Skip to main content

Table 2 Group differences and time effect of components of lifestyles sustainability among gardeners and non-gardenersa

From: Improving lifestyles sustainability through community gardening: results and lessons learnt from the JArDinS quasi-experimental study

Sustainability components, means (SD)b

Modelc

Gardeners (n = 66)

Non-gardeners (n = 66)

Group P-value

Time P-value

Group* Time P-value

 

t0

t1

t0

t1

   

 Social/Health dimension 

Healthiness of household’s food supplyd,e

 Fruit & Vegetablesf (g/d/p)

B

402.4 (238.2)

400.0 (231.2)

433.6 (285.4)

445.6 (304.5)

0.241

0.637

0.999

 MAR (% adequacy/2000 kcal)

B

76.5 (7.3)

75.8 (8.1)

76.3 (7.1)

76.9 (6.5)

0.679

0.936

0.356

 MER (% excess/2000 kcal)

B

96.6 (19.5)

96.1 (23.4)

100.2 (25.3)

98.8 (29.7)

0.617

0.705

0.844

 HPI [range: 0–15]

B

8.7 (2.1)

9.0 (2.1)

9.0 (2.3)

9.1 (1.9)

0.218

0.282

0.604

Physical activityg

 PAEE (kJ/kg/d)

A

43.2 (13.8)

40.3 (12.3)

41.9 (12.4)

39.9 (13.5)

0.489

0.027

0.664

 Inactivity (h/d)

A

9.4 (1.4)

9.9 (1.5)

9.4 (1.5)

9.8 (1.4)

0.333

< 0.0001

0.995

 Low-intensity activity (h/d)

A

2.8 (0.8)

2.7 (0.9)

2.8 (1.0)

2.6 (0.8)

0.792

0.003

0.544

 Moderate-to-vigorous intensity activity (h/d)

A

1.9 (0.9)

1.6 (0.7)

1.8 (0.7)

1.7 (0.8)

0.555

< 0.001

0.362

 BMI (kg/m2)

D

22.6 (3.1)

22.8 (3.1)

23.8 (4.0)

23.9 (4.1)

0.111

0.038

0.679

 WEMWBS [range: 14–70]

C

51.1 (6.7)

51.5 (6.9)

51.8 (6.7)

51.5 (5.7)

0.406

0.899

0.546

 UCLA Loneliness Scale [range: 20–80]

C

42.1 (10.4)

40.1 (10.9)

40.1 (9.8)

40.5 (9.5)

0.727

0.570

0.227

Environmental dimension

 High sensitivity to food waste, n (%)

C

30 (45.5)

40 (60.6)

27 (40.9)

30 (45.5)

0.274

0.018

0.214

 Nature Relatedness Scale [range: 1–5]

C

4.1 (0.5)

4.1 (0.5)

3.9 (0.5)

4.0 (0.5)

0.060

0.198

0.395

Environmental impact of household’s food supplyd,e

 GHGE (in g CO2eq/2000 kcal)f

B

3099 (997)

3151 (1131)

3294 (886)

3240 (889)

0.382

0.836

0.678

 Atmospheric acidification (in g SO2eq/2000 kcal)f

B

33.1 (12.2)

33.3 (12.0)

37.6 (15.0)

35.4 (12.1)

0.256

0.398

0.373

 Marine eutrophication (in g Neq/2000 kcal)f

B

11.9 (3)

12.5 (3.9)

13.3 (3.5)

13 (3.9)

0.124

0.972

0.271

 Animal proteins (in % of total proteins)

B

56.9 (16.1)

56.4 (17.4)

61.8 (15.4)

59.1 (15.6)

0.368

0.091

0.245

Economic dimension

 Household food expenditure (€/d/p)d,e

B

7.0 (3.1)

6.7 (3.2)

6.8 (3.3)

6.8 (3.2)

0.841

0.682

0.630

Expenditure share by food groups (%)d,e

 Fruits & Vegetables

B

26.5 (11.1)

27.0 (10.4)

26.6 (12.3)

29.4 (15.6)

0.258

0.100

0.237

 Starches

B

10.1 (5.2)

10.6 (5.1)

9.2 (4.7)

8.8 (4.5)

0.177

0.836

0.228

 Meat, fish & Eggs

B

18.8 (9.5)

18.7 (10.2)

20.2 (9.2)

20.2 (10.9)

0.507

0.908

0.901

 Dairy products

B

11.8 (5.1)

11.5 (4.8)

11.3 (4.4)

11.2 (5.2)

0.495

0.669

0.825

 Mixed dishesf

B

8.9 (6.2)

8.4 (6.1)

8.3 (6.1)

8.9 (8.2)

0.098

0.496

0.998

 Sweet products

B

10.4 (5.5)

11.7 (8.2)

11.1 (5.6)

10.1 (6.0)

0.853

0.855

0.078

 Added fats & seasoningsf

B

4.4 (3.0)

4.9 (2.8)

3.5 (2.6)

3.6 (2.6)

0.003

0.507

0.216

 Beveragesf

B

9.5 (6.2)

8.4 (5.8)

10.1 (7.4)

8.1 (6.1)

0.745

0.021

0.240

  1. a Abbreviations: GHGE GreenHouse Gas Emissions, HPI Healthy Purchase Index, MAR Mean Adequacy ratio, MER Mean Excess Ratio, PAEE Physical activity energy expenditure, WEMBWS The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale
  2. b Unless specified
  3. c Model A was adjusted on BMI and education level. Model B = Model A + percentage of meals consumed outside of the home. Model C = Model A + social desirability scale. Model D was adjusted on education level, percentage of meals consumed outside of the home and social desirability scale
  4. d Variable measured at the household level and not at the individual one
  5. e Including produce from the garden and foods from gifts or food aid. For food expenditure variables, a mean price was attributed to these foods (see Method section)
  6. f Variable was log-transformed to improve normality
  7. g Participants with less than 3 valid days (≥ 10 h of wearing the accelerometer wearing during daytime) were excluded from the analysis resulting in 65 gardeners and 65 controls at t0, and 64 gardeners and 62 controls at t1