Table 6 Characteristics of individuals or households who use community gardens

Studies describing characteristics of gardeners (no comparison against other groups)

 Algert et al. 2016 [28]

USA, Calif., San Jose

Cross-sectional survey

Two groups:

Characteristics

Community gardeners:

n = 85

Female: 84%

Age (mean ± SD): 49y (± 13)

Home gardeners

n = 50

Female: 50%

Age (mean ± SD): 58 (± 12) y

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

Participants in

1) San Jose’s Community Garden program which provides space to grow food, socialize and learn about gardening)

2) Local govt. funded (LMV; home gardening project) which provides raised beds, soil, seeds and plants; instruction on organic gardening workshops

Demographic characteristics of community gardeners

No adjustment

Community gardeners only

- Low income than median income in county

- 56% had college-level education

- 53% white race

- 66% lived in a house (not apartment)

- mean BMI 26.3 (± 5.3)

 Bussell et al. 2017 [66]

USA, San Diego

Cross-sectional survey

120 community gardeners at 8 rural and urban sites

Characteristics

Age: 76.6% aged 30–79 yrs

To determine the reasons why people pursue community gardening and to discern whether low-income community gardeners are motivated by perceived or actual economic benefits

88 CGs located throughout the region but primarily in urban areas, with significant number located in low-income communities

Larger, more mature CGs as well as younger and smaller gardens

Reasons why people use CG, including social, well-being and economic reasons; questions about types and volume of produce commonly grown; adequacy of the CGs in meeting needs of gardeners

Motivations for CG:

- 84% to grow food

- 60% to improve health

- 39% to make new friends

- 50% community connections

are benefit of belonging to a CG

- 61% made new friendships

- 65% relaxing

- 79% spending time outdoors

- 90% improve diet

- 90% confirmed that their household had eaten more fresh F&V since started growing own produce

Ethnicity:

40% Caucasian

23.3% Hispanic or Latino

6.7% African-American

7.5% Asian

6.7% African

5% Middle Eastern

5% other ethnicities

51% with ≥ 3 people in household

36.7%, retired

16.6% bachelor or postgraduate degree

45% high school degree but no further education

 Edeoghon and Okoedo-Okojie 2015 [67]

Nigeria, Lagos State

Cross-sectional survey

Youths involved in urban agriculture

N = 140

Male: 51%

Age:

 < 20 yrs: 17%

21–30 yrs: 39%

31–40 yrs: 33%

41–50 yrs: 11%

To examine socio-economic characteristic of study respondents

Chose 3/5 wards where intensive urban agriculture is practices. Selected farmers attending those settings

NR

Sociodemographic characteristic of people who use CGs

No comparisons, & not adjusted for anything

Marital status

Single: 35%

Married: 57%

Divorced: 9%

Education

No formal: 1%

Primary: 7%

Junior secondary: 6%

Snr secondary: 44%

Other: 29%

Degree: 12%

Employment

Yes: 29%

No: 71%

Household size

 < 3 people: 32%

3–6 people: 51%

 > 6 people: 17%

 Dubova and Machac 2019 [62]

Czechia, Kuchyňka and Vidimova

Cross-sectional survey

Inclusion criteria not reported

(1) Kuchyňka

n = 13 respondents / 23 users

(2) Vidimova

n = 24/45 members

To understand garden users perceptions of benefits and social benefits

Convenience sample of garden users

Kuchyňka garden is terraced vegetable beds where goal is vegetable independence. Vidimova garden has mobile garden beds and hosts cultural activities

NR

Data reported as text

Respondents were more likely to be female, aged 31–40 years, 1 child, university degree (numbers not reported)

Egerer et al. 2019 [68]

Australia, Melbourne

Cross- sectional survey

Adult users of urban community gardens (11 gardens)

n = 189

Male n (%):82 (43%)

To understand the importance of community gardens to users

Recruited via “intercept sampling”, a method of sample of garden users (convenience sampling)

Not-for-profit local spaces to grow fresh food, practice sustainability, build food literacy and skills, build community connection

Descriptive analysis

No adjustments. No comparison group

Speaks English n(%) 146 (77%%)

English as second language n (%): 36 (19%)

Not born in Australia n = 62 (33%)

 Filkobski et al. 2016 [69]

Israel

Cross-sectional survey

Participants in CGs located in all the big cities of Israel, medium size towns and rural settlements as well as different types of programs that exist in urban community gardening

N = 44

Age:

11–20 yrs: 20.9%

71–90 yrs: 11.6%

To explore the extent and characteristics of CGs in Israel and the local public’s involvement in these projects

136 CG coordinators via email, or at conference and training for CGs

Response rate, 32%

Fenced and non-fenced CGs

Questionnaire sent to CG coordinators across the country to explore general characteristics of Israeli community gardens

Survey questionnaire on garden location, previous site conditions physical features, profile of participants, sources of support and funding, objectives and activities

Users of the gardens

Families with young children

58.5%

Religion

Jewish: 91%

Muslim: 9%

Geographic origins

Born in Israel: 50.8%

Immigrants from Ethiopia: 20.6%

Former USSR (14.3%):

USA: 7.9%

Income level

Average: 36.2%

Below average: 34.5%

 Gauder et al. 2019 [70]

Germany, multiple regions (66 cities and 9 states)

Cross-sectional survey

Details NR

n = 173

Male (%): 25%

Age (y) n (%)

20–29: 24%

30–39: 29%

40–49: 16%

50–59: 17%

 ≥ 60 y: 13%

To characterize participants of self-harvest gardens

Recruited online. Providers of self-harvest gardens (n = 95) were contacted and asked to forward survey to their participants

Self-harvest gardens where providers chose and plant the vegetable crops, provides advice, water and tools. Gardeners carry out watering, weeding and harvesting for personal use

Descriptive analysis

No adjustments. No comparison group

Schooling (n = 173)

Secondary n(%): 2%

Professional: 14%

Qualified for University: 62%

Degree: 18%

Promotion/habilitation: 1%

Occupation (n = 173)

Employed: 66%

Student: 16%

Retired: 8%

Self-employed: 8%

Homemaker: 2%

Job training: 1%

Relationship (n = 173)

Married: 45%

In a relationship: 38%

Single: 18%

Parents: 53%

Lived in area > 5 years: 75%

 Grebitus et al. 2017 [71]

USA, AZ, Arizona State University (class not named)

Cross sectional survey

Undergraduate university students (n = 325) who were given 1% credit for completing survey

Characteristics

Female: 38%

Age (mean ± SD): 23 ± 4 y

To investigate the impact of consumer perception, knowledge and attitudes towards the likelihood to grow own produce at urban farms

Online survey available to students taking a course at Arizona State University

No program. Study is about the likelihood of growing food on urban farms

Descriptive statistics extracted. Likelihood to grow produce at an urban farm (1-item, 7-point scale)

Analysis not adjusted for other variables

44% likely to grow their own produce at urban farms

Participants that were likely to grow their own produce were more likely to be female, older, more educated, purchase foods locally and have knowledge about urban agriculture

 Grubb and Vogel 2019 [72]

USA, Minnesota, Minneapolis and St Paul

Cross-sectional survey

Urban farms, youth gardens, ornamental gardens and those outside the area were excluded (101 gardens included)

Characteristics

N = 181

Male n(%): 45 (25%)

Age (y): mean 48.4; median [IQR] 48 [34, 62]

To understand relationships between urban gardening and food literacy among adults

Snowball sampling by emailing community garden coordinator to pass on online survey

CGs defined as people who garden collectively on a plot and live in an urban area

Descriptive analysis

No adjustments. No comparison group

Education n (%)

High school/GED: 15(8%)

College: 21(12%)

Degree: 82(45%)

Masters or higher: 63(35%)

Rural upbringing 57(32%)

Gardener type

Food: 173(96%)

Ornamental: 8(4%)

 Langemeyer et al. 2018 [73]

Spain, Barcelona 27 urban gardens

Cross-sectional survey

Home or school gardens excluded

N = 201

About three quarters of urban gardeners in Barcelona were male, 80% were aged > 50 y

To uncover key enabling factors for ecosystem services

NR

NR

Descriptive statistics extracted

70% retired

40% had education beyond secondary school (compared with 20% for all of Catalonia). 39% were Catalonian, 54% Andalucía and 6% from other European or non-European countries

 Migliore et al. 2019 [74]

Palermo, Sicily, Italy

Cross-sectional survey

Characteristics

Gardeners (n = 176)

Male (%): 74(42%)

Age n (%):

21–34 y: 18 (10%)

35–45 y: 31 (18%)

46–55 y: 44 (32%)

56–65 y: 56 (32%)

66–76 y: 27 (58%)

Inclusion criteria NR

To understand citizens motivations for participating in Cgs

Convenience sample from 6 of the 7 gardens in the city, comprising 75% of the gardeners at those sites

NR

Face-to-face survey

Education n(%)

Primary 8 (5%)

Lower secondary 29 (17%)

Upper secondary 68 (39%)

University degree or higher 71 (40%)

Income (Euros)

 < 1,500: 18 (10%)

 ~ 2000: 43 (24%)

 ~ 2,500: 55 (31%)

 > 3,000: 27 (15%)

No answer: 33 (19%)

Household members n (%)

1: 23 (13%)

2: 39(22%)

3: 46 (26%)

4: 52 (30%)

5: 14 (8%)

 > 5: 2 (1%)

 Mourao et al. 2019 [54]

Portugal

Cross-sectional survey

Invitation from the Urban Allotment Garden office, sent to 30 gardeners per session. Six sessions performed, resulting in 65 validated responses

Characteristics

Male, 56.9%

Age group (y)

26–45: 36.9%

46–65: 47.7%

 > 65: 15.4%

To evaluate the happiness and well-being of the Portugal population, based on the urban organic allotment gardens

Self-administered questionnaires

Permanent resident, garden a family plot

Personal wellbeing scale

Subjective happiness scale

Pearson correlation. Analysis not adjusted for other variables

Demographics

Married: 72%

Higher than year 12: 56.9%

Working: 46.2%

Unemployed: 21.5%

Retired: 32.3%

Monthly income

 < €500: 16.9%

€500–1250: 47.8%

 > €1250: 35.3%

Housing

Independently housed: 26%

Apartments: 56%

Lived in urban council area 90.8%

Gardening frequency

Once a week: 10.5%

Few days a week: 47.7%

Daily: 41.5%

 Roberts and Shackleton 2018 [75]

South Africa, Eastern Cape

Cross-sectional survey

N = 69 gardeners

Characteristics

Male: 51% male

Age (mean ± SD): 56y ± 18

To understand the nature of community gardening in poor provinces

Gardeners on site at 4 randomly selected gardens per town

Spaces for food production

Descriptive statistics only. Not adjusted for anything

All mean ± SD

Years of education

7.7 ± 3.8

Household size

6.1 ± 2.6

Number of social grants household receives

1.4 ± 1.3

 Spliethoff et al. 2016 [45]

New York City (NYC), USA

Written survey

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 community gardens from which soil had been sampled (separate aim) and to volunteers at NYC gardening workshops

CG vs nationally representative non-gardeners

Median and 95th percentile consumption rates for crops (fruiting, leafy, root, and herb) for gardeners (n = 46), compared with other household members (18 + y; n = 47)

Mann–Whitney U test for comparing total vegetable intake in mg/kg body weight/day

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

 Veen and Eiter 2018 [76]

Netherlands

Cross-sectional survey

Almere, Netherlands

Found by volunteering to write gardener “portraits” for the allotment magazine; the editor of the magazine recruited the interviewees

N = 81

Age group (y)

25–34: 1%

35–44: 12%

45–54: 19%

55–64: 38%

 ≥ 65: 30%

To explore differences in motivation for and actual use of allotment gardens

Received the questionnaire on paper, by general mail, including a stamped return envelope

Waiting list for plots. Gardeners can cultivate more than one plot

Organic farming is not obligatory but farming without chemicals is encouraged

Descriptive statistics

Elements and motivation of gardening

Growing vegetables and consuming the harvest is key motivator for gardening

Household composition

Single: 10%

With partner: 53%

With children: 9%

With partner and children: 27%

Other: 1%

Gardening duration (y)

 < 1: 9%

2–5: 22%

6–10: 28%

11–15: 12%

16–20: 4%

 > 20: 25%

 Zoellner et al. 2012 [77]

The Dan River Region, VA, USA

Cross sectional survey

n = 87 youth, 67 parents

Medically underserved area/population classification with high indices of poverty, low educational attainment, and health disparities

Characteristics

Unemployment in the region: 12.3–18.9%, well exceeding state (6.0%) and national (9.1%) averages

Children (n = 87) n%

Mean age: 8.69 (SD 2.04)

Female 42 (48.3)

Male 45 (51.7)

Parents (n = 67)

Mean age: 39.1 (9.16)

Female 54 (80.6)

Male 13 (19.4)

To understand factors impacting fruit, vegetable, and gardening behaviors

Youth (n = 129) and parents (n = 115) identified as potential participants and benefactors of future CG programming effort, enrolled in summer camp

Baseline data for understanding factors impacting gardening interests as well as fruit, vegetable, and gardening behaviors

Self-administered survey (44 items) on F&V intake, interest in gardening, height, weight

Parent survey (58 questionnaire’s on availability of F&V, gardening attitudes)

No adjustments reported

Children (n = 87)

Race/ethnicity

Black: 47 (54.0)

White: 36 (41.4)

Hispanic: 2 ( 2.3)

Other: 2 ( 2.3)

Willingness to try F&V: 1.32 [SD 0.40) on a 2-point scale

Parents (n = 67)

BMI

Underweight: 1.7%

Normal: 32.2%

Overweight: 33.9%

Obese: 32.2%

Income ($)

0–19,999: 15.6%

20,000–49,999: 45.3%

 > 55,000: 39.1%

Education

High school diploma or less: 20.9%

Some college, training, 2-year degree: 62.7%

Bachelor’s degree: 7.5%

Graduate school:9.0%

Studies comparing gardeners with other groups including non-gardeners and home gardeners

 Alaimo et al. 2010 [63]

Flint, MI, USA

Cross-sectional survey

Flint resident, aged ≥ 18 y who had lived at their current address for previous 12 months

A final sample of 1,916 (63.6%) eligible respondents reached by phone agreed to be interviewed

To examine associations between participation in CG/beautification projects and neighborhood meetings with perceptions of social capital at both the individual (Objectives 1 and 2) and neighborhood levels (Objectives 3 and 4)

Part of Neighborhood Violence Prevention Collaborative (NVPC): a neighborhood development program

Telephone survey administered in 2001

Random selection of phone numbers

Descriptive comparison to individuals not participating in community gardening or beautification projects

Descriptive only

Of 1916 individuals, n = 271 participated in community gardening or beautification projects (15.3 (SE: 1.0))% and n = 1224 did not participate

Participants compared to non-participants:

Age (y; mean ± SE): 40.7 ± 1.3 vs 43.5 ± 0.6 who didn’t participate

Male: 45.7% vs. 43.3%

Female: 54.3% vs. 56.7%

White: 54.8% vs. 52.9%

African American: 43.8% vs 42.7%

Other: 1.4% vs. 4.4%

 Christensen et al. 2019 [64]

Denmark, Copenhagen, Nordvest area

High-density urban

Multicultural

Cross sectional survey

Statistics Denmark for neighborhood

150 gardeners at “Lersøgrøftens Integrationsbyhaver” (Urban Integration Gardens; UIG);

Characteristics

Age NR

Sex NR

To examine UIG by assisting with challenged neighborhood and social capital

NR

Founded 2012 Modelled on urban renewal in neighboring area 150 garden plots shared equally among citizens born in versus outside of Denmark

SEP of gardeners vs non-gardeners

Education Low/no

 ≥ degree

Income

Low-to-mid

Mid- to high

Education

Low education

Gardeners: 10/75 (13%)

Neighborhood: 10,558/17792(59%)

Degree or higher

Gardeners: 65/75 (87%)

Neighborhood: 7234/17792(41%)

Income

Low-to-mid

Gardeners: 42/75 (57%)

Neighborhood: 26,433/17792(74%)

Mid-to-high

Gardeners: 32/75 (43%)

Neighborhood: 9432/17792(26%)

 Diekmann et al. 2020 [78]

USA, California, Santa Clara county

Cross-sectional survey

(1) Community Food Security (CFS) gardeners (n = 51)

Female 84%

Age (median): 49

(2) Home gardeners (n = 118)

Female 81%

Age (median): 57

(3) Community gardeners (n = 255)

Female 61%

Age (median): 58

To examine food insecurity according to 3 types of gardeners (1) low-income families offered the CFS gardening program, (2) home gardeners, (3) community gardeners

CFS gardeners recruited via local program. Home gardeners were a convenience sample of attendance at an annual garden market and via a listserv. Community gardeners sampled via stratified random sampling (4 geographic regions from which 10 gardens were randomly selected to receive an email invitation)

Not reported for the community gardeners

Characteristics of gardening groups compared using Chi- squared statistics. No adjustments

White race

(1) 22%

(2) 74%

(3) 75%

High school education

(1) 30%

(2) 0%

(3) 1%

Bachelor education

(1) 32%

(2) 83%

(3) 84%

Household income < $USD 7 K; 75-149 K; > 150 K

(1) 88%; 12%; 0%

(2) 17%; 44%; 38%

(3) 28%; 33%; 39%

Born overseas

(1) 49%

(2) 15%

(3) 20%

Home ownership (own; rent; other)

(1) 40%; 52%; 8%

(2) 93%; 7%; 0%

(3) 77%; 18%; 5%

Mean household size

(1) 4.0

(2) 2.6

(3) 2.3

Food insecure

(1) 39%

(2) 3%

(3) 10%

Food assistance

(1) 41%

(2) 8%

(3) 9%

 Loopstra and Tarasuk 2013 [79]

Canada

Longitudinal

Total n = 501 families recruited to baseline study population (62% recruitment rate; n = 384 completed the follow-up interview, a return rate of 77%)

- 359 families not using community garden program

N = 12 did not provide a reason for not participating in a CG in previous 12 months

Low-income population, disproportionate representation of immigrants and lone-parent families in the low-income population in Toronto. Very high prevalence of household food insecurity

To understand reasons for non-participation in a community garden, community kitchen program, or Good Food Box, in previous 12 months

Families with gross incomes at or below Statistics Canada’s mid- income adequacy category, living in subsidized and non-subsidized rental housing

Door-to-door sampling in 12 neighborhoods randomly selected from the 23 “high poverty” census tracts in Toronto

Structured oral interview with person in house- hold primarily responsible for household food purchases and management

No program. Study about characteristic of non-participation

Household income, demographics, food purchasing, household food insecurity; household participation in community gardens, community kitchens and the Good Food Box program

Follow-up questionnaire: qualitative

Of the total sample n = 371 completed follow-up

Lived < 2 km of CGs

- YES: n = 245 (66.0%)

- NO: n = 126 (34%)

- Only 12 families at f/up (3.2%) indicated someone in household had participated in a CG

Reasons for not participating in CG

- 66.3% not accessible [28.4% lacked knowledge about how or where to participate; 24.2% not in neighborhood; 11.7% did not know what program was; 1.7% program capacity; 0.8% program eligibility; 0.6% program cost

- 38.7% lack of fit [23.4% time; 11.7% interests; 3.3% needs; 3.1% health

 Mwakiwa et al. 2018 [65]

Zimbabwe

Cross-sectional

Mainly from high-density suburbs, though some households from the medium and low-density suburbs also participated

Each CG has 30 members with each member allocated 3 rows

Each member averages 16 beds per row. CGs are grouped into clusters and each cluster consist of 2 to 4 CGs, in total 28 clusters

To examine the feasibility of community resource management in these gardens using a blend of econometrics and community resource management theory

Stratified sampling: household survey respondents were those still participating or discontinued. Random sample of 14 clusters (from 28). Then from each of the selected clusters, 10 households randomly selected. Total sample size = 140

93 fenced CGs, 1 ha each established

Interviews with key in- formants (i.e. housing and agriculture dept officers, and CG chairperson

Binary logistic model (CG participation, yes/no); IV: household size and number of orphans; household size and density of suburb; number of orphans and density of suburb; and number of orphans and house ownership

From 136 households:

- 26.5% no longer participating in CGs

- 73.5% still participating

Those who discontinued: 50% of households headed by males, 50% by females; older than those who continued (63 yrs vs 55 yrs)

Those who continued:

56% headed by males and 44% by females

Reasons for discontinuing

- 41.6%, laborious and shortage of water

- 19.4%, access to land elsewhere therefore no need for land in CGs

- 16.7%, lack of land tenure security

- households with less or no on-plot farming area have a higher probability of practicing community gardening than those with larger on-plot areas

- Households in high densities are more likely to practice community gardening than households in the medium density suburbs

 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. CGs) venues (n = 113)

Characteristics

Female: 55%

Age: 52% aged 30–49 y

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

Household income (7 categories)

Education (4 categories)

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

Household income

 < $5 K OR_adjusted = reference

$5 K- < 10 K OR_adjusted = 0.59 (0.23, 1.48)

$10 K- < 15 K OR_adjusted = 0.89 (0.38, 2.09)

$15 K- < 20 K OR_adjusted = 1.38 (0.46, 4.09)

$20 K- < 30 K OR_adjusted = 2.51 (0.90, 6.95)

$30 K- < 40 K OR_adjusted = 1.33 (0.38, 4.67)

 ≥ $40 K OR_adjusted = 4.51 (1.35, 15.11)

Education

 < High school OR_adjusted = reference

Secondary diploma OR_adjusted = 1.17 (0.58, 2.35)

 < Bachelor OR_adjusted = 1.56 (0.74, 3.29)

 ≥ Bachelor OR_adjusted = 3.76 (1.44, 9.79

 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

Household income, employment, smoking, drinking, and vegetable consumption

(unadjusted)

Household income and smoking was similar, more gardeners than non-gardeners were retired (28% vs 18%), did not drink alcohol (31% vs 37%), and often consumed vegetables (54% vs 24%)

 van den Berg et al. 2010 [51]

The Netherlands, “large cities”

Cross-sectional survey

Gardeners (n = 121) from 12 allotment gardens

Non-gardener (n = 63)

Characteristics

Gardeners:

Male: 53%

Age (mean ± SD): 62 ± 12 y

Non-gardeners:

Male: 41%

Age (mean ± SD):

56 ± 14 y

To directly compare the health, wellbeing and physical activity of allotment gardeners to that of controls without an allotment garden

Gardeners sent invitations to their home addresses

Non-gardeners were responders living next to the home address of allotment gardeners

Ranged from residential parks, day-recreational parks and food production parks

Age, sex, employment, education, income, marital status, dependents, alcohol and smoking

Compared with non-gardeners, gardeners were older, more were male, retired (59% vs 33%), had fewer children living at home (13% vs 32%), consumed alcohol daily (62% vs 56$). However, there was little difference in the proportion married (62% for both), education levels (high school 38% vs 35%), income (< mode; 27% vs 29%), smoking (19% for both)