writing sample 1 -community gardens as change agents

Community Gardens as Change Agents in Community Health InterventionsDecember 15th, 2010 - 1 -

The community garden movement has gained momentum in the last ten years. As

early as 2001 it is estimated that there are approximately 150,000 community gardens in

the United States ( Kantor 25). In fact community gardens are becoming increasingly

popular in diverse urban areas such as Los Angeles, New York, Toronto, and Denver.

Even Richmond, Virginia is jumping on the community garden bandwagon. Look a little

closer around Richmond and you can find the Grace Arents Community Garden in

Oregon Hill, Tricycle Gardens, and the newly established plot by Whole Foods run by

Backyard Farmer. According to the American Planning Association community gardens

are “shared open spaces where individuals garden together to grow fresh, healthful, and

affordable fruits and vegetables. Community gardens exist in suburban and rural areas,

but are more common in urban settings” (McCormick et al. 2009, 404) . In urban areas

community gardens are commonly planted on vacant city owned land. Community

gardens can take on many forms and sizes. Some examples of community gardens

include school gardens, small scale urban farms, and neighborhood cooperative plots. No

matter what the form , all of these gardens have a shared sense of purpose combined with

a sense of mutual ownership of those involved.

During a time when “increased urbanization and associated social isolation are

frequently blamed for the health problems confronting modern society” the community

garden movement is stepping up to the plate to address such far reaching issues

(J.Kingsley & M. Townshend, 2006, 525). The areas in most need of community gardens

are those in blighted , poverty stricken neighborhoods. In these areas community gardens


seek to address such concerns of public health that include providing access to healthy

foods, facilitating positive social interactions, providing nutrition education, and teaching

community building. Public health pioneers, community revitalization organizers, and

citizens alike believe in the power of the community garden movement to both improve

health and community involvement. There is a growing body of both quantitative and

qualitative evidence that community gardens, if implemented properly, can be change

agents in the field of public health by providing access to healthy food, an avenue for

healthy activities, and by improving social dynamics within individual communities as

well as in society at large.

Access to healthy food is often cited as a problem in low-income urban areas.

According to Liz Scott Kantor of the USDA (2001) the individuals in these blighted

communities often have less access to cheaper and better quality foods (20). These

individuals do not have the transportation or the money necessary to get to grocery stores

that provide cheaper and fresher foods. In fact the USDA found in 1997 that on average

supermarkets are 10% cheaper than the convenience stores that are located in poorer

neighborhoods ( Kantor , 2000, 20). Instead the local mini-marts become the only source

of food in the area and these food sources are far from healthy. Nor are they affordable.

These stores take advantage of the fact that the poorer individuals in the area do not have

the money or transportation necessary to give them access to more affordable healthy

foods. Households are food secure when they have access to enough fresh and

affordable food that can sustain “healthy active lifestyles” ( Kantor, 2001, 20).

Community gardens are an example of efforts to increase food security in these poverty

stricken communities. Community gardens are effective at this because they provide a


quick, easy, and affordable solution to the problem at hand. Community gardens are

affordable in their relative input to output ratio. For example, a “New Jersey community

garden plot (about 700 square feet) produced vegetables worth approximately $500

during an average growing season, whereas the average cost of inputs was only $25.11”

(Alaimo et al., 2008, 99). The close proximity of community gardens to the individuals

they serve also is key regarding food security , because ultimately this increases access

by limiting the distance traveled to obtain healthy food. In turn this also reduces

transportation costs, which increases the affordability aspect of the healthy food.

Evidence shows us the power of community gardens as tools for providing access

to healthy foods. Because of this, many policymakers are coming forward as proponents

of the community garden movement. One of the many proponents is Dr. Cecilio Moron

(2006), Senior Food & Nutrition officer of the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture

Organization. Dr. Moron (2006) maintains that community gardens are an example of

food-based nutrition interventions that are an integral part of providing food security to

such urban communities (S20). Locating the gardens in low-income areas is not the only

step necessary in successful food security nutrition interventions. Community gardens

must initiate participation of the residents to help promote the far reaching effectiveness

of the nutrition intervention.

Increasing fruit and vegetable intake is one of the most important goals of

community gardens in the realm of nutrition interventions. This is of the utmost

importance because increased fruit and vegetable intake has been associated with

decreasing the risk of diseases including heart disease and cancers (McCormick et al.

2010, 399). Over the years a variety of studies have been conducted in an effort to


assess the effectiveness of community gardens at promoting such diet changes. More

often than not the research shows that participation in community gardens is directly

linked to an increased intake of healthy foods. As early as 1991 a Pennsylvania State

study qualified this connection when the researchers discovered that “that community

gardeners consumed several vegetables more often than their non-gardening

counterparts” ( Kantor, 2001 , 25). Numerous studies since the Penn State study have

been conducted which quantify this connection. The 2003 California Healthy Cities and

Communities Field Action Report revealed that in the diverse city of Loma Linda,

California a community garden group consisting of 40 gardeners reported that 35% of

participants “Increased average consumption of fruits and vegetables from 3 to 3.71

servings per day” (Twiss et al., 2003, 1436). In 2008 , Dr. Katherine Alaimo , Elizabeth

Packnett , Richard Miles , and Dr. Daniel Kruger conducted a more in depth research

study in Flint, Michigan, which assessed the connection between participation in urban

community gardens and fruit and vegetable intake. The Alaimo survey (2008) is one of

the largest studies on the topic of community gardens and fruit and vegetable intake to

date with a total of 766 adult participants. The results of the Alaimo study (2008) were

astoundingly similar to the results demonstrated by the CHCC Field Action Report. The

Alaimo survey (2008) in Flint Michigan concluded that there was increase in fruit and

vegetable consumption among garden participants versus non-gardeners whereas,

“respondents with a household member who participated in a community garden

consumed fruits and vegetables 4.4 times per day, as compared to 3.3 times for

respondents without a gardening household member. Of respondents from gardening


households, 32.4% consumed fruits and vegetables on average at least 5 times daily, as

compared to 17.8% for those with nongardening household members” (96)

Lacey Arnson McCormack, Dr. Melissa Nelson Laska, Dr. Nicole Larson, and Dr. Mary

Story (2010) conducted a review of all the existing research on fruit and vegetable intake

of urban gardeners and farmers market participants from 1980 to 2009. In their review

McCormick et al. (2010) found that there were few studies that actually try to quantify

this connection, however the authors did uncover four cross-sectional studies that found

similar results reporting that participation in community gardens was indeed linked to an

increase of fruit and vegetable consumption (406). Further more McCormick et al.

affirmed that the Alaimo study in Flint , Michigan “was a well-designed study conducted

in an underserved area where access to fruits and vegetables was limited” (406)

The McCormick et al. review uncovered other healthy results in addition to

increased fruit and vegetable intake. McCormick et al. also found that garden

participants in the University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension program, which was

comprised of a variety of community gardens, reported eating not only more vegetables

but also a greater variety of vegetables daily (406). Certainly participation is a key

element in the viability of community gardens as tools of nutritional interventions.

However, participation in community gardens is not the only element necessary for

successful nutritional changes.

Participation in garden programs coupled with nutritional education programs can

also yield effective results, especially in children. Dr. Romona Robinson, Dr. Mary

Story, and Stephanie Heim’s (2009) review of the Impact of Garden-based Youth


Nutrition Intervention Programs illustrated that such combined programs have the

capability to increase fruit and vegetable intake of children as well. For example

Robinson et al.’s research (2009) uncovered the McAleese and Rankin study in South-

East Idaho that evaluated the fruit and vegetable intake of sixth graders participating in a

combined experiential and educational community garden program in which,

“Students participating in the nutrition education combined with garden experiences in-

creased significantly their daily intake of fruits and vegetables from 1.9 to 4.5 servings,

when compared to 2.1 to 2.2 servings among students in the nutrition- education only

group and 2.4 to 2.0 servings among students in the control group. In addition, students

participating in the nutrition education combined with garden experiences significantly

increased vitamin A, vitamin C and fiber intake.” (276)

Information from the California Healthy Cities and Communities (CHCC) Field Action

reports showed results similar to the McAleese and Rankin study. For example 348

participants in West Hollywood, CA school gardens that combined nutritional education

with gardening reported not only a 10% increase in daily vegetable and fruit consumption

but also a 6% increase in daily physical activity ( Twiss et al., 2003, 1436). The above

research shows a clear correlation between participation in community gardening and

intake of healthy foods as well as participation in beneficial physical activity. Moreover,

studies such as the McAleese and Rankin study , demonstrate the way in which an

ongoing education program combined with gardening activities is key to increasing the

effectiveness of the nutritional implications of community gardens.

In addition to being useful in the field of nutrition intervention, community

gardens are showing positive outcomes in community building. Community gardens


become a place for participants to connect the tangibles acts of gardening and producing

fresh foods to the intangible benefits that play out individually and community wide. All

across the United States the voices of the community garden movement are heralding the

widespread effects that the movement has on positively changing the social fabric of their

neighborhoods.

On the most basic level community gardens serve as a sacred space in urban areas

that are often plagued by poverty and crime. An overwhelming number of community

garden participants and researchers have proclaimed that the community garden setting

makes them feel safer amidst the unsteady world that surrounds them. As early as 1995

urban studies academic researcher Karen Schmelkopf uncovered these sentiments.

Schmelkopf’s examination of a community garden in a lower income community of

Loisda, New York, found that most community garden participants in Loisda “became

involved to have a safe outdoor place as an option to their crowded apartments,” and that

these outdoor places are “sanctuaries away from the dangers, stresses, and temptations of

the street” ( 373, 378). Furthermore Schmelkopf (1995) found evidence “of increased

stability on the street ,with more people around and increased neighborhood friendliness

making the vicinity relatively safe than blocks with no gardens” (376). Resident’s

claims of safety were corroborated with evidence from a 2007 research study conducted

in a similarly crime ridden community in South-East Toronto. The study, conducted by

Dr. Sarah Wakefield et al. (2007), found community gardens in that locality actually had

no incidences of assault or vandalism in the community garden areas (99). Clearly

community gardens make people feel safe by providing a buffer to the less healthy

elements in the surrounding area.


Through creating an overall safe atmosphere, community gardens also create an

atmosphere that allows for more far reaching community building applications. Ellen

Teig et al. (2009), Director of the Boulder Women’s Center, explained that not only are

community gardens useful “buffers to violence crime” but that the relationships between

gardeners also builds safety and community capacity ( 1122). In the article Collective

Efficacy in Denver Colorado: Strengthening neighborhoods and health through

Community Gardens (2009) , Teig et al.’s qualitative study on gardener relationships in

Denver uncovered that interactions in the community garden environment ,

“defined acceptable behaviors around the garden place. Such social norms that discourage

violence and crime can be contagious, diffusing across neighborhood boundaries (Sampson,

2003). The social norms and standards expressed by the gardeners in this study, such as the

upkeep of the garden’s appearance or the protection of safe public spaces, have the potential to

become ingrained in a neighborhood and then spread through wider social ties to members of

other communities”(1121).

Ellen Teig et al. (2009) described this phenomena as positive place-based social

dynamics whereas community gardens become the place by which positive social norms

are dispersed (1120).

The phenomena of positive place based social dynamics is all too common within

the community garden setting. Participants in the community garden movement often

describe the garden itself as a place to learn such positive social norms such as healthy

communication, collaboration, and cooperation. The Teig et al. study in Denver revealed

that the “the garden environment encouraged gardeners to exchange actions and

assistance


with one another” (Teig et al., 2009, 1117). One gardener in Denver also described the

community garden as the “infrastructure [that facilitates] kids learning, neighbors

socializing and becoming comfortable and feeling they have a real community, those

things are the products in addition to whatever is grown”( Teig et al.,2009, 1119).

M.L. Olhmer et al. (2009) similarly contend that the community garden setting is a place

where individuals learn positive social integration, self efficacy, and “facilitate volunteer

skills, abilities, and relationships in distressed communities” (302). All of these activities

contribute to building healthy social capital not only with individuals but also among the

community. Urban studies researcher J. Kingsley and M. Townshend (2006) describe

social capital as having the elements of “community, sense of place, social networks,

trust and reciprocity”(526). Community gardens facilitate these elements, which is

extremely important when working towards building a strong interconnected community

comprised of empowered individuals. This interconnectedness also provides “the

potential to mediate health by encouraging social support and access to resources that are

protective against poor health” (Teig et al.,2009 1120).

These elements of social capital are compounded when the community garden

setting provides opportunities for individuals to learn from each other. Through intensive

mutual interaction participants of community gardens are encouraged to utilize healthy

communication skills in decision making and conflict resolution. This includes using

appropriate garden wide communication which Teig et al. note is “paramount to

resolving conflicts and serves as a good model for community healing and neighborhood

strengthening”(1118). Within the community garden setting there is a necessity for


mutual interaction among all the participants which facilitates transcendence over the

typical social barriers of race, gender, mental/physical disabilities, age, and socio-

economic status. The culmination of all these interactions and learning activities results

in strengthened bonds of the participants.

Furthermore, the mere act of working together towards common goals has

community building applications as well. For example in South-East Toronto there was

an “individual sense of pride emerging from the gardening and associated programs”

which Wakefield et al. (2007) found often “increased attachment to the community”

(98). Olhmer et. al (2009) also found that in 55% of the gardens they researched “having

a community garden in a neighborhood helped to improve residents’ attitudes towards

their neighborhood evidenced by improved maintenance of other properties, decreased

litter, and increased pride” (383).

Clearly community gardens build personal relationships and community strength.

The level of community power that the gardens implore, however, is directly related to

how effectively the community garden sustains interest from its populace. According to

Dr. LeeAnne Milburn et al. (2010) “the two factors most threatening the long-term

viability of gardens [are] lack of sustained interest and the loss of land”(74). An

organized implementation plan is key in sustaining interest. There are a number of

elements that are essential in implementing a garden that is influential in community

health interventions. First and foremost an effective community garden must have strong

leadership to invigorate the citizens to volunteer their time and energy. Milburn et. al.

(2010) suggest that “mentoring and leadership training in the first three years of a

garden's operation sustains leadership capacity” (78). As evidenced from the Robinson et


al. review creating a garden program that links education to garden activities is also very

important. The educational activities should relate the importance of the garden and the

benefits that the garden will provide the community. This could come in the form of

nutrition education, skills building workshops, environmental awareness activities, and

cooking classes that utilize the foods grown. Ultimately these “new learning experiences

[will] increase people's interest, investment, and ownership in the project” (Milburn et al.,

2010, 78). The process of education must be ongoing to sustain interest. A viable long

term garden needs more than just sustained interest to yield long term results. The most

important element for community gardens to achieve long term results in improving

community health is securing land tenure.

It should be noted that despite the fact that there exists a substantial number of

community garden case studies on the books today, there are very few studies that

examine the community garden’s long-term effectiveness at improving the health of

neighborhoods and individuals alike. Although all of case studies reviewed in this paper

show positive immediate implications for change, it makes one wonder how long will

these changes positively influence the surrounding communities. The unfortunate

circumstance in providing long term evidence is that community gardens are rarely long

term entities . More often than not the gardens are established as temporary projects on

vacant city land of which there is no secured land tenure. Unsecured land tenure is cited

as one of the largest barriers to the success of community gardens in providing long term

health solutions (Kantor, 2001, 25). This ultimately effects the enduring viability of

community gardens as change agents. That being said, the evidence abound

demonstrates that community gardens do deliver beneficial outcomes in the short term,


which suggests that they may also have to potential to deliver long term results as well.

The issue remains that without secured land tenure we will never fully realize the wide

range of benefits that community gardens bestow on the collective citizenry. More needs

to be done in terms of government collaboration with the local citizens to ensure that

secured land tenure is achieved. This could involve creating green space protection

boundaries in urban areas that gardens could be best utilized. Once more community

gardens are established with secured land tenure, more in depth research evaluations

should commence to deduce how effective community gardens are at promoting long

lasting community health promotion.

Undoubtedly community gardens are a place for individuals to be in touch with a

variety of healthy activities. Through strategically locating in disenfranchised

neighborhoods, the gardens are able to provide poorer people access to healthy and

affordable foods as well as provide a safe space recreation. Participation in the garden

also puts people in direct connection with understanding the importance of nutritional

food, which facilitates healthy diet changes. Moreover there are a wide range of social

capital and community building applications within the community garden setting. It is

through building individual social capital that the community garden becomes a place to

“nurture community capacity” in a way that co-founder and director of the Center for

Civic Partnerships Joan Twiss (2003) believes also , “increases the effectiveness of

community health interventions”(1435). The research displayed in this paper mirrors

such ongoing trends of beneficial results in terms of promoting immediate healthful

changes in both the individual participants and the peripheral community. More needs to

be done to facilitate the establishment of long term community gardens so that there can


long term health changes. Once community garden organizers have secured land tenure,

they must take a multifaceted approach to implementing their vision in way that

invigorates the community to stay involved in the project. This ultimately will yield a

vast array of positive outcomes that will permeate into larger community culture.


Works Cited Alaimo, K., Packnett, E., Miles, R., & Kruger, D. (2008). Fruit and Vegetable Intake

among Urban Community Gardeners. Journal of Nutrition Education & Behavior, 40(2), 94-101. doi:10.1016/j.jneb.2006.12.003.

Kantor, Liz Scott.( Jan-April 2001) Community Food Security Programs Improve Food Access. Food Review 24 (1), 20-26.

Kingsley, J., & Townsend, M. (2006). ‘Dig In’ to Social Capital: Community Gardens as Mechanisms for Growing Urban Social Connectedness. Urban Policy & Research, 24(4), 525-537. doi:10.1080/08111140601035200.

McCormack, L., Laska, M., Larson, N., & Story, M. (2010). Review of the Nutritional Implications of Farmers' Markets and Community Gardens: A Call for Evaluation and Research Efforts. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 110(3), 399-408. doi:10.1016/j.jada.2009.11.023.

Milburn, L., & Vail, B. (2010). Sowing the Seeds of Success. Landscape Journal, 29(1), 71-89. Retrieved from Environment Complete database.

Moron, Cecilio. (2006). Food-based nutrition interventions at community level. British Journal of Nutrition 96 (Suppl 1) : S20-2.

Olhmer,M.L., Meadowcroft, P., Freed, K. and Lewis, E. (2009) Community Gardening and Community Development: Individual, Social, and Community Benefits of a Community Conservation Program. Journal of Community Practice, 17(4): 377-399.

Robinson – O’Brian, Ramona, et al. (2009) Impact of garden-based youth nutrition intervention programs: a review. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 109(2): 273-280. http://sfx.library.vcu.edu/vcu?sid=Entrez

%3APubMed&id=pmid%3A19167954& sn=0002-8223

Schmelzkopf, Karen. (1995). Urban Community Gardens as Contested Space.Geographic Review 85 (3), 364 – 381. http://www.jstor.org/stable/215279.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/215279


Works Cited

Teig, E., Amulya, J., Bardwell, L., Buchenau, M., Marshall, J., & Litt, J. (2009). Collective efficacy in Denver, Colorado: Strengthening neighborhoods and health through community gardens. Health & Place, 15(4), 1115-1122. Retrieved from CINAHL Plus with Full Text database.

Twiss, J., Dickinson, J., Duma, S., Kleinman, T., Paulsen, H., & Rilveria, L. (2003). Field action report. Community gardens: lessons learned from California healthy cities and communities. American Journal of Public Health, 93(9), 1435-1438. Retrieved from CINAHL Plus with Full Text database.

Wakefield, S., Yeudall, F., Taron, C., Reynolds, J., & Skinner, A. (2007). Growing urban health: Community gardening in South-East Toronto. Health Promotion International, 22(2), 92-101. doi:10.1093/heapro/dam001.

writing sample 1 -community gardens as change agents

Documents