Summer 1995 (v7n3)
Dorothy Blair, Carol C. Giesecke and Sandra Sherman
Journal of Nutrition Education 23(4): 161-167. 1991
Urban gardening has been widely promoted as a strategy for improving the food security of people in inner cities, particularly in low income areas. This study evaluates the nutritional, social and economic contributions of the Philadelphia Urban Gardening Project, one of the country's largest urban gardens. Sponsored by the Pennsylvania State University Cooperative Extension and the Philadelphia Horticultural Society, the project involves 560 sites and nearly 5,000 families, including the urban poor, the elderly and diverse ethnic groups.
Methods
One hundred forty-four gardeners (40 black, 40 Korean, 40 white and 24 Hispanic) were selected from a stratified random sample of 64 selected sites throughout the city. Sixty-seven non-gardening controls (21 black, 20 Korean, 20 white and 6 Hispanic) were selected from nearby neighborhoods using the same ethnic and geographic criteria as the gardeners. Trained interviewers conducted oral surveys with study participants at either their gardens or their homes from July 1987 to November 1987. Survey participants were asked how frequently they consumed various foods during the previous month, specifically, 23 categories of vegetables, six categories of fruits, and six other categories of food. Additional questions addressed vegetable use in meals and four questions measured life satisfaction. The potential yields of 151 garden plots were estimated based on a scale of very good (90 percent of potential yield) to poor (25 percent of potential yield). Early harvest yields were not estimated for 100 plots due to a delay in recruiting gardener subjects. The market value of the vegetables and fruits in these gardens was estimated using the assessed potential yield and the 1987-1988 dollar market value for each food item.
Results
Description of gardeners and controls. A demographic comparison of gardeners and controls found that gardeners were significantly older than controls (60.3 years vs. 45.5 years) and had a lower mean education. Gardeners were longer-time Philadelphia residents than non-gardeners and had also lived in their neighborhoods significantly longer. Gardeners had maintained their plots a mean of 4.1 years, working about 11.7 hours per week in the gardens, yet over half (51%) had never gardened before the 1987 season. On average, gardeners ate fresh produce from the garden for five months of the year with almost 10 percent harvesting vegetables all year. Sixty-two percent preserved food from their gardens by freezing, canning or drying. Home preserved food was consumed for an average of 7.2 months of the year. Additional produce was shared with neighbors and relatives, often on a weekly basis and more than 40 percent of gardeners shared produce with a church or community organization.
Gardeners were motivated to garden for several reasons including recreation (21%), mental health (19%), physical health/exercise (17%_especially the Korean population), produce quality/nutrition (14%_especially the black and white populations), spiritual reasons/contact with nature (10%), self-fulfillment (7%) and cost/convenience (7%). The authors note that quality of life issues outweighed the economic benefits of gardening for these gardeners.
Nutritional contributions. Gardeners consumed significantly more of six vegetable categories than non-gardeners, including cole crops, okra/eggplants, sweet and hot peppers, summer squashes, tomatoes and herbs. Their vegetable consumption frequency was also almost always higher than controls. Gardeners, however, consumed less fruit, especially citrus fruits and juices, than controls. They also consumed less milk products, sweets and sweet drinks. Gardeners and non-gardeners ate similar amounts of vegetables; however, gardeners were more likely to eat vegetables in meatless meals (vs. side dishes, salads, stews and snacks).
Community participation/life satisfaction. Gardeners were more likely than controls to regard their neighbors as friendly. They were also significantly more likely to participate in food distribution projects, neighborhood clean-ups and neighborhood social events. Gardeners gave significantly more positive responses to questions on psychosocial well-being and frequency of meaningful life events.
Garden plot evaluations. Average garden plantings yielded 77 percent of their potential with a mean of 8.1 plant species per garden. The mean economic value of the 151 plots was $161 per year. The authors note this was likely an underestimate since early plantings and flowers were not included. Gardeners spent an average of $47 per person on plants, inputs and fencing, thus netting $113 after expenses.
Ethnic differences. Each ethnic group tended to regard their community gardens differently. According to the authors, the older gardens, mainly in black neighborhoods, served as social centers; smaller, newer Hispanic gardens were sources of pride; the Korean gardens provided social cohesion as the gardeners worked together on their plots; and whites tended to garden in larger sites distant from their neighborhoods.
Conclusions
Low income, inner city residents may find it difficult to obtain fresh produce due to a lack of availability or high cost in small neighborhood stores, the exodus of large supermarkets and a lack of adequate transportation. This study finds that access to community gardens is an important strategy for improving vegetable consumption, gaining control over the quality and variety of produce consumed, and facilitating community relationships and development. The authors conclude that urban gardening is related to an increased frequency of vegetable consumption and a decrease in dairy, sweets and sweet drink consumption. Cole crops may have provided some of the calcium that gardeners did not get from dairy products; however, nutrition advice that encourages foods high in calcium would benefit these gardeners.
Reviewer's Comment. Community gardens provide an alternative for people in low income communities to simultaneously improve food security and their participation in a local food system. For low income families, urban gardens are a potential source of fresh, nutritious produce at relatively low cost. These benefits take on greater significance in light of recent debate at the national level about government food programs. Urban gardens also provide a focal point for people to come together in community and build neighborhood relationships at a time when disappearing resources put a strain on inner city families.
Readers who are interested in the development of urban gardens in California should contact their local UC Cooperative Extension office; Sibella Kraus, Center for Urban Education about Sustainable Agriculture, 1417 Josephine Street, Berkeley, CA 94703, Tel. (510) 526-2788; or Bob Gottlieb, UCLA Department of Urban Planning, 405 Hilgard Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90095, Tel. (310) 825-1067.
For more information about the article write to: Dorothy Blair, Ph.D., S-125C Health and Human Development Building, Nutrition Department, Penn State University, University Park, PA 16802; (814) 863-2912.
(gwf.495)
Contributed by Gail Feenstra
[ Back | Search | Feedback ]