Table 5 Studies addressing community outcomes included in this review

Comstock et al. 2010 [61]

USA, CO, Denver

Cross-sectional survey of local neighborhood

N = 410

Inclusion criteria

Living in area identified for sampling and ≥ 18 y

To compare people who participate in community and home gardening activities with people who do not garden

Area(block)-based probability sampling of general population (n = 1154), & list-based census of community gardeners (n = 300)

473 household respondents but 410 in analysis

No INT

Hierarchical linear models adjustment for: years living in neighborhood, own home, ethnicity, education, incivilities, safety, efficacy, gardener or not, local block characteristics (college degree, crime, collective efficacy, incivilities)

Neighborhood attachment 6 questions, 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 strongly disagree to 4 strongly agree

59% response rate (473 respondents/1454 households attempted to contact)

8% community gardeners (31/410 respondents)

Neighborhood attachment

(Standardised beta, no SD or CI reported)

Community gardener compared with non-gardener

β = 0.23, p < 0.05

Litt et al. 2015 [38]

USA, CO, Denver

Cross-sectional survey

 = 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 garden influence self-rated health

Area-based sample of general population n = 1154 randomly drawn from 40 block groups 13 gardens identified; List-based census of community gardeners n = 300

No intervention

Individuals participating in community gardens compared with non-gardeners

Surveys interviewer administered

Path analysis controlling for age, education, yrs in neighborhood, % college education in neighborhood, observed incivilities

Neighborhood aesthetics

Gardening predicted neighborhood aesthetics (β = 0.35, p < 0.001)

Machida 2019 [39]

Japan

Cross-sectional survey

Web-based survey limited to age 60–69 y, professional farmers excluded

(1) Community gardeners n = 129

Male n (%): 87(67%)

Age (mean ± SD): 64.1y ± 2.6

(2) Home gardeners n = 371

Male n (%):280 (76%

Age (mean ± SD): 63.9y ± 2.7

(3) Non-gardeners n = 500

Male n (%): 327 (65%)

Age (mean ± SD): 63.3y ± 2.5

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

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

NA

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

Connection with neighbors (≥ moderate vs ≤ little)

Connection with neighbors

(1) CG: 2.08 (1.53, 2.82)

(2) Home gardeners: 2.03 (1.33, 3.09)

Mangadu et al. 2017 [40]

USA, NM, US-Mexico border areas

Cross-sectional study

Two CGs accessible by the public. (CG1, CG2)

CG1 (n = 16)

CG2 (n = 9)

Characteristics

% Male NR

Age NR

CG@ is a local government project comprising a neighborhood CG 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 community gardens

NR

NR

Descriptive statistics only. Not adjusted for anything

Single question: I am more involved in this neighborhood?

I am more involved in this neighborhood

CG1: Yes, n = 16 (100%)

CG2: yes, n = 4 (44%)

Roncarolo et al. 2015 [42]

Canada, Montreal

Cross-sectional study

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 30-49y

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

Civic participation (user / volunteer/ none)

Civic participation

None = reference

User OR_adjusted = 1.17 (0.60, 2.25)

Member OR_adjusted = 2.21 (1.10, 4.45)

Soga et al. 2017 [50]

Japan, Tokyo, Nerima district in central Tokyo

Cross-sectional survey

Gardeners (n = 165) vs non-gardeners (n = 167)

Characteristics

Gardeners:

Male: 68.1%

Age (mean ± SD): 62 ± 17y

Non-gardeners:

Male: 42%

Age (mean ± SD):

61 ± 16y

To quantify effects of allotment gardening on physical, psychological and social health

Gardeners located by face-to-face recruitment at allotment gardens (90% response rate). Non-gardeners recruited via a letter sent to 1000 Nerima households (20% response rate)

NR

Adjusted for sex, age, household income, employment, smoking, drinking, vegetable intake and PA (days per week of > 30 min/day of moderate activity)

Social cohesion using the Social Cohesion and Trust Scale (X items, 5-point scale)

Compared with non-gardeners, gardeners mean social cohesion scores (± SE) were 1.57 (0.57) higher (P < 0.001)

Veen et al. 2016 [47]

The Netherlands

Cross-sectional

7 gardens (6 completed questionnaire)

N = 237 respondents

Inclusion criteria

NR

To investigate the extent to which community gardens 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

Membership at one of selected community gardens

F-statistic, generalized linear models, chi-square

No adjustments

Social cohesion (importance of garden socially)

Individual gardeners vs communal gardeners at CGs; NS for social cohesion