits of Neighborhood-Based Community Gardens for Youth Development and Nutrition. Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition , Volume 3 , Issue 4 , pages 418 – 439

Community gardens are one way that residents have mobilized to beautify urban neighborhoods, improve access to fresh produce, and engage youth. Qualitative case studies were conducted of two neighborhood-based community gardens with youth programs. Data collection included participant observation and in-depth interviews with adult gardeners and neighbors, youth, and community police officers. Results suggest that the garden programs provided opportunities for constructive activities, contributions to the community, relationship and interpersonal skill development, informal social control, exploring cognitive and behavioral competence, and improved nutrition. Community gardens promoted developmental assets for involved youth while improving their access to and consumption of healthy foods. 1. Department of Health Behavior & Health Education, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, MI 2. Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI Online Publication Date: 11 December 2008

Community Development

Been, V. and I. Voicu. 2006. The Effect of Community Gardens on Neighboring Property Values , New York University School of Law, New York University Law and Economics Working Papers Paper 46.

“We find that the opening of a community garden has a statistically significant positive impact on residential properties within 1000 feet of the garden, and that the impact increases over time. We find that gardens have the greatest impact in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods. Higher quality gardens have the greatest positive impact. Finally, we find that the opening of a garden is associated with other changes in the neighborhood, such as increasing rates of homeownership, and thus may be serving as catalysts for economic redevelopment of the community.”

Schukoske, Jane E. 2000 Community Development Through Gardening: State and Local Policies Transforming Urban Open Space. Legislation and Public Policy. Vol.3:351

This article has addressed the beneficial influence that gardens can have in curbing the problems associated with vacant lots and urban blight. It has also highlighted the other social benefits that can be reaped from establishing a community garden. Further, this article has examined the state and local laws that govern community gardens as well as the role of intermediary organizations such as land trusts. By extracting those factors which have made garden programs successful in communities throughout the country, this article has set forth the elements of a model local ordinance.

Van Den Berg, Agnes E., and Mariette H. Custers. 2011. Gardening Promotes Neuroendocrine and Affective Restoration from Stress. Journal of Health Psychology. 2011. 16:3-11

Stress-relieving effects of gardening were hypothesized and tested in a field experiment. Thirty allotment gardeners performed a stressful Stroop task and were then randomly assigned to 30 minutes of outdoor gardening or indoor reading on their own allotment plot. Salivary cortisol levels and self-reported mood were repeatedly measured. Gardening and reading each led to decreases in cortisol during the recovery period, but decreases were significantly stronger in the gardening group. Positive mood was fully restored after gardening, but further deteriorated during reading. These findings provide the first experimental evidence that gardening can promote relief from acute stress.

Multiple Benefits

Armstrong, Donna. 2000. A survey of community gardens in upstate New York: Implications for health promotion and community development. Health & Place 6 (2000) 319-327

Twenty community garden programs in upstate New York (representing 63 gardens) were surveyed to identify characteristics that may be useful to facilitate neighborhood development and health promotion. The most commonly expressed reasons for participating in gardens were access to fresh foods, to enjoy nature, and health benefits. Gardens in low-income neighborhoods (46%) were four times as likely as non low-income gardens to lead to other issues in the neighborhood being addressed; reportedly due to organizing facilitated through the community gardens.

Draper, C and D. Freedman. 2010. Review and Analysis of the Benefits, Purposes, and Motivations Associated with Community Gardening in the United States. Journal of Community Practice, 18(4) 458 – 492

Community gardens have been a part of modern American culture since the late 19th century. Participation in community gardening has ebbed and flowed in response to changing socioeconomic conditions, and thus the current economic recession has reheightened public interest. In a review of the scholarly literature from 1999 to 2010, rigorous quantitative research studies on the effects of community gardens are found to be sparse; however, a larger body of qualitative data is available. Eleven themes related to the purposes, benefits of, and motivations for participating in community gardens are identified. Community gardens can serve as an effective tool for community-based practitioners in carrying out their roles within the arenas of organizing, development, and change.

McFarland, A.L. , T.M. Waliczek and J.M. Zajicek. 2008. The Relationship Between Student Use of Campus Green Spaces and Perceptions of Quality of Life, HortTechnology 18:232-238 (2008)

Students’ perception of their overall academic experience and the campus environment is related to academic accomplishment. The designed environment of the university can influence the degree of stress students may feel. Undergraduate student use of campus green spaces and perceptions of quality of life were related to each other. Popular press coverage of the research in Campus Green Spaces Enhance Quality Of Life, Science Daily News 9/30/08.

Teig, E., et al., Collective efficacy in Denver, Colorado: Strengthening neighborhoods and health through community gardens. Health & Place (2009), doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2009.06.003

The social organizational underpinnings of gardens give rise to a range of social processes, including social connections, reciprocity, mutual trust, collective decision-making, civic engagement and community building, all important processes associated with improving individual health and strengthening neighborhoods (Twiss et al., 2003; Armstrong, 2000; Cohen et al., 2006; Landman, 1993). Such processes can be fostered through community gardens through key activities such as volunteerism, leadership, neighborhood activities and recruitment. The place-based social processes found in community gardens support collective efficacy, a powerful mechanism for enhancing the role of gardens in promoting health.

Wakefield, S, F. Yeudall, C. Taron, J. Reynolds and A. Skinner. 2007 Growing urban health: Community gardening in South-East Toronto . Health Promotion International 2007 22(2):92-101; Oxford University Press

Results suggest that community gardens were perceived by gardeners to provide numerous health benefits, including improved access to food, improved nutrition, increased physical activity and improved mental health. Community gardens were also seen to promote social health and community cohesion.

Share this Article

Rhetorical Argument in the Community Gardens Research Paper

To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
As a template for you assignment

A community garden refers to a place where a group of people mutually come together to grow something. The Community gardens are open to the general public and any other personnel interested in digging in the dirt and planting fruits and vegetables. The gardens have created a mutual partnership for the people, leading to sustainability in assessing, cultivating, and developing a superb network (Norton). The community garden has ensured a large and growing community partnership that is exceptionally committed to student development, nutrition, and food sustainability. The key aims of the community garden entail increasing concern and respect for the natural world, developing food sustainability, promoting healthy eating and living characters, and building an entirely dependent community. Through an emphasis on grass-roots activism and the power of immediate action, community gardens empower people to solve local needs with local solutions – with or without permission.

In her TED talk, Warhurst’s suggested the need to invent a new form of tourism known as vegetable tourism that would help solve local issues related to food security. According to Warhurst, there has been a need for a revolution for the community gardens in her homeland of Todmorden using local solutions available. For instance, Warhurst, in the TED talk, claims that “Can you find a unifying language that cuts across age and income and culture that will help people themselves find a new way of living, see spaces around them differently, think about the resources they use differently, interact differently? Can we replicate the same actions” (Warhurst 00:02:34-00:03:15)? From this argument paused, it is evident that Warhurst was much committed to inventing the community project by creating a simple game plan that later saw them solve their local challenges using locally available solutions. According to Warhurst, the unifying language that aimed at cutting across all ages and income entailed holding a public meeting in Todmorden to shift their focus into their three plates, the community plate, the learning plate, and business without permission from anyone.

Through his appeal to empower people to solve local needs with local solutions, Warhurst, in her TED talk, aims to convince his audience through reasoning and evidence. Entirely, the author has in the TED talk focused on providing evidence to the people on how they can eat their landscapes. Pam Warhurst, in the talk, has also focused on expounding her appeal to the people by providing a detailed explanation of how communities can utilize their unused land without seeking permission from anyone. According to her, communities should use their unused land to plant food that will help to feed the community (Warhurst 00:02:34-00:03:15). With humour and energy, Pam Warhurst tells at the TEDSalon a story based on how she and other growing teams of volunteers decided to come together and utilize the unused plots by planting communal vegetables that helped change the concept of food in their society.

Being a cofounded incredible edible and an initiator in Todmorden in England, Pam Warhurst makes a considerable appeal to the people by persuading them to acquire a dedication to growing food locally by utilizing unused lands in their society. The narrative presents an argument on the difference between the two levels of awareness about the community garden. In the proactive report, the first level that has been focused on is the problem-specific consciousness that entails the first group of gardeners who united to create a superb investment in the already abandoned lands in Todmorden. The second level entails adopting locally available solutions to solve their local problem of food insecurity.

On the other hand, Finley aims to persuade people of how the Guerilla Gardener helped reduce fattening, greasy, nutritious and overconsumed foods in South Central L.A through adoptions of locally available solutions to their problems. In analyzing the challenge, Finley uses various incidences of humour and pride in his scenarios. The author has created multiple pictures to illustrate the challenge that people in South Central L. A were facing among them are pictures of him feeding the homeless and children gardening. In his presentation, he appeals to the people to freely realize a solution to food insecurity by investing in the Guerilla Gardener in South Central L.A community. Finley also uses persuasive solid language for the people of South Central L.A by adopting significant statistics and logical progression of ideas of how local needs can be solved using local solutions without seeking anyone’s permission. The author has pointed out various ways that the Guerilla Garden helped reduce fattening, greasy, nutritious, and the concept of overconsumption of foods in the South Central L.A.

Finley has emphasized grass-roots activism and the power of immediate action to explain to the South Central natives of his experience with guerilla gardening. For instance, the author claims that “food is the problem and the solution” to make a severe comparison in a more understandable manner (Finley 00:04:34-00:06:00). Similarly, Finley emphasizes grass-root collectivism to create relevant persuasive thoughts in the minds of his listeners on the aspects he is explaining. For instance, Finley describes how he was tired by saying, “driving 45 minutes to buy an apple impregnated with pests (Finley 00:07:05-00:10:06)” By saying so, Finley aims at explaining to the people of South Central L.A on the powers that collectivism and immediate action can accrue them with to realize potential solutions by adopting locally available resources.

Similarly, the UWF community garden is based on an appeal for unity of purpose to realize local solutions to local needs without permission granted to natives. Being an active service garden based in the Kugelman Honors program, the project was founded after a precise analysis of growth challenges using an appeal for grass-root collectivism and the need for an immediate solution (UWF Community Garden). The foundation of the UWF Community garden has been associated with rhetoric and music, astronomy, and mathematics to persuade the public on the need for people to realize solutions to their problems. The University of Florida community garden has had a long history that can be traced back to its partnership with the Manna Food Bank. In one of the UWF College of Arts, Social Sciences, and humanity documentaries, the author has presented a clear argument on the key reason for the foundation of the UWF community garden with their future missions and visions in a persuasive manner.

Based on the emphasis on grass-roots activism and the power of immediate action, the community garden aimed at building a well-functioning community at the University of Florida and its environs. Similarly, with the garden’s establishment, there were more straightforward ways of helping students acquire community-building skills to solve local issues by utilizing the locally available solutions (UWF Kugelman Honors Program). The community garden ensured a large and growing community partnership that is incredibly committed to student development, nutrition, and food sustainability. The key aims of the community garden entail increasing concern and respect for the natural world, developing food sustainability, promoting healthy eating and living characters, and building a community at UWF by using local solutions.

Works Cited

Finley, Ron. “A Guerrilla Gardener in South Central LA.” TED: Ideas Worth Spreading , TED Talks, 2013, Web.

Norton, Jasara. “Garden Narratives: Writing Rhetorically in Public Spaces.” English Composition I, 2020, University of West Florida. Pensacola. Reading. Program , University of West Florida. Web.

UWF Community Garden. Mushroom Harvesting. Facebook .

UWF Kugelman Honors Program. “UWF Community Garden.” UWF Kugelman Honors.

Warhurst, Pam. “How We Can Eat Our Landscapes.” TED: Ideas Worth Spreading , TED Talks, 2012, Web.

Rhetorical Techniques in “Letter From Birmingham Jail” by Martin Luther King
The Nature of Arguments and Critical Thinking
Trickle-Down vs. Grassroots Organization' Approaches
Grassroots Organizing Groups
Adult Education for Social Change: The Role of a Grassroots Organization in Canada
Unacceptable Conditions of Sweatshops
Attention-Grabbing Techniques in Public Speeches
Rhetorical Analysis of the Distance Education
"Why Sit Ye Here and Die?" Speech by Maria Stewarts
Preparing for a Persuasive Speech
Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, October 12). Rhetorical Argument in the Community Gardens. https://ivypanda.com/essays/rhetorical-argument-in-the-community-gardens/

"Rhetorical Argument in the Community Gardens." IvyPanda , 12 Oct. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/rhetorical-argument-in-the-community-gardens/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Rhetorical Argument in the Community Gardens'. 12 October.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Rhetorical Argument in the Community Gardens." October 12, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/rhetorical-argument-in-the-community-gardens/.

1. IvyPanda . "Rhetorical Argument in the Community Gardens." October 12, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/rhetorical-argument-in-the-community-gardens/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Rhetorical Argument in the Community Gardens." October 12, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/rhetorical-argument-in-the-community-gardens/.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List

Evidence on the contribution of community gardens to promote physical and mental health and well-being of non-institutionalized individuals: A systematic review

Tarsila lampert.

1 Instituto de Saúde Ambiental, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal

Joana Costa

2 EnviHeB Lab, Instituto de Saúde Ambiental, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal

Osvaldo Santos

3 Unbreakable Idea Research, Lisboa, Portugal

Joana Sousa

4 Laboratório de Nutrição, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal

Teresa Ribeiro

5 Câmara Municipal de Cascais, Lisboa, Portugal

Elisabete Freire

6 Departamento das Ciências Sociais do Território, Faculdade de Arquitectura, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal

Associated Data

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Introduction

There has been growing interest in community gardens as an effective and affordable health promotion strategy. However, most available evidence is derived from qualitative studies, whereas quantitative research on this subject is limited.

To synthetize the literature about physical and mental health outcomes associated with community gardening. Two main questions were addressed: a) is there evidence, from quantitative studies, that community gardening is associated to physical and mental health and well-being of non-institutionalized individuals? b) Does community gardening provokes any discomfort in terms of physical health, i.e., bodily pain, to their beneficiaries?

A systematic review of the literature was carried out following PRISMA guidelines by searching relevant electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science). Empirical, quantitative studies published in English with no restrictions concerning the date of publication were considered eligible. The quality of the evidence was appraised using the tool developed by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies.

Overall, 8 studies were considered eligible, of which seven studies were rated as having good methodological quality (one scored as fair). Community gardeners had significantly better health outcomes than their neighbours not engaged in gardening activities in terms of life satisfaction, happiness, general health, mental health, and social cohesion.

Community gardens are associated to health gains for their users, irrespective of age, being an affordable and efficient way of promoting physical and mental health and well-being. To encourage the design, maintenance, and prospective evaluation of supportive urban environments promoting healthy and, at the same time, sustainable lifestyles, is essential to achieve public health gains and environmental sustainability.

The global burden of mental illness is considerable, and it encompasses individual, family, social and economic impacts [ 1 ]. At the individual level, people suffering from (transient or chronic) mental illness also experience impaired quality of life characterized by distress-related feelings, lack of control, low self-esteem and confidence, among others [ 2 , 3 ]. This condition strongly affects their everyday living [ 4 ], including their social interactions [ 5 ] and performance at the workplace [ 6 ]. Moreover, stigma and discrimination towards people with mental illness still prevails. with negative consequences for those mentally ill [ 7 ], who might refrain from seeking professional help [ 8 ].

A recently published literature review concluded that the global burden of mental illness in terms of years lived with disabilities (YLDs) has been underestimated, and placed mental illness at the top of the list accounting for 32.4% of YLDs [ 1 ]. Concerning disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), mental illness is at the same level as cardiovascular and circulatory diseases, accounting for 13.0% of DALYs [ 1 ]. These pictures call for action against the high burden of mental illness and gain urgency in the context of the current COVID-19 pandemic. The available literature addressing the impact of COVID-19 on mental health supports psychological suffering (e.g., anxiety, depression, post-traumatic disorder, psychological distress) from lockdowns, social distancing measures, being diagnosed with COVID-19 or being a health professional working at the frontline [ 9 – 11 ]. Now more than ever before, mental health promotion should be the main avenue to tackle the burden of mental illness.

Human contact with nature has been highly valued in health promotion over the last years. As such, there has been a growing interest on the health benefits from greenspace exposure, i.e., parks, gardens and forests, with evidence in favour of positive health outcomes (e.g. [ 12 – 17 ]). Interestingly, some authors argue that the mental health benefits arising from the contact with nature should embody the list of services provided by the natural ecosystems [ 13 ], which include crop pollination and climate regulation, among others. Empirical evidence supports the beneficial influence of greenspace exposure on several health outcomes. These include physical and general health [ 18 ]; disease prevention [ 19 – 21 ]; restoration of the individuals’ psychological resources by providing them with an environment free from physical and social stressors [ 22 ]; and improvement of the cognitive function, including memory, attention, concentration and impulse inhibition [ 23 ].

Contact with nature in urban areas is challenging, because outdoor greenspaces are much reduced compared to non-urban, rural areas. Cox et al. (2017) investigated which natural characteristics of selected neighbourhoods in British urban areas contributed the most for mental health gains of the nearby residents. These authors concluded that vegetation cover and the abundance of birds in the afternoon were the most relevant factors contributing for mental health benefits measured as decreased prevalence of depression, anxiety, and stress. Another study concluded that the prevalence of mental health conditions can be reduced if minimum values of vegetation cover are maintained [ 20 ]. Thus, green spaces can also function as a promotion strategy for mental health [ 24 ]. These findings are highly relevant to inform strategic public health interventions and support urban planning solutions that ease the interaction between city dwellers and nature [ 25 ].

In 2019, approximately 57% of the world population lived in cities [ 26 ] and spent the great majority of the time indoors (e.g., at home, school, workplace); pre-COVID-19 pandemic estimates pointed out that humans spend, on average, 85–90% of their time indoors [ 27 ]. Then, the great challenge is to integrate nature within the urban infrastructure. One avenue to tackle this issue is by promoting citizens’ participation in community gardens [ 28 ]. Community gardens are also known as urban gardens, allotment gardens, allotments, community agriculture, agricultural allotments, roof top gardens, roof top agriculture, roof top farms, all these terms referring to a greenspace located in an urban area, where community residents mainly grow vegetables for their own consumption, although border flower beds are also commonly grown, while profiting from it in the company of other members from the neighbourhood and/or their family with no imposed frequency schedule [ 29 ]. Community gardens serve various relevant functions at multiple levels. At the environmental level, they can add to climate change mitigation by sequestrating atmospheric carbon, thus contributing for reducing the amount of greenhouse gases [ 30 ]. As previously mentioned, community gardens are also considered a sustainable way to improve the quality of life of city dwellers [ 31 , 32 ], namely by providing citizens with the opportunity to be in close contact with nature [ 33 , 34 ] while supporting healthy lifestyles [ 35 ].

Horticultural therapy, i.e., the engagement of individuals in horticultural activities with live plants to improve their health and well-being [ 36 ], has produced health benefits on people with various mental health conditions in different settings (e.g., [ 37 – 39 ]. However, less is known about the mental health outcomes for non-clinical populations engaging in gardening activities. A study carried out in The Netherlands provided support for a positive effect of gardening activities on relief from acute stress [ 40 ]. In another study, community gardeners were induced some stress and randomly assigned to a 30-min outdoors gardening session or indoors reading. The levels of stress measured as salivary cortisol and self-reported positive mood were significantly lower in those assigned to gardening activities versus the reading group [ 40 ]. There is also some evidence that engaging in community gardening improves well-being by encouraging healthy behaviours, such as physical activity [ 41 ] and the consumption of locally grown healthy foods [ 42 , 43 ]. Moreover, a qualitative study conducted in the United States pointed out that gardening is considered a moderate intensity activity that can provide older adults with the health benefits of regular moderate intensity physical activity [ 44 ]. On the other hand, some body positions during gardening can be uncomfortable or even cause pain when the target audience is the elderly [ 44 ].

Despite increased attention that community gardening has received in recent years, most available evidence on health and well-being promotion comes from qualitative studies [ 45 , 46 ]. As such, this study aims to review quantitative evidence about physical and mental health outcomes of community gardening. More specifically, this literature review addresses two main questions. First, is there evidence, from quantitative studies, that community gardening contributes to increased physical and mental health and well-being of non-institutionalized individuals? Second, does community gardening provokes any discomfort in terms of physical health, i.e., bodily pain, to their users? To answer these questions, a systematic literature review following PRISMA guidelines [ 47 ] was conducted.

Search strategy and inclusion criteria

A systematic literature review was performed following PRISMA guidelines [ 47 ] through a search of studies contained in PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science electronic databases with no restrictions concerning publication date (PRISMA Checklist is provided as S1 Checklist ). The search was conducted on July 2–4, 2019, and updated on November 17–19, 2020, by using a pairwise combination of two blocks of both free-text and medical subject headings (MeSH) terms. The search strategy followed for PubMed is provided as S1 File . The following keywords were used as alternatives: (“Community garden*” OR “Urban garden*” OR “Allotment garden*” OR Allotment OR “Community agriculture” OR “Agricultural allotment” OR “Roof*top garden*” OR “Roof*top agriculture” OR “Roof*top farm*”) AND (“Mental health” OR “Quality of life” OR *happiness OR “Well*being” OR “Life satisfaction” OR “Satisfaction with life” OR “Psychological well*being” OR “Subjective well*being” OR Depression OR Anxiety OR Dysthymia OR Loneliness OR “Musculoskeletal injur*” OR “Musculoskeletal condition*” OR “Osteo*articular injur*” OR “Osteo*articular disease*”).

Citations retrieved were downloaded, duplicates were removed, titles and abstracts were independently screened for eligibility by two authors of this review (TL and JC). In case of disagreement, a third researcher (OS) independently assessed the article for eligibility. Articles were assessed for eligibility based on the following criteria: a) empirical cross-sectional quantitative studies; b) community-based studies; c) data on subjective or psychological well-being and/or physical well-being reported in the study; d) the gardens referred to in the studies were exclusively community gardens; and e) full texts available in English. Documents reporting data from studies conducted in home gardens, also referred to as household gardens, as well as qualitative studies, literature reviews and grey literature were excluded.

Data extraction and analysis

Data were independently extracted by two authors of this review (TL and JC) into a standardized table, and a third researcher (OS) checked data for consensus. Data extracted from each article were as follows: authors, year of publication, title of the paper, country of data collection, setting (rural versus urban), target population, sample size of the participants, sample size of gardens, inclusion criteria, exclusion criteria, characteristics of the gardens (e.g., area, number of plots), motivation(s) for selecting those gardens, health outcomes under study (i.e., subjective or psychological well-being and/or physical well-being), instruments of data collection, main conclusions, and direction of the association between community gardening and health outcomes.

Quality assessment

The quality of the evidence was appraised using the tool by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies [ 48 ]. This was done independently by two authors of the paper (TL and JC); in case of disagreement, an independent evaluation was made by a third researcher (OS).

Fig 1 depicts the selection process of articles included in this systematic literature review. Eight articles were considered eligible from the initial list of 262 potentially relevant titles. Main methodological characteristics of the articles are summarized in Table 1 . Studies included in this literature review were conducted in the United States of America (n = 3), United Kingdom (n = 1), the Netherlands (n = 1), Japan (n = 1), Singapore (n = 1), and Portugal (n = 1). All studies were conducted in an urban setting and had a cross-sectional design; one of them used a mixed-methods approach by combining cross-sectional quantitative data collection and qualitative semi-structured interviews [ 49 ]. Target population was composed of adult gardeners and non-gardeners residing in the cities where the studies were carried out; one study targeted Bhutanese refugees living in the United States [ 49 ]. In all studies, outcomes of interest were compared between gardeners and non-gardeners. With regard to inclusion and exclusion criteria, these were generally not provided in the articles, with three exceptions in which specific inclusion criteria for the target population were defined: a) individuals aged 50+ years [ 50 ], b) Nepali Bhutanese Refugees [ 49 ], and c) gardeners from the urban organic allotment garden at Devesa Park, Portugal [ 51 ]. Only the study carried out in Singapore referred to exclusion criteria: participants who did not complete the survey; individuals under the age of 18 and over the age of 100; and residents who engaged in physical activities outdoors, alone and not in a group, were excluded from the study [ 52 ]. The number of community gardens analyzed in the studies ranged from 1 to 64; however, not all studies reported this information. Community gardens were variable in terms of their characteristics, including size and facilities offered to gardeners. Detailed information regarding garden characteristics was generally not provided in the papers ( Table 1 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is pone.0255621.g001.jpg

Reference	Country of data collection	Setting	Target population	Participants’ inclusion criteria	Community Gardens
Reference	Country of data collection	Setting	Target population	Participants’ inclusion criteria	Sample size	Characteristics
Blair et al., 1991 [ ]	United States of America	Urban	Gardeners from the Philadelphia Urban Gardening Project and non-gardeners from the same geographical area.	NS	64	NS
van den Berg et al., 2010 [ ]	The Netherlands	Urban	Members of 12 allotment sites and their neighbours.	NS	12	Average area of 7 ha.
Hawkins et al., 2011 [ ]	United Kingdom	Urban	Individuals aged 50 and over, members of various indoor and outdoor activity groups.	Aged 50 years and over	NS	NS
Gerber et al., 2017 [ ]	United States of America	Urban	Bhutanese refugees.	To be a Bhutanese refugee living in the USA	2	The majority of plots required some form of transportation to reach.
Soga et al., 2017b [ ]	Japan	Urban	Nerima city residents.	NS	24	Area of allotment sites ranged between 0.05 and 0.47 ha.
Booth et al., 2018 [ ]	United States of America	Urban	Residents in a disadvantaged neighbourhood.	NS	4	Total area of the community gardens of about 3.2 ha.
Mourão et al., 2019 [ ]	Portugal	Urban	Gardeners from Devesa Park.	To be a gardener from the urban organic allotment garden at Devesa Park	1	The allotment gardens included 192 family plots of 25m /plot, 6 raised plots of 4m /plot, 3 plots of 100 m2/plot and a common composting area (120 m ), 6 tool houses, 40 water taps, rest and snack areas and sanitary equipment.
Mourão et al., 2019 [ ]	Portugal	Urban	Gardeners from Devesa Park.		1	The urban organic allotment gardens are integrated in the park green area; access only granted for gardeners.
Koay & Dillon, 2020 [ ]	Singapore	Urban	Community dwellers residing and engaging in gardening or outdoor activities in Singapore	NS	NS	NS

Notes: NS = Not specified.

Characterization of the participants

Characterization of the participants (gardeners and non-gardeners) and data on the association between gardening and mental and physical well-being are provided in Table 2 . The sample size of community gardeners ranged from 16 [ 53 ] to 165 [ 19 ], whereas the number of participants enrolled in the studies who were not engaged in gardening activities ranged from 28 [ 49 , 52 ] to 167 [ 19 ]. One study considered two groups of participants, i.e., regular and occasional gardeners, based on the frequency they engaged in gardening activities [ 53 ]. Two studies also included a group of people who performed their gardening activities within their home gardens [ 50 , 52 ]. With regard to non-gardeners, one study addressed community gardening and other leisure activities for stress reduction, and the latter group included home gardeners, walkers and people who engaged in physical activity indoors [ 50 ].

Reference	Participants			Outcomes measured		Instruments used for data collection	Main conclusions	Direction of the association
Reference	Sample size	Sex (%, female)	Age (mean ± SD)	Physical health & well-being	Psychological wellbeing, Subjective Wellbeing and Psychossocial indicators	Instruments used for data collection	Main conclusions	Direction of the association
Blair et al., 1991 [ ]	G: 144 NG: 67	G: 53.8% NG: 65.7%	G: 60.3 ± 15.1 NG: 45.5 ± 15.3	• Self-reported health	• Life satisfaction	NS	• Gardeners reported significantly higher life satisfaction and positive life events than non-gardeners. • Participants in gardening activities were more actively involved in community projects than their neighbours.	Positive
Van den Berg et al., 2010 [ ]	G:121 NG:63	G:47.1% NG: 58.7%	G: 61.5 ± 11.8 NG: 55.9 ± 13.8	• Perceived general health • Acute health complaints • Physical constraints • Chronic illnesses • Healthcare use	• Perceived stress, life satisfaction, loneliness, and social contacts with friends	• Short Form Health Surveys-36 (SF-36) • Life Satisfaction Index-8 • Self-reported levels of physical activity (SQUASH)	Impacts of community gardening on health and well-being were moderated by age: older gardeners (+62 years) scored better for all measures of health and well-being than neighbors in the same age category, whereas no differences were found between younger gardeners and their younger neighbors. • Gardening had a significant positive effect on well-being, life satisfaction and loneliness.	Positive
Hawkins et al., 2011 [ ]	Community gardeners: 25 Home gardeners: 21 Walkers: 25 Indoor exercisers: 23	Community gardeners: F = 32.0% Home Gardeners: 90.5% Walkers: 68.0% Indoor Exercisers: 87.0%	Community: Gardeners: 65.7 ± 9.1 Home Gardeners: 69.5 ± 7.7 Walkers: 62.4 ± 6.8 Indoor Exercisers: 72.9 ± 6.9	• BMI (Anthropometric assessment)	• Perceived stress • Perceived social support • Health-related quality of life	• Perceived Stress Scale (10-item) • Social Provisions Scale • International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ; short-form) • SF-36 v2 • Self-report of diagnosed illness • Self-report of current medication • Townsend Index Score	• Community gardeners reported significantly less perceived stress than participants of indoor exercise classes, which might be due to their engagement with nature and psychological restoration. • No significant differences between groups were found for self-reported levels of social support and physical activity.	Positive
Gerber et al., 2017 [ ]	G:22 NG: 28	G:48.4% NG:51.6%	G:46 ± 14.32 NG:43.32 ± 15.69	NS	• Anxiety • Depression • Posttraumatic stress disorder • Somatization • Perceived social support	• Refugee Health Screener-15 • Patient Health Questionnaire-15 • Medical Outcomes Study Social Support Survey-19	• Gardeners and non-gardeners did not differ in levels of self-reported distress, symptoms of depression, anxiety and somatic complaints. • Gardeners reported greater social support than non-gardeners. • Age was positively associated with distress and somatization, whereas it was negatively associated with perceived support.	Positive only for social support.
Soga et al., 2017b [ ]	G: 165 NG: 167	G: 31.9% NG: 58.2%	G: 61.9 ± 17.1 NG: 61 ± 16.6	• Perceived general health, subjective health, and BMI (self-reported height and weight)	• Social cohesion • Socio-demographic and lifestyle variables • Motivation, frequency and duration of gardening	• Perceived General Health (Single item question) • Subjective health complaints were measured with a 10-item question • Mental health was assessed using the 12-item General Health Questionnaire • Social Cohesion and Trust Scale • Socio-demographic and lifestyle items • Nature Relatedness Scale • The questionnaire for gardeners included a section about their motivation, frequency and duration of allotment gardening.	• Frequency and duration of gardening activities did not significantly influence self-reported health outcomes. • Community gardeners reported better general health, less somatic complaints, better mental health and greater social cohesion.	Positive
Booth et al., 2018 [ ]	Regular gardeners: 16 Occasional gardeners: 43 NG: 56	Total: 47.8%	Total: 42.1%	• Physical health behaviours	• Mental health behaviours • Perceptions of the community • Levels of participation on community garden	• Self-rated health and Health behavior (Single item question) • Individual empowerment (two-item scale) • Well-being (five-item scale) • Psychological distress (six-item scale) • Life satisfaction (10-item scale) • Organizational and community empowerment was measured by asking respondents about their perception of neighborhood disorganization, their sense of community, and their perceived control at the organizational and community level • Ross et al.’s (2001) nine-item scale • Sense of community was measured using a 13-item scales (Peterson, Speer, & McMillan, 2008) • Community empowerment was measured using Schulz et al. (1995) four-item scale–Organizational empowerment was measured using Schulz et al. (1995) five item scale	• Regular and occasional participants reported better mental health. • Occasional Participants reported more vegetable intake, whereas regular participants reported more sense of community. • Participation in vegetable gardens was associated with increased levels of well-being and lower levels of distress. • The regularity of participation in horticultural activities did not affect well-being, which might indicate a selection bias (individuals with higher well-being are more likely to engage in community activities).	Positive
Mourão et al., 2019 [ ]	G: 65	G: 43.1%	46–65: 47.7% 25–45 years: 36.9% >65 years: 36.9%	NS	• Life satisfaction • Subjective happiness • Subjective wellbeing	• Personal Well-Being Index—Adult (Bem-Estar Pessoal scale) • Subjective Happiness Scale	• Gardeners who visited the garden more frequently considered themselves more happier • Most relevant benefits of community gardening: occupation of free time, relaxation, and healthy food production. • Additional benefits of this activity: increased environmental awareness, change in diet habits, increased physical activity, socialization and interaction with others.	Positive
Koay & Dillon,2020 [ ]	Individual/Home Gardening: 38 Community Gardening: 45 Non-Gardening Control: 28	Individual/Home Gardening: 84,2% Community Gardening: 44,4% Non-Gardening Control: 57,1%	Individual/Home Gardening: 43.76 ± 12.99 Community Gardening: 60.20 ± 13.27 Non-Gardening Control: 55.54 ± 11.62	NS	Connection to nature, resilience, perceived stress, subjective well-being, self-esteem, optimism and openness.	• Nature in Self Scale • Brief Resilience Scale • Perceived Stress Scale • Personal Wellbeing Index • Adult, Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale • Life-Orientation Test-Revisited • Openness-to-Experience (10-item scale)	• After controlling for age and connection with nature, community gardeners reported significantly higher levels of subjective well-being and optimism than the control group and individual / domestic gardeners; • Resilience levels were significantly higher for the two groups of gardeners; no difference between groups was found for perceived stress, self-esteem and openness; • The connection with nature was positively correlated with resilience; resilience was positively correlated with levels of subjective well-being and negatively correlated with levels of perceived stress.	Positive

Notes: G, gardeners; NG, non-gardeners; F, Female; M, Male; SD, Standard deviation; BMI, Body mass index; NS, Not specified.

No study targeted only men or women, though gender representation within groups (gardeners versus non-gardeners) was highly variable among studies ( Table 2 ). Only two studies indicated the range of participants’ age: 50+ years old [ 50 ] and between 18 and 100 years old [ 52 ]. The remaining studies provided the average age of the participants, usually above 40 years old for both gardeners and non-gardeners ( Table 2 ).

Community gardens and mental and physical well-being

Studies included in this literature review addressed two types of outcomes: physical and mental health and well-being. These were measured by asking participants to fill in specific questionnaires ( Table 2 ). All studies assessed mental health and well-being, whereas physical health and well-being was covered in five out of the eight studies. Regarding physical health and well-being, respondents were generally asked to rate their general health status [ 19 , 40 , 49 – 51 , 53 , 54 ]. In one study, they were also asked about chronic conditions [ 40 ]. No study investigated musculoskeletal or osteoarticular injuries related to community gardening. Concerning mental health and well-being, gardeners and non-gardeners where asked about life satisfaction [ 40 , 51 , 53 , 54 ], perceived stress [ 40 , 50 , 52 ], anxiety symptoms [ 49 ], depression symptoms [ 49 ], perceived social support [ 49 , 50 ], health-related quality of life [ 50 ], and social contacts [ 19 , 40 ]. The study conducted in Singapore also assessed connection with nature, resilience, subjective well-being, self-esteem, optimism and openness [ 52 ]. One study targeted Bhutanese refugees living in the USA and asked participants about posttraumatic stress and adjustment to the new country [ 49 ].

According to our quality assessment criteria, seven studies included in this literature review were rated as “good” and only one scored “fair” ( Fig 2 ). Regarding the article scored as "fair", its results pointed out to a positive association between community gardens and physical and mental well-being [ 51 ]. Overall, a positive association between engaging in community gardening and physical and mental health and well-being was found in all studies included in this literature. A study addressing the mental health outcomes of community gardening among Nepali Bhutanese refugees living in the United States found perceived social support to be higher among gardeners than non-gardeners. However, no significant effect of community gardening on symptoms of depression, anxiety, somatic complains and adjustment to life in a new country was detected among these participants [ 49 ].

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is pone.0255621.g002.jpg

Main findings

In this study, quantitative evidence on physical and mental health outcomes arising from engaging in community gardening was reviewed. Despite only eight studies met our inclusion criteria, their conclusions support the association between community gardening and positive physical (general health) and mental health (life satisfaction, happiness, mental health and social cohesion) outcomes among non-institutionalized individuals. No data about physical injuries (i.e., osteoarticular and/or musculoskeletal injuries) associated with engaging in community gardening activities were retrieved in the literature search.

Positive health outcomes associated to community gardening activity

Overall, results here in provide evidence on the association between community gardening and positive health outcomes, irrespectively of participants’ gender, age, ethnicity, and country of residence. With regard to physical health, gardeners perceived their general health status to be better than community dwellers not involved in gardening activities [ 19 , 40 ]. This might be due to the influence of gardening in health behaviors, namely regular physical activity [ 55 ], which is associated to a risk reduction for chronic conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, hypertension, cancer, obesity, but also to a reduction in the risk of premature death [ 56 ]. Indeed, gardening is considered to be a moderate intensity activity [ 41 , 57 ], involving low to moderate intensity tasks [ 58 ] that proved sufficient for older adults to meet the recommendations on 30 minutes moderate intensity physical activity sessions, five (or more) days a week, if regularly undertaken [ 59 ]. Interestingly, one study included in this literature review reported differences in health outcomes between gardeners and non-gardeners only for those aged 62+ years—gardeners scored significantly better than non-gardeners, whereas no statistically significant differences were detected between younger gardeners and non-gardeners [ 40 ]. In a world getting older and characterized by an inverted age pyramid [ 60 ], community gardening seems a promising avenue to tackle age-related disability and promote healthy aging [ 61 ].

Apart from likely influencing health behaviors through increased physical activity, community gardening potentially impacts diet via increased consumption of fruit and vegetables [ 29 , 62 , 63 ]. Four studies included in this literature review provided data on the frequency of fruit and/or vegetable intake, which was higher for gardeners compared to non-gardeners [ 19 , 40 , 53 , 54 ]. Moreover, growing vegetables for own consumption rated second concerning the motivations of Japanese community dwellers to engage in community gardening [ 19 ]. By successfully improving nutrition, community gardens not only contribute to reduce the risk of chronic diseases, such as cardiovascular disease and some cancers [ 64 ], but are also highly relevant to reduce inequalities in urban food systems [ 65 ]. As such, there has been growing interest in the role of these green spaces to increase access to nutritious food in the so-called ‘food deserts’, i.e., areas with limited access to affordable and nutritious food [ 29 , 66 , 67 ]. Evidence available from Rockford, Illinois, shows that community gardens also encompass diet benefits for non-gardeners because these individuals also have increased access to fruit and vegetables via shared production surplus from individual plots [ 66 , 68 ]. Moreover, production from the cultivation of communal plots by volunteers engaged in local neighbourhood networks is also donated to social service organisations and deprived families, thus contributing to increase their access to nutritious food and reduce food inequalities [ 66 ].

All studies included in this literature review support a positive association between community gardening and mental health and well-being among non-institutionalized individuals. Overall, gardeners reported higher levels of life satisfaction [ 40 , 51 , 54 ], less perceived stress [ 40 , 50 ], increased perceived social support [ 49 ] and social contacts [ 19 , 40 ] than non-gardeners. Interestingly, perceived stress and social contacts were moderated by age among Dutch gardeners: community dwellers aged 62+ years engaged in gardening activities reported significantly lower stress levels and increased social contacts than non-gardeners (same age range), whereas no differences were found between younger gardeners and non-gardeners (62+ years) [ 40 ]. This finding is highly relevant under the context of healthy aging. As people age, their social network becomes narrower due to the combined effects of their reliance on stable and close relationships plus a decline in the establishment of new relationships [ 69 ]. As such, increased social contact by active participation in activities within the local neighbourhood, such as community gardening, has the potential to reduce loneliness feelings and increase mental health and well-being of older adults, although not restricted to this age group [ 30 , 61 , 70 ]. Community gardens provide a place for individuals to interact with other gardeners, neighbours, friends and family, thus contributing for broadening and strengthening of individual social networks, sometimes promoting intergenerational contacts [ 71 ] and social cohesion [ 72 ]. This encompasses positive impacts for mental health and well-being [ 73 ], in particular for vulnerable populations, such as older people [ 74 ] as previously considered. One study included in this literature review addressed the experiences of Bhutanese refugees during resettlement in the United States, by investigating and comparing several indicators of mental health and well-being between gardeners and non-gardeners [ 49 ]. Despite the two groups did not differ in levels of self-reported distress, symptoms of depression, anxiety and somatic complaints, gardeners reported significantly greater social support than non-gardeners [ 49 ]. Increased social support has been previously reported by refugees engaged in community gardening [ 75 , 76 ], although only a few studies have been conducted up to now [ 74 ]. By gathering to grow vegetables and fruits, refugees interact with individuals with the same cultural background, which allows them to maintain ties to their culture of origin, but they are also provided with the opportunity for a smoothly inclusion process in the country of arrival by interacting with natives who also gather to gardening [ 75 – 77 ]. Interestingly, no differences for self-reported social support between community gardeners and home gardeners were found in one study included in this literature review (50). Further understanding on the association between engaging in community gardening versus home gardening and self-perceived social support will benefit from future comparative studies of these two activities.

Findings from this literature review are especially relevant given the current COVID-19 pandemic situation. The rapid spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus brought a sudden change in the routine of the world population, and the year 2020 was characterized by lockdowns in several countries, as well as social containment and restrictions to mobility. Such abrupt disruptions in everyday life might negatively impact physical and mental health and well-being [ 78 ]. During periods of social isolation, easily accessible natural environments, such as community gardens, provide an adequate environment for individuals to engage in physical activity while relaxing [ 79 , 80 ]. Outdoor green spaces in the neighbourhood where individuals can go, in a safer manner and complying with the recommendations from the health authorities, for time slots of 30–40 min everyday have an enormous potential to help build resilience and maintain physical and mental health and well-being [ 78 ]. Moreover, their role in complementing food shortages during crisis, such as during the World War II, is well known [ 81 ]. As such, community gardens potentially play a role in improving food security during the COVID-19 pandemic, which undoubtedly affected food systems [ 82 ].

Community gardening-related physical injuries

No study assessing and/or reporting community gardening-related physical injuries, namely musculoskeletal and osteoarticular injuries, was retrieved in our literature search. This finding is quite striking given the large body of evidence available in the literature concerning physical injuries associated to agricultural practices and farming (e.g., [ 83 – 86 ]). For example, a systematic literature review addressing the prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders among farmers found that low back pain was the most frequently reported musculoskeletal disorder [ 87 ]. Injuries caused by hand tools manipulation, such as finger cuts, have also been frequently reported among farmers [ 86 , 88 ]. Except for machinery, the types of hand tools used in farming and community gardening are potentially the same, e.g., shovel and sickle, which suggests that community gardeners might be exposed to the same types of injuries that farmers are. More research in this area is needed to disentangle between the physical health benefits versus potential risks of community gardening.

Community gardens: A sustainable health promotion strategy

Human development and urbanization have generated a series of environmental problems, such as overconsumption of natural resources, water and air pollution, waste production [ 89 , 90 ], and reduction of green spaces [ 89 , 91 ]. These encompass major challenges and threats to human health and environmental sustainability [ 92 – 94 ]. Community gardening has the potential to contribute to achieve gains in human health and environmental sustainability, as pointed out in a growing body of literature (e.g., [ 95 , 96 ] and also supported by results herein. By creating urban spaces where community dwellers gather to grow fruits and vegetables, public authorities are empowering the local communities and providing them with safer, enjoyable, all-inclusive settings that ease healthier choices, while fostering active participation in health and promoting the contact with nature in a sustainable manner, as envisaged in the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion [ 97 ].

At the European level, one of the various actions under the European Green Deal, an action plan by the European Commission aimed at making the EU’s economy sustainable, is to ensure more sustainable food systems [ 98 ].To accomplish this, the creation of supportive food environments making easier to choose healthy and sustainable diets is central to achieve human health gains, thus reducing the economic burden of disease and the environmental impacts from food production [ 99 ]. This “Farm to Fork Strategy” establishes key goals to improve healthy lifestyles, health, and the environment by building a food chain that benefits both the consumer and the environment. Indeed, the recommendations under this H2020 Green Deal initiative aims at stimulating sustainable food production and processing practices; reducing the distance of the power chain between the source and the consumer; and increasing organic food production and food safety [ 99 ]. Under this context, community gardens potentially add valuable contributes to a more sustainable Europe concerning food system with focus in production and consumption.

Community gardens are an affordable and efficient, yet challenging, way to bring nature back to cities and potentially contribute to the provision of ecosystem services [ 100 ]. As green spaces, community gardens serve as a habitat for fauna and flora [ 101 ], being considered a potential reservoir of urban biodiversity [ 31 , 102 ]. They also contribute to increase the proportion of permeable soil surface [ 103 ], filtering and storing water from the rain, thus contributing for floods’ prevention (Quayle, 2008). In addition, community gardens promote environmental education in urban areas [ 31 , 100 ], offering a hands-on experience on ecological processes [ 104 ]. Thus, it is not surprising that interest in these green spaces has boomed in recent years, which often leaves community dwellers in waiting lists for a couple of years before being provided with a patch for them to cultivate [ 105 ]. Therefore, a great challenge in urban planning is now to increase the availability of these spaces. However, this cannot be done without considering the motivations that lead community dwellers to engage in community gardening [ 106 ], as well as to design and equip these green spaces with the infrastructures and tools that are needed for users to successfully profit from it [ 106 ].

Strengths and limitations

This manuscript reviews quantitative evidence from cross-sectional studies on the association between community gardens and physical and mental health and well-being of the non-institutionalized population. However, given the cross-sectional study designs no causality relations can be ascertained.

To our knowledge, musculoskeletal and osteoarticular injuries have not been previously addressed in literature reviews. Despite no data was obtained on community gardening-related injuries, this is a relevant finding and indicates that more research in this realm is needed. However, since only a few articles were retrieved and are not representative of community gardening from any specific geographic region, any conclusions and generalizations should be taken cautiously. The few articles retrieved might be due to the language filter used—only studies published in English were considered. Nevertheless, considering that the great majority of the scientific peer-reviewed journals are published in English, we are confident that this methodological option did not significantly affect our results.

Supporting information

S1 checklist.

Details are provided only for one (PubMed) of the three databases surveyed (Web of Science and SCOPUS). The same search strategy was used for the remaining databases, and to meet the search requirements of each database required, some modifications were necessary in relation to the field tags.

Acknowledgments

The Authors thank Instituto de Saúde Ambiental for providing the required support for this investigation, in particular to Dr. Ana Virgolino for logistical and administrative support, and to Professor António Vaz Carneiro, for his support and encouragement.

Funding Statement

This literature review was funded by the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia and by the Empresa Municipal de Ambiente de Cascais through a doctoral grant to the first author of this paper (PDE/BDE/122672/2016). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Data Availability

Long grass on vacant land next to suburban housing

Our cities’ secret gardens: we connect with nature in neglected green spaces just as much as in parks

Researcher Associate, Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University

Research Fellow, Interdisciplinary Conservation Science Research Group (ICON Science), RMIT University

Disclosure statement

Holly Kirk receives funding from the Australian Research Council and Ian Potter Foundation.

Hugh Stanford does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

RMIT University provides funding as a strategic partner of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

Access to nature is essential for our health and wellbeing . However, as our cities become increasingly crowded, it becomes more and more challenging to find ways to connect with nature in urban spaces.

We know urban parks are key places to engage with nature. However, our research suggests informal green spaces – despite being unplanned, untended and often overlooked – are equally important. We have found people use informal green spaces, such as vacant lots and vegetated areas along railway lines, to engage with nature just as much as in formal green spaces.

This raises the question: should we be doing more to embrace these neglected spaces?

Vegetation growing both sides of railway tracks through the city

Being connected with nature is good for us

People living in cities are increasingly disconnected from nature. This has potentially far-reaching consequences.

Studies have shown regular interaction with nature can be important for mental and physical health. Time in nature reduces stress and encourages mental restoration . Access to the natural environment is important for children’s mental and social development .

People who do not interact regularly with nature have been shown to be less likely to engage with broader environmental issues. It’s a worrying trend, given the environmental crises we are facing.

Despite the known benefits, interacting with nature is becoming increasingly difficult for people in cities. Urban areas are becoming more densely populated , increasing pressure on accessible green spaces.

At the same time, the amount of green space in many cities is declining . This is due to rising urban density as well as changing housing trends. Traditional backyards are shrinking in countries such as Australia.

In light of this, there is a growing need to use the green space available to us more effectively.

A popular outdoor public space for picnic and activities in the heart of the city

The neglected value of informal green spaces

Informal green spaces are the overlooked areas of vegetation scattered throughout our cities and towns. Think of the tangle of greenery thriving along railway lines, flowers growing on vacant lots, or the unmown grassy patches under power lines. These areas are not usually recognised or managed as part of a city’s official green infrastructure, but provide a unique type of green space.

People report liking these spaces for their wild, unmanaged nature, in contrast to more neatly manicured parks. We know people use these spaces for a range of activities, from taking shortcuts or dog walking to creating community gardens . However, the extent to which people use informal green space to engage with nature has not been well understood until now.

Our recent study sheds light on the importance of informal green space for access to nature in urban areas. We analysed data from citizen science apps such as iNaturalist .

This enabled us to study how often people recorded sightings of animal and plant species in informal green spaces compared to their more formal counterparts, such as parks. It provided a measure of their interaction with nature. We found people use informal green spaces to engage with nature just as much as formal green spaces.

Areas along railway lines and utility corridors were most popular. This may be due to their fixed land tenure. It allows people to become familiar with them and gives nature a better chance to establish on these sites.

Street verges were also important. The data suggest they are as popular as private gardens for connecting with nature.

While parks remain crucial, these findings highlight the important role of informal green spaces in giving people access to nature in cities.

An unmown area of grass and scattered trees on a suburban streets

Rethinking how we manage green space in cities

Our works shows the need to expand our thinking about how to improve people’s connection to nature in cities. It’s important to start recognising informal green spaces as a legitimate part of urban green space networks.

We can then begin to consider how best to manage these spaces to support biodiversity while encouraging public use. This will present its own challenges. We’ll need to balance the needs of people with the need to leave enough quiet spaces for nature to thrive .

A majority of the world’s people already live in cities. As urban populations continue to grow, so will the need for accessible green space.

Formal parks will always be important to ensure people have regular, meaningful interactions with nature for the sake of their health and wellbeing. But we need to broaden our perspective to include a more diverse selection of green spaces. By valuing and integrating informal green spaces better into existing green space networks, we can ensure nature remains part of urban life.

Allowing urban residents to connect with nature will promote healthier, happier and more environmentally engaged communities.

Citizen science
Urban wildlife
Nature in cities
Green spaces
Urban nature
Urban green space
iNaturalist
Human connection to nature
Urban parks
Better Cities
New research, Australia New Zealand

Educational Designer

Lecturer, Small Animal Clinical Studies (Primary Care)

Organizational Behaviour – Assistant / Associate Professor (Tenure-Track)

Apply for State Library of Queensland's next round of research opportunities

Associate Professor, Psychology

Gardening with purpose
Families and youth
Family News

A large group of people posing behind the "gardin comunitario" sign.

In greater Minnesota, gardening has become a gateway to wellness, education and community for rural Latino immigrant families. In collaboration with the Minnesota State Horticultural Society, Extension’s Garden in a Box program launched in 2021 as a way to connect with people remotely during lockdown. That year, 20 families without access to land signed up to receive the soil, seeds, tools and knowledge needed to grow fresh fruits and vegetables at home.

A young child holds a small melon on the vine in a garden.

Even with the extra challenges and limitations of COVID-19, the families quickly formed a close-knit community via the gardens. Three generations — kids, parents and grandparents — spent time outdoors helping each other water plants and weed beds, chatting in a text message group to swap tips and produce, and bonding over their shared experiences of adjusting to a new culture and country.

Through word-of-mouth recruitment from happy participants, the program has expanded every year. In 2023, Extension Garden in a Box worked with 135 families in Worthington, Medford, Winthrop, St. Cloud, Willmar, Long Prairie, Owatonna and Dodge Center. There is even a waiting list of neighbors eager to join and get their hands dirty.

Putting down new roots

A person sits in a garden picking tomatillos from an abundant plant.

Because most of the Garden in a Box participants are Spanish-speaking and bilingual Latino immigrants, the success of the program hinged on choosing educators who share their culture and can build trust and rapport. Jose Lamas, Extension financial educator, was well-suited to work with this community.

“I grew up on a farm in Mexico so I had that background from my family, but I wasn’t an expert or anything like that,” says Lamas. “ Most of the participants are from Mexico, Guatemala or Honduras and, like me, they might have gardened when they were young. But Minnesota is a totally different environment for people and plants.”

Lamas says, “Their connections are really strong because everybody helps out, shares solutions to issues, gets to know each other, talks about gardens, food, kids, school — whatever is on their minds.”

Gardening as a gateway to education

A person standing at a kitchen table cutting vegetables.

With gardening as an anchor activity and therapeutic outlet, Extension educators added on more learning opportunities. They partnered extensively with local organizations like community health clinics, 4-H, Department of Natural Resources, Master Gardeners and SNAP-Ed to provide relevant education on a variety of topics like mental and physical health, financial planning, parenting, nutrition and sustainable agriculture.

The success of the Garden in a Box program isn’t measured in pounds of produce, but rather the positive impact it has made on the lives of participants. They consistently state that the gardens have become a place of refuge from the stress of everyday life and a source of joy, nourishment and healing.

“When the first families signed up, it was for a three-year program. But now we are entering our fourth growing season and they all want to keep coming,” says Extension family resiliency educator Silvia Alvarez de Davila. “I’m happy that they are as invested in us as we are in them. It feels good to know they really want us here.”

Author: Kelly Petersen

Permission is granted to news media to republish our news articles with credit to University of Minnesota Extension. Images also may be republished; please check for specific photographer credits or limited use restrictions in the photo title.

Report Web Disability-Related Issue |
Privacy Statement |
Staff intranet

Share full article

Supported by

IN THE GARDEN

‘Conscious Gardening’: Why Your Garden Needs a Mission Statement

Setting a clear intention can improve your design decisions and plant choices — especially if you’re “a nursery grabber” who makes impulse buys at the garden center.

A vegetable garden at dusk, illuminated by long strands of fairy lights.

By Margaret Roach

Nicole Juday, Rob Cardillo and I were most of the way through taping an episode of my podcast when the conversation veered toward a group confessional.

We had been talking about other people’s gardens: the 21 exceptional ones that Ms. Juday, a garden historian and writer, and Mr. Cardillo , a garden photographer, had included in their recent book, “Private Gardens of Philadelphia.” That city has one of the country’s richest, most longstanding legacies of horticultural excellence — and not just because of its wealth of public gardens.

As might be expected, the two had come away from their project with lists of new plants, cultural tips and design inspiration. But what made a bigger (and perhaps more unsettling) impression was their shared feeling that the gardeners they had met seemed to have something Ms. Juday and Mr. Cardillo did not: a mission statement.

This guiding principle — particular to each garden — was something the gardeners hewed to, and their gardens were the better for it.

And that set them (and me) to thinking: What are our gardens about?

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber? Log in .

Want all of The Times? Subscribe .

Trace metal contamination and bioaccessibility in two Ulster County Urban Community Gardens, New York State (USA)

Engel-Di Mauro, Salvatore
Ferguson, Megan
Kitchen, Jeffrey
Rojas, Alice
Cannizzo, Taiyo

In this short communication, soil trace element mobility factors are compared to the bioconcentration factor (BCF; plant tissue to soil total concentration) and evaluated for their effectiveness in estimating contamination pathways between soil and cultivated vegetables. These mobility factors are bioaccessibility (BAF, the ratio of exchangeable to total soil trace metal concentrations) and translocation (TF, the ratio of leaf to root trace metal total concentrations).

Soil contamination;
Soil trace element bioaccessibility;
Vegetable contamination;
Urban soil;
Urban vegetable gardens

Post comment

or continue as guest

History & Society
Science & Tech
Biographies
Animals & Nature
Geography & Travel
Arts & Culture
Games & Quizzes
On This Day
One Good Fact
New Articles
Lifestyles & Social Issues
Philosophy & Religion
Politics, Law & Government
World History
Health & Medicine
Browse Biographies
Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
Environment
Fossils & Geologic Time
Entertainment & Pop Culture
Sports & Recreation
Visual Arts
Demystified
Image Galleries
Infographics
Top Questions
Britannica Kids
Saving Earth
Space Next 50
Student Center

Elektrostal

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

Elektrostal , city, Moscow oblast (province), western Russia . It lies 36 miles (58 km) east of Moscow city. The name, meaning “electric steel,” derives from the high-quality-steel industry established there soon after the October Revolution in 1917. During World War II , parts of the heavy-machine-building industry were relocated there from Ukraine, and Elektrostal is now a centre for the production of metallurgical equipment. Pop. (2006 est.) 146,189.

Current time by city

For example, New York

Current time by country

For example, Japan

Time difference

For example, London

For example, Dubai

Coordinates

For example, Hong Kong

For example, Delhi

For example, Sydney

Geographic coordinates of Elektrostal, Moscow Oblast, Russia

Coordinates of elektrostal in decimal degrees, coordinates of elektrostal in degrees and decimal minutes, utm coordinates of elektrostal, geographic coordinate systems.

WGS 84 coordinate reference system is the latest revision of the World Geodetic System, which is used in mapping and navigation, including GPS satellite navigation system (the Global Positioning System).

Geographic coordinates (latitude and longitude) define a position on the Earth’s surface. Coordinates are angular units. The canonical form of latitude and longitude representation uses degrees (°), minutes (′), and seconds (″). GPS systems widely use coordinates in degrees and decimal minutes, or in decimal degrees.

Latitude varies from −90° to 90°. The latitude of the Equator is 0°; the latitude of the South Pole is −90°; the latitude of the North Pole is 90°. Positive latitude values correspond to the geographic locations north of the Equator (abbrev. N). Negative latitude values correspond to the geographic locations south of the Equator (abbrev. S).

Longitude is counted from the prime meridian ( IERS Reference Meridian for WGS 84) and varies from −180° to 180°. Positive longitude values correspond to the geographic locations east of the prime meridian (abbrev. E). Negative longitude values correspond to the geographic locations west of the prime meridian (abbrev. W).

UTM or Universal Transverse Mercator coordinate system divides the Earth’s surface into 60 longitudinal zones. The coordinates of a location within each zone are defined as a planar coordinate pair related to the intersection of the equator and the zone’s central meridian, and measured in meters.

Elevation above sea level is a measure of a geographic location’s height. We are using the global digital elevation model GTOPO30 .

Elektrostal , Moscow Oblast, Russia

IMAGES

≫ Gardening in Communities Free Essay Sample on Samploon.com
⇉What Is a Community Garden Essay Example
📚 Free Essay Example on Community Gardens
Essay on Gardening
Write a descriptive paragraph about your garden. Identify the plants
Community Gardens: What Are They and How To Find Them

VIDEO

A History of Community Gardens
COMMUNITY GARDENS / BEACON FOOD FOREST / 16TH AVE S WALKWAY
Fight Club's Gardens... (a pointless video essay)
A short paragraph on "Peradeniya Botanical Gardens"
Asao B. Inoue Reading

COMMENTS

The Importance of Creating Community Gardens
The Importance of Creating Community Gardens. Gardening can help bring people together from all walks of life. It is really rewarding to see a seed germinate into something great and healthy. When people get together to plant things, they are nicer to each other and can resolve their differences. Creating community gardens is a great way to ...
Community Garden Essay
Community Garden Essay. 662 Words3 Pages. A community garden is a local garden that is shared by neighbors and the local community. Community gardens have been proven to help reduce crime and enlighten the environment. Not only crime and emotional benefits, but economic benefits are another outcome caused by community gardens.
Community Gardens: A Catalyst for Community Change
Community gardens have existed for more than a century; however, their use has grown rapidly in the past two decades, particularly in schools and urban settings (Draper & Freedman, 2010; Garcia et al., 2018).Community gardens exist in public environments and generate fruits and vegetables for eating and/or sharing and selling in the community (Draper & Freedman, 2010; Lampert et al., 2021).
Case Studies on Children in Community Gardens and Gardening with
The benefits of community gardening, while having a positive impact at the family level, also filter down to the children within individual households. A survey conducted by Waliczek et al. on the benefits of children gardening found that "adults gardening with children reported benefits to children's self-esteem and reduction in stress ...
PDF Growing Successful Community Gardens
and "successful" community garden. This publication can be used in combination with the Louisville Department of Economic Growth & Development's (n.d.) "Community Gardens in Louisville: A Start-Up Guide" and UK Cooperative Extension's (n.d.) "Community Garden and Horticulture Therapy Sample Evaluation" tool.
Earth Care: A History of Community Gardening From Schools to Prisons
Gardens have long been a source for care, comfort, creativity, and connection to others, as well as a source of fresh food. The Victory Gardens during World War II and an earlier version (the War Garden or Patriotic Garden) during World War I, for example, emphasized the importance of increased food availability. As many as 20 million people participated in the World War II Victory Gardens ...
Community gardens and their effects on diet, health, psychosocial and
Community gardens fall under the umbrella of 'urban agriculture', which incorporates both domestic or home-based gardens, as well as gardens open to community members for the purposes of growing, ... There were 66 papers judged as eligible for inclusion, but the full text was unable to be obtained for two papers. ...
Community Gardens: A Catalyst for Community Change
Community Gardens: A Catalyst for Community Change. Community gardens are increasing in popularity and are associated with extensive physical and mental health benefits, increased access to fresh produce, and increased social connections. However, evidence is primarily from research in urban and school settings, and little is known about the ...
[2023] The Importance of Creating Community Gardens: A Comprehensive
Social Connection: Community gardens provide a space for people to connect, share knowledge, and build relationships with fellow gardeners. They create a sense of belonging and strengthen community bonds. Education and Skill Development: These gardens offer valuable educational opportunities, especially for children. They bridge the gap between schools and communities, teaching children about ...
Community gardens and their effects on diet, health, psychosocial and
Characteristics community garden users and differences on effects of community gardens according to location (urban, regional, remote) or socioeconomic position were also explored. Screening The titles and abstracts of all identified articles were examined using Rayyan software (a software program used to collate and screen papers for ...
Research & Benefits of Community Gardens
Nutrition Alaimo, Katherine PhD 1, Elizabeth Packnett MPH, Richard A. Miles BS and Daniel J. Kruger PhD, Fruit and Vegetable Intake among Urban Community Gardeners, Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, Volume 40, Issue 2, March-April 2008, Pages 94-101 "Adults with a household member who participated in a community garden consumed fruits and vegetables 1.4 more times per day than ...
The Inspirational and Community-building Aspects of Gardening: [Essay
Community gardens enhance the quality of life in neighborhoods and provide opportunities for social interaction and engagement. ... Gardening: Cultivating Wellness and Community Bonds Essay. Gardening is a timeless and universal activity that brings numerous benefits to individuals of all ages and backgrounds. Beyond the aesthetic appeal of a ...
The Many Benefits of Community Gardens
Community gardens: Increase access to fresh foods. Improve food security [1] Increase physical activity through garden maintenance activities. Improve dietary habits through education. Increase fruit and vegetable intake. Reduce risk of obesity and obesity-related diseases. Improve mental health and promote relaxation [5] Social ties are ...
Rhetorical Argument in the Community Gardens Research Paper
A community garden refers to a place where a group of people mutually come together to grow something. The Community gardens are open to the general public and any other personnel interested in digging in the dirt and planting fruits and vegetables. The gardens have created a mutual partnership for the people, leading to sustainability in ...
"Trying to build the community up": An Exploration of the Social
In this essay, we use ethnographic data and interviews with two key participants in Louisiana urban community gardens to explore the social impacts collective gardening efforts carry for individuals and neighborhoods. ... (Patel 1996; Raske 2010)-even across racial boundaries (Shinew, Glover, and Parry 2005). Community gardens have been ...
Evidence on the contribution of community gardens to promote physical
S1 File: Strategy to search for studies that investigate the evidence that community gardening contributes to increased physical and mental health and well-being of non-institutionalized persons.Details are provided only for one (PubMed) of the three databases surveyed (Web of Science and SCOPUS). The same search strategy was used for the remaining databases, and to meet the search ...
Our cities' secret gardens: we connect with nature in neglected green
The tangle of greenery along railway lines, flowers growing on vacant lots, or unmown grassy patches under power lines, it turns out people in cities engage with nature in all these spaces.
Starting a Community Garden on School Grounds
A community garden is a garden that is planned, planted, maintained and sustained by individuals within a community. The "community" may be defined by physical location, such as a neighborhood or a city, or as individuals linked by a common organization or cause, such as a church or food bank.Community gardens come in all shapes and sizes.
Essay On Community Garden
Essay On Community Garden. 596 Words3 Pages. A community garden can decrease crime, hunger, and blight all around the state of South. Carolina. The biggest purpose of a community garden is to make one for people who can not afford to have a garden. To make more community gardens, people can turn broken down buildings into gardens.
Essay On Community Gardening
Essay On Community Gardening; ... One thing that can be done locally is to create community gardens. Community gardens have been around since the 1960's, but started to grow in popularity in the 1980's during the recession. According to the Hamilton Community Garden Network, "a community garden is a space where plants are grown by a ...
Gardening with purpose
Even with the extra challenges and limitations of COVID-19, the families quickly formed a close-knit community via the gardens. Three generations — kids, parents and grandparents — spent time outdoors helping each other water plants and weed beds, chatting in a text message group to swap tips and produce, and bonding over their shared experiences of adjusting to a new culture and country.
'Conscious Gardening': Why Your Garden Needs a Mission Statement
Charles Cresson, one gardener profiled in their book, seemed to have no problem adhering to his. For more than 40 years, Mr. Cresson has stewarded the Swarthmore, Pa., garden known as Hedgleigh ...
Trace metal contamination and bioaccessibility in two Ulster County
In this short communication, soil trace element mobility factors are compared to the bioconcentration factor (BCF; plant tissue to soil total concentration) and evaluated for their effectiveness in estimating contamination pathways between soil and cultivated vegetables. These mobility factors are bioaccessibility (BAF, the ratio of exchangeable to total soil trace metal concentrations) and ...
THE BEST Elektrostal Art Museums (with Photos)
Top Elektrostal Art Museums: See reviews and photos of Art Museums in Elektrostal, Russia on Tripadvisor.
Stereotypes In A Community Garden
This stereotypes all Puerto Rican teenagers as the kind of teens that would be stupid enough to grow drugs in a community garden. It also stereotypes Puerto Rican teens as drug addicts and sellers. However, Sam had believed that the Puerto Rican teenager was a good person. Sam never had any stereotypes, he was a pacifist. He wanted the world
Kapotnya District
A residential and industrial region in the south-east of Mocsow. It was founded on the spot of two villages: Chagino (what is now the Moscow Oil Refinery) and Ryazantsevo (demolished in 1979). in 1960 the town was incorporated into the City of Moscow as a district. Population - 45,000 people (2002). The district is one of the most polluted residential areas in Moscow, due to the Moscow Oil ...
Elektrostal
Elektrostal, city, Moscow oblast (province), western Russia.It lies 36 miles (58 km) east of Moscow city. The name, meaning "electric steel," derives from the high-quality-steel industry established there soon after the October Revolution in 1917. During World War II, parts of the heavy-machine-building industry were relocated there from Ukraine, and Elektrostal is now a centre for the ...
Geographic coordinates of Elektrostal, Moscow Oblast, Russia
Geographic coordinates of Elektrostal, Moscow Oblast, Russia in WGS 84 coordinate system which is a standard in cartography, geodesy, and navigation, including Global Positioning System (GPS). Latitude of Elektrostal, longitude of Elektrostal, elevation above sea level of Elektrostal.

	"Mein Kampf" is both a manifesto of ideological hatred and a strategic guide for manipulation. Its tactics remain disturbingly relevant. \|
	Times Square's fame owes itself to a lucky twist of urban design and a charismatic promotional genius. \|
	Giovanni Aloi maps the ideological currents that led right-wing political exponents to protest and burn palm and banana trees in Milan’s Piazza del Duomo. \|
	The Parisian Cabaret du Néant pioneered shock entertainment, using magic to conjure macabre illusions for its audience. \|