Table 2 Studies addressing diet and food-related outcomes included in this review

Alaimo et al. 2008 [27]

Flint, MI, USA

Rural and urban regions

Cross-sectional survey

766 adults

Non-institutionalized Genesee County residents aged ≥ 18 yrs

n = 845 Flint residents interviewed = 15% response rate

Household participation in CG n = 116 vs not, n = 650

Mean (SD)

Age: 46.4 (1.9) vs. 43.4 (0.8) yrs

Male: 49.9 (5.4)% vs. 47.8 (2.2)%

Female: 50.1 (5.4)% vs. 52.2 (2.2)%

African American: 61.5 (5.3) vs. 46.6 (1.7)

White: 26.4 (4.7)% vs. 43.8 (1.9)%

Other: 12.1 (4.4)% vs. 9.6 (1.4)%

To determine the association between household participation in a CG and F&V consumption among urban adults

Survey administered by telephone biennially Quota sampling strategy

None

F&V intake (Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System); Household participation in a CG

Generalized linear models and logistic regression models, controlling for demographic, neighborhood participation, and health variables

Fruit and vegetable consumption relative to national recommendations

F&V consumption: 4.4 (0.3) vs. 3.3 (0.1) times per day

Consumed F&V ≥ 5x/d (national recommendations): 32.4 (4.9)% vs. 17.8 (1.7)%

Respondents with a household member who participated in CG consumed F&V 1.4x/d more, and were 3.5 × more likely to consume F&V ≥ 5x/d vs. those without a gardening household member

Algert et al. 2016 [28]

USA, California, San Jose

Cross-sectional survey

Two groups:

Characteristics

Community gardeners:

n = 85)

84% female

Age 49 (± 13) yrs

Home gardeners

n = 50

50% female

Age 58 (± 12) yrs

To compare whether the two groups of gardeners (community and home) increased their vegetable intake while gardening

1) CG: Face-to-face recruitment at 4 separate allotments

2) La Mesa Verde (LMV): Recruited through existing home gardening project for low-income families

Response rate not reported

No INT; 2 CG programs

T-tests and Chi-square test comparing veg intake btw home and community gardeners

No adjustments

Vegetable intake (EFNEP food behavior checklist)

Results of statistical analyses not reported

Intake of vegetables similar between groups (1.9 and 2.0 cups/day for home and community gardeners respectively), increased when majority of participants reported eating from the garden (4.0 cups/day)

Barnidge et al. 2013 [26]

USA, rural Missouri, 7 counties

Cross-sectional surveys

Two groups:

Community gardeners:

Characteristics

n = 141

Male: 28.4%e

Age: 72.3% > 45y

Ethnicity: 54.6% non-Hispanic white

Education: 53.2% ≥ high school equivalency

CG exposure: 63.8% ≥ weekly

Phone survey:

Characteristics

n = 1000

Male: 26.6%

Age (mean): 59.7y

Ethnicity: 88.0% non-Hispanic white

Education: 43.9% ≥ high school equivalency

CG participation: 95.4% do not participate in CGs

Inclusion criteria

None reported

To examine relationship between CG participation and F&V consumption

Community gardeners:

Intercept survey with known community gardeners

Phone survey:

Random digit dial sample from 16,000 landlines in 5 towns with community gardens in a 5 mile radius

N/A

Chi-square tests, no adjustment

Multivariate logistic regression models, adjusted for sex, race, age, education, social cohesion, sense of belonging and food environment

F&V consumption, eating fresher food, eating less fast food,

Comparisons between gardening frequency (< once/ wk vs once/wk or more) and outcomes

Frequent gardeners eat more F&V (χ² = 7.78; p = 0.088), eat fresher food (χ² = 15.38) and eat less fast food (χ² = 5.19)

CG participation associated with:

Increased odds of meeting F&V recs in fully adjusted model (OR = 2.76, 95%CIs = 1.35–5.65)

Barnidge et al. 2015 [29]

USA, rural MO, 2 counties

Quasi-experimental study

Total n = 794

Inclusion criteria:

African American, ≥ 18 y

Residing in COM. or INT county

Characteristics

INT:

n = 397

Female: 62.7–63.2% (baseline and mid INT, respectively)

COM:

n = 397

female: 65.0–71.3% (baseline and mid INT, respectively)

Age (mean): 38.8–41.7y

To examine effect of INT on BP, self-reported BMI, F&V consumption (Mid-INT results)

Cross-sectional surveys at each time point in INT and COM county

Recruited from “places frequented by African American adults (e.g. community organization or church)”, fliers posted

MOTMGC (Men on the Move Growing Communities) – existing CG, nutrition education activities; access to healthy food through CG (participants did not do gardening themselves); 3 production gardens

Self-administered survey

Logistic regression models: changes over time between counties in prevalence of hypertension and BMI; models adjusted for age, education, employment and income

F&V consumption

Increased odds of eating 5 + servings of F&V daily for high (OR: 3.06; 95%CIs: 1.90–4.95) and medium nutrition education participation (OR: 1.98; 95%CIs: 1.42–2.76), compared to no participation

Increased consumption of F&V for those receiving F&V from CG compared to not (OR: 1.95; 95%CIs 1.20, 3.15) in fully adjusted models

Strongest effect on F&V consumption from high participation AND receiving F&V from CG, compared to others (OR: 2.18; 95%CIs: 1.24, 3.81)

Brown et al. 2020 [25]

USA, MT, Native American community

RCT

(1) Group-based Community gardening program

(2) control (no gardening program)

Native Americans with prediabetes or diabetes

CON: n = 12

INT: n = 8

Age:

N = 15 were 45–64 y; n = 5 were 25–44 y

Male n(%): 4 (25%)

To determine feasibility of a group gardening program and potential for collecting health outcomes

Convenience sample of participants expressing an interest in the gardening study at a diabetes clinic

Raised beds for gardening chosen for proximity to college and health centre. Plus 10 × 90-min structured sessions with hands-on gardening and food preparation activities

Outcomes measured at 7 months after baseline

Outcomes were reported as medians and ranges. Change from baseline was compared between the groups using Wilcoxon rank sum tests. No adjustments

Missing information on some outcomes

Diet: Motivation to eat fruits and vegetables

Change from baseline

Motivation to eat F&V (median [range])

INT (n = 6): 0 [-1.0, 5.0]

CON (n = 11): 0[-2.0, 3.0]

P = 0.838

Carney et al. 2012 [30]

USA, OR, Columbia River Gorge (rural farm community)

Pre-/post (no control group)

n = 38 families at baseline (n = 163 individuals)

Characteristics

Age (mean): 44 y (21–78)

Average yrs living in US: 20 (4–44)

Inclusion criteria None reported

To study the impact of a CG program on vegetable intake (also food security and family relationships) of migrant seasonal farmworker (rural) families

All families volunteered for the program

No recruitment methods reported

Community meetings held at start of growing season to provide materials (e.g. seeds) and information on gardening techniques, and concerns about exposure to pesticides

Pre-post survey was interviewer- administered to nominated family member (phone or face to face)

Instrument examined frequency of eating vegetables. No validity, reliability or source reported

Wilcoxon signed rank test examined pre-post responses. No adjustments reported

Frequency of adult and child vegetable intake

Frequency of adult veg intake of “several times a day” increased from 18.2 to 84.8% (p < 0.001)

Frequency of child veg intake “several times a day” increased from 24.0 to 64.0%

Castro et al. 2013 [31]

USA, NC, Carrboro

Pre-/post (no control group)

n = 60 families

n = 120 children

Characteristics

Male: 49% boys

Ethnicity: 59% Latino

Age (mean): 6.0 (± 3.4)y

Inclusion criteria

Families living in the community (Carrboro); had ≤ 1 child ≥ 6 y

1. To help children achieve or maintain a healthy BMI

2. To increase children’s access to fruit and vegetables, particularly at home

3. To increase the daily number of servings of fruit and vegetable children consumed

Families recruited through outreach activities at schools and other local service providers

Growing Healthy Kids (GHK)—3 yr program consisting of:

1) weekly gardening sessions; 2) cooking and nutrition workshops for parents and children; 3) social activities and events

Surveys administered at baseline and at end of each year

Change in proportion of positive outcomes pre and post for:

- Availability of F&V

- F&V consumption

F&V intake Availability of F&V

Fruit consumption: Increased by 28%/d (2 extra serves/week; t = 4.31; df = 47; p < 0.001)

Vegetable consumption:

Increased by 33%/day (4.9 extra serves/week; t = 3.17; df = 45; p < 0.001)

Fruit availability:

Increased by 146%; average absolute change = 2.55 (SD = 1.41) (t = 12.53; df = 47; p < 001)

Veg availability: increased by 123%; av. absolute change = 4.3 (SD = 1.82) (t = 16.37; df = 47; p < 0.001)

De Marco et al. 2016 [32]

USA, NC, Rural low resource county

Pre/post study

n- = 40

Characteristics

Rural African

American youth n = 17

Rural African

American adults n = 23

Inclusion criteria

Open to

adults and youth ≥ 10 y

To test the feasibility of a church garden program to impact health outcomes in rural African American youth and adults

Assistant pastor recruited known church and community members

Workshops 2 h/wk; hands-on gardening and nutrition education

Paired P-tests examined within group differences (pre-post) for adults and youth separately

Food-related knowledge; attitudes; perceptions; behaviors Weight, BMI, BP

Youth (n = 14)

F&V knowledge increased (12.9 to 14.5, p = 0.08)

Daily Vegetable intake increased: (2.25 to 2.5 serves, p = 0.08)

Adults (n = 20)

F&V knowledge: 20.3 to 21.1

Daily F&V intake: 2.3 servings to 2.5 servings

Hartwig and Mason 2016 [33]

USA, MN, Twin Cities

Cross-sectional surveys

n = 97

Characteristics

Female: 65%

Good/fluent English: 18%

Age (mean): 39y

(16–80 y)

Ethnicity: 67% Karen (Burmese)

Inclusion criteria None stated

To evaluate church community gardens serving refugee and immigrant populations, reporting primary health and social benefits

8 Gardens purposively sampled based on:

- 2 yrs participation

- # gardeners

- primary language of gardeners (Karen & Nepali)

All gardeners at 8 gardens invited at beginning and end of season (two samples) Response rate = 44–45%

8 church gardens serving refugees and immigrants

Measured early and late season harvest (Jul-Sept)

Change in mean/% early and late season

No adjustments

F&V intake Food security

% reporting F&V intake everyday Increased from 64 to 78%

4% reported food security issues (but 86% on food subsidy programs)

Heilmayr and Friedman 2020 [34]

USA, CA

RCT with 5 INT groups:

(1) Community gardening

(2) moderate indoor exercise

(3) Exposure to nature

(4) Social club (watching films)

(5) Indoor container gardening

University students

Baseline data reported in combination (not by group allocation)

Characteristics

Age: 20.6 ± 3.3y

Male: 31.2%

(1) n = 21

(2) n = 21

(3) n = 23

(4) n = 22

(5) n = 23

To compare community gardening with four theoretically driven comparison groups to understand possible causal mechanisms around how community gardens have improved outcomes

Convenience sample recruited via flyers, emails and the Psychology Subject Pool

4 week INT; assigned an activity for 2–3 h/wk

Data were analysed by ANOVA with pre-/post-test values to assess how groups changed from baseline and a group by time interaction

Items from a Food Frequency Questionnaire to generate an overall score of produce consumption (items NR)

Produce consumption (post-test only; mean ± SD)

(1) 4.6 ± 1.5

(2) 4.8 ± 1.5

(3) 4.9 ± 1.7

(4) 5.3 ± 1.8

(5) 5.0 ± 1.7

Hopkins and Holben 2018 [35]

USA, OH, Athens (rural Appalachia)

Cross-sectional survey

n = 50

Characteristics

Ethnicity: 81.6% white

Female: 67.4%

Education: 46.9% college educated

Inclusion criteria

CG plot in Athens

To examine relationships among food security, produce intake and behaviours, health and social capital among community gardeners

All community gardeners (n = 120) in Athens invited, Response rate = 42%

No INT

Survey distributed via email

Descriptive statistics, no adjustment

F&V intake Food security

46% eat more F&V due to CG

79.1% have high food security

Food insecure gardeners ate more F&V due to CG compared to secure gardeners (tau = 0.285, p = 0.03)

Kim et al. 2017 [36]

UK, London

Cross-sectional survey

n = 48

Characteristics

Female: 66.7%

Length of gardening: 37.5% for ≥ 5 yrs

To examine relationship btw CGs and daily food consumption, in relation to carbon footprint

95 CGs and food growing organizations in London contacted to distribute survey via email

No INT

Individuals participating in CGs

Descriptive statistics

Sample divided into 3 groups by yrs of participation in CGs

Meat consumption; dining out; convenience food consumption; food self-sufficiency; growing food outside CG

27.7% ate meat never or < once/week; most ate meat 1-3x/wk (31.9%) or 4-6x/wk (25.5%)

68.1% ate out < 1x/wk

 ~ 94% ate convenience foods < 3x/wk

58.7% grew food outside CG; highest among longest gardeners (61.11%)

- 57% said food from CG was helpful or very helpful to decrease food purchasing; highest among longest gardeners (66.67%)

Litt et al. 2011 [37]

USA, CO

Cross sectional survey

n = 436

Characteristics

Ethnicity: 57% White

Female: 68%

Education: 56% College educated

Inclusion criteria

English- or Spanish-speaking adults aged ≥ 18 y

Provide insights into (1) social and psychological factors that shape F&V consumption in an urban setting and (2) community-based healthy eating strategies that address those factors

Multi-frame sampling design

Area-based sample of general population and a list-based census of community gardeners. All households located within 1 mile of CG

Response rate = 59%

No INT

Multilevel analytic models; adjustments included education, physical activity, BMI, and self-rated health

F&V intake, physical activity, BMI, SEP, and dimensions of health

Self- developed measure of F&V intake (6 items) asking about frequency of intake, including fruit juice

Mean health variables

- F&V consumption: 4.4x/day

-17 h/wk PA

- BMI 26.2 kg/m²

9% community gardeners

Comparisons to other gardeners

- Community gardeners consumed F&V 5.7x/d vs. home gardeners (4.6x/d) and non-gardeners (3.9x/d)

- 56% of community gardeners consumed F&V ≥ 5x/d, vs. 37% of home gardeners and 25% of non-gardeners

Litt et al. 2015 [38]

USA, CO, Denver

Cross-sectional survey

n = 469

Characteristics

Age (mean): 46.1y (± 15.9)

Female: 67.4%

Education: 57.4% college educated

Identified as gardeners: 59.3%

Inclusion criteria

English or Spanish speaking, ≥ 18yrs

To examine the direct and indirect pathways by which gardening influenced self-rated health

Multi-frame sampling design

Area-based sample and list-based census of community gardeners

Response rate = 59%

No INT

Individuals participating in CGs compared with non-gardeners

Surveys interviewer administered

Path analysis comparing community gardeners with non-gardeners, Analyses controlled for age, education, yrs in neighborhood, observed incivilities

F&V intake

Self-rated health

Data fit model adequately, accounting for 22% variance in self-rated health and 4% in F&V intake

Gardening predicted F&V intake (β = 0.21, p < 0.001)

Machida 2019 [39]

Japan

Cross-sectional survey

Characteristics

(1) Community gardeners n = 129

Male n (%): 87(67%)

Age (mean): 64.1y ± 2.6

(2) Home gardeners n = 371

Male n (%): 280(76%)

Age (mean): 63.9y ± 2.7

(3) Non-gardeners n = 500

Male n (%): 327 (65%)

Age (mean): 63.3y ± 2.5

Inclusion criteria

Aged 60–69

Exclusion criteria

Professional farmer

To study the relationship between community or home gardening and health status or a healthy lifestyle

The web-based survey was conducted by a marketing company with 4.2 million people registered across all 47 prefectures in Japan

No INT

Odds Ratios adjusted for sex, age, family structure and employment status (not described)

Breakfast (everyday versus not every day)

Vegetable intake (enough + moderate versus not enough + shortage)

Frequency of eating balanced meals with grain, fish and meat, vegetables (eat every day versus not every day)

(Ref: non-gardeners)

Eats breakfast every day (OR (95%CI)

(1) Community gardeners: 1.94 (1.10, 3.43)

(2) Home gardeners 1.21(0.59, 2.48)

Eats enough vegetables (OR (95%CI)

(1) Community gardeners 2.29 (1.67, 3.14)

(2) Home gardeners 1.83(1.19, 2.85)

Eats balanced meals everyday (OR (95%CI)

(1) Community gardeners: 1.80 (1.33, 2.44)

(2) Home gardeners 1.48 (0.97, 2.27)

Mangadu et al. 2017 [40]

USA, NM, US-Mexico border areas

Cross-sectional survey

Two community gardens accessible by the public. (CG1, CG2)

CG1 (n = 16)

CG2 (n = 9)

% Male NR

Age NR

CG2 is a local government project comprising a neighborhood community garden and a garden on a juvenile probation campus. Where possible, data from the probation campus are not extracted

To identify the best practices in implementing and increasing the potential or sustainability of CGs

NR

NR

Descriptive statistics

No adjustment

Nutrition data from Food Security Coalition’s Community Gardener/Farm-to-School survey but adapted (unclear how) to each community project. For nutrition (-items, yes/no responses)

Do you consume more F&V as a result of CG participation:

CG1:

Yes, n = 15/16 (94%)

CG2: yes, NR

Martin et al. 2017 [41]

France, Marseille, socioeconomically disadvantaged northern districts

Cross-sectional survey

Five CGs close to social housing

Characteristics

Gardeners

n = 21

Male: 0%

Age (mean SD): 52y ± 12

Non-gardeners:

n = 65

Male: 0% (all males excluded from analysis)

Age: NR

To test whether, in poor neighborhoods, community gardeners have a greater supply of fruits & vegetables than non-gardeners

223 active gardeners invited. Non-gardeners were residents of the same neighborhood who participated in a nutrition education program

Arrays of plots that are cultivated individually. Most were growing Mediterranean fruits and vegetables

Generalized linear model with adjustment for age and number of children in the household

Total F&V intake measured as g/person/d

The intake combines purchased (and harvested for gardeners)

Total F&V (g) purchases per person per day (mean ± SD)

Gardeners 370 ± 283

Non-gardeners 211 ± 155

Roncarolo et al. 2015 [42]

Canada, Montreal,

Cross-sectional survey

Participants sampled from 16 traditional (e.g. food banks, n = 711) or 6 alternative (e.g. community gardens) venues (n = 113)

Characteristics

Female: 55%

Age: 52% aged 30–49 yrs

To compare outcomes between users of traditional versus alternative organizations

Sampled from food security organizations with ≥ 50 new members (traditional) or ≥ 30 new members (alternative)

Not precisely described but indicated as being organizations (gardens) that nurture solidarity, and have goals of reducing social inequalities

Multilevel logistic regression to account for clustering by study site. Adjusted for sex, country of birth, marital status, employment, education, income and number of people in the household

Food security using the Canadian Community Health Survey (18 yes/no items)

Food security

Ref = Secure

Moderately insecure: OR_adjusted = 0.16 (0.08, 0.35)

Severely insecure

OR_adjusted = 0.09 (0.04, 0.20)

Schmidt et al. 1995 [43]

South Africa, Kudumane district

Cross-sectional survey

Poor rural area. Children whose parents participated in a communal vegetable garden (n = 18, INT) or not (n = 18; CON)

Characteristics

Male: % NR

Age: 6–13 yrs

To investigate whether people who grow their own vegetables eat more vegetables and have better nutritional status than those who don’t

NR

INT: Trench gardens, 6 per household

CON: purchased vegetables from shops

24-h recalls, fasting blood sampling for nutrient status

No adjustments

24-h recalls:

vegetable intake, energy, protein fat and fibre

Blood sampling for

vitamin A, β carotene, vitamin E, vitamin B6

Frequency of vegetable consumption: data NR

Experimental vs. Control (mean ± SD)

Energy

718 ± 413 kcal vs. 834 ± 472 kcal

Protein

25.6 ± 22.2 g vs 26.6 ± 17.6 g

Fat

2.8 ± 14.9 g vs. 9.7 ± 17.6 g

Fibre

9.1 ± 5.3 g vs. 9.6 ± 6.9 g

Vitamin A

1.23 ± 0.48 µmol/L vs. 1.21 ± 0.56 µmol/L

Carotene

0.07 ± 0.06 mg/mL vs. 0.09 ± 0.15 mg/mL

Vitamin E

8.75 ± 4.06 µmol/L vs. 6.51 ± 2.89 µmol/L

Vitamin B6

21.2 ± 5.1 ng/mL vs. 20.2 ± 2.0 ng/mL

Spees et al. 2016 [44]

USA, OH, Columbus; Adult cancer survivors

Pre-/Post

n = 22

Characteristics

Age (mean) 62y; Age (mean) initial cancer diagnosis: 59y

Inclusion criteria

Adults ≥ 18 yrs, English speaker, access to Internet, basic computer skills, and cancer survivors who had completed active cancer treatment (chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and/or surgery) within previous 24 months

To determine the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of a multifaceted, evidence-based intervention for cancer survivors transitioning out of active treatment and orchestrated around a season of herb, fruit, and vegetable harvesting in an urban garden

Adult cancer survivors recruited from the James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute

4-month multifaceted

INT focusing on cancer survivor–specific nutrition, PA, and behavioral

modification delivered within a garden setting

Garden was 2.5-acre plot with herbs, F&V

Effect of INT on outcomes were conducted by comparing the pre-study and post-study scores

Medical, dietary (26-item Dietary Screener Questionnaire)

Objective anthropometric and fasting clinical biomarkers

Post INT:

Increased F&V consumption (~ 3.5 cups to 4.2 cups)

Decreased added sugars consumption (~ 1tsp down to 0.9 tsp)

Decreased intake red and processed meat (0.3 units down to 0.2 units)

Spliethoff et al. 2016 [45]

USA, New York City (NYC)

Cross-sectional

NYC community gardeners

Characteristics

n = 46

(information on a total of 93 adults and 13 children in their households)

Age: NR

Inclusion criteria

NR

To assess vegetable consumption rates and time spent in the garden in NYC community gardeners

Mailing to contact gardeners at 76 NYC CGs from which soil had been sampled (separate aim) and to volunteers at NYC gardening workshops

No INT

Median and 95th percentile consumption rates for crops (fruiting, leafy, root, and herb) for gardeners (n = 46), and adult (18 + yrs; n = 47) and child (< 18 yrs; n = 13) household members

Lognormal distributions to consumption rates for each crop type (consumers only)

Description of crop grown in past 12 months and estimate crop harvested during that time; estimate fractions of harvest consumed/not consumed by themselves plus by household; age, body weight; servings of F&V

89% of gardeners and child household members, and nearly all adult household members ate at least some vegetables from their CG

Community gardeners (n = 46)

Total vegetable intake (mean ± SD): 1308 mg/kg day, made up of fruit (353 ± 4.8), leafy (220 ± 3.2), root (85 ± 3.1), herb (39 ± 3.4) vs. nationally representative consumption rates for home-produced vegetables (mean = 2020 mg/kg day)

Age and body weight NR

Tharrey et al. 2020 [46]

France, Montpellier

Longitudinal (1 yr) cohort study

Characteristics

(1) Community gardeners (n = 66)

Male n(%): 16(24.2)

Age (y): 44.0 ± 14.0

(2) Non-gardeners (n = 66)

Male n(%): 16(24.2)

Age (y): 44.9 ± 13.7

Inclusion criteria

Starting gardening in a community garden; residents of Montpelier; ability to read

French

To assess the impact or urban community garden participation the adoption of sustainable lifestyles

Gardeners recruited when new to the gardening community

Non-gardeners recruited via volunteers for a population-based survey on food supply behaviors

Matched on age, sex, household income and household composition

No INT

Analyzed with mixed-effects models with group by time interaction

Adjustments for education, BMI, meals consumed outside the home, social desirability where appropriate

Grams of F&V consumed(g/pp/d)

20 essential nutrients (Mean Adequacy Ratio (MAR))

Sodium, free sugars and saturated fatty acids (Mean excess Ratio (MER))

Household purchasing index (HPI)

F&V data at 1 year follow up (g/pp/d; mean ± SD)

(1) 400 ± 231

(2) 446 ± 305

NS

MAR at 1 year follow-up (percent adequacy/ 2000 kcal; mean ± SD)

(1) 75.8 ± 8.1

(2) 76.9 ± 6.5

NS

MER at 1 year follow-up (percent excess/2000 kcal; mean ± SD)

(1) 96.1 ± 23.4

(2) 98.8 ± 29.7

NS

HPI at 1 year follow-up (mean ± SD)

(1) 9.0 ± 2.1

(2) 9.1 ± 1.9

NS

Veen et al. 2016 [47]

The Netherlands

Cross-sectional

6 gardens

n = 237

Inclusion criteria

NR

To investigate the extent to which CGs influence the enhancement of social cohesion

Gardens selected to ensure homo- and heterogeneity in neighborhood, plot type and harvest consumption type

Recruitment via newsletter and letter to CGs

No INT

F-statistic, generalized linear models, chi-square

No adjustments

Motivation for gardening (vegetables; social atmosphere, gardening hobby)

Higher motivation for vegetables associated with higher vegetable consumption (p < 0.001)