PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

SEP 1 6 2005

 

 

21135;; é!)
W -—.‘__ ~...,

0.53

 

DEC 0 2 2008

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cJClRC/Dateouapes-pJS

 

PRIVATE GARDENS IN PUBLIC SPACES - COMMUNITY GARDENING:
THE STRUGGLE TO EMPOWER INDIVIDUALS AND BUILD COMMUNITY

By

Robert John Kirkby

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
For the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Resource Development

2003

ABSTRACT
PRIVATE GARDENS IN PUBLIC SPACES - COMMUNITY GARDENING:
THE STRUGGLE To EMPOWER INDIVIDUALS AND BUILD COMMUNITY
By

Robert John Kirkby

Community gardening has traditionally been viewed as a “self-help” activity
designed to help participants end their reliance upon emergency food assistance programs
while empowering them to gain a greater degree of control over their food source.
Through a case study of a commmfity garden, this study investigated the benefits of
community gardening and in particular whether participation results in gardener
empowerment.

The study revealed a conflict between the goals and assumptions of the
organization administering the program and the actual experiences of participants. The
study illustrates that programs that espouse an empowerment agenda must provide
resources and opportunities for skill development that meet the needs and expectations of
participants. Most importantly, they must provide opportunities for social action in which
participants eventually gain significant and meaningful control over the initiative’s
resources and decision-making process. By doing so, individuals can attain a real

increase in social power and self-determination.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1

Emergency Food Assistance

1.2 Community Gardening
1.3 The Greater Lansing Food Bank
1.4 The Garden Project
1.5 Purpose of Study
1.6 Layout of Document
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Community Gardening
2.2 Gardener Motivations
2.2.1 Tangible Benefits
2.2.2 Intangible Benefits
2.2.3 Social Benefits
2.3 Community Gardening: Social Movement
2.3.] Community Gardening: Great Britain
2.3.2 Community Gardening: America
2.4 Empowerment
2.4.1 Empowerment: Process
2.4.2 Empowerment: Outcome
2.4.3 Multiple Levels of Analysis
2.4.4 Interface
2.4.5 Empowering Situations
2.5 Conceptual Framework
CHAPTER 3
METHODS
3.1 Research Question
3.2 Study Design
3.3 Case Selection
3.4 Population
3.5 Data Collection
3.5.] Participant Interviews
3.5.2 Document Review
3.5.3 Direct Observation
3.6 Interview Response Rate
3.7 Data Analysis
3.8 Study Validity and Researcher Bias

GUI-bUJNI—‘r‘

34
34
34
35
36
37
37
39
40
4O
41
42

3.9

CHAPTER 4

Limitations

THE GARDEN PROJECT: OPERATIONAL BACKGROUND

4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5

CHAPTER 5

Introduction

Registration Process
Community Garden Preparations
Plot Assignment

Program Resources

FINDINGS: THE GARDENERS AND THEIR MOTIVATIONS

5.1
5.2
5.3

5.4

CHAPTER 6

Introduction

Entry into The Garden Project
Gardener Profiles

5.3.1 Household Demographics
5.3.2 Educational Background
5.3.3 Prior Gardening Experience
5.3.4 Food Security Status
Gardener Motivations

5.4.1 Access to Resources
5.4.2 Food Access

5.4.3 Psychological Benefits
5.4.4 Recreational Benefits
5.4.5 Social Benefits

FINDINGS: EMPOWERMENT AND ITS BARRIERS

6.1
6.2
6.3

6.4

CHAPTER 7

Introduction

Gardener Perceptions of Empowerment

Types of Gardener Empowerment

6.3.1 Improvement of Nutritional Well-Being
6.3.2 Improvement of Social Well-Being

6.3.3 Improvement of Psychological Well-Being
6.3.4 “Preaching to the Choir”

Barriers to Empowerment

6.4.1 Resource Barriers

6.4.2 Social Barriers

6.4.3 Organizational and Philosophical Barriers

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1
7.2

Introduction
Impact on Food Access and Diet

7.2.1 Diet Quality
7.2.2 Economics of Gardening

iv

43

45
45
45
47
48
49

51
51
51
52
53
56
57
58
60
62
72
77
83
86

94
94
94
96
96
97
98
99
99
1 00
1 10
1 1 8

122
122
122
123
124

7.3 The Benefits of Community Gardening 124

7.4 Gardening and Empowerment 126
7.5 Impediments to Empowerment 129

7.5.1 Resources and Skill Development: Meeting
The Needs of the Individuals 129

7.5.2 Individual Control Over the Decision-Making

Process 132
7.5.3 Community Development and Social Change 133
7.6 The Garden Project’s “Self-Help” Mission 135
7.6.1 Program Evaluation 137
7.6.2 Organizational Assumptions 137
7.6.3 Empowerment Agenda 140
7.7 Policy Recommendations 141
7.7.1 Resource Improvements 141
7.7.2 Profiling the Needs of Gardeners 142

7.7.3 Gardener Education: Developing Motivated
Gardeners 143
7.7.4 Organizational Change 144
7.8 Future Research 147
APPENDICES 150
Appendix A: Garden Map: Foster Park 151
Appendix B: Registration Form 152
Appendix C: Postcard 154
Appendix D: Interview Guide 155
Appendix E: UCRIHS Application 158
Appendix F: Informed Consent Form 167
Appendix G: Overview Grid 168
Appendix H: Community Garden Guidelines 170
Appendix 1: Mission Statement 171
Appendix J: Organizational Chart 172
Appendix K: Poverty Threshold Guidelines 173

BIBLIOGRAPHY 1 74

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1: Method of Introduction into The Garden Project

TABLE 2: Community Gardener Demographics

TABLE 3: Educational Profile of Study Participants

TABLE 4: Community Gardener Motivations and Perceived Benefits
TABLE 5: Reasons for Leaving The Garden Project

TABLE 6: The Garden Project: Assumptions and Realities

vi

51
54
56
61
136
139

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1: Psychological Empowerment of the Individual

FIGURE 2: Environmental Citizenship Behavior

FIGURE 3: Personal Empowerment Through Community Gardening
FIGURE 4: Personal Empowerment Through Community Gardening

22
24
32
127

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1) Emergency Food Assistance

Emergency food assistance programs such as food banks, pantries and soup
kitchens have continued to grow across the United States and are accepted as permanent
fixtures in many communities (Poppendieck, 1998). In the year 2001, over 23 million
Americans obtained supplemental nutrition from emergency food providers (America’s
Second Harvest, 2001). In response to this crisis, the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) spent $32.5 billion during fiscal 2000, on food assistance programs
(Kantor, 2001). Additionally, many communities have established networks of food
banks and pantries designed to ensure that all citizens are able to meet their basic
nutritional requirements.

While these programs have been largely successful in preventing starvation, they
are not intended to promote significant and lasting improvements in food access or
empower individuals to reduce their dependency on charity (Tarasuk & Reynolds, 1999).
Rather they represent a critical safety net that protects citizens fiom starvation and
absolute hunger. Instead, charitable food assistance programs have become
institutionalized creating what amounts to a new system of food distribution. “The
widespread charitable food assistance system has effectively become a second tier of our
food system, one in which the quality, quantity, and personal acceptability of foods are
compromised, and participation is colored by the social stigma of a reliance on charity”
(Tarasuk & Davis, 1996, p. 74).

Recognizing that emergency food assistance programs exist as a reaction to a

crisis and that they provide no means in which to reduce or eliminate their necessity, a

number of new initiatives have been undertaken These initiatives have been spawned in
response to the continuing push for devolution of State and Federal social services,
welfare reform initiatives and the Community Food Security Act of 1996 (Winston,
2002). These new initiatives seek to address and correct the underlying social and
economic structures that created the need for emergency food assistance. Many of these
programs are considered to be “self-help” efforts to empower individuals and
communities to take an active role in defining their role in society as opposed to taking a

passive role relying upon the charity of others.

1.2) Community Gardening

Community gardening has been touted as an effective alternative to emergency
food assistance. It holds the promise of both providing food to those in need while acting
as a community development tool intended to create positive structural social changes
necessary to undermine the need for emergency food assistance programs. Community
gardening is considered a “self-help” activity that holds the promise of helping to end
reliance upon emergency food assistance programs while at the same time empowering
individuals and communities to gain a greater degree of control over their food source
(Lacy, 2000). Through the act of growing food and interacting with other members of
the community, people immediately gain some degree of control over their diet, reduce
the social and economic costs of maintaining the charity based food assistance structure

and may promote social change.

1.3) The Greater Lansing Food Bank

The Greater Lansing Food Bank (GLFB) is a non-profit organization that solicits
food and cash donations in support of a regional distribution system consisting of food
pantries and kitchens. Founded in 1981 as the Greater Lansing Food Alliance, the GLFB
was created in response to a mounting economic depression that resulted in an acute food
shortage in Lansing, Michigan. The purpose of the organization is four fold (Hartlieb,
n/d):

1) Educate the community on hunger issues.

2) Raise money, food and in-kind contributions for meeting the emergency needs

in the Greater Lansing area.

3) Coordinate and support the work of the food banks and food closets in the

4) Plrza‘mote, encourage and emphasize self-help programs toward the goal of

food self-sufficiency.

In 1982, the GLFB established a Self-Help Committee to develop and coordinate
the self-help activities outlined in the GLFB’s by-laws. The GLFB also prepared a “Self-
Help Policy Statement” to clarify the meaning of “self-help” and to establish appropriate
policy and programs geared towards meeting this initiative. Members of the GLFB
Board of Directors believed that emergency food assistance represented a short-term
solution to the problem of hunger in the Lansing area. It was believed that long-term
solutions were also necessary to help reduce hunger and that these solutions would most
likely be discovered through the use of self-help activities in which households accepted
an active and engaging role in food production, budgeting and job training.

The GLFB’s Self-Help Policy Statement defines self-help as “an activity that

increases individual self-sufficiency in food and nutrition related areas.” (Hartlieb, n/d, p.

53). Furthermore, the Policy Statement says, “By increasing self-suficiency, we mean

tlmt a person becomes less dependent on relief and/or emergency assistance and becomes

more self-reliant.” The Policy Statement also asserts that a self-help project is essentially

a set of educational experiences that is:

1) Practical. Relates to the life context of the target audience.

2) Pertinent. Addresses high-priority problems as perceived by the client.

3)
4)

5)
6)

Experiential. Includes a “hands-on” component.

Planning-based. Stresses the need for personal planning in order to increase
self-reliance.

Replicable. Can be undertaken with similar target audiences at other times.
Supportive. Compliments self-help efi‘orts being conducted by other
organizations/agencies while avoiding duplication of existing efi‘orts.

1.4) The Garden Project

One of the first actions of the GLFB Self-Help Committee was to secure a

$60,000 grant fi'om the Gannett Foundation to establish a community gardening project.

The Garden Project, originally dubbed, the “Self-Help Garden Project” was conceived

around six organizational goals (Chiang et a1, n/d; Hartlieb, n/d):

1)

2)
3)
4)

5)
6)

Enable 1500 families to grow food. This would be accomplished by
preparing 20 acres of donated land for cultivation at 15 community
garden locations.

Support backyard gardening for 800 families through the distribution of
seeds and tools.

Glean 10,000 pounds of food from area farms and encourage 250
farmers to “grow a row” for the food bank.

Provide employment for five seniors, five youth, one secretary, one
director and 100 youths.

Provide 50 workshops for 800 residents.

Involve 5 community groups in the long-term commitment to
continuation of the project after 1983.

The Garden Project’s self help aspect was based upon the assumption that
emergency food assistance is a short-term solution to hunger in the community and that
through vegetable gardening and preservation, households can increase their level of self-
sufficiency and reduce their monthly food expenditures. F urtherrnore, through public
education efforts aimed at increasing public participation in gardening and food
preservation, the program can help to create lasting changes that will improve the overall
level of community food security.

The Garden Project currently provides three primary services to the community.
These include community gardening, home gardening assistance and the gleaning and
distribution of excess agricultural products. This study focuses solely on the community
gardening aspect.

Between April 2001 and October 2002, the study researcher was employed as the
Community Organizer for The Garden Project. A majority of duties focused on the
coordination of community gardening activities, the distribution of gardening resources
to participants and the provision of educational programs and materials designed to
improve gardener success. This experience provided important access to the organization
and its participants. Frequent personal contacts with community gardeners stimulated an
interest in understanding the motivations and benefits of participation in community

gardening activities and how this related to the program’s self-help mission.

1.5) Purpose of Study
Communities investing scarce resources into the development of self-help

programs need to determine if these efforts and resources are being efl’ectively applied

and whether or not the empowering benefits of participation are being realized. The
purpose of this study is to explore and understand the effectiveness of a self-help
community gardening program that is part of the Garden Project. In 2001, The Garden
Project initiated a strategic planning process to re-evaluate its mission statement, purpose
and even the program’s name. While the strategic planning process is necessary and
appropriate as the pro gram reached its twentieth anniversary, to this point, it has excluded
the input of the community gardeners who will be impacted by any potential policy
changes. It was this fact that ultimately led to this research project to seek out
community gardener input and try to understand their motivations for participating in the
program and whether or not empowerment or “self help” played a role in their
experience.

The central research question is: Does participation in a “self-help” community
gardening program lead to empowerment of the individual? The sub-components of this
research question include:

1) Does participation have an impact on food access and diet?

2) What are the benefits from community gardening? Is empowerment a perceived
benefit?

3) Are there barriers to participation?

4) What is the role and nature of skill development in the empowerment of
participants?

5) Does the community garden firlfill its “self-help” mission, designed to assist
unemployed and low-income families in growing their own food.

1.6) Layout of Document
This introductory chapter is followed by a review of the community gardening

and empowerment literature (Chapter 2). In Chapter 3, the study methodology is

described, followed by a description of the case study setting (Chapter 4). Chapters 5-6

describe the study findings, while Chapter 7 provides a set of recommendations.

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1) Community Gardening

The American Community Gardening Association estimates that there are
approximately 6,000 active community gardens in the United States used by 2 million
community gardeners (ACGA, 1998). Community gardens are found in a wide range of
communities and are used by a cross-spectrum of American society (Von Hassell, 2002).
The gardens exist to serve a variety of purposes including hunger relief and neighborhood
beautification and are administered by a multitude of organizations including everything
from grassroots neighborhood groups to large bureaucratic government agencies
(Landman, 1993). Although the size and physical layout of the gardens vary widely, they
are often divided into individual plots of various sizes that are typically assigned to
individuals or families for the purpose of growing food or flowers. Generally viewed as
an interim land use of little economic value, community gardens are generally located on
lands unsuitable for development (and often gardening as well) and are afforded little in

the way of secure land tenure (ACGA, 1998; DeKay, 1997; Schukoske, 2000).

2.2) Gardener Motivations

Gardening provides a wide variety of both personal and social benefits. These
include the tangible benefits of economic savings and food production as well as the less
tangible recreational and social benefits. Given the broad spectrum of commtmity garden
types and gardener characteristics, the specific benefits of gardening at one site may not

necessarily match those enjoyed at another garden.

2.2.1) Tangible Benefits

Community gardening is often used as a tool to improve food access for low-
incorne households (Power, 1999; Warner, 1987). Much of this emphasis stems fiom the
fact that low-income urban residents generally have less access to affordable, quality
fruits and vegetables than their suburban and higher income counterparts (Pothukuchi &
Kaufman, 1999). Gardening benefits low-income households by providing a readily
accessible source of food while providing an economic benefit through a reduction in
household food expenditures.

Gardening is also a tool for the promotion of nutritional health and access to flesh
vegetables. American diets tend to consist of very little variety of fi'uits and vegetables
(Putnam, Kantor and Allshouse, 2000). Through community gardening, people can
improve their access to a wider variety of fresh vegetables (Patel, 1991). Participation in
gardening is related to an increased frequency of vegetable consumption and a decrease
in the consumption of sweet foods and drinks for adults (Blair, Giesecke & Sherman,
1991), the development of positive attitudes towards vegetables in children (Lineberger
& Zajicek, 2000) and the improvement of diet and nutritional attitudes of senior citizens
(Hackman & Wagner, 1990). Community gardening is, “an empowering nutrition
strategy that overcomes many of the barriers to increasing vegetable consumption.
Gardeners are able to use their own resources to meet part of their food needs in the
manner they deem appropriate. Gardeners have greater control over the variety, quality
and quantity of the produce they consume.” (Blair et a1, 1991, p. 167). F orty-four percent
of urban cormnunity gardeners in New Jersey report that their main motivation for

gardening is to improve their access to quality, fiesh produce which tastes better and is

perceived to be more nutritious than store-bought vegetables (Patel, 1996). A survey of
community gardeners in upstate New York found that access to fresh and better tasting
food was the primary motivation for 90% of gardeners (Armstrong, 2000).

One personal economic benefit of gardening is related to the assumption that
gardening helps to improve food self-sufficiency by improving household food budgets
through a decrease in food expenditures. Estimates of the annual economic value of
garden produce per plot range from $160 to $600 (Ball, 1983; Berman, 1997; Blair, etal,
1991; Naimark, 1982; Patel, 1991). These economic estimates are also uncertain in that
they make efficiency assumptions regarding the climate, type of produce grown and skill
of the gardener and do not account for the opportunity cost of providing one’s own labor.
In reality, the economic benefit gained from growing ones own food exists only in the
absence of opportunity costs for the grower (Blaylock & Gallo, 1983; Cleveland et a1,
1985). While the personal economic benefits of community gardening are often the focus
of gardening organizations, gardeners themselves generally view the economics of
gardening as a “fiinge” or secondary benefit (Dunnet & Qasim, 2000; Patel, 1996).
Given the amount of available land suitable for gardening in urban areas and the amount
of work required to garden, food self-sufficiency is probably beyond the capabilities of
most low-income households (DeKay, 1997).

Community gardening provides an economic benefit to units of government as
well as the participating gardeners. The economic benefits of community gardening are
the “most easily measured and often the most societally sanctioned justification for
investing in community garden space.” (Herbach, 1998) Community gardening in both

Britain (Crouch & Ward, 1988) and the United States (Bassett, 1981) owes much of its

10

expansion during times of economic upheaval to its ability to ease governmental budget
crises by reducing social welfare program expenditures.

Community gardening has also proven to be one of the most cost-effective
government assistance programs. For every one-dollar of government investment, six
dollars in food were produced through a United States Department of Agriculture
program sponsoring community gardening in twenty-three cities (Hynes, 1996). Local
units of government also see an economic benefit by providing gardening opportunities
because community gardens are less expensive to develop and maintain than traditional
urban parks (Herbach, 1998).

2.2.2) Intangible Benefits

Beginning gardeners tend to undertake gardening in an attempt to gain the more
tangible benefits, which include producing food and cutting food expenses while more
experienced gardeners enjoy less tangible benefits (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989). As
gardeners develop their skills and gain additional experience there is a corresponding
shift in gardening priorities. Experienced gardeners tend to alter their focus from
growing vegetables to growing flowers and unique varieties of vegetables. This shift is
marked by a greater personal enjoyment of the intangible benefits of gardening including
the sense of peacefirlness and relaxation that accompanies gardening and an increased
focus on gardening as a recreational activity.

While many organizations justify and support community gardening in terms of
the tangible benefits, the less tangible benefits associated with gardening, though difficult
to measure, are the true motivating factors for gardeners (Jamison, 1985; Schmelzkopf,

1995). Community gardeners find that their true enjoyment of gardening stems fi'om the

11

recreational and social aspects. These “life-quality” benefits are the primary motivation
for participation in low-income community gardening programs and are perceived to
outweigh the assumed economic benefits (Blair et a1, 1991). These “life-quality” benefits
included access to recreatioml opportunities, improved mental and physical health,
improved access to quality produce and personal spiritual reason including contact with
nature.

While most individuals involved with gardening view it as primarily a
recreational activity (Armstrong, 2000; Thorpe, 1975), the organizations that support
community gardening often view recreation as a secondary benefit of participation. As a
recreational activity, gardening provides a variety of mental health benefits including
improved self-esteem and a sense of peacefulness. These mental health benefits are cited
as the primary motivation to participate in community gardening activities (Armstrong,
2000). Community gardening improves an individual’s self-esteem including feelings of
self-sufficiency and a sense of pride in personal abilities (Waliczek, Matson and Zajiecek,
1996)

Gardening also provides an important opportunity for people to interact with the
natural environment (Relf, 1992). This contact with nature helps to develop a sense of
connection with nature as well as provides an opportunity for individual creativity and
expression (Francis & Hester, 1990). Exposing children to gardening has been shown to
increase personal environmental sensitivity (Stoelzle & Chambers, 2000). Gardeners tend
to exhibit an overwhelming fascination with nature and the environment (Kaplan, 1973).
This fascination causes them to spend more time in the garden where they develop

substantial powers of observation. Regardless of whether people focus on growing food

12

or flowers in their garden, the greatest benefit of gardening is the sense of tranquility
(Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989).

Gardening is also well recognized as a healthy form of exercise (Magnus,
Matroos & Strackee, 1979) that physicians often recommend as a preferred form of
physical exercise (Pate et a1, 1995). Gardening has been associated with a reduction in
cholesterol and blood pressure (Casperson et a1, 1991) and the strenuous activities
associated with gardening can improve muscle tone and lung capacity (Dunnett & Qasim,
2000).

2.2.3) Social Benefits

Community gardening provides a number of social benefits for both the
individual and the community and is an important vehicle for community development
(Armstrong, 2000; Brown & Jameton, 2000; Malakofl‘, 1995; Von Hassell, 2002). It
provides people with an opportunity to develop new fi-iendships, feel more connected
with their neighbors as well as providing important opportunities for people to share food
with neighbors (Patel, 1994; Schmelzkopf, 1995). In Philadelphia, community gardeners
were found to share their produce with neighbors and relatives on a weekly basis.
Community gardeners are also more likely than non-gardeners to participate in social
events including food distributions as well as share their produce with local churches and
community organizations (Blair et a1, 1991).

Community gardening helps to promote a sense of community between gardening
and non-gardening neighbors alike as people nuke personal investments in their
communities (Landman, 1993; Von Hassell, 2002). Community gardening provides

communities with an opportunity to create locally accessible food systems that connect

13

producers and consumers, developing a stronger community (Lacy, 2000) as well as
providing opportunities for intergenerational and inter-racial socialization (Herbach,
1998). Placing community gardens within or adjacent to urban parks helps to improve
the social environment by providing a broad range of opportunities for people to utilize
these public spaces. The presence of neighborhood community gardens can also create
spin-off benefits by improving neighborhoods through beautification and my improve

the effectiveness of non-gardening community organizing efforts (Armstrong, 2000).

2.3) Community Gardening: Social Movement

Throughout its history, community gardening has been used as both a catalyst for
social change and a tool for maintaining social order. Grassroots organiZations find
community gardening an appropriate method for creating social change within local
communities while bureaucratic political, commercial and social organizations have
effectively used community gardening to maintain social order and ensure continuity in
the community’s power structure.
2.3.1) Community Gardening: Great Britain

Community gardening is an old tradition, tracing its roots to social movements in
18'” Century England (Crouch & Ward, 1988; Moran, 1990; Thorpe, 1975). Between
1700 and 1860 the British Parliament enacted over 3,500 Acts that enclosed more than
five million acres of open fields and commons. Prior to these “Enclosure Acts”, much of
the rural landscape of the British Isles was held in common ownership, which were

shared by subsistence farmers.

14

While the Enclosure Acts transformed British agriculture into a contemporary
system based on the concept of private landownership, the Industrial Revolution was
transforming the nature of urban society. During this period, waves of disposed
agriculturalists migrated into England’s urban centers and became industrial wage
earners. This new industrial society represented a significant break fiom the laborer’s
rural agricultural past. The new urban society ofl°ered cramped and miserable living
conditions and relatively high food costs while access to land was limited to a wealthy
few.

This lack of access to land was a significant issue for the working class. For
people accustomed to open lands and growing their own food, transformation into the
new urban industrial society was diflicult experience both physically and psychologically
that creating a growing social unrest. This unrest stemmed from the strong desire for
access to land suitable for gardening, supplementing food budgets and providing
psychological relief. Landowners, recognizing an economic opportunity, began renting
plots of vacant lands in and around English cities for the purpose of gardening. However,
the limited space available and exorbitant rental fees limited access and proved
insufficient in meeting the demand.

Responding to growing political pressures, The British Parliament officially
recognized the importance of urban gardens as tools to improve social order in the new
industrial society. The Parliament responded by enacting two Acts in 1907 and 1908
requiring local units of government to provide a sufficient number of “allotment gardens”
to meet local demand (Moran, 1990). The Acts stipulated that the rents shall remain low

and that the local authority was not responsible for providing any specific gardening

15

amenities such as water (Thorpe, 1975). These early allotment gardens were located on
vacant lands at the edge of the city and were typically subdivided into evenly spaced
rectangular plots that were “allotted” to individual households. Because the Acts did not
specify the type of land to be made available or require long-term tenure over the land,
allotments were generally placed on sites unsuitable for development (and often
gardening) or on sites earmarked for future development. This lack of planning resulted
in the continual uprooting of allotment gardens and ensured that they remain “do-it-
yourself” projects located on in-fill sites, thus relegating gardening to a status of
temporary land use (DeKay, 1997).

The British allotment gardens remained a permanent fixture in British cities
throughout the 20th Century, although their popularity and the level of oflicial support
varied in response to social and economic crises (Thorpe, 1975). In response to the
economic and social chaos that occurred during the First and Second World Wars, the
rate of participation and amount of land devoted to urban gardening skyrocketed.
Following the wars and the return to relative peace and prosperity, there was a
corresponding decline in the level of urban gardening.

The popularity of British allotment gardening began to decline significantly
following the Second World War (Thorpe, 1975). After reaching a peak of 143,000 acres
of land devoted to gardens in the early 1940’s, the popularity of gardening continued to
decline for the next two decades. By 1965 the area of land devoted to allotment
gardening had dwindled to about 70,000 acres. This dramatic decline spurred the
government to begin investigations into the cause of the decline and to determine if

allotment gardening should be discontinued. Investigation determined that fully 51.5%

16

of those using allotment gardens did so for purely leisure and recreational purpose.
Furthermore, only sixteen percent gardened for purely economic reasons.

The realization that urban gardening served recreational more so than economic
needs prompted a significant change in philosophical orientation (Thorpe, 1975). By the
19708, urban allotment gardening came to represent an important recreational and social
aspect of urban living. Many of the allotment gardens began dropping requirements that
gardeners dedicate a majority of their plot to food production and began promoting
flower gardening. Reflecting the increased orientation towards recreation, allotment
gardens soon became referred to as “leisure gardens”. This new name expresses the
philosophy that gardens are important tools in meeting the recreational needs of all urban
dwellers regardless of income.

2.3.2) Community Gardening: America

The growth and decline of community gardening in America closely mirrors the
history of economic and social crises. During times of crisis, oflicial support fi'om
government agencies and philanthropists tends to increase while support is withdrawn
during times of relative prosperity (Bassett, 1981; Schmelzkopf, 1995). This is due to the
importance of gardening as a tool for maintaining social control. Gardening reduces
corporate and governmental responsibilities to provide for the welfare of the unemployed
and promotes dominant cultural themes such as the private ownership of land and
individualism that support the legitimacy of social, economic and political institutions.
These institutions generally support community gardening as a symbolic representation
of the Jeffersonian agricultural ideal in which urban gardeners are viewed as employing a

self-reliant ethic of the modern American homesteader (Bassett, 1981). Working

17

individual garden plots within a larger community garden supports the notion of private
landownership and self-determination.

The first American community gardens were established in Detroit, Michigan
during a major economic depression beginning in 1893 (Bassett, 1981). This crisis,
coupled with growing labor tensions, oppressive urban living conditions and a sudden
rise in citizens seeking emergency food relief forced Detroit’s Mayor, Hazen Pingree to
provide connnunity gardening plots on 450 acres of un-used land across the City of
Detroit. The unemployed and destitute including many recent European immigrants used
these gardens to grow vegetables, which supplemented their diets.

The Detroit gardens proved successful by not only meeting the emergency needs
of those facing poverty and hunger but also by providing economic and political benefits
to the City government (Von Hassell, 2002). The City found that by providing
community gardens to the poor, it could reduce its costs and obligations of supplying
direct assistance to the unemployed and reduce disposal costs for street sweepings and
manure and by applying it as fertilizer on the gardens rather than paying for disposal.
The gardens were also an effective tool in the maintenance of social order during this
time of crisis. Wealthy landowners who allowed gardening to occur on their properties
were gifted with tax breaks and the unemployed were provided with useful, though
unpaid, employment. It was also felt that community gardening was a useful tool in the
assimilation of immigrants into American society by having recent immigrants work
side-by-side with naturalized Americans. Though none were as successful as Detroit,

other cities across the nation took note and began instituting similar community

gardening programs.

18

During the Great Depression of the 193 Os community gardening was again
revived under the banner of “Relief Gardens” (Bassett, 1981). During this period of time,
the United States experienced a period of unprecedented economic and social decline
eclipsing the Economic Panic of 1893. Again, idle urban land was brought under
cultivation in an effort to both reduce reliance upon emergency food sources and to
increase social stability and improve the self-esteem of the unemployed. In 1932, a least
twenty-three states employed relief gardening programs (Von Hassell, 2002).

The “Victory Gardens” common in America during the Second World War were
also used as a tool for maintaining social order (Bentley, 1998). American society faced
a new social crisis as white men left the industrial workforce to join the Armed Services.
This mass exodus resulted in a critical industrial labor shortage. Women and Afi'ican-
Americans, formerly ignored by the northern labor markets were suddenly coveted by
industry and rural Afiican-Americans fi'om the south flooded into northern industrial
cities seeking employment in the defense industry. The newfound employment
opportunities altered the economic power and social structure creating new social
tensions that resulted in urban riots in Detroit and Baltimore. Victory Gardens, which
received significant support from the United States government, were viewed as tools to
retain social order by providing Afi'ican-Americans with a link to their agricultural roots
and a reinforcement of democratic ideals.

Corrnnunity gardening in America has never received the level of sustained
institutional support found in Great Britain. During the past decade, non- governmental
groups supporting community gardening including the American Community Gardening

Association (ACGA) and the Community Food Security Coalition (CFSC) have become

19

politically active by focusing their effort on developing public and governmental
recognition of the value of gardens. Despite these efforts, little significant governmental
support for urban conununity gardening has yet been attained. Nationally, American
public policy is largely indifferent towards community gardening as a social good
(Schukoske, 2000). Combating this apathy towards commmfity gardening will likely
require a shift in public discourse away from the purely economic benefits of gardening

and a renewed focus on the less tangible recreational and social benefits.

2.4) Empowerment

Proponents and critics alike lament the lack of a clear and consistent definition of
the term “empowerment”. (Gruber & Trickett, 1987; Perkins 1995; Rissel, 1994;
Weissberg, 1999) However, a review of the empowerment definitions within the fields
of community development, community psychology and health promotion illustrate the
existence of a number of common themes that help to establish a working definition of
empowerment:

“. . .A process, a mechanism by which people, organizations, and
communities gain mastery over their affairs.” (Rappaport, 1987, p122)

“The connection between a sense of personal competence, a desire for,
and a willingness to take action in, the public domain.” (Zimmerman &

Rappaport, 1988, p746)

“Empowerment, in its most general sense, refers to the ability of people to
gain understanding and control over personal, social, economic, and
political forces in order to take action to improve their life situation.”
(Israel et a1 1994, p152)

“(Empowerment is]... an individual’s right and responsibility to partake in

the life of the community, as well as a feeling of connection with that
community and a sense of being able to successfirlly contribute to, and

20

assume some control over, its political and social life.” (Wharf-Higgins,
1999, p 289)

“[Empowerment is]... the active, participatory process of gaining

resources or competencies needed to increase control over one’s life and

accomplish important life goals.” (Maton & Salem, 1995, p 632)

“[Empowerment is]... a social action process by which individuals,

communities and organizations gain mastery over their lives in the context

of changing their social and political environment to improve equity and

quality of life.” (Wallerstein, 1992, p 198)

“Empowerment involves a personal sense of self-efficacy and

competence; a sense of responsibility to change self and social conditions

based on a critical consciousness of conditions that are oppressive’ skills

to affect the behavior of others and to work in solidarity with others to

obtain needed resources; and planning and implementation of social action

efforts to remove power blocks and create liberating conditions.” (Bartle

et a1, 2002, p 2)

The three common themes in the preceding definitions help us to create a working
definition of empowerment. First, empowerment relates to a sense of control. It assumes
that individuals lacking empowerment are not in control and consequently experience
some degree of powerlessness or “disempowerment”. This lack of control suggests that
other individuals or institutions hold a position of relative power over the disempowered.
Second, the individual seeking empowerment lacks possession of or access to critical
resources, skills or knowledge required to gain control and experience empowerment.
The disempowered individual may either be incompetent or simply lacking access to
resources due to societal inequalities Finally, empowerment requires the active
engagement in some form of behavioral change. Through this behavioral change, the
individual regains control over the social environment and uses this opportunity to create

change and increase relative power. These three components; sense of control, access to

resources and behavioral change lead to a working definition of empowerment:

21

Empowerment is the sense of control that is gained through the

development and active employment of the resources, skills and knowledge

that lead to the behavioral changes needed to improve one ’s social

condition.

Empowerment is both a process and an outcome. As a process, empowerment
includes the mechanisms and actions by which individuals develop a greater sense of I
control (Zimmerman & Rappaport, 1988). This includes the attainment of resources and
knowledge necessary to create change and is represented by the individual’s actions that
contribute to the development of social power (Speer & Hughey, 1995). Empowerment
cannot occur by one giving power to another. Rather, empowerment is about enabling
others to strengthen skills and gain resources needed to gain control (Israel et a1, 1994).
2.4.1) Empowerment: Process

Zirmnerman (1995) defines three basic components comprising the empowerment
of the individual (Figure 1). These are an intrapersonal component, an interactional
component, and a behavioral component.

Figure 1. Psychological Empowerment of the Individual (adapted from
Zimmerman, 1995)

 

 

 

 

Intrapersonal lnteractional Behavioral
Component Component Component
Perceived confidence Skills 8r Knowledge Behavioral Change
Perceived control Critical Awareness Action
Motivation Resource Mobilization

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ EMPOWERMENT :>

 

 

 

22

The intrapersonal component refers to how people think about themselves and
includes perceived confidence in one’s abilities, perceived control and the level of
motivation to participate in a potentially empowering activity. This component is the
basic building block in the process of personal empowerment because it defines how the
individual perceives his or her ability to influence important life-domains, which in turn
determines whether or not the individual becomes sufliciently motivated to participate.
The intrapersonal component is based solely on perceptions because they represent the
basic elements that provide people with the initiative to become actively involved in a
potentially empowering activity.

The interactional component refers to the individual’s understanding of how their
community or institution of concern operates. Within this component, individuals
develop a critical awareness of the environment and their position within it. Critical
awareness is the ability to set realistic goals and a plan of action. It includes the
individual’s understanding of the resources and information needed to accomplish this
goal, the ability to acquire those resources, and the ability to manage those resources once
they have been obtained. The interactional component is a bridge between the perceived
control and motivational basis of the intrapersonal component and the actions undertaken
in the behavioral component.

The behavioral component builds upon the individual’s motivation and refers to
actions taken to directly influence outcomes. These actions are expressed as behavioral
changes within the individual. The belmvioral component is the desired outcome of the
process of personal empowerment in which actions are taken to improve one’s social

condition.

23

Hungerford and Volk (1990) present a similar model in their description of the
environmental education process (Figure 2). As with Zimmerman (1995), this model
includes three “variables” that may impact a change in the behavior of the individual.
These variables include entry-level variables consisting of attitudes and sensitivity
towards the environment, ownership variables consisting of personal “ownership” and in-
depth knowledge of an issue, and empowerment variables in which the individual reaches
a highly developed understanding of an issue and engages in actions that influence and
control the issue. These variables occur in a linear relationship that results in an outcome
of the individual exhibiting a changed behavior in relation to the external environment.
This change is due to the presence of initially positive environmental attitudes that are
transformed through an educatioml experience into the behaviors and actions of an
environmentally conscious citizen.

Figure 2. Environmental Citizenship Behavior (adapted from Hungerford &

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Volk, 1990)
Entry-Level Ownership Empowerment
Variables Variables Variables
Environmental ln-depth knowledge Knowledge and skill in
Sensitivity Personal investment using action strategies
Pro-Environmental Intention to act
Attitudes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ENVIRONMENTAL CITIZENSH>

 

 

 

2.4.2) Empowerment: Outcome
As an outcome, empowerment is the actual alteration in the individual’s social or

economic condition. Empowerment is realized when individuals have the opportunity to

24

control their own destiny and influence the decisions that affect their lives (Zimmerman,
1995). An empowered individual is one who has experienced a conscious behavioral
change that results in an increase in social power. Theoretically, these personal changes
can be evaluated by measuring the impacts of specific social interventions upon
individuals or their communities. For example, a community gardening program
designed to empower low-income residents to improve their nutritional status should be
able to take steps to measure the program’s effectiveness by demonstrating that
participation results in a positive alteration to one’s social condition.

Empowering outcomes are often difficult to identify because they may be of only
local or personal relevance. The historical and cultural context in which the individual or
organization operates has a significant influence upon program outcomes (Rappaport,
1987; Zimmerman 1995). The needs of one neighborhood may not necessarily be
relevant in another community and the needs of one individual may not be the same as
another. Individuals experience feelings of control (or lack of control) in different
manners. While one individual may desire greater control over the variety of vegetables
available to him or her, others may not.

2.4.3) Multiple Levels of Analysis

Empowerment can occur at multiple levels of analysis including the individual,
connmmity and organizational levels (Barr, 1995; Israel et al, 1994; Rappaport, 1987;
Speer and Hughey, 1995; Zimmerman, 1990). At the individual level, empowerment is
defined as an individual taking action within a group to achieve change. (Rissel,1994).
“An empowered community is a group of people in a locality capable of initiating a

process of social or community action to change their economic, social, cultural and/or

25

environmental situation.” (Lacy, 2000, p 5). An empowered organization is one that
provides opportunities for individual members to develop skills, gain control and identify
with others (Prestby et al, 1990).

Gutierrez (1990) recognizes empowerment as a multi-level construct occurring on
both a micro level involving personal feeling of increased power and a macro level
involving collective political power. While a perception of personal control exists at the
micro-level, this does not necessarily include an actual change in power. Actual change
only occurs as a result of the interface between the micro (individual) and macro (group)
level.

Rissel (1994) also rmkes a distinction between psychological and community
empowerment. Psychological empowerment relates to the individual’s perception of
control over his or her own life. This is experienced through membership in a group and
does not necessarily relate to an actual increase in political power or control over
resources. Community empowerment includes both psychological empowerment and the
control over actual resources. Psychological empowerment can occur without the relative
disempowerment of others and is not a scarce resource. However, community
empowerment impacts the distribution of real resources, is political and results in the
disempowerment of others.

2.4.4) Interface

In order to achieve empowerment, the individual must engage in group activities
that connect people and build upon their individual strengths. It is through this group
interaction that actual social changes can occur, resulting in a relative redistribution of

resources. The differing levels of empowerment experienced by individual are due to

26

social failures in the distribution of resources and opportunities essential to empowerment
rather than due to personal faults and inadequacies of the individual (Breton, 1994;
Gutierrez, 1990).

Empowerment refers to the relationship between the individual and the society or
environment. It suggests that there is an authority or external power that in some way
keeps the individual fiom experiencing one’s full potential. This makes it necessary to
study the social relationships involved and the contexts that promote or inhibit
empowerment. Empowerment is the individualistic aspect of social power (Speer &
Hughey, 1995). Empowerment and social power are dependent upon one another in that
empowerment can only be realized through participation in a social organization and that
social power is built upon the development and existence of empowered individuals
acting in unison. “Individuals are empowered to the extent that they understand their
own access to social power exists through organization, through the strength of
relationships among individual members in that organization, and through active
participation in their organization and subsequent reflection on their involvement” (Speer
& Hughey, 1995, p. 737).

Empowering collective social actions include a consciousness raising experience
in which individuals first develop a sense of shared community with others who face the
same oppression and then take action to change the situation. Without this group action
leading to social change, empowerment cannot be fully realized. Subjective perceptions
of empowerment, though important do not constitute empowerment. Empowerment must
include an actual change in objective reality; otherwise empowerment has not occurred

(Israel et al, 1994; Rissel, 1994). Social action designed to increase power and control is

27

the necessary component that bridges the gap between feelings of control and actual
control. “People can ‘feel’ empowered, but it is crucial to recognize that they will not be
empowered if outside the group they continue to be deprived of resources, dignity and
control.” (Breton, 1994, p 33-34).

2.4.5) Empowering Situations

The study of empowerment tends to focus on participation in voluntary
organizations (Eisen, 1994; Florin & Wandersman, 1990; Maton & Salem, 1995; Prestby
et al, 1990). These organizations play an important role in empowerment because they
offer skills and resources that allow individuals to make behavioral changes that improve
one’s social condition as well as opportunities to work in concert with others to create
social change. The empowerment of individuals is tied to the existence of empowering
organizations, which provide people with opportunities to gain a sense of control and
create meaningful change.

Organizations that promote empowerment exluhit a number of common
characteristics that enable members to develop a sense of control by adhering to an
empowering process. Important points of analysis in determining the empowering
potential of organizations include the belief system, roles, support system and leadership
(Maton & Salem, 1995).

Belief System

An organization’s belief system includes its ideology, values and culture. An
organization’s belief system shapes its view of members, their needs and problems and
sets in motion the policies and actions taken to serve its members (Maton & Salem,

1995). Empowering organizations should inspire personal grth of members, be

28

strengths-based rather than deficiency-based and be focused beyond the individual to
include the community (Maton & Salem, 1995).

Empowerment is most successfully promoted through locally controlled
organizations that promote local control and ownership over resources and information
(Barr, 1995). Locally developed initiatives that hold an empowerment ideology and
organizational structure will more effectively develop resources than will an initiative
that uses a cookie-cutter approach to development and views members as clients or
service consumers (Rappaport, 1987). “Initiatives that are not controlled by
neighborhood residents tend to define empowerment as seeking residents’ input in needs
assessments and encouraging residents’ attendance at events staged by the initiative.”
(Eisen, 1994, p248) Such organizations assume that empowerment will be realized
simply through group integration and increased access to residents outside the
neighborhood who have more resources. However, professionally initiated projects may
become empowering if they allow communities to organize themselves and act
politically, eventually taking control over the effort (Rissel, 1994). In practice, smaller,
more homo genous neighborhood-based initiatives may be more conducive to the
development of a group identity that leads to successful empowerment.

Roles

To create a potentially empowering situation there must exist a large number of
roles for members at multiple levels of the organization. These roles must be highly
accessible and meet the needs and desires of members by varying in the level of skill and
responsibility required to assume the role. The role structure must also contain many

opportunities for skill development, learning and exercise of responsibility (Maton &

29

Salem, 1995). Empowering organizations must continually evolve and remain viable and
active by promoting group membership and continued involvement. This requires an
understanding of the needs and goals of participants (Prestby et al, 1990). “It is possible
to develop a program aimed at individual empowerment, but this does not consider the
context in which the individual is embedded — such as the organization or community —
then there is less likelihood that actual increases in influence and control and concomitant
improvement in health and quality of life will occur.” (Israel et al, 1994, p 153). The
conditions of participation within an organization are also expected to have a major
impact upon the empowerment of its members (Rappaport, 1987). Empowerment is most
likely to occur within those organizations that encourage participation in decision-making
and provide a variety of roles for participation (Zimmerman & Rappaport, 1988). Since
personal empowerment is linked to participation in community activities it is logical to
examine social groups to discover the organizational contexts that allow personal
empowerment to develop.
Support System

For an organization to support the empowerment of its members it must provide a
support structure, consisting of its resources and setting, that is encompassing, peer-based
and provides a sense of corrununity (Maton & Salem, 1995). An encompassing support
system offers a wide variety of resource types and sources of information. In a peer-
based system, members give and receive support to peers who share common interests
and goals. The support system must create a sense of community that can, “transform
isolated individuals into public citizens.” and provide, “a human-scale sense of place,

purpose, and process that is rare in today’s mass society.” (Florin & Wandersman, 1990,

30

p. 44). This sense of community is essential to empowerment. “Empowerment is not
only a self-perception of competence and control, but includes a concern for the common
good and a sense of connectedness to others.” (Zinnnerman & Rappaport, 1988, p 747).
Leadership

The existence of quality leadership is also a key component in the creation of
empowering organizations (Maton & Salem, 1995). Leadership must be shared and open
to new members rather than resting with one or two members. Leadership must remain
committed to the goals of the organization and the sharing of leadership duties. This
shared leadership must be viewed as an asset rather than a threat to organizational
stability. This suggests that empowering organizations will likely be collective in nature
as opposed to bureaucratic and hierarchical (Jamison, 1985). “Empowerment might be
expected to develop more in organizations that encourage participation in decision
making and provide a variety of flexrble roles for volunteers to fill, while a more
hierarchical and rigidly delineated voluntary organization may be less likely to promote
the development of psychological empowerment.” Zimmerman & Rappaport, 1988, p

748).

2.5) Conceptual Framework

This study focuses on the application of empowerment theory on a “self-help”
community gardening program. The conceptual framework of this study is a synthesis of
the work of Zimmerman (1995) and Hungerford and Volk (1990) (Figure 3) and is
concerned with the interface between the individual and organizational empowerment

process. It is assumes that individuals participating in a voluntary community gardening

31

program have attained the intrapersonal component prior to joining. Without the
motivation to participate and perceived abilities for success, individuals lacking this
component would not be expected to be undertake community gardening. Those
individuals participating in the program are assumed to have developed this primary
component prior to joining the program and through participation are actively developing
the interactional component.

Figure 3. Personal Empowerment through Community Gardening
(adapted from Zimmerman 1995, Hungerford & Volk 1990)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Intrapersonal Interactional Behavioral
Component Component Component
Motivation to participate Development of Change in food-related
in program gardening skills behaviors
Confidence in abilities to In-depth knowledge Active participation in
garden and “ownership of food program organization

production and management
EMPOWERMENT

 

 

 

The interactional component is comprised of the development of the skills and
knowledge required for continued participation and an “ownership” of food and
gardening related issues through their personal investment in community gardening. The
development of this component is believed to result in a critical awareness of food issues
where in the individual develops a new understanding of food and understands his or her
abilities to make empowering behavioral changes.

The development of the interactional component may or may not lead to the final,

behavioral component. The behavioral component is assumed to consist of the

32

 

individual’s actions taken to improve their level of control over the food system. This
component is defined by an individual’s actions above and beyond typical participation in
program activities and may include changes in food purchasing behaviors, participation
in management and organization of the community garden program or activism in issues
related to gardening access, food quality, etc.

The interactional component of this model acts as an important link between the
initial attitudes of the individual and corresponding behavioral changes. An
understanding of this component is critically important for voluntary organizations with a
goal of creating some type of behavioral or collective societal change. An understanding
of the types of learning that may lead individuals through this process of change can be

usefirl in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of educational programs.

33

CHAPTER 3: METHODS

3.1) Research Questions

As set forth in Chapter 1, the central research question is: Does participation in a
“self-help” community gardening program lead to empowerment of the individual?
The sub-components of this research question include:

Does participation have an impact on food access and diet?

What are the benefits fi'om community gardening?

Is empowerment a perceived benefit?

Are there barriers to participation?

What is the role and nature of skill development in the empowerment of
participants?

0 Does the cormnunity garden fulfill its “self-help” mission, designed to assist
unemployed and low-income fimilies in growing their own food.

3.2) Study Design

Proponents of empowerment insist that it is a phenomenon to be studied in the
context of the individual’s life experience (Rappaport, 1990; Zimmerman, 1995).
Rappaport states, “We need to research the phenomena by studying how empowerment is
actually experienced by those individual people who express the sense that they are, and
are not, in control of their own lives, and by studying the mediating structures in which
they reside. . .we need to study people in settings that are a part of their ongoing life”
(Rappaport, 1987, p. 135). “If one wants to know about community life, it is probably
helpful to see people in their community settings” (Rappaport, 1990, p. 55).

The goal of this study is to research the experience of community gardeners in
their natural setting. This was done through the use of a case study approach. Case
studies are a qualitative research approach that utilizes a number of data gathering

techniques (Berg, 1998) to collect rich, detailed and in-depth information (Stake, 1994).

34

Case studies provide information from a variety of sources, thereby facilitating a more
holistic research perspective (Sjoberg et al., 1991). They can be used to explain complex

causal links in real-life interventions (Yin, 1994).

3.3) Case Selection

Of the 18 community gardens administered by The Garden Project in 2002, this
study focused on the Foster Park Community Garden. It was selected for several reasons.
First, based upon The Garden Project’s registration data, a majority of cormnunity
gardening participants live within the immediate neighborhood and possess similar socio-
economic traits. This is consistent with the concept of personal empowerment in that it is
believed to be uniquely relevant to individual neighborhoods and homogenous
communities (Zimmerman, 1995). It is assumed that a group of individuals living
together in a community possess similar traits and beliefs that are formed and reinforced
to some degree through their interactions with one another. This results in the
development of a sense of shared community between individuals. Participation in
cormnunity based voluntary organizations has been shown to bolster feelings of personal
empowerment, generate a greater sense of control and foster a belief that people can
make a difference in their lives (Wharf-Higgins, 1999).

Second, the garden is well established within the neighborhood. It has been in
existence for approximately 15 years and has developed a strong presence in the
community through out reach projects such as partnerships with a community center to
provide gardening and community service opportunities for neighborhood youth and

through an annual surplus produce distribution open to non-participating neighbors.

35

Unlike many other community gardens administered by The Garden Project, Foster Park
is physically located at a prominent location in a well-used city park situated at an active
intersection. Its location as well as a prominent sign makes it a well-known local
landmark.

Third, The Garden Project operates a distribution warehouse at Foster Park. The
warehouse is the central meeting location for participants and staff plus it serves as the
point of access for tools, seeds, plants and other vital gardening resources. The
warehouse is intermittently staffed by the Community Organizer and volunteers
throughout the gardening season for the purpose of distributing supplies and information.
In comparison to other gardens administered by The Garden Project, Foster Park
possesses a wealth of resources that are assumed to provide additional benefits to Foster
Park gardeners.

The selected community garden consists of two separate but adjacent gardens
known as the Foster Park Community Garden and Paradise Community Garden. (See
Appendix A) For the sake of clarity, they are simply referred to as the “Foster Park”
garden. Approximately halfof the garden area lies on property owned by the City of
Lansing Parks and Recreation Department (Foster Park) with the remainder located on an

empty parcel owned by the Paradise Baptist Church (Paradise).

3.4) Population
During the 2001 and 2002 gardening season, Foster Park garden plots were
assigned to a total of 48 households. Six of these households were excluded from

participating in the study. Four households spoke little or no English Given the

36

timescale and budget allotted for this project, securing a translator to assist in the
interviewing and transcription was not pursued. Therefore, only English speaking
households were included. Two additional households had moved out-of-state prior to
the 2002 gardening season and did not leave a forwarding address.

The population size for this study was 42 individuals representing the remaining
households. Regardless of the number of household members who worked a particular
garden plot, only the individual whose name appeared on the gardener registration form
was included. Of these individuals, 15 participated in community gardening at Foster
Park in 2001 but not in 2002, 11 households participated in both 2001 and 2002 and 16

participated in 2002 but not in 2001.

3.5) Data Collection

In this study, interviews were the primary data source, supplemented by document
review and direct observation. The use of multiple sources of evidence aids in ensuring
construct validity (Yin, 1994).
3.5.1) Participant Interviews

Since the phenomenon of an individual’s empowerment is a highly personal
experience, semi-structured in-depth interviews are an appropriate data collection
technique (Zimmerman, 1990). Two groups of informants were identified for the study.
These included gardeners assigned to a plot at the Foster Park Commrmity Garden and
key informants including representatives of The Garden Project’s Advisory Committee
and volunteers with a degree of familiarity with the Foster Park Garden. Gardeners were

identified using The Garden Project’s database of registered gardeners. All cormnunity

37

gardeners must submit a completed registration form (Appendix B) prior to being
assigned a plot or using any of The Garden Project’s resources.

Key informants are identified as persons who possess unique skills or a
professional background related to the issue being studied, is knowledgeable about the
project participants, or has access to other information of interest to the researcher. Key
informants can help the researcher better understand the issue being studied, as well as
the project participants, their backgrounds, behaviors, and attitudes, and any language or
ethnic considerations.

Initial contact with gardeners was through the use of either the telephone or e-
mail. Of the 42 households included in this study, 39 included a home and/or work
telephone number on their registration form and 28 included an e-mail address.
Beginning on July 30, 2002, these households were contacted via the home telephone
number or e-mail. Twelve of the home telephone numbers were either incorrect or had
been disconnected and five e-mail addresses were incorrect. Of these individuals,
attempts were made to follow-up using the work telephone number.

On October 11, 2002, postcards were mailed to 30 households who could not be
contacted via telephone or e-mail (Appendix C). Two of the postcards were “returned to
sender — forwarding address expired”. Seven individuals contacted the researcher to
schedule an interview. Of these, one was never interviewed as she failed to show for an
interview at her home and repeated follow-up calls to her home were not returned. On
November 5, 2002, follow-up postcards were mailed the 21 households that had yet to

respond. There were no responses to the follow-up postcards.

38

In an effort to achieve maximum participation in this study, informants were
eligible to receive a $100 cash incentive. All community gardeners who scheduled or
completed an interview by October 31, 2002 were entered into the drawing. The cash
prize was awarded to the winning gardener on November 6, 2002.

The interviews were conducted in the informant’s home, workplace, The Garden
Project ofice, or at the Foster Park Community Garden. All interviews were performed
in an informal face-to-face setting between the informant and the researcher. Each
interview was structured around an interview guide (Appendix D) approved by UCRIHS
(Appendix E). The interviews lasted between 25 minutes and one hour and 40 minutes.
All interviews were recorded on audiotape following the informant’s permission and
acceptance of the Informed Consent Form (Appendix F).

Shortly after the completion of each interview, written transcripts were created
and reviewed for accuracy. The transcripts were compiled and maintained electronically
on a laptop computer with an additional paper copy maintained in a secure filing cabinet.
To ensure confidentiality, each informant was assigned an alias.

3.5.2) Document Review

The Garden Project possesses a number of internal documents that aided in this
study. These documents include internal memos describing past project events
(participants, times, issues of concern), chronological data noting interactions between
gardeners and staff, annual gardener surveys and meeting minutes of the Garden Project’s
Advisory Committee and Garden Coordinator Meetings. These documents were used as
secondary sources of information and provided some history and a framework in which

to understand and corroborate information gathered through the participant interviews.

39

Additionally, they provided the registration data used to identify interviewee gardeners
and develop a demographic profile. Does this include the registration data used to
identify interviewee gardeners and develop a demographic profile? If yes add that.
3.5.3) Direct Observation

As an employee and participating community gardener with The Garden Project,
the researcher had the opportunity to participate in various formal and informal activities
throughout the 2001 and 2002 gardening seasons (May through September). These
activities included numerous workshops, promotional events and garden visits. Most
notably, the researcher spent approximately 300 hours at the Foster Park Community
Garden operating the distribution warehouse, supervising volunteers, performing garden
maintenance and visiting with gardeners. Observations of the garden conditions and
gardeners provided the researcher with a general understanding of the community

gardening experience and development of a rapport with many of the gardeners.

3.6) Interview Response Rate

A total of 24 individuals were interviewed between July 30, 2002 and November
14, 2002. This included 20 community gardeners and 4 key informants representing
staff and volunteers. Of the gardeners, 7 participated in the 2001 season, 6 in the 2002
season and 7 participated in both the 2001 and 2002 seasons. This results in a gardener

response rate of 47.6%.

40

3.7) Data Analysis

The data collection phase resulted in the compilation of nearly 110,000 words
collected during over 23 hours of interviews. Immediately following the participant
interviews, the researcher transcribed the audiotapes. Having the researcher conducting
and transcrrhing the interviews helps to ensure the validity of the transcription by
ensuring that the data is recorded in a systematic rmnner capturing all relevant verbal and
non-verbal information. Following the transcription process, both the researcher and two
professional colleagues reviewed the transcripts independently of one another. Following
an independent transcript review, the researcher and colleagues met to discuss the quality
and validity of the data and to share observations. During this initial phase of data
analysis, researcher and colleagues reached a unanimous agreement that the data
collection method and quality of data collected was appropriate.

Data analysis continued with the identification of several dominant themes based
in part upon the literature review (Chapter 2). Each dominant theme was developed in
an effort to answer the research question and six sub-components outlined in Section 3.1
of this chapter. This process initially included reading and rereading the interview
transcripts allowing dominant themes to emerge . The themes were then incorporated
into an electronic spreadsheet to provide a visual display of the data. This visual display
was again shared with colleagues, ensuring consistency. The result was the creation of an
overview grid (Appendix G) using spreadsheet software.

Following the development of the overview grid, the researcher again reviewed
the transcripts. During this stage, direct quotations addressing the individual themes were

inserted into the spreadsheet corresponding with each -theme. These quotations were

41

included in an initial draft of this document. This aided the researcher and a colleague to
begin to answer the individual research questions. At this point, firrther consultation

between researcher and colleague allowed for further refinement of the data.

3.8) Study Validity and Researcher Bias

The relationship between researcher and subject often has a significant impact
upon the validity of a research project. This relationship frames the development of the
research question, the selection and use of appropriate data collection methods as well as
the analysis and interpretation of data. The researcher in this case study is an experienced
and avid cormnunity gardener having been involved with The Garden Project during the
2001 and 2002 gardening seasons. Prior to his term of employment with The Garden
Project, the researcher became interested in the potential benefits of urban community
gardens. As a result, he developed a new community garden in his own neighborhood in
the spring of 2001 and shortly after accepted an offer of employment with The Garden
Project. Although gardening at another neighborhood garden, the researcher’s
experiences formed the basis for establishing the research question. Additionally, the
researcher’s employment experiences helped to guide the selection of interview questions
and probes ensuring that they remained relevant and meaningful to study participants.

Although the researcher made significant efforts to inform participants that the
study was being conducted independently of The Garden Project, his employment status
with the program may have influenced the responses that individuals provided. It is
unknown if or to what degree interview participants altered their responses in order to

“please” the researcher by blunting their criticisms or inflating the quality of their

42

experience. Additionally, the researcher’s personal interest in the subject matter may
have also influenced the interpretation of gardener comments. The researcher’s
employment with The Garden Project did however, allow for an accelerated development
of rapport between researcher and subject. This important rapport most likely had a
positive influence on the data collection aspect by allowing participants to feel more
comfortable during an interview than would be expected had the interviewer and subject
been two complete strangers.

Ultimately, the strength of this study rests in the use of multiple data collection
methods and the involvement of knowledgeable colleagues throughout the data analysis
process. It is this triangulation of both data collection and data analysis as well as the
strength of the researcher’s relationship with the subject that helps to reduce the impacts

of researcher bias and to ensure the validity of the study.

3.9) Limitations

The primary study limitation is the population size of 48 gardeners. While a
census of this population was attempted, only 47.6% of gardeners were interviewed.
While this is not an unreasonable response rate, combined with the small population size
it is a limitation of the study. Another limitation of this study is its focus on a specific
cormnunity garden - the Foster Park garden. Both the research setting and participants
are in some respects unique. Thus the study findings are not necessarily fully
transferable to community gardening programs in other parts of the Garden Project or

other municipalities. However both the methods and findings of this study may benefit

43

other community gardening programs in designing and implementing their own program

evaluations.

44

CHAPTER 4: THE GARDEN PROJECT: OPERATIONAL BACKGROUND
4.1) Introduction

The Garden Project is one of three programs of the Greater Lansing Food Bank
(GLFB). While the other two programs focus on the delivery of emergency food
assistance through food pantries and community distributions of recovered perishable
foods, The Garden Project focuses on the delivery of in-direct assistance through a “self-
help” philosophy. The program provides three services to the Lansing, Michigan area
community including home-garden roto-tilling, community gardening and a gleaning
program, which enlists volunteers to harvest surplus agricultural products and distribute
them to local social service agencies.

The program is led by a permanent, hill-time Director and is staffed by three
seasonal part-time employees including a Community Organizer, a Gleaning Supervisor
and an Office Support staff member. The Director, Gleaning Supervisor and Office
Support staff member divide their efforts between all three of the program’s service while
the Community Organizer’s activities focus solely on the community gardening
activities. The Community Organizer is employed for twenty-seven weeks per year
(April-October) and is responsible for the overall operations of the gardens and education

of the gardeners.

4.2) Registration Process
All community gardeners are required to complete a registration form prior to
receiving access to any of The Garden Project’s resources. The purpose of the

registration form (Appendix B) is to collect basic demographic information required by

45

funding agencies such as the cities of Lansing and East Lansing. Additiomlly, the
registrant indicates which community garden location they prefer; the number of plots
desired, volunteer interests, and any special needs that should be considered for plot
assignment purposes. Following the completion of the registration form, The Garden
Project office adds the information to an Access database and the individual is placed on
a mailing list.

A new registration form must be completed at the beginning of each gardening
season. Registration forms are typically distributed in mid-March and are mailed to all of
the prior season’s participants as an insert to the season’s first newsletter. This newsletter
contains basic information about the program along with instructions for completing the
registration process. Additional registration forms are included in program pamphlets
distributed through local social service agencies, food pantries, University housing
oflices, displays located at community events and area businesses including Laundromats
and food stores. Individuals may also call or e-mail the office to request a registration
form.

The Garden Project also encourages local residents to register for a garden plot
through broadcast and print media At the onset of the 2002 gardening season, The
Garden Project gained media coverage in two local newspapers (Boyer, 2002; Trout,
2002), a citywide cable access television advertisement and a public service
announcement on a local radio station The purpose of these outlets is to encourage

interested residents to contact The Garden Project and request a registration form.

46

4.3) Community Garden Preparations

As early in the spring as weather and soil conditions permit, The Garden Project
hires an individual to prepare the garden bed. The process begins when the Community
Organizer examines the garden bed to ensure that it is fi'ee of foreign objects that could
damage the plowing equipment. Although The Garden Project’s Community Garden
Guidelines (Appendix H) requires gardeners to remove all string, wire, tomato cages and
poles by the end of each gardening season, a significant amount of this material often
remains in the garden over the winter. During the spring of 2002, Foster Park contained
an exceptiorml amount of gardening material requiring removal. This indicates that few
gardeners complied with the fall garden clean up requirement.

Following the garden clean up, soil preparations begin using a roto-tiller
attachment on a small commercial tractor. Garden soil preparations at Foster Park
usually occur in early-May.

Once the soil has been prepared, the next step is to stake out the individual garden
plots and assign them to individual gardeners for use. This is generally the first point at
which gardeners become actively involved in the process. The Community Organizer
schedules and coordinates a “plot assignment meeting” and encourages all registered
gardeners to attend. The plot assignment meeting is generally scheduled to occur within
a couple of days following soil preparations and is normally scheduled on a weekday
evening or weekend morning. In 2002, the plot assignment meetings for the Foster Park
and Paradise gardens occurred on Friday, May 24th at 5:30pm and Tuesday, May 28'” at
5:30pm, respectively. Fewer than fifty percent of the registered gardeners attended the

plot assignment meetings.

47

4.4) Plot Assignment

The plot assignment meeting serves three purposes: to delineate and define the
individual garden plots, to assign plots to the individual gardeners and to provide seeds
and information including a list of garden guidelines (Appendix H) and information about
the warehouse. The Community Organizer begins the meeting by explaining the garden
layout. The physical layout is a pre-designed grid of evenly spaced, equal sized plots and
walkways (Appendix A). A majority of the garden area is devoted to spaces assigned to
and controlled by individual gardeners, with few common areas designed for use by all
gardeners. The only common area in Foster Park is a demonstration area and perennial
flower garden. Foster Street physically separates this area from the main garden. The
Paradise section contains no community areas accept for the immediate area around the
compost bin and water barrels. After confirming the general garden layout, gardeners
then work with the Community Organizer to stake out the individual garden plots to
match the design using a measuring tape and wooden stakes. Individual garden plots are
delineated by wooden stakes driven into the ground at each of the four plot corners. A
numbered stake driven into the center of the plot identifies the plot. This assists
gardeners in finding their assignment.

Gardeners receive a plot assignment following the completion of the staking
procedure. Returning gardeners are given first priority in plot assignments. A returning
gardener will generally select the same plot fi'om year to year but they are he to accept a
new assignment. Once the returning gardeners have received their assignments, the new
gardeners begin choosing their plots. Priority is given to those individuals who submitted

a registration form earliest in the year. Garden plots are held for those registered

48

gardeners who do not attend the oflicial plot assignment meeting. The Community
Organizer contacts these individuals and makes arrangements to assign a plot.

After the plot assignment has been completed, the Community Organizer
distributes the Community Garden Guidelines (Appendix H) and provides additional
general information on the program and important site-specific information such as
location of compost piles, water access, etc. Once this is completed, the Community
Organizer distributes vegetable and flower seeds to the gardeners. From this point on,
gardeners are responsible for their individual plot and must begin planting within two

weeks.

4.5) Program Resources

To meet its self-help goal of assisting low-income residents to grow their own
food, The Garden Project provides people with the supplies and materials required for
gardening. In terms of physical resources, The Garden Project operates a gardening
warehouse out of which seeds, seedlings, tools and fertilizers are distributed to gardeners
free of charge. Individuals, local businesses and corporate donors donate these resources
to the program. Most significantly, the program provides access to land for gardening
and coordinates spring and fall soil preparation and improvement activities.

Foster Park is unique among the 18 community gardens administered by The
Garden Project in that gardeners enjoy greater access to gardening resources and staff
members. This additional access is due to the location of the program’s warehouse
adjacent to the Foster Park garden. The warehouse serves as a storage and distribution

center for gardening tools, seeds and seedlings. Additionally, the warehouse housing a

49

snarl] lending library containing books, magazines, pamphlets and other printed materials
related to gardening. During the 2001 gardening season, 75% of Garden Project
participants received fiee supplies from the program.

The warehouse structure is a former community activity center owned by the City
of Lansing Parks and Recreation Department on which The Garden Project holds a 10-
year lease. This $1 per year lease covers both the use of the warehouse, the Foster Park
garden space and four other community gardens that are located on City-owned
properties. The warehouse is an unheated cinderblock building measuring approximately
30’ by 30’. The building has year round electrical service and seasonal water and
telephone service. There are also two non-firnctioning restrooms in the building.

The warehouse is open and accessible for a limited number of hours each week
during the gardening season, normally in 2 —3 hours blocks of time. During these times it
is staffed by the Community Organizer who is occasionally supported by volunteer
gardeners including some Foster Park gardeners. A majority of gardeners visit the
warehouse during the months of May and June with warehouse usage dropping
dramatically in early July. As a result, the warehouse hours are decreased in mid-summer
and the warehouse closes for the season in September. During the 2002 gardening
season, the warehouse hours were expanded from 92 to 153 hours to increase gardener
access to staff and resources. The warehouse opened for the season on May 24“I and
closed on September 27'“. In 2002, the warehouse was visited over 400 times by
gardeners representing Foster Park and all other community gardens administered by The

Garden Project.

50

CHAPTER 5:
FINDINGS: THEEGARDENERS AND THEIR MOTIVATIONS

5.1) Introduction

This chapter outlines the study findings related to gardener background and
demographics as well as the benefits of gardening that motivate people to join and
continue participation in the program. The use of direct quotations fi'om study
participants is intended for illustrative purposes rather than as a comprehensive record of

COIIIIIICIIIS.

5.2) Entry into The Garden Project

Of the 20 gardeners interviewed, eight recalled that they were introduced to the
program by a fiiend who is typically another Foster Park gardener. Five gardeners
discovered the program by responding to a sign or pamphlet advertising the program, five
were referred to the program by Michigan State University (MSU) Extension Service
personnel, one through a message posted on an e-mail list serve and one through a story
in the newspaper.

Table 1: Method of Introduction to The Garden Project

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Method Number of Gardeners
Friend 8
_§i_gn or promotional pamphlet 5
MSU Extension Service 5
E-mail list serve 1
Newspaper article 1
Total 20

 

 

 

 

“A fi'iend of mine’s girlfiiend. She was a gardener here at Foster. And
she tried talking me into it one day. She was like, “I’ll be gardening down
there. We can look after each other’s plants”. And you know, by the end
of the night I was signed up for The Garden Project.” — Darren

51

5.3)

“I was talking to a fiiend ofmine and... I was telling himI was gardening
at home but I was sad to be leaving my plants because, you know, I was
moving away fi'om my mom’s house. He said, “Well I’m involved in The
Garden Project” and he gave me, I don’t know, either your information or
a newsletter or something.” - Eve

“There was, for just a short time, maybe two years, there was a
community garden by one of the elementary schools. And the first year
that that opened up, these fiiends of mine, well their neighbors said,
‘Come on have a garden”.” — Nancy

“1 saw a sign about The Garden Project that alluded to growing your own
food. Well that appealed to me a lot because I was very poor at the time.
And I thought, “Wow! You get fiee land and grow your own food. I’m
gonna look into this.” And that’s how I got started.” — Andrea

“I heard about it through the Food Bank. I get food fiom there and there
were some pamphlets telling about the gardens. So I was interested.”

“Well, at one point I was really hard up for money. I was really broke and
I got this thing from. . .. I don’t remember where it was from. It was a
booklet of community resources. So it was just one of the things that I
checked into and it just seemed, you know, a good thing to do.” — Olivia

Gardener Profiles

Four types of data were collected to more fully understand who participates in

The Garden Project. These included: 1) household/demo graphic data; 2) educational

background: 3) prior gardening experience; and 4) food security status. A majority of the

household/demographic data was collected from The Garden Project’s Gardener

Database, which contains self-reported characteristics including household size, income

and race. Home ownership, educational background, prior gardening experience and

food security status were determined during participant interviews and is unavailable for

those individuals not participating in this study.

52

5.3.1) Household Demographics and Sample Representativeness

Specific data on the individuals sampled in this study is displayed in column 4 of
Table 2. The sample is divided into two sub-populations, those individuals who
continued their participation in the program after their first season (column 2) and those
“non-continuing gardeners” who left the program during the gardening season or failed to
return for an additional season (column 3). Table 5.2 also compares the sample to the
entire study population of 42 Foster Park gardeners (column 5) and all 316 community
gardeners registered with The Garden Project in 2002 (column 6).

The data suggests that the sample of gardeners participating in this study fairly
well represent the total study population (i.e., the 42 gardeners) in terms of household
size, income and head of household. A majority of the households consist of only one or
two individuals and are most often headed by a single female. The racial make-up of the
study sample difl‘ers somewhat fiom the total gardener population in that the sample is
predominantly white as opposed to a more racially diverse population.

A comparison between the sample demographics (column 4) and those of the
entire population of cormnunity gardeners registered with the program (column 6)
highlights two primary differences. First, the sample of Foster Park gardeners consists of
smaller household sizes with a majority of the sample representing households headed by
single females as opposed to The Garden Project population in which a majority of
households are headed by married or unmarried couples. Second, the study sample
differs significantly fi'om that of The Garden Project population in terms of racial

characteristics. The study sample represents a significant majority of white households

53

as opposed to the more racially diverse total population of individuals registered with The

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Garden Project.
Table 2: Community Gardener Demggraphics
LAME
Continuing Non- Total Population Garden
Gardeners Continuing Project
Gardeners

Number 13 7 20 42 316
Household Type
Single male with or 8% (l) 14% (1) 10% (2) 20% (8) 11% (34)
without children
Single female with or 62% (8) 29% (2) 50% (10) 42% (18) 26% (81)
without children
Married or unmarried 30% (4) 57% (4) 40% (8) 38% (16) 56% (178)
couple with or without
children
Unknown N/A N/A N/A N/A 7% (23)
Household Size
1 47% (6) 29% (2) 40% (8) 33% (14) 22% (69)
2 15% (2) 43% (3) 25% (5) 29% (12) 26% (81)
3 15% (2) 14% (1) 15% (3) 17% (7) 19% (60)
4 15% (2) 14% (1) 15% (3) 14% (6) 11% (34)
5 or more 8% (1) 0% (0) 5% (1) 7% (3) 16% (51)
Unknown N/A N/A N/A N/A 6% (21)
Household Income
Less than $21,050 77% (10) 43% (3) 65% (13) 64% (27) 49% (156)
$21,051 - $30,050 0% (Q) 0% (0) 0% (0) 5% (2) 13% (40)
$30,051 - $34,850 8% (1) 14% (1) 10% (2) 7% (3) 9% (29)
$34,851 - $39,650 0% (0) 29% (2) 10% (2) 7% (3) 4% (14)
More than $39,651 15% (2) 14% (1) 15% (3) 17% (7) 17% (53)
Unknown N/A N/A N/A N/A 8% (24)
Race
White 84% (l l) 100% (7) 90% (18) 76% (32) 53% (166)
Black 8% (1) 0% (0) 5% (l) 14% (6) 9% (27)
Hispanic 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 2.5% (1) 2% (5)
Asian 8% (1) 0% (0) 5% (l) 2.5% (1) 28% (88)
Other 0% (O) 0% (0) 0% (0) 5% (2) 3% (10)
Unknown N/A N/A N/A N/A 6% (20)

 

54

 

These demographic differences between the study sample, population and the
entire population of community gardeners registered with the program indicate that the
sample is not entirely representative. Therefore, the findings in this chapter as well as
chapter 6 cannot necessarily be generalized to the larger population of the Foster Park
garden and other community gardens administered by the program. However, the
findings of this study provide important new insights into community gardeners,
particularly single-white females.

US Census data (2003) reveals that the residents within Census Tract 12, Ingharn
County, Michigan, in which Foster Park is located, represent the following racial groups:
67.0% white, 26.0% black, 4.9% American Indian and Alaskan Native, 2.0% Asian and
0.1% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander. The average household size is 2.79 individuals
with 21% of households headed by a single female and 31.1% by a married couple. The
median household income is $27,159 with 25% of households earning less than $15,000
per year (U .8. Census, 2003).

The Foster Park garden lies in the center of a neighborhood bounded on the north
by Michigan Avenue, Clemens Street on the west, Interstate 496 on the south and US-127
on the east. Twenty of the gardeners live within this immediate neighborhood placing
them within 1800 feet of the garden. Thirty-one gardeners live within one half mile of
the garden and six gardeners live greater than two miles from the garden.

Of the gardeners interviewed for this study, seven were homeowners during the
time they participated in community gardening activities. All other gardeners rented
either a home or an apartment. In the immediate neighborhood, 57.4% of homes are

owner-occupied and 42.6% are rental units (U .8. Census, 2003). Four of the study

55

participants were foreign nationals hailing fi'om North America, Afiica and Asia.
Additionally the four non-English speaking gardeners excluded from the study were
foreign national fiom Asian countries.
5.3.2) Educational Background

Foster Park is located within one mile of Michigan State University (MSU). As
expected, many of the gardeners are current college students. Eight of the gardeners are
currently pursuing a college education (2 undergraduate and 6 graduate). All but one
gardener has attained some level of college education. Forty percent of study
participants have attained at least a bachelor’s degree and 40% possessing a graduate

degree (Table 3).

Table 3: Educational Profile of Study Participants

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Highest Educational Continuing Non- All Study US. Census

Level Gardeners Continuing Participants Tract Data"
Gardeners

No College 8% (1) 0% (0) 5% (1) 35.4% (811)

Some College 23% (3) 0% (0) 15% (3) 37.3% (856)

Bachelor’s Degree 31% (4) 57% (4) 40% (8) 19.1% (438)

Graduate Degee 38% (5) 43% (3) 40% (8) 8.3% (191)

 

* Census Tract 12, Ingham County, Michigan. Age 25 years and over.

The 2000 United States Census data reveals that 35.4% of residents living within

the Foster Park area (Census Tract 12, Ingham County, Michigan) have no college

experience. Of those residents with college experience, 37.3% attended college but did

not earn a Bachelor’s degree, 19.1% possess a bachelor’s degree and 8.3% possess a

graduate or professional degree (U .8. Census 2003). The educational level of study

participants is generally much higher than the average resident with 80% of Foster Park

gardeners possessing a minimum of a Bachelor’s degree compared to 27.4% of

neighborhood residents.

56

 

5.3.3) Prior Gardening Experience

All of the twenty participants in this study came into the program with some
degree of gardening experience. Eighteen individuals commented tlmt their earliest
gardening experience was with a family garden. While, not all of these individuals firlly
participated in home gardening activities during their youth, it was cited as an important
source of gardening inspiration.

“I gardened with my mother as a kid, I used to dig potatoes with my

grandmother, my great grandmother. I remember digging potatoes with

her.” - Pam

“My parents had a garden when I was a kid and that probably kind of

subconsciously put that in my head, that it was something I wanted to do.”

- Sherry

Those individuals lacking childhood exposure to a garden were exposed to
gardening in their adult lives through friends or other experiences. Eight gardeners also
came into the program with farm related experiences and prior exposure to community
gardens, European-style allotment gardens and community supported agriculture (CSA)
operations.

“I grew up gardening with my mother. And, um she always had a
community gardening spot for years and years when I was a ki .” — Nancy

“In New York where we lived, we were members of a CSA.” — Ben

“I worked on a small organic farm for 6 months in Traverse City.” —
Sherry

For a majority of gardeners, the community garden was their first adult
experience with gardening. These individuals generally possessed few gardening skills
upon their entry into The Garden Project.

“[This was] my first year of really doing my own vegetable garden.”

57

“This year is the first that I’ve ever grown my own garden myself with

vegetables.”

A minority of individuals were however, skilled and knowledgeable gardeners
prior to joining The Garden Project. Three gardeners had completed the University
Extension Master Gardener Program prior to their involvement in The Garden Project. A
fourth gardener holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Agriculture Education. One gardener
described her gardening experience prior to joining The Garden Project. She had 5 years
of serious gardening experience including Master Gardener training and was, “getting
ready to get a greenhouse in and maybe take this commercially and sell at the farmer’s
market, that sort of thing.”

Ten of the study participants have gardened as Foster Park for only one season,
five for two to three seasons and four participants for four to five seasons. One
individual has been gardening in Foster Park for 15 years and has been involved with the
program from its inception over twenty years ago. A majority (14) of study participants
use only one garden plot per season. Five gardeners maintained two plots and one
gardener used three separate plots in both the 2000 and 2001 gardening seasons.

5.3.4) Food Security Status

The original purpose of The Garden Project was to serve low-income households
dependent upon emergency food relief programs such as Food Stamps, food pantries and
community kitchens. A predominantly low-income population, as defined by the United
States Department of Housing and Urban Development (Appendix K), currently uses the
Foster Park Community Garden. Of these, only a fraction of the gardeners have accessed

an emergency food relief program Four of the current Foster Park gardeners interviewed

58

have applied for and received Food Stamps to supplement their food budget. At the time
of the interviews only one of these individuals was currently receiving Food Stamps.
This is consistent with prior estimates that approximately 25% of The Garden Project’s
participants have received emergency food assistance through the GLFB (Chiang et al,
n/d).

Two of the individuals who received Food Stamps commented that they were
diflicult to access and found that food pantries could provide food with fewer hassles.
Olivia commented on her experience with Food Stamps by saying,

“It was a lot of lmssle. I don’t know, maybe it was just me, that I was new
to dealing with it but. . .you call your caseworker or whatever. They never
get back to you or you can’t get in to see them...”

Helen related a similar experience when asked if she had ever received Food Stamps,

“1 did years ago, but I haven’t recently. My car is dead. I don’t have a way to go
and get it.... WhenI was getting it, sometimes it was just so far and of course
back then I was still undergoing reconstructive surgery. I wasn’t as functional as
I am now. I just took my granny cart along. It took me what, 45 minutes to walk
home, no big deal. If it’s raining I’ve got plastic bags to put on the top and the
bottom. But without the car it’s difficult.”

Both Olivia and Helen found other more acceptable sources of food including the
use of their garden plot and a local food pantry. These gardeners, as well as two others,
were the only ones admitting to using a food bank or pantry to supplement their food
budget.

“I do go to a Food Bank just to make sure, you know the Student Food
Bank at MSU. That’s just because, I used to volunteer there but it’s nice
to have you know, just a little bit of extra food so I don’t have to spend the
money on it.” -— Eve

“. . .it’s been since then [1997] that I was going to Saint Vincent and they
give you two bags of what they feel is a reasonable supply. Then they
give you a plastic bag. You have two packs of meat. One is usually
chicken and one is ground beef, may .” — Helen

“Oh, St. Vincent’s they 1mve bread and flour. At one point one week they
would have, or they would just give out whatever. And some times they

59

just had so much stuff that I couldn’t carry it all home.....Yeah, you take a

number and then when they call your number they have this, this and this

and you know...” — Olivia
5.4) Gardener Motivations

Understanding why people choose to participate in community gardening is a
useful starting point in understanding the individual’s experience. Most gardeners gain a
variety of benefits fi'om participation with some benefits acting as primary motivators and
others as secondary motivators. The motivation for and perceived benefits of
participation can be classified into five general categories: access to resources, food-
related, psychological, recreational and social. For example, a gardener may primarily
garden for the benefit of fresh food but also enjoy the social benefits of meeting other
gardeners or gaining access to needed resources that enhance the gardening experience.
The relative importance of a given benefit may also change over time as a factor of the
gardener’s actual experience.

As displayed in Table 4, gardeners commenced community gardening with one
set of expectations. In some cases these expectations were firlly or partially realized. In
other cases the actual benefits proved to quite difl‘erent from the initial set of expected
benefits. Most notably, psychological, social and recreational benefits were more
commonly cited as experienced benefits than as initial motivation in engaging in
community gardening. It is interesting to examine the motivations of the five gardeners
who dropped out of the Garden Project. In three of the cases the gardeners' initial
expectations were not fulfilled but in two cases (Gardeners C & N) the expected benefits
were largely met by actual experience. These two gardeners experienced health problems

that made the physical act of gardening in Foster Park prohrhitive.

60

Table 4: Community Gardener Motivations and Perceived Benefits

Initial Motivations

Actual Benefits

 

#_

Recreational

Psychological

Recreational

Psychological

 

 

><

 

 

 

X X >< Food Economics

>< >< >< Food Economics

 

 

 

>< X X >< >< X X Organic Produce

>< X X X x X Local Produce

>< >< >< >< X X >< Organic Produce

>< ><><><>< >< LocalProduce

 

 

X

 

X

X

X

X

><><>< XX X X

 

X

X

 

E
E
a
o
A
D
E
G
H
I
J
K
M
o
P
R
s

 

X

 

 

X

X

 

 

X

X

X
X

 

Foster Park but remain active

th The Garden Project

 

X£,><><>< ><><><><><><>< >< FreIhProduce

X

X

X

 

PO

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

X1

 

 

X

 

 

 

rk. No longer active with The

Garden Project

 

X

 

X

X

X

 

X

X

X

X

X

 

X

 

n-Iozurrn

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The benefits of participation in The Garden Project, like those of most community
gardens can be classified as being either tangible or intangible. The tangible benefits are
those that can be measured and quantified to some degree. These include the economic

benefits associated with gardeners gaining access to land, tools and information free of

61

charge. In addition to these, access to garden produce, specifically fiesh garden produce
provides people with a tangible benefit.

The intangible benefits are those that cannot accurately be measured or quantified
in a systematic nature. These benefits are typically highly personal and subjectively
valued. The intangible benefits of community gardening include improvements to an
individual’s psychological, recreational and social environment.

5.4.1) Access to Resources

The purpose of The Garden Project is to provide low-income residents with the
resources and support necessary to promote vegetable gardening. Oflicially, the program
supports gardening through the provision of land, tools, supplies and educational support.
Gardeners also report the existence of a third important resource, personal support, which
encourages and motivates them to continue gardening even when faced with hardships.

Physical Resources
The Garden Project’s 2001 Gardener Survey revealed that 74% of all gardeners

received free supplies from The Garden Project warehouse with a majority of these being
seeds, seedlings and fertilizers. Foster Park gardeners generally agree that the project
provides ample resources.

“Because of what was donated to The Garden Project I got to plant a lot of

things that I never would have thought of. I think if I were living in the

city and couldn’t garden, that would be fi'ustrating to me.” — Eve

“I had no idea that there would be so many fi'ee plants I guess. . .. So, it

sort of seems like they had a lot more resources available than I realized

and I ended up duplicating that to a large extent.” — Faith

“Anything I want I can get from the Garden Project.” -— John

“Why wouldn’t you want to do this? You’re given space, you’re given
tools, you’re given seeds, you’re given plants” — Katrina

62

Several gardeners noted that the Garden Project made gardening afl‘ordable thanks
to the distribution of fi'ee garden supplies.

“The resources that you offer to people is incredible. . . We didn’t have
tools and hadn’t thought about investing any money into things like that.
You know, to be able to come and have a plot where peOple are providing
you with tools and seeds to get started is just incredible.” — Lily

“You don’t have to have any experience to garden here. You don’t have
to have any money; you don’t have to have anything.” - Sherry

“Well the project itself, I think is fantastic because if you don’t have a lot
of money it really helps you get started on a garden where as if you had to
buy all your own tools and all your own starter plants it might be
overwhelming and you’d never start. It might not be feasible because
there is that big output of money in May and June and you might not have
that much to spend. Then you’d be stuck.” — Gina

The availability of The Garden Project’s resources is also regarded as an
important benefit that makes community gardening more attractive than home gardening.

“1 mean one of the real benefits of a community garden is that local

businesses donate and you can get transplants and seeds and you can

borrow equipment when you need it. When you’re on your own its not
available. You know what, the other thing that’s wonderful about this

particular community garden? I had used the pressure canner a number of

times and that’s an expensive piece of equipment. .. It’s certainly not in

my budget, this year, or last year or the year before.” — Nancy

“1 think, unless I had a really good space at home I’d use the community

garden because of all the resources.” — Iris

The second major resource provided by The Garden Project is access to land
suitable for gardening. While a majority of gardeners rent their home or live in an
apartment building without access to a private lawn, access to a gardening space is a

basic need shared by all participants. For these individuals, The Garden Project provides

a highly valued resource, making gardening a possibility.

63

“It was definitely nice to lmve a place to go because I have a basement

apartment and that’s it. . .. There was absolutely no other way that I would
have been able to do that [garden] otherwise. To me, there was a very big
difl‘erence between having a basement apartment and then having a garden

space.” — Faith

“Most of the people are doing this gardening I think because they don’t
have space at their own house. So, its kind of a substitute for home
garden.” — John

“I mean, I probably could talk my landlord into giving me some space but

I don’t even want to. Now, my mom’s got a big yard. . .but you know it
takes me 45 minutes to get out there.”

— Olivia

Home ownership is enjoyed by only seven of the gardeners. Despite this luxury,
yards in the Foster Park neighborhood tend to be small and largely shaded by mature
trees. These facts make home gardening difficult if not impossible and while
homeowners tend to have better incomes, without The Garden Project, they would have
little if any opportunity to garden.

“I have just a little tiny yard, it’s just really tiny. . .. I would definitely feel

the loss if I couldn’t grow my own vegetables just because I live in the

city and have a dinky yard. Cause, I almost didn’t buy the house because

of that, because the yard was too small.” — Pam

“In my backyard I was running out of sunny spots. I thought, “Oh this

will be great, I can have a nice big vegetable garden of my own.” -

Tammy

“I’ve got my backyard garden but with the trees around, it limits what I
can grow.” — Helen

Educational Support: Formal Aspects
Providing educational assistance to gardeners is the second form of gardening
support offered by the program. These efforts appear to be working given that seventeen

gardeners report that their community gardening experience helped them to improve their

gardening skills. Formal educational support is provided to gardeners through the
distribution of informational newsletters, workshops, a demonstration garden, access to
the warehouse’s lending library and program staff and volunteers. These efi’orts
constitute a significant proportion of the program’s human and financial resources.
Community gardening at Foster Park also creates additional, non-formal
opportunities for gardener education. These informal educational opportunities are
largely experiential in nature as gardeners simply learn through trial and error and simple

observation of the garden and the actions of others. Conversations with fellow gardeners

 

1‘ ......

and random interactions with staff members also prove to be important sources of valued
and credible information. These informal aspects appear to be a much more significant
component of the gardener education process than the formal aspects.
Newsletter

The Garden Project distributes 10 newsletters each season to all Foster Park
gardeners via the US. Postal Service. The newsletters contain a significant amount of
timely gardening tips designed to assist inexperienced gardeners in overcoming current
garden problems as identified by staff and gardeners, numerous recipes and invitations to
attend workshops and promotional events. The newsletters also contain numerous
references to the Foster Park warehouse, encouraging gardeners to visit and take
advantage of the resources. While the 2001 Gardener Survey reveals that over 90% of
gardeners find the newsletter to be both interesting and helpful, only one Foster Park
gardener made reference to the newsletter during the interview.

“Actually I think the newsletter was nice. I never really used any

um...this is, I never used any...I found it had some nice, um recipes and
things. But I never used them myself I did read it occasionally.” — Quirm

65

Workshops
The development and delivery of gardening related workshops represents a

second rmjor educational effort. These fi'ee workshops are generally scheduled to cover
seasonally important issues such as seed starting in the early spring, pest control during
mid-summer and harvesting and food preservation during late summer. During the 2001
season, The Garden Project offered three workshops focusing on seed-starting, pest
control, canning and fi'eezing. The seed-starting workshop was held in early April and

was attended by approximately 20 gardeners. However, for the pest-control and canning

 

and fieezing workshops were attended by only one and two gardeners respectively.

In 2002, The Garden Project received additional program fimding to revamp its
gardener education programs. A majority of these efforts focused on expanding the
number of workshops and improving gardener access program resources. As a result,
The Garden Project hosted eight workshops and demonstrations. These workshops
included two seed-starting demonstrations, seed saving, harvesting/food preservation,
two new gardener orientations and two informal gardener forums. To improve access,
seven of these events were held at the Foster Park warehouse and demonstration gardens.
A total of 49 gardeners attended these seven events.

Six gardeners, each of whom attended a workshop, identified workshops as
sources of pertinent gardening information. These individuals generally agree that the
workshops are useful and accessible.

“The classes are offered and every year they ask, you know, is there
something you want. Let us know. So the door is open.” - Helen

“Oh, the seed starting workshop. That was great too. I never, I tried it this
year and I’ll probably do a lot more next year. I never tried that before.”
- Gina

66

“And I took this freezing and drying class and that’s been really helpful.”
- Iris

However, three gardeners (two of which have attended a workshop) noted that
they are not necessarily practical or convenient.

“I’ve been a pretty busy person, it’s been very hard for me to participate in
structured events that The Garden Project has sponsored....I went to
several of those and learned a lot there, almost overload on those events
[laughs] It just can’t soak in, there’s just so much information that you
know, kind of becomes counterproductive after a point because you can’t
absorb that much, that quick. But urn, here, you know it’s uh, kind of
move at your own pace.” — Andrea

“I think that, I know that they offer workshops. I know that that is useful

however, they are not necessarily practical. I often say, ‘yeah I’d love to

can my tomatoes or yeah, I love to do this” but part of it is time constraint

on my own life. It’s just to busy to sit there, to even take time and go and

learn.” — Katrina

“Well, the problem is you know, the workshops are usually at night and

my nights are pretty firll. And you know I don’t get down here in the

evenings. I’m usually working or in the middle of a project and uh, you

know I don’t need to go to. A, I don’t have time and I know pretty much

everything they’ll be teaching at the workshop.” - Darren
Demonstration Garden

Michigan State University Extension trained Master Gardener vohmteers maintain
both a demonstration vegetable garden plot and perennial flower garden in Foster Park.
During the 2001 season, Master Gardener volunteers used the demonstration garden to
ilhrstrate the use of various types of mulches. The demonstration plot, which is
prominently located and accessible, included signs describing the mulching techniques
and the purpose of the demonstration. The Garden Project encouraged gardeners to visit
the demonstration plot through articles in the newsletter and e-mail messages. Master

Gardener volunteers were available to answer questions during normal warehouse hours.

67

During the 2002 gardening season, the Master Gardener volunteers focused a
nurjority of their efforts on the perennial flowerbeds. Because of this shift in priorities
only halfof the demonstration vegetable plot was planted by a volunteer. However,
during mid-summer, this individual notified The Garden Project that she would no longer
be involved. Maintenance and harvesting then became the responsibility of the
Community Organizer. As a result, the educational potential of the garden was
squandered.

“Last year, I thought they had somebody that did that vegetable plot

[demonstration garden] and they kept it up pretty good. This year it was

just nothing. I think it’s sad. You know that was a good plot and it was

easy to water. Maybe somebody else could have been using that. And I

don’t think those plots had as many weeds in them and so forth.” — Rachel
Warehouse Library and Interactions with Gardeners and Sta_fi

Two additional aspects of educational support include access to printed gardening
information and conversations with Garden Project staff at the warehouse. Access to
printed materials including books, magazines, Extension Bulletins, seed catalogs and
brochures is generally limited to the seasonal hours that the warehouse is open. Staff
members including the Community Organizer, Director, Gleaning Supervisor and Oflice
Support personnel are accessible by telephone and e-mail Monday through Friday fiom
8am until Sprn. Staff can also be contacted during the hours of operation at the
warehouse and during intermittent garden visits. Gardeners generally value the
information provided by the staff and warehouse volunteers.

“1 think you did a good job telling people what to expect, like how it

worked, where your plot would be and what the rules were in the garden.

What to expect with like, the dryness of the summer and what to expect

from the community around. They might walk through and pick stuff and
so I sort of shaped my garden based on that.” - Eve

68

 

“. . .The people working in the warehouse Ind different tips of what to
do. . .. The warehouse was giving us information on how to deal with it
[insect damage] in an organic way.” — Lily

“I just read the little book that you had given me fi'om The Garden Project
and I think it helped here because I was doing it myself.” — Sherry

Educational Support: Informal Aspects

Gardener education is achieved primarily through informal methods such as
simple trial and error, observation and conversation with other gardeners. Gardeners
generally find these methods to be the most usefirl and appropriate.
Trial and error

Trial and error is a valued form of gardener education. This method of

experiential learning is widely practiced by gardeners.

“I just thought, “No, I’m just gonna try this.” And a lot of things worked
out nicely. There were a lot of things where I had no idea they would be
so big or so small and I would probably do that again, just refining the
basic trial and error.” — Faith

“There are certain things I planted that never came up. I’m like ‘Vvhat,
what did I do wrong?” [laughs] Carrots, my carrots never came up. Then I
just started noticing if I planted and the soil was right and it rained at it
was you know, everything was right it would work. So over the summer I
would just be much more aware of the weather and the wetness and howl
could save time. If I did something at the right time it just worked out so
much better.” — Iris

“It’s always a learning experience. It’s always something new each
year. . . I read a lot but book knowledge doesn’t do squat. I think you
really need to go out there and get in the garden and do stuff. Really all
the book knowledge in the world isn’t going to do anything when you
don’t get rain for two months.”

- Katrina

“I just got used to the idea that everything you try is an experiment and to
accept the fact that it’s not going to work, it’s never gonna work the way
you think it is. But, every time you do it, you’ll learn something that will

help you do better the next time.” — Pam

69

 

Obseryation of other gardeners

Gardeners gain a great deal of experience through the careful observation of their
plot and those of their neighbors. Observation inspires gardeners to attempt new
techniques and avoid pitfalls. Gardeners enter the program possessing a broad array of
gardening experiences as evidenced by the unique design, mix of planting material and
cultivation techniques found in the individual garden plots. This diversity in gardening
techniques provided an excellent opportunity for learning through observation for eight
of the gardeners.

“You learn what works and what doesn’t. Just by doing, watching others.

Seeing what other people have done sort of gives you ideas.” - Ben

“I had no idea that you actually could pack so much into such a small

space. They had an interesting way of alternating things so that they, and

stringing ofl‘ different areas so they had control over exactly what was in

what location. So, seeing the layout of other ones [gardens] was

interesting.” — Faith

“[1 learn] mostly by kind of watching what other people do and what they
succeed with. Yeah, I have learned a few things from that.” - Pam

“We like to see if this works better than this or the other, what and how

and all this stufl’. And you like to watch somebody else do something if

you’re not doing it, to see what they can come up with.” — Rachel
Conversations with other ganleners

Informal conversations with fellow gardeners are another significant method of
gardener education. The presence of other gardeners facilitates conversation and learning
in the garden. Conversation allows people to both ask questions about the gardening

techniques they observe and to explain their own methods to others. Conversations with

fellow gardeners is the most valued method of informal gardener education.

70

 

“. . . I’ve gotten all the knowledge I can get from a book. Now it’s to the
point where I have to go and interact with people to find something.” —
Katrina

“But I gardened with my mother from the time I was a little kid and I can
remember a couple of years ago I was out here in my spot gardening away
and um, there were a couple of new people, you know in a plot near mine.
I hadn’t met them and they started talking, we were talking and they
started talking about what they were going to plant, what we were going to
do. And they said, “Wow, how do you know how to do all this stuff?” I
was like, “I don’t know. How do I know how to do all this stuff?” .. .And
then I realized I learned everything fiom my mother. You know, just kind
of observed it.” — Nancy

“The Garden Project was nice because it was there but it was the people

involved with The Garden Project that really offered the skills. So it was

nice because you got different opinions.” — Quinn
Motivational Supmrt

The importance of informal means of gardener education shows that community
gardening provides participants with more than simply the physical resources and formal
educational support sanctioned by The Garden Project. Community gardening provides
the environment in which people can develop and benefit fi'om a motivational support
structure of their peers and staff members. Seeing the successes of other gardeners and
realizing that others face the same difficulties helps people to understand that gardening
success is possible and that hurdles can be overcome. For four of the gardeners, this
creates a sense of mutual support that motivates continued participation in the program

“I wanted to have a community spot as well [as a home garden] because I

felt the support was so strong in being able to do it there [Foster Park].

The processes are made easier for you somehow. You know, you come,

it’s cleared, you’re doing it with people. There’s a sort of level of
motivation and assistance that helps you to go fi'om one point to the next.”

- Lily
“You know it was really helpfuL especially the first couple of years to be

in a community garden as opposed to doing it on my own, was having
people to talk to about things that are different in Michigan fi'om

71

 

Minnesota. That was pretty helpful I think. I probably could have figured
it out on my own but that would have been more work. So I especially
appreciated that.” — Nancy

“I feel like the garden program is so supportive... I feel like there was
always so much support and encouragement. I really appreciate that. I
mean, it’s helped me out at times...It’s encouraged me to keep gardening
even at times where I felt like I couldn’t.” — Iris

“. . .What an incredible resource The Garden Project has been and how
easy everybody has made it for me and how supportive. I mean it’s just
been an incredible support network for me to learn more and meet the

people that I live by... I’m really glad that The Garden Project is here so
that I can do it myself. I can keep growing as a gardener, I can keep

learning as a gardener, it’s been really encouraging.” - Sherry
5.4.2) Food Access

Since The Garden Project promotes itselfas an organization dedicated to
“Helping people grow their own food” it is not surprising that the food-related benefits of
community gardening were nearly universal motivating factors behind gardener
participation. Community gardening programs, including The Garden Project, generally
promote the idea of increasing food self-reliance toward the goal of self-sufficiency.
There is however, little evidence that Foster Park gardeners are motivated to achieve this
goal of self-sufficiency. None of the gardeners revealed that food self-sufficiency was
either a motivation to join or a reality of participation (Table 5.4). While some gardeners
did produce a significant quantity of flesh vegetables, it is unlikely that the Foster Park
Community Garden plays a significant role in the total quantity of food consumption.
Program-wide, gardener estimates of the per plot value of garden produce hovered under
$50 in 2001 with over 50% of gardeners feeling unsatisfied with their garden yield.

In terms of food-related benefits, the true strength of community gardening is that

it provides people with the opportunity to gain a greater degree of control over their food

72

choices. This includes access to affordable, locally grown, fresh and often organically
produced vegetables. Providing gardeners with greater access to these high-quality foods
benefits the gardeners through an improvement in diet and personal satisfaction. It is this
importance of food quath that is the primary food-related benefit of community
gardening.
Improved diets

Nine gardeners noted that community gardening plays an important role in
improving access to fresh vegetables which may in turn, increase the consumption of
vegetables and by adding variety to the diet.

“It has taken me back to the way I grew up. It has improved my diet since
I moved away fiom home.” — Helen

“It definitely changes my diet. Like, whatever is growing in my garden.
When I had beans, I ate beans everyday, I’m eating tomatoes everyday
now and greens” — Iris

“I definitely have a larger quantity of flesh vegetables than I would
usually buy for myself. I don’t usually go out and buy cherry tomatoes,
but I come home with handfuls. I would say that I have more fresh
vegetables.” - Eve

For several gardeners, gardening provides an added dietary benefit as people seek
out new ways to incorporate their produce into their diet.

“I ended up, yeah, making things to incorporate what I had grown.”
- Faith

“1 mean I still have to buy meat and fruit. But I’ve made more vegetarian
dishes and found that I don’t need meat. It’s good, why would I need
that? It’s better than hamburgers.” — Gina

“So, as far as cooking, I ended up having more diversity in the vegetables
that I was using because they were the plants that were provided. So I
was exploring the palate of the different vegetables that either I hadn’t
known before and there were different kinds of squas ” — Quinn

73

“Yeah you know I was never really a squash eater. It was when I grew
some last year. No the year before that, and cooked it. I don’t even know
why I grew it. I think there was just some here and I stuck it in the ground
and, and then I realized how good it was.” — Pam
Control over food choices
While a majority of gardeners lmve access to sufficient quantities of food, they
often feel that they do not have suflicient access to quality foods. Quality foods include i
fi'esh vegetables and organically grown/pesticide-free produce. Additionally, gardening

allows people to control the specific varieties that they consume. The gardeners are

generally otherwise prohibited access to these foods due to the high costs or the lack of

 

availability at local markets.
“When you’re on disability, when you don’t always get the kinds of food
through other people that you would buy for yourself, to me gardening is
that important. and you’re not stuck with what somebody else put on
the shelf; not being able to ask any questions and having to take it or leave
it.” — Helen
“I would have liked to eat more organic produce and organic produce is
expensive so it’s a good way of doing that. It’s a good way of doing that.
You know, ordinarily to make the budget go you rmybe would be buying
non-organic food. So, it has increased the quality of the food for the
family to eat.” — Lily
Control over Production
A majority of gardeners in this study are skeptical of the quality and
social/environmental costs associated with contemporary food production. The
act of gardening is a personal form of food production in which the gardener has
complete control over the method of production. Locally grown and organically
produced vegetables are highly valued by 13 of the 20 community gardeners

interviewed. Gardening allows these individuals to circumvent this system by

providing foods that are personally acceptable to the individual. This increased

74

personal control over food choices provides the individual with a sense of control
and peace of mind.
“You’re not at the mercy of a large firm.” — Ben

“You sit there and you think about lettuce and even if you go to the local
store and you buy that little tray of organic lettuce that you get from
Earthfield Farm or where ever the hell it is, from California. I buy that
and it’s great but how do I know it’s not an organic fictory firm?”

— Katrina

“I wanted to be more in control over where my food came from, because
it’s a big concern for me.” — Sherry

“Oh, well, I try to eat organic and I can’t eat organic unless I grow it. I
can’t afford the food costs, you know. That’s just over my head. . . In an
ideal world, I’d love to see bio-regionalism and sustainable agriculture
here. But at this point I think we’re just lucky to get it fi'om anywhere. I
know a lot of things are grown in Mexico now and that’s crazy. I mean
the amount of resources you’re using to truck them across country is just

’9

Insane.
- Crystal

“It’s given me practical means to do something about my desire to eat
healthy food, to have some control over you know, the food that I eat and
there is nothing that tastes better lot of times and you have control, you
know what goes into the food you are eating.” - Andrea

“..You know you get things shipped in from some other country or other
state and yeah, you don’t know what it’s been exposed to. You don’t
know the environment it’s grown in, you don’t know how many hands
have been on it.” — Helen

Control Over Variety

Gardening allows people to control the specific vegetable varieties that
they grow and eat rather than relying upon the relatively narrow selection found
in food stores. This is another form of improving personal control over food
production.

“Well peppers are an example. I suppose you could buy several different
varieties but there are so many available to grow that it was kind of nice to
have a few different and try them out.” — Faith

75

“If I go to the grocery store and I see vegetables sitting there and I don’t
know anything about them, I’m not very likely to buy them unless they
have some recipe sitting there and I’m bold enough to try it. But if I have
these vegetables sitting here and they’re just going to go bad and
somebody says, “Oh, you ever tried eggplant parrnesan? You don’t even
need meat.” — Quinn

“It’s just as easy to try several different varieties as one if you’re doing it
yourself. So, I mean just controlling what you plant controls what you
have access to.” - Faith

Control Over Taste

Gardeners generally agree that the taste of flesh vegetables is superior to

tlfit of store-bought and commercially produced varieties. With the exception of

two gardeners, cormnercial varieties of vegetables are viewed as inferior in

quality to garden produced vegetables.

“I have an opportunity to grow my own tomatoes instead of eating that
crap you buy at the store. Why wouldn’t you want to garden? Why
wouldn’t you want to do this?” — Katrina

“Yeah and I don’t normally eat squash but this summer I ate tons of
squash. It just tastes so much better than if you buy it.” - Gina

“I eat fi'esh vegetables all the time so I could get it at Meijers
[supermarket] but it’s much cooler to have something I’ve grown. . ..they
taste better because vegetables in the grocery store are picked earlier and
they ripen in transport. So when you get them out of your garden,
especially tomatoes, they taste totally different. Same with carrots.” — Eve

Abundance

Several gardeners expressed a sense of surprise upon discovering that the garden

provides an unexpected bounty of produce. This abundance inspired new and

inexperienced gardeners to continue with the program Since the garden produces more

food than can be consumed by the gardener, it provides people with the opportunity to

share their food with others.

76

“It was nice because I was able to grow a lot of things in abundance where
I would have only bought one or two. You know to last several weeks.
And to have. . .it just wasn’t much more efl‘ort to have, say tomatoes, to
plant many of them rather than just a couple.” — Faith

“Usually if you do well with the garden you can get more than you just
need for yourself.” — John

“I didn’t think I’d be as successful as I was this first year. That was kind
of nice for my first garden. I expected some things to die or they wouldn’t
make it, especially some of the things I’d never grown before like
cauliflower, broccoli, cabbage.” - Gina

“The first year that we gardened we had no idea what would happen. We

couldn’t believe the rate of growth. . .. even just the quantity of growth, I
couldn’t believe it... and we had a lot of produce there that we didn’t

collect one year and I’d have been happy if someone took some of it.”

- Lily
5.4.3) Psychological Benefits

Gardening provides a number of psychological benefits. These include a sense of
accomplishment or pride emanating fi'om the gardening experience, feelings of relaxation
and the enjoyment of the aesthetics and creative nature of gardening. For some,
gardening is also an important part of the individual’s identity creating a positive effect
on mental health and a sense of well-being.
Sense of Accomplishment

Gardening is often a challenging activity. Successfirl vegetable gardening is
dependent upon not only the skill and knowledge of the gardener, but also upon luck.
Weather, pests, vandals, disease and a host of other relatively uncontrollable fictors work
to make gardening a challenging activity for even the most experienced and competent
gardener. Most gardeners experience some level of fi'ustration over their inability to
maintain complete control over their plot. Over-coming a host of barriers and seeing

one’s efl’orts produce beautiful flowers or edible vegetables they feel an often-

77

overwhelming sense of pride and accomplishment that leads to an improved sense of self-
confidence.

“Gardening is work, people sometimes, for whatever reason, don’t want to
do that work. Even I know people that do garden get real enthusiastic and
then the long haul comes and they let it go. They don’t stick with it. Um,
that’s kind of the part I enjoy, because I’m the kind of person that, once I
start something, I try to stick with it, try to learn something and it makes
me feel good to be able to do that.” — Andrea

“It [gardening] showed me that I’m capable of going out in the garden and
producing stuff. Like every time I go out in the garden I pick something
and go, “This came fi'om my garden!” I always showed people when I got
home like this is really cool. So I feel more capable. . .But I like the idea
of being able to go out, put my time in and get fresh stuff out of it.” — Eve

“It gives peace of mind, it makes one a more content person, it gives you
that little bit of independence feeling, you know, at least I can do this for
myself.” - Helen

“Well it’s so rewarding. I felt like all the time I put in I got back like four
fold. Beautiful tomatoes. So it just made me want to spend more time
there... I mean, because I feel like it was so fi'ustrating and I’m so proud
of myself that I grew something to eat.... I just felt so pleased that I’d been
able to grow this stuff. It’s not easy.” — Iris

“It’s nice to see the fruit of your labors. No pun intended. It’s just a good
feeling to know that, “Wow I grew this!”.. I gain confidence through my
actions of gardening. . . There is a satisfiction in eating something that
you’ve grown.” — Katrina

“I think of it as a positive experience because it is a nice symbol and
shows people that if you put an effort forward, you can get something
back.” — Quinn

“1 think the top thing is seeing what I’ve done and knowing that I did it
myself. . .. The growing your own food, the seeing what you can do with
your own hands and seeing how, just with a little bit of extra time what
you can do by yourself and you know, making people feel good about that.
It makes people feel a bit more in control maybe of their lives. . . It feels
really good when I see people driving by and they pick their head up even
if they don’t know what I’m doing out there” — Sherry

78

Relaxation

The garden also provides an important environment in which a gardener can relax
and recover fi'om stress. Gardening is an important personal therapeutic activity that
provides people with a sense of peacefulness and calm apart fiom their everyday stresses.

“It’s nice being able to go out there and relax. I remember some of the

best times I had early spring was when it was just a cool morning and the

sun was up. One of those early summer late spring days when you know

it’s going to warm up eventually but it’s kind of misty in the morning and

you just go sit in the garden and it’s quite and you’re weeding or pulling

peas and it’s beautiful.” — Katrina

“I mean it was just a really nice stress reliever. Calming. During a busy

day it was just nice to go to the garden. . .. It’s therapeutic, getting your

hands dirty.” — Ben

“I really had a lot to work with and that was certainly a big stress reliever
for me once I was there. That was really a big benefit.” - Faith

“I’m growing it [garden] because gardening is very healing, it’s

meditative. I like, it’s good for the mind, body and spirit but it’s also good

for the tummy. . ..Feeling good within yourself. ....Um, spiritual,

meditative, calming.” - Helen

“It was just a relaxing place for me to go in the garden. This was not

vegetable this was just flower and I don’t know. Sometimes it just helped

me to keep my sanity I think.” — Rachel
Worldview

One benefit of community gardening is that allows individuals to act upon their
worldview or personal belief system Seven of the Foster Park gardeners can be
described as “Bohemians”, self-directed individuals who make personal choices
consistent with their ideals rather than those that are socially dominant while placing a
high value on life’s simple pleasures.

“I haven’t exactly taken a vow of poverty, but I’ve enjoyed not having to

worry if my stocks were doing okay in the market, you know, my land,
here, you know, I’ve kept it pretty low-key. As long as I can pay my bills

79

and have time to do gardening and you know, writing poetry and spending
quality time associating with fiiends and practicing yoga, I find it
produces a pretty happy existence.” — Andrea

“I was gonna say, the girls that I was living with, one of them, she thinks
of herself as a hippie. She wears tie-dye and you know wears all sorts of
paisley and stuff. That’s totally cool but um like I sort of, I think of
myself sort of in those terms but not really. Like, I don’t wear that. I
don’t have to subscribe to that whole idea of it, like whatever the
stereotype is. One of my fiiends came out to the garden with me. She
said, “you sew, you cook, you garden, you’re more of a hippie than she
is.” [laughs] So, I keep going back to that and not to toot my own horn
but I think that’s more what it’s about. Not the image, I’m more into the
real stuff.” - Eve

“I just don’t embrace some people’s values of how to raise a good crop.
My values are very different.” — Helen

These individuals are generally well educated yet choose low-income occupations
and lifestyles. They generally hold negative attitudes towards the dominant American
social, economic and political system and value local, community-based systems.

“I don’t like big corporations, just in general. Because they move into a
town and they sort of destroy all the local stuff, local infiastructure.
That’s frustrating. I go to Meijer because I need stuff but I’d prefer to go
to the local store you know, just for the community's sake.” — Eve

“You know, it’s just really too bad. We’ve got a really manageable sized
city and I don’t think anybody really pays attention to what’s the
possibility here. I think people are just really blind Capitalists in this area
thanks to Oldsmobile and the big institutions.” — Crystal

Gardening supports their lifestyle by providing an expression of their beliefs.

“I just think it’s so important to be involved with, giving yourself some
chance to work with plants and the earth because that’s just becoming so
under rated in our society. We’ve become people who spend more and
more time on telephones and in front of computer screens. I mean look at
the obesity problem we have in this society and gardening definitely is a
blow against the problems of sitting in fi'ont of computer screens so much
and on the telephone so much, I’m sure there’s gonna be cell phones
[laughs hard] in the garden. . .. It [gardening] helps me walk my talk yeah,

80

if you will and I hope to always be involved in gardening till I die, pass on
to the next life whatever.”
— Andrea

Gardening as aform of personal identity

For some, gardening is an integral part of their self-identity. Having access to
garden is an important component of their life. Gardening allows these individuals to
feel connected to their cultural past and their families.

“If you look at my roots, that’s the way I grew. You know, you are what
you are.” — Helen

“Having access to a garden, I think, is important to a fimily. . ..Yeah and
gardening it’s sort of something that roots you again really.” -— Lily

“In my country, Zimbabwe, everybody is a gardener. . . ..That’s how people
live in Zimbabwe. People do their own, they grow their own crops, their
own processing. It’s not like here where we buy food fi'om the shops, no.
They grow their own food there. So I was used to being with my mom,
sending me to the garden to gather food. When I came here it was most
difficult for me, I wasn’t able to do it.” — Mary

“You see, I grew up participating in the community gardens. To me it’s
kind of like riding a bike. It’s just something you do when you live in a
city. I mean I kinda grew up with the idea of growing vegetables and
canning and freezing. So to me it’s almost up there like wearing clothes,
you know it’s just what you do.” — Nancy

“Other people, you know, didn’t grow up with gardening, their parents

might not cook, so they just don’t know how to do it. It’s not just hard,

it’s just that they don’t know how and they don’t think of that as part of

what an adult person does. It’s not part of their identity. It’s definitely

part of mine.” — Eve
Creativity and Aesthetics

Gardening provides a creative outlet and the opportunity for people to enjoy the
aesthetic beauty that gardens provide. Gardening provides a form of personal inspiration

and provides people with an opportunity to enjoy the aesthetic quality of plants. One

81

gardener uses her prominently located plot to display a piece of stained glass artwork
surrounded by a carefully arranged flower bed.

“You know, the inspiration of doing it makes you do it. It’s not something
that should be a chore... The main draw I think was the whole you know,
creating this, well creating a garden. Enjoying this place where you could
go and just, it’s almost like playing.” — Quinn

“[Gardening] keeps your hands and hopefully your soul in touch with the
creative Eart ” — Andrea

“The joy of gardening is kind of intangible. Everybody has the own
different perception about what that really is. So it’s not real easy to
describe in words. That’s the best part of gardening. You can’t get that
anywhere else.” —Katrina

Mental Health

Gardening also contributes to an overall sense of well-being and promotes good
mental health. Gardening has helped two gardeners to cope with and overcome episodes
of serious psychological depression. For another, gardening has helped to recover some
degree of mental health that was damaged as a result of a serious accident.

“Spiritually, emotionally it’s healthy. That’s what I would say the
experience is about. Spiritually, emotionally it’s healthy. That’s what I
would say the experience is about. . .I would have sufl’ered depression, I
would have had ill health without The Garden Project. I was very
depressed at arriving here [in America] and living in a small apartment.”
_ Lily

“I’ve had trouble with depression, uh and gardening has always helped
with that. I haven’t ever been depressed when I was gardening. . .In all
honesty and sincerity and seriousness, um, just the quality of time, just
doing it, growing a garden whether it contributes a whole gigantic amount
to a food budget, which it will and it can quite a bit. Just the, the
contribution to mental health, to spiritual health is what community
gardens provide to a community is probably as important as anything.”

— Andrea

“You see, I was hit by the drunk driver and I had a lot of blows to the

head. I’ve had to re-learn so much. It’s not that I didn’t ever know but it
was lost to me. I was re-exposed to what I used to know. It’s like, “yeah,

82

I used to know that.” I needed that. It [gardening] opened a door of

learning or re-learning that I really needed. The kinds of things I wanted

to hold onto that I had lost with all the bangs on the head. It’s back again.

I like that.” — Helen
5.4.4) Recreational Benefits

Study participants generally perceive gardening as a form of recreation and not
simply a food-production activity. As a form of recreation, gardening provides several
personal benefits. First, gardening provides people with an excuse to spend time in the
out of doors. Second, it represents a time to enjoy the nurturing of plants and an
opportunity to connect with the natural world. Finally, gardening provides people with a
no-cost and healthy form of physical exercise.

“It’s a nice past time. It’s the most popular form of recreation in this

country and a majority of that is flower gardening. But you get a reward

just as much with firm, tomatoes or broccoli just as you would with the

blooms of a flower.” - Katrina
Outdoor Commitment

Having access to quality outdoor recreation opportunities is an important part of
the life of graduate students who spend much of their day indoors. While the Foster Park
area offers numerous “traditional” recreational opportunities including basketball hoops,
children’s play equipment and baseball diamonds; the community garden is the
neighborhood’s only public opportunity for gardening. Successful gardening requires a
personal commitment to tend and cultivate on a regular basis. For individuals seeking
such an outlet, gardening provides an important chance to free themselves fiom the daily

grind. One gardener was specifically drawn into The Garden Project as a means of

coping with a difficult post-graduate assignment.

83

“Mainly, or to a large part, because of what I do all day, I’m never outside.
80 it was really nice to have some commitment where I needed to be
outside.” — Faith

“But mostly it’s just so different from everything I do. It’s like I get to
take a break, I get to be outside and I get to do something that you know,
the garden is beautiful and the food is beautifirl. When things are not
going well with my work, I have an oflice in the basement, and all of my
work is around just like writing articles and working on a computer. It’s a
nice break fiom that and it produces something that is totally different
fiom my work... Like I can’t imagine not having a garden because it’s
my excuse to be outside.” — Iris

“The reason 1 garden, it was mostly because I like being outside” — Eve
Nurturing plants

Gardening is the act of nurturing plants. Many Foster Park gardeners experience
a sense of fiscination and are awed by the cycle of plant growth and the feeling of being
connected with the natural world. While the Foster Park neighborhood contains a
significant amount of green space, most of it is in the form of relatively sterile looking
open grass fields dotted with the occasional shade or ornamental tree. Gardening
provides people with a healthy alternative to this environment and an opportunity to learn
about the cycle of life.

“Growing, seeing things go from seed. The growing experience, the

nurturing, the complexities of helping things to grow well and eating the

food that you’ve grown.” — Lily

“I specifically decided to come back because it’s nice to grow things. . ..

It’s kind of comforting, tending something. It involves a huge investment

at the beginning of the season and a pretty large one at the end of the

season if you’re trying to process or collect your harvest but relatively

when it’s in the ground and you just watch it grow, it’s pretty miraculous

to stick a seed in some soil and add some water and light and bam you got

food.” — Katrina

“I think the thing that threw me into it was just being outside, to watch

something grow and eat it in the end. I think that is one of the neatest
experiences that most people don’t have. You know their parents didn’t

84

garden or you know, they’ve never watched something grow, they’ve
never cared for something like that. I think just that whole experience
would be the best thing. ...You know plant, something, watch it, take care
of it and to have something like that, that you can commit to. That’s kind
of an important part of it too. You know you can plant a garden but have
to keep going back. That’s an important skill to learn for life in gener .”
— Eve

“I enjoy watching the whole cycle, putting seeds in the ground, preparing
the soil, putting seeds in the ground, watching the plants come up and
weeding, then maturation where they produce fi'uit, then dwindling and
death, you know, fill and winter, and then the whole cycle beginning
again, the rebirth of spring. I just think it’s so important to be involved
with, giving yourself some chance to work with plants and the earth
because that’s just becoming so under rated in our society.” — Andrea

Connection with nature

Gardening provides an opportunity for wildlife enthusiasts to enjoy a bit of nature
in the urban environment. Two Foster Park gardeners are extremely interested in
promoting the welfire of wildlife and took steps to provide drinking water sources for
songbirds and squirrels. One gardener placed floating wooden stakes inside the water
barrels to allow birds the ability to access the water without becoming trapped in the
barrel. Another gardener installed a shallow plastic bowl near the edge of the garden and
dutifufly kept it full of water for use by birds and squirrels.

“You sit out there and the birds are in there and there are insects in there

and you don’t see that anywhere else in the park. I mean yeah there are

birds and butterflies throughout the park because there is grass and trees

and open areas and closed areas, but they are very attracted to that. So

that’s also attractive to me. . .. It’s just nice to sit amongst the birds and the

plants and all the other things.” — Katrina

“There might be an inclination to grow your food and want to produce a
lot but also it’s because of the connection we have with the Earth.” — Lily

“And because I can plant and can do things there that will provide habitat
for birds and little animals in the city. And you know, I think that’s really
important for cities to try to get more spaces back to the point where, you
know, they are welcoming to butterflies and birds and that sort of thing.”

85

—Pam

Physical exercise

Gardening is recognized as a healthy form of physical exercise and is considered

an important aspect of an overall healthy lifestyle by several gardeners. Gardeners must

tend a relatively large garden plot (6251t2) and haul water buckets to and fi'om their plot.

5.4.5)

“It’s good exercise, it’s a great activity to do with your kids in the
summer.” — Nancy

“1 used to go to the gym, but it’s better to go to my garden. Working in
the garden exercises all my muscles. It is good exercise.” — Mary

“I’m being told at the moment that I’m reaching the age of health
problems you know. It’s gone beyond the bad eyesight now. You know
the first question that the doctor asks is, “Are you exercising?” Then you
think, “Oh I’m not.” But I say, “1 garden!” Hopefirlly, I see gardening as
my get out for the exercise question. It is hard work actually. I mean over
the past couple of years, I’ve been going to the doctor with pains because
of gardening.” — Lily

Social Benefits

As the term “community gardening” implies, it is an activity that takes place

within a social context. While each gardener controls a specific plot within the garden,

he or she is influenced by the actions of other community gardeners and non-gardening

neighbors alike. These social influences can have a significant impact upon the attitudes

of gardeners and ultimately these attitudes impact gardening success and willingness to

continue participation in the project.

Study participants experience a number of positive social benefits including

meeting people, sharing food and gardening experiences with others, developing a sense

of shared community and a feeling of personal ownership and investment in the garden

and surrounding neighborhood. Foster Park gardeners hold mixed opinions as to

86

community gardening’s impact as a community development tool and the level of
community-building that actually occurs. Fourteen gardeners believe that their
experience resulted in a greater personal sense of community while six gardeners did not
experience a greater sense of community.
Meeting People

Most of the gardeners who participated in the study are quite gregarious in nature
and enjoy the opportunity to meet others in the garden. Several gardeners are self-
described “people persons” who believe that meeting other gardeners is one of the
primary benefits associated with community gardening. Some find the experience a
usefirl method of meeting people with similar interests and personal values.

“You know I’m a people person. It always seems like people who garden
are always pretty thoughtful, pretty kind, considerate people.” - Andrea

“I’ve met peOple fiom all over the world gardening next to me. Nepal last
year. This year. Zimbabwe. There’s Asia, Afiica right there you know.
And people fiom all over the States too,” - Andrea

“It’s a pretty cool idea that you can meet people and form community
through gardening. We wanted to gain, you know food, obviously, but we
also wanted to meet people. Meet a similar community; meet people who
had similar values. We’d hoped to do that through the garden.” - Ben

“You know I’ve made new fiiends obviously meeting people from around
the neighborhood and from different walks of life. And granted you know
you meet people no matter what you do. But the advantage of gardening
is that it’s not a time-oriented task... Here you can start to talk to
somebody and you can finish your conversation and get done what needs
to be done.” — Darren

“I was on my own with the children. You know, what do you do, how do
you find. . .. how do you meet people? And so, if you’re gardening people
generally, I think, have the same focus in their lives, a certain kind of love
of nature that I think you have to have to do that. That’s what I found with

people.” — Lily

87

“The people that I met here were so incredible and so nice to talk to. . .. I
mean it’s just been an incredible support network for me to learn more and
meet the people that I live by....meeting some of the people in the other
neighborhoods that I never would have known.” — Sherry

Sharing Food

Gardeners enjoy food on a social level as well. Sharing food with others
gardeners, fiiends and family is an important aspect of gardening. The garden provides
people with access to an abundance of high quality foods that are valued by both the
gardener and the individual receiving the gift. The sharing of garden produce is an
important activity that would not otherwise be possible without access to a community
garden. Sharing food enables gardeners to make new fiiends and share the rewards of
their labor with others.

“[Through gardening] I had the opportunity to reach out to more people by
giving vegetables.” — Darren

“I love having the vegetables in the summer. I love being able to share
them Like I said, I don’t have any fiiends that garden except for David so
I like to be able to, and I like to cook. So the whole thing is like cooking
and giving it to other people. Its just addictive.” - “Iris

“1 like gardening because when I grow something like this time I grow a
lot of tomatoes, I just like to give some tomatoes to people. My
neighbors, my fiiends, I give them free tomatoes and they really
appreciate it. . . I have a lot of them [tomatoes] that I give to my friends.
You know you make fiiends by just giving. You know I like to give
because people appreciate it so much.” - Mary

“One of the reasons that we are growing is to share with people. There are
Korean people around and they like to eat these kinds of vegetables.
Usually if you do well with the garden you can get more than you just

need for yourself. Last year, if you remember we had lots of tomatoes. I

took boxes of tomatoes to my school and to my neighbors. It is very nice
to share this kind of product with people.” - John

“What do you get out of Christmas? To share, I mean and I’ve made

fiiends. I mean if you share with your fiiends it’s a mutual trade-off. I
made some spaghetti sauce with those tomatoes you gave me, why don’t

88

you come over for dinner? Whatever. It was things like that. It’s um, it’s
just probably mostly giving, yeah.” - Quinn

Sharing Experiences

The sharing of gardening experiences is another way in which gardeners build a
connection to others. Gardening is often a highly valued aspect of an individual’s self-
identity that people wish to share with others.

“I share a lot with people too. You know it’s a mutual sharing of
information. It’s a non-competitive sport. . .. I was down here [warehouse]
sharing information with people you know taking a really active part.”

- Darren

“I’ve had a lot of fun, yeah. I’ve tried to, like I said, spend a lot of time
out here. More than I thought I would, but it’s all been because I wanted
to. I shared it with my boyfriend, with my mom, with my fiiends, you
know tried to convince people to get involved. I’ve directed a few people
toward The Garden Project website, let people know what to do and how
to do it.” - Eve

“Then I made some other fiiends who aren’t at the garden because like I
would be at a department party and the person hosting it’s wife would
have a big garden so I’d talk to her. They were very interested in the
community garden although they have, just as an idea, and they were the
ones who loaned me the wheelbarrow and extra herbs and stuff. So I’ve
made fiiends and contacts outside the garden by sharing information.”

- Iris

For some gardeners, the sharing of information and personal gardening
experiences is equated with teaching others about gardening techniques.

“I was teaching them, telling them Basically they didn’t know anything.
They were coming with like four people and sitting down trying to do
things. So I was teaching them a lot.” - Mary

“I guess I wanted to reach out to people in my community about some
alternatives to using chemicals on their gardens and some easier ways to
get things done in the garden. That’s what I wanted to do, to learn things
for myself and help others mostly, about some alternatives. I guess for
me it would be helping people feel like they have more control over their
garden more so then even using chemicals. Helping people feel, you

89

know showing people ways they can improve their garden without
resorting to pesticides and stuff like that.” - Sherry

Sense of Community

Community gardening helps to foster a sense of community for gardeners. This
sense of community involves feelings of being connected with neighbors and the social
web of the neighborhood. Watching out for one another, interacting with neighbors and
working together are important aspects of community.

“I’m a people person, I like being out in the community and I like this spot
in particular because it’s close to my house, it’s easy to get to and it’s my
neighborhood you know. We tend to, American society, withdraw into
our own little worlds and don’t interact so well a lot of times, and fear our
neighbors even. And a community garden ficilitates a healthy way to be
in interchanges, relationships between people in the community. I try to
be fi'iendly and I think that makes a big difference. Try to be a good part,
positive part of the community by gardening.” - Andrea

“I don’t expect it [community gardening] to be, “Oh, it’s one big happy
fimily and everybody gets along.” But I really, you know, it’s nice to
know your gardening neighbors. You kind of watch out for each other.
You watch each other’s back.” — Katrina

“I guess the first benefit that I would highlight would be, I guess the
community aspect and getting to know people in your community and
keeping your food fi'om your community in your community, grown by
your community. I think that’s the most important thing with The Garden
Project is getting people together a little bit even though we all have our
individual plots ..... I think that the way that people feed off each other in
the garden is really important you know, to get other ideas and learn from
each other.” — Sherry

“I liked the community aspect of it. I really like community building.
We’re involved with our neighborhood watch on the street, we’re part of
the Neighborhood’s in Bloom Program which did so much for our
neighborhood as far as community building. And I thought, “That was
great and this (Garden Project) will be another aspect, I could do the
gardening and the community building.” - Tammy

90

Ownership in neighborhood
Three female Foster Park gardeners reported that participation in The Garden
Project allowed them to overcome their fear of the neighborhood and to develop a greater

sense of ownership and identity with the community.

“I always felt that neighborhood [Foster Park] is kind of shady and it
makes me nervous but I’ve had no problems in the garden. So it made me
feel more at home in Lansing because before I’d been on that street and
thought, “Oh no”. . . I remember a couple of weeks where every time I’d
go at night and the house next door, kitty comer, was playing like really
loud salsa music. I thought, “wow, this is city gardening.” I’m trying to
garden, it’s twilight and really pretty and the salsa music is just blaring
and then the cars with the big basses go by. It’s just a very difl'erent
experience. But I prefer that because it makes me feel like I’m part of the
neighborhood. . .. I really feel more involved in my neighborhood... I feel
more invested in where I live.” — Iris

“Well you know I ended up being less afraid of that neighborhood. It’s
kind of scary looking sometimes and some people, when I would tell them
where it was, they would go, “Oh, I don’t think so.” But as I got there and
it, yeah, I became less afiaid of that neighborhood and that was good.

That was good.” — Tammy

“I never would have wandered over here [Foster Park]. I probably would
have stayed that side of Kalamazoo. I’d heard stories. One of my

neighbors when I moved in said, you know, you don’t what to hang out at
that grocery store over there because drug deals go down... She said, sort

of avoid that at night because it’s sort of a shady area. You know, not that

this neighborhood was scary, but I wouldn’t have come over here much.

There was no reason to. So it would have been, “I wonder what’s over

there, but it’s mysterious and dark and scary”.” — Eve
Ownership in plot

The Garden Project places a substantial emphasis on encouraging gardeners to
improve the soil in their garden plot. The program encourages people to amend the soil
with compost, shredded leaves and cover crops which are all provided fiee of charge.
The program also provides education on soil improvement through the newsletter,

workshops, printed materials and cover crop demonstration gardens. Returning gardeners

91

receive top priority during plot assignments to encourage them to reinvest in their plot.
Several gardeners report the development of an emotional bond to their garden plot as a
result of their personal efforts to improve the physical condition of their plot.

“I feel like a tie to that particular plot in the garden because I’ve been
working at it.” - Eve

“I picked the sanre one [plot], the system was pretty good I think if you
had the plot you get first dibs on it. I think that’s fiir because I put quite a
bit of work into improving the soil. We brought in a lot of composted
horse manure, I think there must be at least 5 pick-up loads of horse
manure on that plot by now, because I have a fiiend who has horses and
she would donate, bringing it in her truck. So we put a lot of horse
manure down and we put down a lot of leaves, we planted rye grass, um
we put in a lot of work to improve the soil. So whoever has that now is in
good shape.”

- Nancy

“1 had that same plot. . .once or twice in the fill I brought over big bags of
shredded leaves to try and amend the soil. Although you know, when I
spend all that time to make my plot better, I kind of had mixed feelings
about giving it up too.” - Tammy

“I got these two corner plots and I’ve been gardening those same two plots
every year, which I really enjoy. It gives you a chance to do like people
who own their own land. You can do long term projects. Building up of
the soil and paying attention to the soil is something I always, uh tried to
do with gardening.” - Andrea

Two gardeners felt as though their community garden plot was an extended
version of a home garden. Having the garden located within the immediate neighborhood
proves to be an important asset.

“Yeah, well it was something that I could call my own even. . .it was, I

remember catching a woman in the garden and I was asking her what she

was doing and she was picking the weeds that were growing. I was like,

this is my garden.” - Quinn

“It felt like my extended garden. I could just stop there on my way

home. .. I really like the fict that Paradise is nearby my home. Like I can

walk there. It’s totally on my way home so I can just stop by and pick up
stuff and it also feels safer than Lilac Street [a nearby community garden].

92

At Lilac Street you go out and you’re in the big field and there are no
neighbors and it’s beautiful because of that but it doesn’t. Paradise feels
like it’s sort of my house is extended because it’s so close. At Lilac I
always felt like I was going to the garden.” - Iris

93

CHAPTER 6:
FINDINGS: EMPOWERMENT AND ITS BARRIERS

6.1) Introduction

This chapter begins with a description of gardener perceptions of empowerment.
This is followed by gardener accounts of the specific barriers to participation in the
program. The use of direct quotations from study participants is intended for illustrative

purposes rather than as a comprehensive record of comments.

6.2) Gardener Perceptions of Empowerment

The Garden Project’s Mission Statement contends, “Through self-help efforts, the
Project enables firnilies to take an active role in improving their own nutritional,
economic, and social condition. Without such efforts, relief would take the form of a
food or cash handout.” (Appendix I)

As discussed in Chapter 2, while a variety of definitions of empowerment exist,
three themes are common to these definitions: a sense of control; possession of or access
to critical resources, skills or knowledge; and active engagement in some form of
behavioral cl'mnge. The concept of personal empowerment requires individuals to take an
active role in improving their condition. This is achieved through the development of the
skills and resources necessary to create a change in the individual’s condition and to
improve the individual’s sense of control. Personal empowerment requires that an
individual develop these skills and resources rather than rely upon the charity of others.
Given the similarities between the program’s Mission Statement and the concept of
personal empowerment, gardeners were questioned as to whether their involvement

empowered them and if so, in what way?

94

Seventeen of the Foster Park gardeners believe that their emerience with the
program contributed to a greater sense of empowerment. Given the ubiquitous nature of
the term “empowerment”, several gardeners were asked to provide their personal
definition of empowerment and examples of how empowerment applied to their
experience. The definitions provided are similar to those found in the literature review in
that they include “sense of control” and access to relevant resources and knowledge.
Sense of Control

“[Empowerment] It’s just the concept of being able to do things that

nobody else has any control over I guess and having your own area where,

y%r;lltrlrlrow beyond the courtesy rules, you can do whatever you want.”

“Taking control of your situation...” - Olivia

“The ability to do something yourselfI mean, without having someone
else tell you what to do.” - Quinn

“The ability to gain confidence through one’s actions.” - Katrina

“T 0 have some control in your life. To make your life better and healthier
and that you’re not just at the whim of what’s provided to you.” — Iris

“In control and feeling capable... Empowerment is kind of overall,
knowing what I want in life and how to do it and actually being able to go
out and apply myself to doing it. ” - Eve

“That sort of feeling of self-sufficiency and controlling what you are
doing. Maybe empowerment is not so much freedom from, I don’t
know, an authority or whatever, but in a sense it’s going back to a feeling
of responsibility where you need to have experience like that. Where
you’re not just going to the supermarket and getting your own food, that it
isn’t handed to you, that you understand that there are difliculties
associated with it” - Lily

Access to Resources and Knowledge
Having access to relevant information and resources is another important

component of the gardener’s empowerment definitions.

95

“[Empowerment is] Feeling like you have the resources to provide what
you need in your life.

“I think there is a certain aspect, a teaching aspect to it. Through teaching
and experience you can take what you’ve learned and the experience and

send people off on their own to firrther what you’ve learned. To share and
continue sharing and to continue what they are doing and to grow. I

think of it as the teacher empowering the learner. But, ideally it would

work both ways.” - Tammy

“Gaining the insight, having the foresight to assess a setting, see what it is

you have, what you can do with it, where you want to go. Set your goal

and then decide logistically how you are going to get there.” - Helen
6.3) Types of Gardener Empowerment

Since each gardener is motivated to participate by a variety of unique potential
benefits, each individual also experiences a unique sense of empowerment.
Empowerment is a highly personal and subjective phenomenon. However, types of
empowerment fill into three general categories related to the improvement of an
individual’s nutritional, social and psychological well-being. Of the seventeen study
participants reporting a sense of empowerment, eight reported a sense of nutritional
empowerment, seven a sense of social empowerment and three a sense of psychological
empowerment, with two respondents reporting the experience of a combination of
empowerment types.
6.3.1) Improvement of Nutritional Well-Being

Community gardening at Foster Park is an activity that provides people
with the resources and knowledge necessary to increase personal control over
their diet. Gardening provides people with a sense of control over their food

choices and reduces their reliance upon commercial food sources. This allows

individuals to improve the personal acceptability of diet.

96

"lt':
desi

C011

“Er
foo

grc

“It
veg
sht‘

 

 

 

6.3.2)

“It’s [gardening] given me practical means to do something about my
desire to eat healthy food, to have some control over you know, the food
that I eat and there is nothing that tastes better lot of times and you have
control, you know what goes into the food you are eating.” — Andrea

“Empowered in terms of, yeah the food that we were eating was our
food. . .. We knew what we put on it, we knew where it came fiom” — Ben

“Ihe empowering it [gardening] gives me is, “Hey I live in the city but I’ll
grow my own organic foods dog gone it.” — Helen

“It [gardening] empowers me to do my own stufl‘. To grow my own
vegetables. My own fresh vegetables, rather than buying them from a

shop.” — Mary

“I’d say that [gardening] empowers me because I have a lot of fiiends who
are kind of gourmet cooks and there are a lot of things I can do with things
fresh from my garden. It may not be gourmet but it’s so fresh that it can

be really, really great.” — Pam

“I wanted to be more in control over where my food came fi'om, because
it’s a big concern for me... but that’s something I was looking for and its
[gardening] given that to me because I don’t have the space to do it at
home or have all the resources, so that’s definitely done that. It’s been
really incredible. .. It makes people feel a bit more in control maybe of
their lives.” — Sherry

Improvement of Social Well-Being

Community gardening also improves the social well-being of participants.

Gardening provides people with the opportunity to share gardening knowledge,

experiences and food with others in the community, meet fellow gardeners and

overcome feelings of social isolation. These individuals believe they would not

otherwise have access to these benefits.

“Because we can’t garden here [at home] it’s given us a chance to do that.
It’s given us a chance to help people and also we are learning from that
helping the people” — Rachel

“Using my spare time to do that [gardening] instead of something else you
know and getting what I get out of it and meeting people and spending

97

time volunteering and stufi. I mean, it’s not like I am nowadays desperate
[for food], but in other little ways.” — Olivia

“I guess for me it would be helping people feel like they have more
control over their garden more so then even using chemicals. Helping
people feel, you know showing people ways they can improve their garden
without resorting to pesticides and stuff like that.” — Sherry

“I didn’t feel like I did this thing like I can grow my own vegetables. It’s
not like I wasn’t getting fed before. But it was just more of, it gave me an
opportunity. But some people, some young mothers that need to feel like
yeah I can grow my own food, the self-confidence, excited about it. But
for me it’s not the empowerment it’s more the opportunity to give [food].”
- Darren

“Through teaching and experience you can take what you’ve learned and
the experience and send people off on their own to firrther what you’ve
learned. To share and continue sharing and to continue what they are
doing and to grow.” — Tammy

“I was very depressed at arriving here [United States] and living in a small
apartment. . . The Garden Project empowered me to feel more at case being
here.” - Lily
6.3.3) Improvement of Psychological Well-Being
Community gardening also improves people’s psychological well-being
by providing a sense of control over their ability to raise food and through
experiential learning in the garden, it significantly improves their skills and ability
to use the available resources. Taken together, this improves the individual’s self-
concept and causes them to feel a significant amount of pride in their
accomplishment and confidence in their abilities.
“Every time I go out in the garden I pick something and go, “This came
fiom my garden!” I always showed people when I got home like this is
really cool. So I feel more capable... Like, I know what to do. I know
enough plant stuff. It’s nice to know that. Like if all the sudden you
know, it was really tough to get stufl’ at Meijers I could go out and garden.

So, that knowledge is nice. . .. I feel I gained a sense of knowing what I’m
doing in the garden fiom this project.” — Eve

98

6.3.4)

“I’ve learned every year and I can apply what I know and produce more
food.” — Iris

“1 think it [gardening] empowers us in terms of understanding how life,
cycles of life work. I think it’s empowering in terms of having control
over your life.” - Lily

Preaching to the Choir

While most gardeners admit to experiencing empowerment through community

gardening, many don’t view “empowerment” as being an important aspect of the

experience. Others believe that they are already empowered and that the empowering

benefits of gardening do not apply to them

6.4)

“You see, I grew up participating in the cormnunity gardens. To me it’s
kind of like riding a bike. It’s just something you do when you live in a

city. . .. Like I said I grew up with this. It’s not like, “Wow, look what I
can do”, I’ve been doing this all my life.” —- Nancy

“[Enrpowerment] assumes that the person or community that we are
talking about doesn’t have control over their lives. And, I suppose having
made a conscious decision to move from one country to another, that’s the
last thing I felt because we had taken control of the situation. .. To make
that choice, leave your relatives and your home in order to support your
fimily, that you’ve actually got travel that fir to get a job, you’re already
trying to take control of your life. So in fict, I probably needed an
antidote. I was pretty over-empowere .” — Lily

“I think in all, most areas of my life I think I have good control and I’ve
had a very good background. So, I didn’t need the type of enrpowennent
that maybe some other people in the area might need. Like I’ve had a very
good education, good fimily, my mom showed me all of the gardening
stufl I know pretty much.” — Eve

“. . .For me it’s not the empowerment it’s more the opportunity to give.”
— Darren

Barriers to Empowerment

Community gardeners fice a number of actual and potential barriers to

participation and empowerment. The barriers identified by the gardeners can be

99

classified into three general categories: limitations of resources; social fictors; and
organizational and philosophical constraints. These barriers pose a significant threat to
The Garden Project in tlmt they discourage participation in the program and limit
program efl‘ectiveness. While identifying these barriers is relatively easy, finding
solutions is made diflicult by significant philosophical and organizational differences that
exist between The Garden Project, its gardeners and the GLFB Board of Directors, who
are ultimately accountable for the program

The barriers to gardening may contribute to the turnover of gardeners who fiil to
return to the program after their first season of participation. Sixty-four percent of
participants in The Garden Project’s 18 community gardeners are repeat gardeners for at
least two seasons (Chiang et al, n/d). However, Foster Park experiences a higher rate of
gardener turnover. Only 39% of Foster Park gardeners returned for a second season
between 2000 and 2002. During this time period, 8 Foster Park gardeners remained with
the program for each of the three seasons. One gardener participated in 2000 and 2002
only.
6.4.1) Resource Barriers

While there is general agreement that The Garden Project does provide beneficial
gardening resources there are some serious limitations that discourage participation. A
majority of gardeners cited some degree of fi'ustrations over water access, soil quality and
preparation, pests and plant diseases. These barriers to participation in community
gardening activities limit access to the full range of benefits that community gardening

has to offer.

100

Water Access

A majority of Foster Park gardeners are ficed with limited access to water. In
both the Foster Park and Paradise sections, gardeners are provided with several 55- gallon
water barrels that are intermittently filled by volunteers and staff. In the Foster Park
section, water barrels are placed in two locations near the warehouse (Appendix A).
These barrels are filled by stretching a series of garden hoses from a water tap located
inside the warehouse across Marcus Street. Access to the warehouse is limited to Garden
Project staff and selected gardener volunteers who posses a key to the building. The
barrels are typically filled during warehouse hours of operation. In 2002, only two Foster
Park gardeners held a key to the warehouse to fill the barrels at other times.

Five- 55-gallon water barrels are located at the southeast corner of the Paradise
section of the garden. These barrels are not accessible fi'om the warehouse water tap.
Instead, the Paradise barrels are filled using a fire hydrant located across the street fiom
the garden at the northeast corner of Foster and Elizabeth Streets. Lansing’s Board of
Water and Light provides The Garden Project access to water through the hydrant fiee of
charge. At the beginning of the gardening season, a representative of the Board of Water
and Light provides the program with the tools and equipment necessary to operate the
hydrant as well as a brief training session on operation of the hydrant. This equipment is
stored in the Foster Park warehouse. One gardener at the Paradise garden Ins a key to the
warehouse to access the fire hydrant equipment as needed and is responsible for filling
the water barrels used by all gardeners. The water barrels are filled by this volunteer
gardener as needed by tapping into the hydrant and then running a garden hose across

Foster Street into the water barrels.

101

Duri'
Io abnorrna‘.
acute in 201
The new ga-
hydrant. H
hydrant rod
access for l

W615 bet

 

Volunteer
organizer
imermitte

Pm glam.

IH‘O"

 

During the 2001 and 2002 seasons, water access became a contentious issue due
to abnormally hot and dry weather. The issue for Paradise gardeners became even more
acute in 2002 when The Garden Project opened a new community garden across town.
The new garden also lacked a water source and relied upon the use of a nearby fire
hydrant. However, the Board of Water and Light would only provide one set of fire
hydrant tools that were to be shared by both gardens. This situation further limited water
access for Paradise gardeners and fi'ustrated the volunteer responsible for filling the
barrels because the equipment was often unavailable. Towards the end of the season, the
volunteer ceased to fill the water barrels and the responsibility fell upon the Community
Organizer. A majority of study participants believe that the difliculties associated with

intermittent water access represents the single largest barrier to participation in the

program

“Well, the water was tough Making sure that we had enough water anytime that
I came to water. Sometimes I would actually carry water fi'om my house. A
couple gallons just for emergency because I couldn’t count on it. So it would be
better if there was some rotation or more volunteers to water or make sure there is
water.” — Eve

“When I really needed to water my schedule was off with [the individual
who fills the barrels]. I would always show up and there would be no
water. So, I just had to be sure and figure out when she went. You know,
when I should go. It was really so dry and people were really going
through it fist. It was kind of scary because I thought, “Oh, if I don’t
water all my plants are going to die!” .. .Maybe if I knew when she was
going to be there. It would have made it easier. I wouldn’t have to drive
over there and realize there wasn’t any water.” — Gina

“There was like a three week drought right in June. There just wasn’t
enough water. Like I’d have time to water and I’d go over and the barrels
wouldn’t be full.” — Iris

“1 think the water thing has always been a difliculty over there at

Paradise... I was sometimes unhappy because a lot of times there wasn’t
any water there... I think you have to have someone who is super reliable

102

to handle that and we don’t have enough people to really you know be
able to do that [fill the water barrels].” -— Pam

“When we wanted water there wasn’t a lot of water. There were only

three drums over there [Foster Park]. Sometimes when I came to get

water it was gone. . ..Not all people are getting water its just like first come

first serve.” — Mary

Gardeners must transport the water from the barrels to their individual garden
plot, in some cases up to 200 feet. Gardeners typically use plastic buckets (not provided
by The Garden Project) and make numerous trips back and forth between the garden and
water barrels.

“If I got to choose I would have picked one that was closer to the water

barrels too, for sure. All of that would have been more convenient.”

— Faith

“. . .You have to truck it [water]...because, being a new one, I was way far

away from the water source. So I had to truck the water and I think it was

really dry that first year. I would say there is a tremendous amount of

work every spring.” — Tammy

Two gardeners wfiermg fiom physical disabilities cite the difficulty in carrying
water as a major fi'ustration that caused one individual to leave the program.

“I’m the back corner and it’s just really hard getting to and from the water
when I didn’t have a fi'ee walkway to use.” — Helen

“So when I had this opportunity to garden with my fiiend at her house I

thought it might be better because she would be doing some of the work,

the watering would be easy cause we could hook up a sprinkler. Carrying

water (at Foster Park) was killing me.” - Nancy

During the 2001 and 2002 gardening season, several gardeners requested that The
Garden Project install piped-water taps at the garden. The presence of water taps would
allow people to access water at any time. Additionally, those individuals who are

physically unable to haul water in buckets could attach hoses to the tap. The Garden

103

Project provides water taps at two other community gardens, at fict noted by several

Foster Park gardeners.
“You know what would be really cool is if we had a piped water system
put in, an irrigation system or something like that. That would be just, I
mean that would be just wonderful if you didn’t have to carry. I mean
even when there is water, it’s still, you know, a lot of work to water your
plants when you’re used to just pulling out the hose. ...If you just had a
fiucet there so people, if they wanted to, could bring their own hoses and
be responsible for it themselves. If they wanted to, bury soaker hoses, if
they wanted to go through all that work, that would be, be really great.”
- Pam

“If you had a tap, you would just put a hose and then water your garden
that way. It would be a communal tap like in a campsite.” — Lily

“You could put in [water] taps there, like they have at Lilac Gardens. I
think you should do that, or put some more drums over there.” — Mary

The use of Open topped water barrels creates additional problems for the
gardeners. First, they are often used as trash receptacles. Items from candy wrappers to
dead birds have been discovered floating in the barrels. This caused one gardener to
question the safety of the water.

“Well you found out that people would throw stuff in it and I always kind

of wondered, “What’s in this water anyway?”. .. I really started worrying

about that and I started worrying about the water that was in those big

barrels. What’s in that water?” - Tammy

A second problem with the use of water barrels was that neighborhood children
often tip over the barrels spilling the water and flooding nearby garden plots. To combat
this situation, a Paradise gardener drilled holes into the top lip of the drums and secured
them together using a heavy cable. Once the five full water drums were secured together

they were rendered immobile. However, by the end of the season, vandals had cut away

the cable and continued to dump the barrels.

104

“A couple of times when I came over to water and there was you know,
probably the kids came over and tipped over the buckets. . ..That’s the only
thing that was ever a problem was the water once in awhile, but usually it
was fine the next day or two. Sometimes it was a really long time like
when it’s dry out and you feel like you need to give your plants a drink,
but the was the only thing.” — Sherry

A third problem with using water barrels is that they provide an ideal breeding
location for mosquitoes. In most years the mosquitoes are viewed as simple nuisances
but during the spring of 2002, several cases of human infections of a mosquito-bome
disease, West Nile Virus, were reported in Michigan. The fear surrounding this public
health threat caused at least three gardeners to contact The Garden Project asking for a
solution to this problem

Soil
Soil is the basic building block of the garden. The quality of soil including its

structure and fertility is probably the most important component of a good garden. The
heavy clay soil naturally found in the Foster Park area is far from an ideal garden soil.
The soil generally lacks organic matter causing it to dry quickly during hot weather
making the soil extremely difficult for most gardeners to cultivate. A handful of
gardeners cited the quality of the garden soil at Foster Park as a major limitation to
gardening success and enjoyment.

“If I hadn’t had someone at least to talk to about the soil 1 probably would

have just thrown in the trowel. You know, it’s like looking at this stufl‘ its

like rmn I could make dishes out of this.” — Nancy

“The soil there is so bad. I had that same plot...once or twice inthe fillI

brought over big bags of shredded leaves to try and amend the soil. But

you know, in that whole time I was there I never saw one earthworm Not

one. And it really made me think by the end, you know what’s wrong

withtlrissoil? Whyisn’titanybetterthanit is? AndIstartedtothink,
what was on this site before?” - Tammy

105

“Well you know how it is, and if you let it go just a little bit you have all
these weedsandthe soilisso firllofclayandlwasreallysurprisedathow
hard it actually was to pull weeds. Cause, I had never worked soil like this
before. So, uh, it wasn’t just all, just what was going on with me. This

was just very different soil. And, uh I wasn’t used to that, I was very

surprised, so I over estimated was I was able to do, because I

underestimated what I would have to do.” — Pam

“At the beginning [of the season] there were tons of stones which is

something to expect. But I didn’t expect all the glass that was in my plot.

I always work with my hands. I don’t wear gloves so it was a little bit you

know, intimidating because I didn’t want to hurt myself.” — Eve

The Garden Project’s method of garden preparation has negative impacts on the
experience of some gardeners. The Garden Project’s “Community Garden Guidelines”
(Appendix H) require all gardeners to begin planting their plot within two weeks of the
plot assignment meeting or risk forfeiting their assignment. This policy ensures that
gardeners take possession of the plot to combat the substantial growth of weeds that
occurs in late spring. Individual gardeners do not have control over the timing of garden
preparation. This creates significant difficulties for many gardeners requiring them to
adjust their schedule to the needs of the garden typically with short-notice. Experienced
gardeners who enjoy starting their own seedlings at home have no control of the timing
of the gardening opening and risk starting their plants too early in the season.
Experienced gardeners typically desire to extend the gardening season by starting early in
the spring. These individuals have no control over the start of the garden season.

“Tomatoes, peppers, cucumbers, I had them all over the hood of my car

getting the sun. We were told they [The Garden Project] didn’t want to

start giving the plots out because they didn’t have as many people as they

felt they needed. That was bad for me because many of them [seedlings]

got root bound and stunted and they didn’t do a good transplant like they

normally would. That was one blow that was not good for us.” — Helen

“Well, the most diflicult thing is the timing. For example, because we
didn’t have anyplace to seed before, some vegetables must start early,

106

early part of the year. The gardens sometimes start June or even early July

so it’s hard to do anything. So, if I can even make this plot around April

then I can think about some more things.” — John

“Well, the plowing was hard. Because they plowed and I couldn’t get in

right away and by the time I got back to it, it was pretty weedy. In the

process of trying to get the weeds out I ended up, like I said I didn’t know

what I was doing, I trampled the ground down. I was just walking back

and forth. So, it was very hard... I started a week later but wasn’t able to

plant the whole thing. So I planted some after a week and that went well.

Then I was back the next week and it was all weeds. I didn’t realize I had

to get in right away” — Iris
Plot size

Every garden plot at Foster Park, as well as most other community gardens in The
Garden Project, measures approximately 25’ by 25’ (625 ftz). It is unknown why this
plot size was originally selected, but has been accepted as the standard size since the
inception of the program The use of standardized plots does have a practical benefit for
the program’s annual report to the City of Lansing. The City is one of The Garden
Project’s major financial contributors and in exchange for continued funding, The Garden
Project must demonstrate that each plot produces an economically significant amount of
food. A standardized plot size allows for easier accounting and reporting.

In the 2001 Gardener Survey, community gardeners were asked if they felt that
the plot sizes were adequate. A majority of gardeners (84%) indicated that they were
satisfied with the plot size while eight percent reported that plots were too large and
another eight percent reported the plots were too small. Since the Gardener Survey is
conducted at the end of the season, respondents most likely represent only those
individuals who continued to maintain their plot throughout the season. This may not

represent the actual views of all community gardeners, particularly those who became

overwhelmed by the size of the garden plot early in the season.

107

Anecdotal evidence led The Garden Project’s stafl‘ to question the suitability of
the standardized 625ft2 plots. As a result, the program began offering a variety of plot
sizes at three new community gardens that opened in 2001 and 2002. The new smaller
plot sizes ranged from 6’ by 6’ to 20’ by 20’ and were well accepted by gardeners,
providing people with a variety of choices to meet their needs. The gardener interviews
revealed that a number of individuals would prefer a smaller plot size. Three individuals
chose not to return for a second season with The Garden Project in part because plot sizes
were too large to manage. It must be recognized that gardeners possess varying levels of
expertise and have unique expectations as to the amount of effort they have available to
contribute to maintaining a garden.

“I think it is a little intimidating and if that’s the all or nothing size then

that’s going to be prohibitive to some people. At first I thought, “This is

going to be a lot more work than I realized.” Yeah, I mean once you first

got there and actually see, yeah then if you picture yourself down on your

knees weeding then it does sound like a substantial time commitment. I

don’t know how many people are typically involved but I was doing it by

myself. if you want a lot of people to participate, you have to bring

down the intimidation fictor. Part of it is if you see something big, you

assume that it’s for serious gardeners only. That eliminates a lot of

people.” - Faith

“A halfa plot I think would be more manageable for me. I couldn’t do
one, but I could probably do a half.” - Nancy

“I would be interested in a small plot I have to say.” - Lily
“Like the one lady said. She’s Chinese, she’s across the way there and she
said that she’s worked and she has a fimily and I take it that her husband
left her. But she says, “if only I had a half a plot it would help me.”
— Rachel
Pesm and Disease
One of the recognized drawbacks to cormnunity gardening is the lack of personal

control over pests and disease. Foster Park is essentially a large contiguous garden

108

divided into individual plots. Gardeners only have control over their assigned plot but

are nonetheless impacted by the pest control and the plant disease management

techniques utilized by neighboring gardeners. This lack of control created added
fi'ustration for six gardeners who were forced to manage pests and disease perpetuated by
other gardeners.

Insects appear to be the major garden pest with the Mexican bean beetle causing
the greatest amount of crop destruction Additionally, at least one woodchuck lives in
and around the community garden During the mid-summer of 2002, a woodchuck den
was discovered in an abandoned plot located in the center of the Paradise garden. One
gardener unsuccessfully attempted to capture the woodchuck in a live trap.

“I’m babying those little guys [bean seedlings], well as much as I can, and
last time I was over at the plot they were beautiful and they were
blossoming. I thought, “Yes, two plants! I’ll get at least ten string beans,
wax beans.” I went over there I think two days later and the leaves were
like filter screens. Insects on them I hadn’t had any insects over there all
year on any of my plants. I lost the two plants.” - Helen

“I grew beans this year for the first time which I loved. Although I totally
lost them to the bean beetles. I got like three good weeks of beans. But
the whole time I was picking the beetles were just totally defoliating
them... As I watched my beans being so totally decimated I was so ready
to just spray them with whatever toxic cherrrical. It does make me think
about that. Like I think, “Damn these things are hard to get rid of.” — Iris

“We had this insect that just devastated stufi‘. The first time we said, “Oh
look there are some insects on this one. That looks like a ladybird.” We
were interested in this creature and then the next time we visited the plot
we were like, “Aghhh!” It was too late to do anything you know. So I
just could not believe it.” - Lily

“And the fi'ustration was, I’d get everything in and things would be
growing great. I put in all these tomato plants and all the sudden, I start to
look around and I see some kind of disease, and I never figured out what it
was. Some kind of a wilting thing would start creeping in and I’d go back
and halfmy plants would be all wilted. Then I’d come back later that
week and they’d all be wilted. So I think after two years, that first year

109

must have not been so bad, but then the last two it happened to all my

plants. I just thought, “It just wasn’t worth the work.” I got nothing out of

it.” — Tammy

“All of my tormtoes have a bacteria or whatever it is that makes tormtoes

turn brown and die. There’s powdery mildew on my zucchini. It just

seems like if something happens it just takes over the garden Then I’ve

read all this stuff about how you’re supposed to dispose of the compost

and don’t leave it on the garden Get rid of it so all these things don’t

happen again next year. I’m just imagining like, I’m sure nobody else

does that. I’m not sure how many people come back.” - Iris
6.4.2) Social Barriers

Despite the best intentions for the creation of a cohesive community of gardeners,
significant barriers exist that have hindered the development of a sense of community.
While there is a good deal of gardener-to-gardener interaction at the beginning of the
season, by mid-summer people are rarely seen in the gardens. By late summer, weedy,
neglected and abandoned plots predominate much of the garden The apparent lack of
commitment by others and the wasted garden plots discourage rmny gardeners from
continued personal investment. Vandalism is another barrier experienced at Foster Park.
Lack of gardeners

Following the initial rush of spring planting activities, sightings of gardeners
become quite rare. Visits to the Foster Park warehouse drop off dramatically by the first
week of July and weedy and abandoned plots become noticeable. Extremely hot and dry
summer weather may have discouraged rmny from frequent garden visits. On two
occasions during the 2002 season, up to seven gardeners were witnessed working in their

plots at sunset, presumably in an effort to beat the heat. Regardless of the reason, halfof

the study participants found the lack of people at the garden both unexpected and

disappointing.

110

“Towards the end of the summer I didn’t see anyone ever.” - Eve

“There is a certain overtone associated with hardly anyone participating.
It’s sort of weird to go into such a large area. I mean there’s something. I
wouldn’t say it really affected anything but I mean it would certainly be
more. a more vibrant experience to actually see people out there. It
would just be a different atmosphere that would be more pleasant I think.
Because, like I said, I almost never ran into people. But seeing people
there and seeing the same one week after week would be quite pleasant I
think.” - Faith

“In the sense that I hardly ever see anyone over there. It’s probably the
hours that I go. Because I don’t go in the evenings, usually I go in the
mornings. But even on the weekends I go on Saturday or Sunday morning
either people are in church or whatever. It’s just weird not see people
there... I never see the people around me. That whole row, I’ve never
seen them The guys who have plots along the road. Those guys I say
“hi” to. That was only early in the season...Yeah, those are the only
people I think I’ve seen” - Gina

“No, you know I almost never saw anybody. There was once or twice and
I was there quite a bit, usually weekday evenings. I almost never ran into
anybody. That, I found quite surprising although later in the season it
became quite obvious that not very many of them [garden plots] were
occupied.” - Faith

On those occasions when several gardeners were in the garden at one time, there
was a sense of fi'ustration over the lack of personal interaction These individuals value
the community building possibility of a community garden but found the actual
experience did not meet their expectations. Many individuals stick to their own garden
plot and rarely make the effort to interact with one another.

“In the past two years I’ve met some pretty nice people in the garden but

it’s not as fiiendly as I thought there would be much more community.”

- Katrina

“You know there’s a lot of potential for some kind of you know, sense of

community in these types of gardens. I don’t think the potential is quite

realized here. At least not for me. You know and you can see some

people when they come here, you can see they’re sort of interacting with

the volunteers and with you guys, the people that work here as if you were
like a social service agency and they just come and they get their stuff and

111

they go and plant it and they weed it. They come and they weed their stufi‘
and then they go home and they don’t stay around to talk or anything.

Um, and then there are some people that, that see it more as a community
thing and they talk and they trade vegetables and things like that. A lot of
times it seems to me foreign, foreign people a lot just tend to see this as a
social service agency. I don’t know exactly why that is. I think it would, I
think it would be really cool if they would, but I don’t know how to go
about that.” - Pam

“The one thing that I thought was disappointing was that there weren’t
always a lot of gardeners over here. . .. I didn’t really feel like the
community around it, in terms of the neighborhood are too into it. You
know they're kind of like, who are you weird people?. . ..It looked like at
the beginning people were starting to plant some things. There was one
fimily when we first started that was out there and we talked to, but never
saw again” — Ben

5 “fl

 

F-fi an:

“I felt like it really wasn’t working like a cormnunity garden... people
seemed at the same time to stick to their own self and just be working in
the garden and water and stuff.” - Quinn

Empty plots

At the beginning of the 2002 gardening season 38 of the 45 garden plots at Foster
Park were assigned to individuals. However, a number of individuals either did not
actually start to plant their garden or abandoned them within the first month. Some
gardeners were frustrated by what they perceived to be either a lack of commitment by
other gardeners or simply a waste of valuable gardening space. During the early summer
of 2002, five of the empty plots were planted with excess seedlings for distribution
through the Greater Lansing Food Bank.

“If I knew that so my of the plots were uncommitted then I would have

tried to switch Really, it would have made a huge difference... If it was

full I wouldn’t care and I’d say that it was nice that I got a plot. But if it

wasn’t full, I think it’s probably to the benefit of the project to have people

get what they want.” - Faith

“1 expected all the plots to be taken. I thought, “Oh, I’ll never get in”.
- Gina

112

“The thing that bothered Rick and I was why, with all those gardens there
and it’s a nice open area there, why those gardens weren’t filled right
away?” - Rachel

“I don’t know how many plots there were, maybe 25. I’d say maybe only

5 of us or even less kept them up for the fill season It was really

fi'ustrating, really, really fi'ustrating. Because, I know. ..I probably, if it

were my first year gardening and I didn’t have something, you know,

some knowledge that it can work, I would really be fi'ustrated. I think, “I

tend my garden, I think other people should tend their garden too.” To

show commitment I guess. Or else give me a good plot close to the water

or something like that if those people aren’t going to make good use of it.”

- Tannny
Weedy plots

Abandoned and neglected garden plots quickly become weed covered nuisances
that further discourage gardeners. Mature weeds add to the total seed load in the garden
soil making subsequent gardening attempts more challenging. The Garden Project has a
policy that requires gardeners to keep their weeds under control however; this has been
met with little success.

The Community Organizer is responsible for making monthly “weedy plot calls”
to those gardeners who violate the policy. A majority of gardeners are diflicult to
contact and do not respond to telephone messages and postcards asking them to comply
with the weed-fiee policy. Many of these individuals simply abandon their plot or refuse
to remove the weeds. Weedy plots cause significant fi'ustration for eight gardeners who
maintained their plots by presenting both an aesthetic nuisance and a source of weed
seeds that add to the workload of the conscientious gardener.

“The people would start out, get it planted and you’d never see them

again. Then the weeds would get higher and higher. . .. I noticed a lot of

people didn’t try and do so much with their space. You know, they just

dug a hole and put a tomato in it. I couldn’t do that. I just couldn’t do
that. So maybe I should have lowered my expectation or something. But I

113

stillhadthisgoalinmymindofwhatlwanted to doandtlrat that wasmy
place to do it.” - Tammy

“It does take a long time to clear out and like I said, I was next to weed
patches so there’s constantly things to clear out.” — Faith

“It was tough when all the weeds sprung up and two of my neighbors
never came and picked weeds so that was definitely one of my major
complaints because I knew that there were tons of seeds coming over into
my garden” - Eve

“I guess I was a bit fi'ustrated well, I’m guilty too because of my schedule,
people that don’t keep up with weeding... Yeah, well the one directly
across from me, that nobody planted in is below the tree. That one got
pretty crazy. I went over there and tried to pull out the big ones.” — Gina

Although a handfirl of gardeners can effectively control the weed growth within
their plot, weeds do represent a significant problem for most of the garden This problem
is exacerbated by the high turnover rate of gardeners, which discourages the use of soil
improvement techniques that could reduce the weed problem and the heavy clay soil,
which became extremely difficult to manage during the hot dry summers of 2001 and
2002.

“Well you know how it is, and if you let it go just a little bit you have all
these weeds and the soil is so fill] of clay and I was really surprised at how
hard it actually was to pull weeds. Cause, I had never worked soil like this
before.” - Pam

“I wish we could do more for the people in the way of the weeding and
stuff. And if we could get control of those weeds I think that people
would enjoy gardening more too. Because we went over there and there’s
a plot right next to that tree where we’ve got it full of flower plants now.
But we had gone over there and this lady and her little girl over there.

And she had one of these scythe like. Rick said you know, maybe it’d be
better if we pulled them than to use that. But they couldn’t because the
ground was so hard with the clay. And the seed is there because they let
them get so tall and I suppose they hate to do that.” - Rachel

Two gardeners left the program due to their inability to effectively deal with the

Weed problem Most significantly, one gardener, who relies upon emergency food

114

assistance, has decided not to return to the program in part due to the presence of a
tenacious thistle variety that covers much of the Foster Park garden

“It was nice, all these tomato plants come up but then I have all these
thistle plants. It’s just like a fight you know? I try to get out there as
much as I can and it’s I’m just thinking I’ll let somebody else have that
and just spend whatever spare time I do have just volunteering.” — Olivia

“There were some weeds and what not but the rule was basically, I don’t
know what to what extent you had to weed in the garden but there was
obviously a lot of weeding that could still be done after weeding all day.
But you know every time if you didn’t do it all you could come back. So,
it was a challenge” - Quinn

Personal Safety and Vandalism

Although, there have been no reports of gardeners being assaulted in the garden,
there was an incident in 2001 in which several gardeners were verbally threatened with
physical violence. In the summer of 200 1 , a gardener with access to the warehouse
telephone contacted the local 911 emergency center to report an act of intimidation by
some neighborhood youths. In July of 2002, another 911 call was placed from the
warehouse to report an incident in which a group of teenage boys threw fireworks into
the occupied warehouse. Two gardeners indicated that they had some concerns over their
personal safety while in the garden.

“I don’t know the area that well but it seems like there are a lot of gang

member-looking people there. I’d always get there probably around 8:30

or 8:45 at night and I’d be running around and I’d really try to stay there

until I couldn’t see anything pretty much Yeah, it’s not a situation where

I’d really want to be talking to people in the neighborhood. I mean, you

just so often you have your back to everything else that’s going on I’d

just prefer that.” — Faith

“1 have challenges at Paradise. I know the neighborhood is not one of the

better ones. I know the Police aren’t cooperative when you need help.

The neighborhood is not what many of use would choose to move into.
Um, you know, some drugs, some gangs.” — Helen

115

 

Produce theft and vandalism is not an uncommon occurrence at Foster Park.
While the Garden Project encourages gardeners to immediately contact the oflice to
report any acts of theft or vandalism, it is suspected that only a fraction of these incidents
are reported to the office. Most acts of theft and vandalism are reported second hand and
well after the occurrence. The Garden Project discourages people fiom growing certain
varieties of vegetables such as melons and pumpkins, which prove to be very tempting
targets for vandalism The program also encourages people to remain vigilant near the
time of harvest and remove their produce in a timely manner.

The Garden Project has had difliculty finding support fiom the Lansing Police
Department. During the summer of 2001, a police oflicer notified the Community
Organizer that policing the gardens was, “not a priority for the department.” The officer
suggested that the program should build a fence around the garden to discourage theft and
vandalism and that theft is to be expected in the neighborhood. During the 2002 season
additioml efforts were made to lobby the Lansing Police Department to provide greater
support for the gardeners. This included a meeting with a Community Policing Specialist
and a separate meeting with the Chief of Police and a Precinct Captain. Never the less,
theft and vandalism continued to be an issue frustrating six gardeners, discouraging
further personal investment in the garden.

“The vandalism concerns me. I know that kids like to take shortcuts

through the garden and I’ve seen them do it. . .. As long as they’re not

damaging things, I’m not gonna have a hairy on that but I had two

sunflower plants... I don’t know if they took a stick, a hockey stick but

right where the head attaches to the stem they just broke it off and left it

lying there. That bothers me. I go to a whole lot of labors to get that stuff

growing in the first place. Especially with the long growers, I start them

in the house. But to have them vandalized is a real concern... And when

you’re on disability, when you don’t always get the kinds of food through
other people that you would buy for yourself, to me gardening is that

116

important. To have other gardeners come in and take it or to have vandals
damage it, that’s a bridge I don’t know how to get over.” - Helen

“One time someone took my beets. Who steals beets?” — Nancy

“I knew that there would be vandalism but it doesn’t make it any less
heartbreaking when it happens. . . .You know, we have so much produce
that comes from things like tomatoes and whatever. So when it gets
squashed or whatever, big deal. But some things are considered rare or
precious. Their value goes up. So it’s sad that I can’t grow cantaloupes. F
Partly because of space constraints but also because of being in a public
place... So even though I knew it [vandalism] was going to be there I
guess I didn’t realize it would bother me as much as it did. You hope that 1
when you catch kids checking out the garden, you can gauge their interest.
Sometimes you can and sometimes you can’t. It’s fi'ustrating when you
don’t know who is this person or persons destroying the garden and why
they’re doing it.” — Katrina

 

“You know, it’s really fi'ustrating when people come and steal or ruin your
vegetables. It’s even worse when they just, like they did with my
pumpkins. I’m never going to forget that. But they threw everyone,
evegone of my pumpkins. Which I grew and that’s what I mean I plant
things because I can’t get them anywhere else. I grew pie pumpkins so
that I could make pumpkin pics from scratch and those little creeps
smashed all of my pumpkin. . ..But you know, and I think about getting the
police to help more. But it’s not necessarily a good idea to take an
adversarial stance with people in the neighborhood. You know make the
garden something, make it something that local people in the
neighborhood respected. Rather than something that people were calling
the police on their kids because of.” — Pam

While vandalism is a fi'ustrating reality of community gardening, some gardeners

accept that vandalism and theft will occur in a community garden and are not completely

discouraged by it. Losing small amounts of produce, particularly if the thief eats them

rather than simply destroying them becomes an accepted part of the community

gardening experience.

“It [produce theft] just happened a couple of times where I’d thought you
know, I’d come back in a couple of days but then they’d be gone. But that
was within what I expected.” - Faith

117

 

6.4.3)

“I mean it’s right out in the open and. . .it’s not like an ideal insulated
place. . .. this is commrmity gardening which means that you’re out in the
community and there’s going to be problems. And, I think that’s healthy,
that’s good, um I know even the problems, there are good things that

happen” — Andrea

“We definitely weren’t expecting some of the produce to get taken but I
guess that’s just part of the you know, being in the neighborhood. That
sort of thing is just going to happen” — Ben

“It’s not what it could be [vandalism and theft], it’s not ever reaL real bad,
I mean, but to be growing a crop in a community garden, you know people
just don’t respect like they should maybe totally. And there is some of
that, that does discourage gardeners sometimes maybe in a community
garden project. . .. There’s gonna be some problems but to overreact to it,
we do have some control over that. Over the years, I have tried to accept
that as part of the elements too you know that you can’t really control but
you can have an attitude towards. I’m more accepting of it now. The
hardest thing to accept is, is vandalism, least hard, less hard thing to accept
is people harvesting because there it’s just, not totally wasteful and
mindless.” - Andrea

Organizational and Philosophical Barriers

The Garden Project is a hierarchical and bureaucratic organization As a program

of the GLFB, The Garden Project’s Director reports to the Executive Director of the

GLFB who in turn reports to the GLFB Board of Directors. (Appendix J) The GLFB’s

Board of Directors consists of approximately 30 volunteer members who act primarily in

the role of financial and administrative oversight.

The Garden Project receives additional operational and planning support through

an advisory committee consisting of staff and volunteers. The advisory committee,

which is chaired by a member of the GLFB Board of Directors, began a strategic

planning process in the summer of 2001. The purpose of this process was to re-examine

the goals and direction of The Garden Project. As a result of this process, the committee

recognized the existence of a significant conflict between the program and the GLFB

118

Board. This conflict results from philosophical differences between the Board and The
Garden Project and is exacerbated by the limited fiscal and administrative authority of
The Garden Project.

A student led strategic analysis of The Garden Project (Chiang et al, n/d) found
that philosophically; the GLFB Board focuses on its mission to serve the community’s
emergency food needs and exluhits a general apathy towards The Garden Project. While
the GLFB operates under a charity service delivery model that values quantitative
measurements of success, The Garden Project and its advisory committee attempt to
operate in a more collectivist manner, focusing on qualitative outcomes. This lack of
continuity between The Garden Project and the GLFB marginalizes the program creating
a sense of apathy. A significant communication gap and lack of understanding between
The Garden Project and the GLFB Board of Directors further isolates the program from
the resources of the Board, which has not taken any significant actions to further develop
The Garden Project since the mid-19803. As a result, there is a concern among Board
members that resources directed towards The Garden Project negatively impact the
operations of emergency food pantries whose operation are of higher value to the Board.

Members of The Garden Project’s Advisory Committee acknowledged the
philosophical tensions between The GLF B and The Garden Project:

“I think that. . .if everybody [on the GLFB Board of Directors] had a

chance, on a sheet of paper, to write this down, “Do we need a Garden

Project?” I would not expect it to come back with unanimous support.

My sense is that there are a number of Board members who have basically

said, “Yeah, I understand what The Garden Project does.” There would be

others who said, “I don’t really understand what they do.”

“The notion of helping people, helping people get out of poverty or

learning how to fend for themselves isn’t center stage [for the GLFB
Board of Directors].”

119

“Most of the people on the Board are folks who would define food

security very, very narrowly fiom a welfare system model. Which is fine,

which is fine but it’s a tension. It’s a real tension.”

Two Foster Park gardeners expressed some understanding of the existence of this
philosophical tension and remarked that there is little contact or understanding between
gardeners and The GLFB Board of Directors and The Garden Project’s Advisory
Committee. Both individuals commented on the fict that they have never seen the Board
visit the gardens; although they feel it would be beneficial for them to do so and feel
alienated fi'om the decision-making process. One gardener commented on his only
experience with a member of the Advisory Committee.

“She seemed like a “know-it-all” and a little too snooty you know. She’s

on the advisory board you know, helping these poor ignorant gardeners.

She was yeah, a little bit high society, not too much but enough so you

notice.”

- Darren

Chiang et a1 (n/d) found that the GLFB relinquishes little financial autonomy to
either the professional Directors of the GLFB or The Garden Project, finther limiting the
program’s effectiveness. For example, two Board members must sign all checks,
regardless of the amount, limiting the Director’s ability to effectively respond to the
operational needs of the pro gram. While the GLFB provides approximately fifty percent
of The Garden Project’s annual expenses, the program’s ties to the GLFB have been a
mixed blessing. The Garden Project maintains its non-profit status thanks to its
relationship to the GLFB allowing it to pursue significant sources of in-kind donations

and grants. However, in 2002, the GLF B’s financial assets well in excess of an eighteen-

month operating reserve made the program ineligible for some financial grants that could

120

help The Garden Project to fulfill some of its basic needs such as solving the barriers to
gardening outlined earlier in this section

Two Foster Park gardeners expressed concerns over their lack of control over the
program’s resources stemming item the organizational structure. When these individuals
began gardening at Foster Park they made significant personal contributions of their time
to the improvement of the gardens. However, they were discouraged from firrther
participation by what they perceived to be a squandering of resources.

“It’s [The Garden Project] like the old M.A.S.H. episode where they
needed an egg incubator to diagnose the old germs and treat people in the
field and they called this supply oflice and this guy in Seoul or whatever
and they ask for an egg incubator and the guy says sorry we can’t get you
any. So they go down there and the guy’s actually got three of them
sitting on the shelf. And he’s like, “We need an incubator.” And he says,
“No I only got these three here.” And they say, “Well why don’t you just
give us one?” And he says, “Well if I gave you one, I’d only have two
left.”. . .. You know you got all this equipment and I’m willing to do this
stufl‘ and I took it as a sign not to be volunteering so much So, I’m
thinking you know, I’m just gonna stick to my own garden” - Darren

121

CHAPTER 7:
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1) Introduction
The purpose of this study was to explore and understand the effectiveness of a
self-help community gardening program, specifically the Foster Park Community
Garden The central research question is: Does participation in a “self-help” community
gardening program lead to empowerment of the individual? The sub-components of
this research question include:

Does participation have an impact on food access and diet?

What are the benefits from community gardening?

Is empowerment a perceived benefit?

Are there barriers to participation?

What is the role and nature of skill development in the empowerment of
participants?

0 Does the community garden fulfill its “self-help” mission, designed to assist
unemployed and low-income firnilies in growing their own food.

7.2) Impact on Food Access and Diet

Does participation have an impact on food access and diet? While there are a few
exceptions, the Foster Park gardeners are low-income residents with 64% of households
earning less than $21,050 per year. Four of the twenty Foster Park gardeners interviewed
currently rely upon emergency food assistance programs to supplement their diet. This is
consistent with a 2001 survey of gardeners that found roughly 20% of participating
households had at one time received emergency food fiom a food bank. Of the Foster
Park gardeners, one individual was receiving Food Stamps at the time of the interview
while the other three were receiving food assistance through a community food pantry.

One additional gardener received Food Stamps a decade prior to joining the program

122

Three of these gardeners learned of the opportunity to participate in community
gardening through promotional material distributed at a targeted social service agency.

It is generally assumed that low-income people are not highly educated and that
income levels are related to educational levels. This is not true for Foster Park gardeners
where 80% of study participants have attained, a Bachelor’s degree. Half of these
individuals hold additional graduate or professional degrees. While many of these
individual’s limited incomes can be attributed to their current full time enrollment in
college programs, several individuals apparently make conscious decisions to accept low-
paying jobs or live lifestyles that de-emphasize the traditional importance of economic
security.

7.2.1) Diet Quality

Community gardening’s most important food-related benefit is its contribution
toward the improvement of diet quality. This qualitative improvement includes increased
access to flesh vegetables, increased control over dietary choices and increased vegetable
consumption Gardening also allows individuals to select specific vegetable varieties and
control the method of production consistent with their personal values and ethics.
Gardeners are overwhelmingly concerned with the importance of organic and locally
produced foods, which are often unavailable or unaffordable. Community gardening
provides a readily accessible source of flesh vegetables regardless of economic status. In
turn, this increased accessibility and personal control encourages gardeners to eat more

vegetables in season than would be consumed if purchased through commercial sources.

123

, ffi': *‘LW. . _ ,. fir-fin

 

7.2.2) Economics of gardening

Gardening has been touted as providing an economic benefit to participants by
increasing food self-sufficiency and thus decreasing personal expenditures on food (Ball,
1983; Berman, 1997; Blair et al, 1991; Naimark, 1982; Patel, 1991). While Foster Park
gardeners often agree that community gardening affords them greater access to relatively m
unaffordable types of produce and can contribute significantly to one’s overall food :
budget, they do not generally view this as a major motivation to garden This supports

previous work by Dunnet and Qasirn (2000) and Patel (1996) suggesting that the

 

economic impact of gardening is merely a “fiinge” benefit. Quality rather than quantity
is the focus of the food-related benefits of gardening with not a single gardener claiming
to be motivated for reasons related to food self-sufficiency. Iris, a Foster Park gardener,
best sums up the role of commrmity gardening in improving food access and diet. “I
wouldn’t go hungry without the garden but it makes my diet a lot better.”

Community gardening at Foster Park does not appear to play a substantial role in
reducing personal dependence upon emergency food relief. The four Foster Park
gardeners who rely upon emergency food relief including food pantries and Food Stamps
do find cormnunity gardening helpfirl in improving access to quality foods, but it does not

decrease their need for food assistance.

7.3) The Benefits of Community Gardening
What are the benefits from community gardening? Foster Park gardeners derive a variety
Of benefits from cormnunity gardening. These are classified as: food-related,

psychological, recreational and social. While most gardeners enjoy multiple benefits, a

124

majority of gardeners cite access to flesh, quality produce as the primary motivation to
garden This supports previous studies by Armstrong (2000) and Patel (1996) indicating
that access to flesh food is the primary benefit of community gardening. This study also
suggests that the primary motivation for gardening appears to change over time.
Although not the focus of this study, there is some evidence to support Kaplan and
Kaplan’s (1989) finding that beginning gardeners tend to be motivated by the more
tangible outcomes of gardening such as the economics of food production while more

experienced gardeners derive greater enjoyment fi'om the less tangible psychological and

 

Fu- -__ hr-
!

recreational benefits of gardening.

Community gardening is about much more than growing quality food. Foster
Park gardeners’ gain a number of psychological benefits from gardening that promote
good mental health These benefits include a sense of accomplishment or pride
emanating fiom the gardening experience, relaxation, stress relief and the enjoyment of
the aesthetic qualities of gardens. For some, gardening is an important part of the
individual’s personal identity and provides a valuable outlet for creative energy. For
others, gardening plays a significant role in allowing people to “walk their talk” by
providing an outlet for people to actively express their personal convictions regarding the
importance of local, organically produced foods. While only a fraction of Foster Park
gardeners were initially motivated to join to experience these psychological benefits,
several gardeners reported that the psychological benefits became the primary motivation
for continued participation.

Most Foster Park gardeners view gardening as a form of recreation rather than

Simply an effort to produce food. As a form of recreation, gardening provides several

125

benefits by providing people with a commitment to spend time outdoors away from their
everyday stresses and a time to enjoy the nurturing aspects of tending plants and
interacting with the natural environment. Gardening is also considered an important,
low-cost form of physical exercise that contrrbutes to a healthy lifestyle.

As the term “community gardening” implies, it is an activity that takes place
within a social context. Foster Park gardeners experience a number of positive social
benefits including meeting new people, sharing food and gardening experiences with
others and the development of a sense of community and ownership of the garden and
smrounding neighborhood. Several gardeners expressed that their experience with
community gardening allowed them to feel more at ease within the neighborhood and

relieved their concerns over personal safety.

7.4) Gardening and Empowerment
Is empowerment a benefit of community gardening? The primary organizational goal of
The Garden Project is to provide people with the opportunity to becorrre actively involved
in the improvement of their nutritional, social and economic condition This “self-help”
aspect of The Garden Project’s Mission is akin to the phenomenon of personal
empowerment described by Hungerford and Volk (1990), Speer and Hughey (1995) and
Zimmerman (1995). As described in Chapter 3, this study employed a synthesized
model of personal empowerment based on the work of Zimmerman (1995) and
Hungerford and Volk (1990) (Figure 4).

A majority of Foster Park gardeners report that their experience with The Garden

Project helped them to feel a greater sense of control over some aspect of their life.

126

Whether people perceive a greater degree of control over their access to fresh food,
increased control over social interactions or a greater sense of personal well-being,

participation in gardening does result in some significant quality of life improvements.

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4: Personal Empowerment through Community Gardening
(adapted from Zimmerman 1995; Hungerford & Volk 1990)
Mediating Structurefl ’
(The Garden Project) 1
Intrapersonal Interactional Behavioral
Component Component Component
Motivation to Development of Change in food-related
participate in program gardening skills behaviors
Confidence in abilities ln-depth knowledge Participation in social
to garden and “ownership of food action
production
EMPOWERMENT >

 

 

 

However, empowerment must include an actual change in an individual’s relative
level of social power through some form of social action This study has not
demonstrated that community gardening provides a situation in which social power is
increased. While The Garden Project provides opportunities in which people can develop
a perception of control and thus psychological empowerment, it does not provide
opportunities that are truly conducive to the empowerment of individuals.

Membership in organizations that provide the opportunity for social action and
change represents the keystone that transforms the psychologically empowered into the
personally empowered (Breton, 1994; Rissel, 1994; Speer & Hughey, 1995). Maton and

Salem (1995) and Prestby et al (1990) recognize that the design, structure and operation

127

of potentially empowering organizations must provide individual members with
opportunities for skill development and access to the decision-making process. In this
study, The Garden Project acts a mediating structure through which individuals gain the
opportunity to enter into the potentially empowering activity of community gardening. As

a mediating structure, the purpose of The Garden Project is to provide individuals with

 

:r_
access to resources, information and opportunities for skill development — a key

component of the empowerment process. This is expressed by the program’s distribution

of a broad spectrum of gardening supplies to participants. The Garden Project provides a

necessary step in the empowerment process by creating the opportunity for individuals to ;,

experience the Interactional Component of the empowerment process. Without The
Garden Project, motivated individuals could not move beyond the Intrapersonal
Component and continue the empowerment process.

The Garden Project distinguishes itself from the charity-based emergency food
distribution efl'orts of the GLFB by assisting people to help themselves. While the
program provides people with resources and opportunities to garden and produce their
own food, it does not provide an opportunity for the people to take control of the
program’s administration or resources. Instead, the program is reliant upon continued
funding and support from the GLFB. Should the GLFB decide to discontinue The
Garden Project, the Foster Park Community Garden would most likely not survive.

While The Garden Project provides the opportunity for individuals to gain a
psychological sense of empowerment, it does not provide an opportunity for social action
and change. Without this social action, personal empowerment cannot occur. The

Garden Project fiils to empower individuals by not providing opportrmities for social

128

action and fiiling to provide appropriate resources and information tailored to meet the
needs of its members. These shortcomings are the result of the organizational

assumptions and the structure of the program emanating from these assumptions.

7.5) Impediments to Empowerment
Are there barriers to participation? What is the role and nature of skill development in
the empowerment of participants? The design and structure of the organization and its
interaction with individuals determines whether or not the empowering potential is
realized. The key aspects of an empowering organization are:
l. the provision of resources and opportunities for skill development consistent with
the needs of individuals,

2. individual control over the decision-making process, and
3. development of a cohesive community capable of creating social change.
7.5.1) Resources and Skill Development: Meeting the Needs of Individuals

The Garden Project was developed around the GLFB’s Self-Help Statement,
which asserts that self-help activities are a set of educational experiences. The
educational aspect of the program is expressed by the development and delivery of
formal, gardening-related workshops, educational literature, a demonstration garden,
lending library and access to knowledgeable staff and volunteers. While the program
places a great deal of emphasis on formal educational experience, Foster Park gardeners
obtain a rrrajority of their gardening knowledge through non-formal aspects. Only six of
the twenty gardeners interviewed had attended a workshop sponsored by The Garden

Project and only one individual identified the newsletter as an educational resource.

129

Foster Park gardeners gain most of their skills through non-formal, experiential
sources of information, through the practice of trial and error, observation and
conversations with other gardeners. These methods of skill development are highly
valued by gardeners because they can occur at any time, suit the specific needs of the
gardener and are unstructured. Some gardeners believe that “book learning” has limited
value focusing instead upon learning from others in the garden

While the participants in this study view their experience with The Garden Project
fivorably, most gardeners experience some degree of fi'ustration in the pro gram. The
level of fi'ustration varies between individuals ranging fi'om slight annoyance for some, to
complete fi'ustration in others causing them to abandon their garden plot. These
fi'ustrations represent significant potential barriers to participation in the program, which
may ultimately inhibit the organization fi'om firlfilling its empowerment mission

The Foster Park Community Garden experiences a gardener turnover rate of
approximately 60%. Unfortunately, relatively few of the disaffected gardeners
participated in this study making it somewhat difficult to understand the high degree of
gardener turnover. The fi'ustrations expressed by the study participants can however,
shed some light onto the barriers that discourage participation These can be described
under two categories: lack of resource control and lack of community development.

Furthermore, the rigidly defined rules of participation create additional hardships
for some Foster Park gardeners. Limited water access and the limited window of time in
which gardeners are required to begin planting, requires that individual gardeners alter
their personal schedule to meet the demands of the garden rather than using the garden on

their own terms. This is a significant issue given that Foster Park gardeners possess

130

different levels of commitment to gardening and pursue gardening for a variety of
purposes.

Foster Park gardeners also lack control over the size of the individual garden
plots. By providing only one plot size, The Garden Project fiils to recognize the
differing skill levels and commitment of individual gardeners. This limits gardening to
those individuals who are willing and able to use an entire plot. While some skilled and
experienced gardeners find the present plot size acceptable, several gardeners found that
they were unable to maintain their plot and as a result left the program

The limitations of the resources provided by The Garden Project resulted in one
Foster Park gardener who represents the program’s target population, leaving the
program Olivia, a Foster Park gardener, works two jobs, relies upon emergency food
assistance, does not own an automobile and rents a home near the garden Olivia has
been an avid gardener since childhood and enjoys community gardening at F oster Park
because it gives her the opportunity to work with the soil, enjoy fresh produce and
contribute to her community. During the past two gardening seasons, Olivia has made
significant contributions of her time as a volunteer at the Foster Park warehouse
distributing seedlings to gardeners. Regardless of her dedication to the pro gram and her
enjoyment of gardening, the quality of soil, the omni-presence of weeds and the large plot
size finally caused her to leave the program

During this study, numerous gardeners expressed their great dissatisfiction with
the quality of resources provided by The Garden Project. Poor quality soil, limited access
to water, excessively weedy plots, insect and mammalian pests, acts of vandalism and

theft of garden produce make growing vegetables an even more difficult and uncertain

131

proposition than would normally be expected in a home garden situation While
members of The Garden Project’s Advisory Committee have acknowledged these
concerns, the scope of these problems has not been fully addressed. Providing quality
resources that meet the expectations of gardeners and allow gardeners a greater chance
for success, especially those possessing few gardening skills, is an essential and practical
first step in helping to ensure some degree of gardener success.

7.5.2) Individual Control over the Decision-Making Process

Ultimately, The Garden Project’s fiilure to supply the correct quantities and
qualities of resources is tied to the fict that individual gardeners are not included in the
decision-making process. Without the direct input of gardeners, program staff and
advisors are placed in the difficult situation of guessing which resources are suflicient
and meaningful to gardeners.

The ability of an organization to positively influence the empowerment of its
members is tied to the assumptions or belief systems upon which the organization is built
(Maton & Salem, 1995; Jamison, 1985). This belief system includes the ideology and
values of the organization, which in turn influence the development of policies and
procedures that determine the actions taken by the organization.

The assumptions on which an organization is based are only as good as the
information available to the decision-makers. Program development that does not
include intended beneficiaries would find it extremely diflicult to provide a true
community service. It is therefore highly desirable to involve those whom the program
serves in the design, operation and evaluation, and eventually, the control over an

empowerment initiative.

132

7.5.3) Community Development and Social Change

Access to the decision-making process and the selection and control over
resources is tied to the development of a community of individuals with the power to
create social change. Personal empowerment is not an endeavor resting entirely within
individuals. It includes interaction between the individual and mediating structures or
communities in which the individual is embedded. Zirnrnerrnan’s (1995) model of the
process of personal empowerment is useful as fir as illustrating this basic process, but it
must be made clear that empowerment cannot occur within a social vacuum

The creation of communities of individuals who control the decision-making
process and resources is the key to creating empowered individuals. Communities create
the power to educate and motivate members through mutual involvement in the program
Organized communities can also create the changes necessary to serve their true needs
rather than the perceived needs of a third party. If the structure of the social environment
and the rules for participation are developed and administered by a third party, the
creation of empowered individuals is unlikely.

Foster Park gardeners consistently noted the lack of a sense of community. This
lack of community discourages participation and ultimately personal empowerment in
three ways. First, gardeners are generally interested in the social aspect of community
gardening. Several gardeners cited that meeting people who share similar interests in
gardening is a major motivation to join The Garden Project. Unfortunately, most
individuals find the gardens relatively devoid of other gardeners. This lack of a shared
community between gardeners is further exacerbated as neighboring gardeners lose

interest in the program and fail to maintain their plots. Being surrounded by unkempt

133

plots is an unpleasant and inhospitable environment that discourages neighbors fiom
continuing participation and investment in building the garden.

The second problem arising from a lack of cormnunity is that it limits the power
of individuals to become involved in social change, a basic tenet of personal
empowerment. Organizing individuals behind a belief or cause is the most efl’ective way
of creating social change. Without a cohesive and organized cormnunity improvements
in the social condition of people (empowerment) is unlikely to occur (Speer & Hughey,
1995). Instead of a community of individuals working together to improve and secure
the firture of the garden, Foster Park resembles a group of isolated individuals working on
their own plot for largely personal benefit all the while wishing they could bond with
other gardeners. An entire garden of individuals working together could demand access
to water and work together to find solutions to many of the practical barriers to gardening
which stem from a lack of control over the decision-making process.

Finally, the lack of community undermines the empowerment of gardeners by
squandering the educational potential of gardening. Skill development is recognized as a
critical component in the empowerment of individuals (Zimmerman, 1995). This
requires that individual have access to relevant information that is delivered in a manner
consistent with the needs of the individual. While The Garden Project places a high
degree of organizational emphasis on the delivery of formal education programs, most
skill and knowledge development in Foster Park actually occurs through informal
channels including conversations between individual gardeners. Without the active

development and promotion of a cohesive community of gardeners who know one

134

another skill development through these informal gardener-to-gardener channels is
inhibited.

Although not directly related to the operation of The Garden Project, home
ownership and the transient nature of college students may have an important impact
upon the rate of gardener turnover. Thirteen of the twenty Foster Park gardeners
interviewed rent a house or apartment with a majority of these individuals enrolled in a
college program Eight of the gardeners involved in this study had ended their
participation in community gardening activities at Foster Park (Table 5). Two of these
“non-continuing” gardeners remain involved in the program at other garden sites. The
stated reasons for leaving the program included the lack of community, large plot sizes
and concerns over soil quality and water access. Additionally, three gardeners moved
away from the immediate neighborhood. The Foster Park gardeners who left the program
were generally motivated to join because of the gardening’s community development

potential.

7.6) The Garden Project’s “Self-Help” Mission

Does the community garden fulfill its “self-help ” mission, designed to assist
unemployed and low-income families in growing their own food? The original goal of
The Garden Project was to empower individuals to improve their social, economic and
nutritional condition This was to be accomplished through the distribution of resources
and educational support necessary for individuals to grow their own food which in turn
leads to increased levels of food self-sufficiency and a reduction in personal dependency

Upon emergency food assistance programs. However, few of the program participants

135

actually received emergency food assistance and none expressed an interest in attaining
personal food self-sufficiency. Instead, community gardeners participated in the program
as a means of increasing access to high quality fiesh foods as well as a number of
additional psychological, recreational and social benefits.

Table 5: Reasons for Leaving The Garden Project

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Garden Motivation to Join Reason for Leaving
er
Ben Community building, fiesh, Lack of cormnunity involvement,
organic food purchased home away from
neighborhood
Faith Recreation and relaxation Plot was too large, lack of community
involvement
Nancy Fresh produce Due to health problems, plot size and
water access became problems
Olivia Interaction with nature, Plot was too large. Too many weeds.
community building
Quinn Interaction with nature, Lack of community
community building
Tammy Community building Poor soil quality and water access. Lack
of community
Left Foster Park but have remained involved in the program
Garden Motivation to Join Reason for Leaving
er
Crystal Fresh produce Health problems, purchased home away
from neighborhood.
Lily Community building, sharing Moved away fi'om neighborhood.
garden experience with
children.

 

 

 

 

 

The Garden Project is effective in reaching a largely low-income population
However, despite low-incomes, participants are not generally dependent upon emergency
food assistance. Given that a majority of gardeners are not seeking to reduce reliance
upon emergency assistance, the program’s major emphasis on increasing food self-
reliance and its focus on producing large quantities of food appears to be misguided.

Instead of focusing on quantity, community gardeners are overwhelmingly interested in

136

improving access to high quality foods that supplement household food consumption and
improve the quality and enjoyment of food.

The organizational emphasis on the production of large quantities of food and the
personal economic benefits of gardening influenced the design of the physical garden
environment and rules for participation in the program These fictors proved to be
detrimental to the program by discouraging broad participation in community gardening
by marginalizing all but the food-related benefits of gardening.

7.6.1) Program Evaluation

While The Garden Project focuses its efforts on fulfilling its “self-help” Mission,
it does not currently incorporate program evaluation into its operations or administration.
When asked how The Garden Project’s success is measured, one member of the Garden
Project’s Advisory Committee responded, “I assume The Garden Project is successful
unless shown otherwise.” This lack of clear evaluation criteria makes it difficult to
determine the program’s true impact upon the community it serves and whether or not the
organization is fulfilling its Mission (Appendix I). When The Garden Project was first
established, the program set specific measurable outcomes such as the provision of 15
cormnunity gardens on 20 acres of land and the delivery of 50 workshops to 800 fimilies.
However, the organization did not establish any mechanism or criteria by which these
specific goals were to be evaluated. Without a formal evaluation the organization cannot
determine the appropriateness and practicality of these goals.

7.6.2) Organizational Assumptions
An organization’s assumptions shape its view of members, their needs and

problems and sets into motion the policies and actions taken to serve its members

137

(Jamison, 1985; Maton & Salem, 1995). Through document reviews and the researcher’s
observations while an employee of The Garden Project and member of The Garden
Project’s Advisory Committee, a number of organizational assumptions have been
identified. These assumptions, which are based primarily upon The Garden Project’s
Mission Statement and the Self-Help Statement, are expressed by the program policies
and actions (Table 6). While these assumptions reflect the beliefs of the program’s
planners but do not necessarily reflect the actual observable conditions and experiences
of program participants.

The fulfillment of the Mission can also be analyzed fiom the perspective of the
program’s Self Help Statement. This statement asserts that a self-help activity is
essentially a set of educational experiences tlfit are pertinent, practical and experiential in
nature. As such, the experience must be meaningful in the eyes of those whom the
program serves. This belief is still strongly engrained in the organizational culture. As
one member of The Garden Project’s Advisory Committee stated, “You start with people
where they’re at not where you want them to be.” Despite the personal dedication of
program stafl’ and advisors towards the goal of providing a meaningful experience for
gardeners, the program fiils to meet the needs of many individuals. This failure is due to
the lack of resources allocated for and directed at gaining a greater understanding of the
needs and desires of gardeners. Without such an understanding, the program fiils to
serve its full potential, alienating some gardeners and most likely prohibiting some new

members form joining.

138

Table 6: The Garden Project: Assumptions and Realities

 

Organizational Perspective

Participant Experience

 

Assumption

Conclusion

 

Gardeners represent low-income
households with some degree of
dependence upon emergency food
assistance.

Foster Park gardeners generally do
represent low-income households. Twenty
percent of study participants are to some
degree dependent upon emergency food
relief.

 

Participation is motivated by the desire
to increase household food self-
reliance.

Although many Foster Park gardeners are
initially motivated for to grow fresh food,
overtime other less tangible benefits are
discovered. These additional benefits tend
to become the primary motivation for
continued participation. None of the
Foster Park gardeners were motivated to
garden as a means to improve household
food “self-reliance”. Instead, gardeners
participate for a range of benefits
including, improvements to diet quality,
access to recreational opportunities,
improved physical and psychological
health and social interaction.

 

Community gardening is an effective
strategy for decreasing dependency
upon emergency food relief and
improving food self-reliance.

Community gardening does not play a
significant role in decreasing dependency
upon emergency food. However, it does
play a limited, yet important role in
improving food self-reliance.

 

The Garden Project assists people in
improving household food access
through the provision of gardening
resources and education that meet the
needs of participants.

F oster Park gardeners generally agree that
the program provides ample resources that
make gardening accessible and affordable.
For two gardeners, the resources and
support provided by the program makes
community gardening more attractive than
home gardening. However, the resources
and educational support provided by The
Garden Project do not meet the needs of
many participants. The selection and
quality of resources offered to participants
may discourage participation and inhibit
the program from fully serving its Mission.

 

 

Growing one’s own food empowers
individuals to improve their nutritional,
economic and social condition.

 

Community gardening at Foster Park plays
a role in the perception of empowerment
but it fiils to truly empower individuals.
Empowerment is inhibited by the
organizational constraints arising fiom
incorrect assumptions of the needs and
motivations of participants.

 

139

 

This fiilure to understand the needs of gardeners is expressed in the type and
quality of resources that the program extends to the community. Foster Park gardeners
generally perceive the resources and the environment provided by The Garden Project to
be of low quality. Furthermore, the organization exhibits a “one size fits all” approach to
the allocation of resources, which fiils to recognize the range of expectations and
motivations that gardeners possess. While a handful of experienced gardeners have
proven to be successfirl, many individuals find the task of gardening beyond their

personal capabilities and commitment.

7.6.3) Empowerment Agenda

Despite a stated emphasis on the personal empowerment of participants, there is
little indication that community gardeners actually experience an increase in social
power. This case study illustrates the importance of program design upon the
empowerment of participants. Programs espousing an empowerment agenda must
provide appropriate and meaningful resources and opportunities for skill development.
Providing these resources requires that program participants are actively involved in the
decision-making process. Most importantly, organizations advocating an empowerment
agenda must provide opportunities for social action in which participants eventually gain
control over the initiative’s resources and decision-making process. By doing so, the
individuals can attain a real increase in social power and self-determination

Rather than arriving at a yes or no conclusion as to whether The Garden Project
fulfills its Mission, this study finds that the program fulfills its Mission on a limited scale,

fiiling to meet its full potential as an agent of empowerment.

140

7.7) Policy Recommendations

The Garden Project is a valued community asset that no doubt makes the Foster
Park area a better place to live and has the potential to empower residents. Despite the
best intentions of the program and the dedication and commitment of stall; advisors and
volunteers, The Garden Project fiils to fully serve its Mission Fortunately, the program
has made recent attempts to improve the program by re-examining the program’s Mission
and role within the community. Through this process, the program has begun to address
many of the issues raised in this study. As one member of The Garden Project’s
Advisory Committee explained, “Often times in one size fits all models, that fits certain
people really well but it forces other people away. So the question is. . .who is being
turned away? Who is being disabled and how important are those people in relationship
to your core Mission?. .. If we are losing people because you know, what’s happening is
these garden plots are basically being propagated by people who are really [avid
gardeners] then that means a lot of people are being left behind. That’s disabling not
enabling and that’s a major problem Especially if the people being disabled are in the
target population.”
7.7.1) Resource Improvements

The first practical step in improving the conditions at Foster Park is to improve
the gardening experience by focusing on the provision of quality physical resources.
Providing ready access to water through water taps placed in strategic garden locations
would produce immediate benefits for all gardeners. This is one improvement that
gardeners have been asking for and by providing this resource the organization can show

its commitment to current and potential gardeners.

141

The soil at Foster Park is of poor quality. Improving soil through the application
of organic matter such as finished compost would also improve gardener satisfiction. As
with providing water taps, an improvement in soil quality would illustrate a real
commitment to the improvement of the gardens and the success of its gardeners.
Additiomlly, the provision of a variety of garden plot sizes and configurations including
raised beds for those with physical limitations would benefit both current gardeners and
provide opportunities for new gardeners to join. If The Garden Project’s role is to
provide people with resources, it should provide quality resources that ficilitate gardeners
achieving their goals.

7.7.2) Profiling the Needs of Gardeners

Providing pertinent, practical and meaningful services to the community is one of
the basics tenets of The Garden Project and GLFB. As outlined in this study, an
understanding of the needs, expectations and motivations of participants cannot be taken
for granted. Instead, organizations striving to meet a specific goal must base their
decisions on the collection and analysis of credible data.

Most significantly, The Garden Project has little knowledge of the needs of those
members of the community who choose not to use the program It is unknown how many
community members could benefit from participation and whether their lack of
participation is due to a lack of knowledge of the program’s existence or if specific
unidentified barriers prohibit participation.

The Garden Project currently relies upon the use of an end-of-season satisfiction
survey as a means of profiling the experiences and needs of participating gardeners.

While such a survey provides important data, it is unknown how accurately the data

142

represents the views of gardeners. The major weakness of the end-of-season survey is
that it is mailed to gardeners in October. Those individuals dissatisfied with the program
are generally removed fiom the mailing list prior to receiving their survey. Therefore,
these individuals most likely do not participate and most likely see little value in
expressing their concerns.

This research project, relying primarily upon the use of in-depth personal
interviews with community gardeners, has revealed a number of unexpected results. This
suggests that The Garden Project does not fully understand the needs of gardeners. As a
result, it must take steps to complete a more comprehensive survey of gardener needs and
expectations. Such a research project should rely upon a variety of data collection
methods and seek universal participation In the long term, The Garden Project should
place a high-priority on developing and incorporating systematic data collection efl’orts
within the normal operations of the gardens. Such a system must be open to all
participants in a manner that promotes full participation and encourages individuals to
lodge complaints.

7.7.3) Gardener Education: Developing Motivated Gardeners

This research project focused on the second phase or “interactional component”
of the personal empowerment concept. As such, it assumes that an individual
participating in the program has previously attained the first phase or “intrapersonal
component” of empowerment prior to initiating The Garden Project’s registration
process. This study found that all participants had attained a prior exposure gardening,

generally during childhood. The empowerment model suggests that individuals who

143

have not attained the first phase of empowerment are not likely to participate in an
empowering opportunity.

In order to expand community access to the potentially empowering benefits of
cormnunity gardening, The Garden Project should promote the development of the first
phase of empowerment by introducing individuals, particularly children to gardening.
The Garden Project currently provides material support for numerous local elementary
and intermediate school gardens. The organization should continue to provide this
support as well as seek out new opportunities to introduce people to the benefits of
gardening. These activities fill well within the organization’s educational mission.
7.7.4) Organizational Change

Creating the conditions necessary to empower individuals requires more than
simply providing quality resources. The organizational power structure and decision-
making process must also undergo a fimdarnental change. Operationally, The GLFB and
The Garden Project must embrace a less hierarchical command structure and instead
grant greater autonomy to staff and community gardeners. The current structure provides
few opportunities for gardener input into program development and administration
(Appendix J). This structure also places a significant distance between the decision-
making bodies and the community gardeners. As a result, the accountability of the
decision-makers is reduced while at the same time the knowledge of gardener needs and
expectations is reduced. This disconnect has created the current rift between the
organizational assumptions and the actual experience of individual gardeners.

The Garden Project’s basic mandate is to provide an educational experience that

is pertinent and practical. Opening leadership to a broader segment of individuals will

144

help to ensure that the gardening experience meets the needs and expectations of
participants. An important first step towards this goal is to require significant gardener
representation on the GLFB Board of Directors and The Garden Project’s Advisory
Committee. Democratic representation on these bodies would ensure greater public
accountability for this vital community resource.

Ideally, the control and organization of community gardens should be
neighborhood-based rather than promoted and supported solely by an outside agency.
Partnerships with existing community organizations or the creation of new neighborhood
groups capable of providing garden leadership are more conducive to creating
opportunities for personal empowerment. The Foster Park Community Garden would be
better served by an organization comprised of those individuals who directly benefit fiom
the participation Grassroots organizations have proven to be more flexible and able to
meet the needs of individuals, thus supporting the empowerment process (Barr, 1995;
Pottharst, 1995).

The goal of increased participant control of the garden and its resources is to
reduce the reliance upon an “outside” organization and improve individual accountability
over the successes and fiilures of the garden In such a scenario, the GLFB and The
Garden Project accept an advocacy role using the substantial financial and professional
resources of these organizations to support the physical needs of the gardeners (quality
soil, water access, seeds, tools, etc.). Additional support would take the form of
leadership development and the ficilitation of garden-based organization as well as
promotional activities throughout the community. Neighborhood control is certainly no

guarantee of garden success or an improvement of the current conditions. However, the

145

successes or fiilures of the garden are more directly the result of the efforts of those
involved in the initiative, rather than an outside organization with little direct
accountability — a truly empowering situation

If the GLFB is to fully support the benefits of community gardening, it must make
a stepwise change in its philosophy towards food access. Rather than simply ensuring
access to suflicient quantities of food required to reduce hunger and malnutrition, it must
work to ensure universal access to high quality foods. The GLF B has been successful in
ensuring a readily available supply of emergency food to the community. It now has the
opportunity to take the next step by ensuring that all members of the community have
access to quality food. Fresh, organically produced and locally grown foods are often
unavailable to low-income residents. This study has shown that community gardening is
an effective tool in improving access to these foods, which in turn improves nutrition and
diet.

Ultimately, The GLFB Board of Directors is responsible for addressing the
mismatch between pro gram objectives and the actual gardening experience. As the
governing body and financial basis of the Garden Project, the Board must be willing to
provide both leadership and financial resources in support of the empowerment objective.
Without the support of the GLFB Board of Directors, The Garden Project has little
chance in meeting the needs of local community gardeners and the program will continue

to under serve the community.

146

7.8) Future Research

Qualitative case studies often raise more questions than they answer. The purpose

of this case study was to provide an initial investigation into the empowering potential of

community gardening, a topic that has received little in the way of scholarly research

While the study addresses the issue of empowerment as well as provides useful insights

into the personal experience of cormnunity gardeners, it has also opened the door for

future research opportunities that could not be properly addressed within the scope of this

study.

Future research opportunities should focus on the following areas:

How do GLFB Board Members, The Garden Project stafi‘, volunteers and
donors define empowerment? How do these individuals perceive that the
program does or does not promote the empowerment of participants? Such
research would compliment this current study by providing an understanding
of the degree to which organizer and participant perceptions match.

What are the similarities and differences in the experiences of gardeners at the
other 17 community gardens administered by The Garden Project? Each
garden administered by the program is believed to possess a unique blend of
physical resources and serve a diversity of individuals. A comprehensive
study of all gardens in the Lansing could help to uncover the necessary
ingredients for a “successful” garden. Such a study could benefit The Garden
Project in its efforts to develop new gardens and determine the resources

required.

147

What role does home gardening play in The Garden Project’s empowerment
agenda? This study focused solely on the community gardening program and
did not address the experience of the approximately 100 households who
receive home gardening assistance through The Garden Project.

Why do people leave The Garden Project? This important question was not
fully addressed by this study. A greater understanding of why people leave
the program and whether the turn-over rate is related to the organization and
operation of the gardens or simple a function of a mobile population or other
individual fictors has significant implications for the firture management of
the program

How does the community gardening experience of refugee families compare
to that of native-born Americans? The Garden Project has served a large
Southeast Asian cormnunity since its inception Additionally, the Lansing
area is home to growing numbers of Afi'ican and Middle Eastern refirgees who
could potentially benefit fi'om participation in the program Even within the
program, little is known about the experience of these individuals.

What is the true “target population” of The Garden Project? From an
organizational standpoint, The Garden Project has assumed to serve
unemployed and low-income household, which are generally believed to have
lower educational levels. This study found that Fo ster Park gardeners are
generally more highly educated than typical neighborhood residents. It is
unknown what if any fictor the garden’s proximity to Michigan State

University has on attracting educated gardeners. Conversely, the presence of

148

so many highly educated gardeners may be a symptom of a poor local
economic situation in which an education does not ensure food and economic
security.
0 An in-depth analysis of the policy recommendations outlined in Section 7.7 of
this chapter. Should The Garden Project implement these recommendations, a
study documenting the change process and its outcome would provide an
important “next step” for this study. Such a study would help to validate or
reject the conclusions of this study.
The Garden Project provides an accessible and interesting opportunity to
examine community gardening, community development, organizational structure and
the phenomenon of empowerment. Additionally, the organization has developed and
maintained a strong working relationship with multiple research and support units at
Michigan State University. This provides a fertile ground for further community-based
and practical research that meets the needs of both institutions. It is hoped that this
research project has provided a useful and important starting point to inspire firrther
research with the goal of assisting The Garden Project and Greater Lansing Food Bank in

fulfilling their missions by serving the true needs of the community.

149

Appendix A:
Appendix B:
Appendix C:
Appendix D:
Appendix E:
Appendix F:
Appendix G:

Appendix H:

Appendix 1:

Appendix J:

Appendix K:

LIST OF APPENDICES

Garden Map: Foster Park
Registration Form

Postcard

Interview Guide

UCRIHS

Informed Consent Form
Overview Grid

Community Garden Guidelines
Mission Statement
Organizational Chart

HUD Income Guidelines

150

APPENDIX A:

 

 

Map Legend

 

 

 

W Water Barrel

m Compost Bins
I
Structure
x. . Fire Hydrant
Tree

Note: Map is not to
scale

 

 

Garden Map

 

X W

VV‘
.' ..

 

0 o\
:-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

Wesson

 

 

 

 

 

Warehouse

 

 

 

151

 

 

The Garden Project
2002 Reg'ntration for Home and Community Gardeners

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please print!

Home Work
Name Phone Phone
Address City Zip
E-mail Address County

 

 

Do you live within: _ Lansing city limits _ East Lansing city limits _ Lansing Township

Meridian Township

 

Did you garden with The Garden Project last year?

Lansing: East Side

 

 

 

 

(Circle one number) _Clifi’ord Park
1. Yes _Caesar Donora Park
2. No ___Potter Park
_Foster Park
_Paradise Garden
Are you a beginning gardener? Lansing: Central
1. Yes _Oak Park
2. No
Are you an organic gardener? Lansing: South Side
1. Yes _Henry North School
2. No _Our Savior Lutheran Church
Risdale Park
Do you want rototilling service at your home? East Lansing/Meridian ToWDS_h_'Q
(Low to moderate income households only.) There _Lilac Street
is a $5.00 transportation fee for this service. plot number—
Please do not send money; pay when your garden _Towar Avenue
is tilled. Other Site
1. Yes Please indicate
2. No

 

Where would you like to have a cormnunity garden
plot? There is more information about the locations
of gardens in Garden Notes, attached. (Please
check your first choice.)

Would you like more than one plot? Second
plots will be available if space permits to
experienced gardeners only. (First plot is
free; additional plots are $5.00 each. Please

pay at the plot assignment meeting.)
1. Yes
2. No

 

Lansing: North/West Side
_Airport

_Otto Middle School
_MLK/Oakland Avenue

 

 

Do you have any physical handicap and/or
need special consideration in the location of
your plot?

1. No

2. Yes Please explain

 

152

 

 

The Garden Project could not function without the
help of many volunteers. There are a variety of
opportunities to share your skills with the project.

How many persons live in your household?

 

Please check the volunteer task(s) that you are
interested in working on:

____Seed packaging

_community garden coordinator
_construction projects (do you have
construction skills and/or tools)

_mailings (help with the folding and labeling
of newsletters and invitations, 2-3 hours during
weekdays)

___demonstration garden (help design, plant,
weed, water and maintain demonstration garden
in Foster Park)

_office support (We need volunteers to help
make telephone calls, computer data entry)
_warehouse support (The Garden Project
operates a warehouse located in Foster Park where
we distribute seeds, plants and tools to gardeners.
We need help sorting seeds, assisting gardeners
with finding plants, set-up and clean-up of
digrlays, general housekeepinwies, etc.)

What is the yearly gross income for your
household? Add together the yearly incomes for
all persons over 18. (Please check one)
_$0 to 19,800

___$19,081 to $22,650

_$22,651 to $25,450

_$25,451 to $28,300

_$28,301 to $30,550

_$30,551 to $31,700

___$31,701 to $32,850

_$32,851 to $35,100

_$35,101 to $36,200

_$36,201 to $37,350

_$37,351 to $40,750

___$40,751 to $45,300

_$45,301 to $48,900

_more than $48,900

 

_ harvest dinner (In September we will be
having a potluck dinner to celebrate the harvest.
We need volunteers to help with the set-up and
clean-up)

__ other

We are required to report the following
information to the agencies which provide
financial support for The Garden Project. It is
for statistical purposes only, and will remain
completely confidential.

What is your racial/ethnic group?
_White

_Afriean American
_Hispanic

_Native American/Eskimo
_Asian/Pacific Islander
__Other

 

 

 

Please take a minute to fill out this section
completely.
Thank you.

Is your household: (Please check one)

___single female with or without children

_single male with or without children

_married or unmarried couple with or without
children

 

@tional: Tax deductible contribution to The
Garden Project.

Amount enclosed: 5
Thank you!

 

153

 

APPENDIX C:
Postcard

Dear ,

Michigan State University is conducting a study of the value of community gardens. For
this study, we are contacting all those who are current 9_1: former community gardeners at
either the Foster Park or Paradise Community Gardens. We are equally interested in
speaking with people who enjoyed their gardening experience as well as those who did
not.

As someone who has gardened at these locations, we would like to interview you as part
of this study. An interview typically takes 30-60minutes. It would be conducted by Bob
Kirkby at your residence at a time and place convenient for you.

We need to complete our gardener interviews by the end of October. If you are interested
in participating in the study please contact Bob at 887-4660 (daytime or evening). While
we hope that you will be willing to participate in the study, any participation is voluntary
and all information would remain confidential. To show our appreciation, each person
interviewed will be entered into a lucky draw for a cash prize of $100 to be awarded
November 6“. We expect to interview 20-30 people in total for the study.

Thank you for any assistance you can provide to our study.

Bob Kirkby (phone: 887-4660)
MSU Researcher

Dr. Jo Ann Beckvvith
MSU Principal Investigator

154

APPEDNIX: D
Interview Guide

Name:
Date:
Start Time:
End Time:
Location:
1) How did you first get involved in community gardening with The Garden Project?
2) What did you hope to gain fiom community gardening?
3) What types of gardening experience did you have before community gardening?
4) After participating in community gardening for one season, why did/didn’t you
return for a second season?
5) Has the gardening experience met your expectations?
a. If yes, in what way?
b. What were the benefits?
c. If not, why?
(1. Were there any unexpected benefits?
6) Did your experience with community gardening help you to develop any new
skills?
a. If so, what types of skills did you acquire?
b. How important were these skills?
c. Where/fiom whom did you acquire these skills?

(1. Have these skills made gardening more rewarding?

e. Was there anything that you wish you’d have known before you started

gardening?

155

f. Are there any other skills or other potential benefits that you would like to
have gained from The Garden Project? If yes, what are they?

7) In what ways could The Garden Project be improved to allow participants to get
more out of the gardening experience? Are there specific barriers (time conflicts,
transportation, etc.)?

8) Are you familiar with the term, “empowerment”?

a. What does it mean to you?
b. Have you been empowered in any way fi'om your experience with The
Garden Project?
c. If yes, in what way?
d. If no, why not?
9) Were you motivated to garden as a means of getting enough food to eat?
a. If yes, how important is gardening?
10) Did your diet of how you think about food change as a result of your community
gardening experience?
a. How important was it?
b. If food security is an issue:
i. Have you ever had trouble getting access to food?
ii. Does gardening play a role in getting food?
iii. If yes, how important is it?
iv. How else do you stretch your food budget (Food Stamps, food
pantries, etc.)?

v. Have you ever applied for or received Food Stamps?

156

l 1) “Here is a hypothetical question If you were hired to promote the benefits of

community gardening, which benefits would you promote as being the most

important and why?”

12) “Please indicate (yes or no) if you have gained any of the following fi'om

community gardening?

a.

b.

Improved gardening skills?

A greater sense of community?

A different view of food or food production?
A sense of empowerment?

i. Follow-up as needed.

13) “Would you like to add any other comments?”

157

APPENDIX E:
APPROVAL OF A PROJECT
INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS

University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS)
Ashir Kumar, MD, Chair
202 Olds Hall, Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824-1046
PHONE (517) 355-2180 FAX (517) 432-4503
E-Mail - UCRIHS@msu.edu
WEB SITE - http://wwwmsueduluserlucrihs/

Office Hours: Mon-Fri. (8:00 A.M.-Noon & 1:00-5:00 PM.)
DIRECTIONS: Please complete the questions on this application using the instructions and definitions
found on the attached sheets. If not attached, these materials are available at

http://www.msu.edu/user/ucrihs_/ucrihs instruction formhtm.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

REQUIRED IF APPLICABLE
1. Responsible Proiect Investigator: 2. Second_arv Investigator:
(MSU Faculty or staff supervisor) (”Students Must Provide Student
ID#**)
Name: Jo Ann Beckwith Name: Robert Kirkby
Social Security #1 Student ID#: or SS# A26921534
Department: Resource Development Department: Resource
Development
College: ANR College: ANR
Academic Rank: Assistant Professor Academic Rank: Graduate Student
Mailing 310A Natural Resources Mailing 1928 Roberts Lane
Address: East Lansing, MI 48823 Address: Lansing, MI 48910
Phone (517) 432-7733 Phone: (517) 485-8898
Fax: (517) 355-8994 Fax:
Email: Beckwi21@msu.edu Email: Kirkbyro@msu.edu
I 30099! VOSPODSIDIIIW for GONUUCIIHQ the proposed Additional Investigator Information
research in accordance with the protections of
human 3. Name:
subjects as specified by UCRIHS, including the Student ID#: or SS#
supervision of faculty and student co-
investigators. 4. Name:
Student ID#: or SS#
SIGN HERE: 5. Name:
Student ID#: or SS#
Note: Without signature, application eon 991 be
processed

 

 

158

UCRIHS Correspondence: Copies of correspondence will be sent to the primary and secondary
investigators only. If you would like additional investigators to receive correspondence, please provide
further address information on a separate page.
6. Title of Learning and Personal Empowerment Through Cormnunity
Project: Gardening: A Case Study of the Foster Park Community Garden

7. a. Have you ever received Preliminary Approval for this project? No [ X ] Yes

I l
b. Is this application a Five-Year renewal? No [ X ] Yes

I l
c. Do you have any related projects that were approved by UCRIHS? No [ X ] Yes

I I
If yes, list IRB numbers

 

 

8. Funding (Complete a or b).
“All funded FULL REVIEW research must submit two [2] coples of the grant apfllcation.“

X a. none
b. Source(s):

 

 

 

List any source of project funding above whether It is through
MSU or paid directly to one or more of the investigators. Please
provide 2 complete copies of your grant application materials (if

any) with your UCRIHS submittal.

If applicable, MSU Contracts and Grants app. and I or acct.
#(S)

 

 

 

9a. Are you using a FDA approved drug/deviceldiagnostic test?
No [X] Yes [ ]
If yes, please enclose a copy of the package insert.

b. Are you using a FDA approved dnrgldeviceldiagnostic test for a non-FDA
approved
indication?
No [X] Yes [ ]

10. Has this protocol been submitted to the FDA or are there plans to submit it to the
FDA? No [X] Yes [ ]
If yes, is there an IND it? No [ ] Yes [ ] lND#

 

11. Does this project involve the use of Materials of Human Origin (e.g., human
blood or tissue)? No [X] Yes [ ]

12. When would you prefer to begin data May 1, 2002
collection?

 

159

Please remember you may not begin data collection without UCRIHS approval.

13.

Category of Review. Circle a,b, or c below and then specify sub-category for a.
and b. (See lnstmctions pp. 6-8).

a. This proposal is submitted as EXEMPT from full board review.
Specify sub- categories:
b. This proposal is submitted for EXPEDITED review (Note: Includes MW

 

praocols).

15.

Specify sub-categories: 7
c. This proposal is submitted for FULL Board Review.

 

14. Is this a Public Health Service funded, full review, multi-site project for which
MSU is the lead institution? No [X] Yes [ ]
If yes, do the other sites have a Multiple Project Assurance lRB that will also
review this project?
[ ] No. Please contact the UCRIHS office for further information about
meeting the PHS/NlH/OPRR regulations.
[ ] Yes. Please supply a copy of that approval letter when obtained.

Research Category

Check all categories that apply

[ ] Education Research [ ] Gene Transfer Research
[X] Survey/Interview [ ]Fetal Research

[X] AudioNideo Recording [ ]Medical Records

[ ]Oral History [ ]Stem Cell Research

[ ]lntemet-based [ ]Medical Imaging
[]Analysis of Existing Data [ ] Oncology

[ ]lntemational Research [ ]Phase1 Clinical Trial

16. Project Description (Abstract): Please limit your response to 200 words.

The contemporary American food system fails to meet the needs of a significant
proportion of the population. In response to this failure a number of alternative
food production and distribution systems, including urban community gardens
have been developed. A central feature of many community gardening programs
is the role of creating social and economic change by which those individuals
adversely affected by the shortcomings of the contemporary food system can
regain some degree of control over the quantity and quality of the foods they eat.

Empowerment theory suggests that individuals may gain control over important life
domains such as food choices through a process of learning and skill
development. This process leads to a “critical awareness” of the individual’s role
within the larger system that allows for positive and educated behavioral changes.
These educated behavioral changes result in an empowered individual that
understands his or her rights and responsibilities and the repercussions associated
with behavioral choices.

This study will examine the sources and methods of knowledge and skill

160

development as experienced by participants in an urban community gardening
program. Through the use of in-depth participant interviews, this study will lead to
a greater understanding of the individual’s learning experience. A careful
collection of participant experiences will aid community gardening programs in
meeting the needs of participants and ensuring the development of empowered
citizens.

17a. Procedures: Please describe all procedures and measures you will use in collecting data
from human subjects. This pertains both to prospective and retroactive (l.e.pre-existing data)
research procedures. Investigators should carefully consult the instructions to correctly complete
this question. Also indicate below if data collech'on includes audio or image recording.

This study will be based upon in-depth personal interviews with the subjects. Each
subject will be interviewed for approximately one hour. The interviews will be one
on one with the secondary investigator performing all interviews and data
recording. Both parties will mutually agree on the location and date of the
interviews. Additional follow-up interviews may also be requested. Upon consent
of the subject, the interview will be recorded on audiotape for the purpose of
creating a full written transcript following the interview. Interview transcripts will be
coded using content analysis. The purpose of these interviews is to gain a first
hand account of the gardener's experience and to translate this experience based
upon existing research literature on the phenomenon of empowerment. The final
research report is expected to contain un-attributed subject quotes to support the
research.

The semi-structured in-depth interview will use the following list of questions as an
interview guide:
0 How and when did you first get involved with the Garden Project (GP)?
0 What types of gardening experiences did you have before joining the
GP?
How often do you use the community garden?
When you first joined the community garden, what benefits did you
hope to get out of it?
What benefits, if any, have you drawn from the community garden.
Are there any specific skills or knowledge that you learned through the
GP?
Have you experienced any disappointments or fi'ustrations with the GP?
Have your experiences with community gardening changed the way you
think about food?

These questions are intended to develop an understanding of the individual’s
motivation for participation in community gardening and what if any impacts
participation has had on the individual.

17b. Does your investigation involve incomplete disclosure of the research purpose or
deception of subjects? [X] No [ ] Yes

If yes, be sure to include copies of your debriefing procedures for subjects. (See the
UCRIHS Instructions p. 9).

161

18a. Subject Population: Describe your subject population. (e.g., high school athletes,
women over 50 wlbreast cancer, small business owners)

The study population will include individuals who participated in community gardening
at the Foster Park Community Garden located in Lansing, Michigan and live within the
immediate neighborhood.

These individuals will be identified using gardener registration data obtained from the
Garden Project. This data shows that the average household size of potential
informants is 2.6 and the average annual per capita income is $10,769. Of these
households, approximately 69% are white, 11% African American, 6% Hispanic, 8%
Asian/Pacific Islander, and 6% other or no response.

No minors will be involved in this project.

 

b. The study population may include (check all categories where subjects
may be included by design or incidentally):
Minors [ ]
Pregnant Women [X]
Women of Childbearing Age [X]
Institutionalized Persons [ ] (<—Note: Includes prisoners)
Students [X]
Low Income Persons [X]
Minorities [X]
Incompetent Persons (or those
with diminished capacity) [ ]
c. Expected number of subjects (including controls) 40

 

d. How will the subjects be recruited? (Attach appropriate number of copies of

recruiting advertisement, if any. See Table 4, p. 18 of UCRIHS instructions)

The subjects will be recruited in the following manner. Subjects who participated in
the Foster Park Community in 2001 will be contacted by telephone. This telephone
call will inform the potential subject of the purpose of the study and will seek
permission for a personal interview. Individuals that cannot be contacted via
telephone will receive a postcard via US. mail containing the same information. The
postcard will ask the potential subject to contact the researcher for more information or
to schedule an interview.

Telephone Script:
My name is Bob Kirkby. I am a graduate student a Michigan State University
conducting a community gardening research project. The purpose of this research is to

162

better understand why people participate in community gardening and what types of
experiences people have in the garden. You are being contacted because your
experiences are very important.

I would like to schedule a time to interview you about your community gardening
experiences. The interview will last approximately one hour and I may have some

follow-up question to ask you at a later date. I can make arrangements to meet with
you at a time and place of your convenience. Your participation in this study is

completely voluntary.

Do you have any questions?

Would you like to participate in this study?

[if the subject agrees to participate, schedule the interview.
Postcard:

Dear

 

My name is Bob Kirkby. I am a graduate student a Michigan State University
conducting a community gardening research project. The purpose of this research is to
better understand why people participate in community gardening and what types of
experiences people have in the garden. You are being contacted because your
experiences are very important.

I would like to schedule a time to interview you about your community gardening
experiences. The interview will last approximately one hour and I may have some
follow-up question to ask you at a later date. I can make arrangements to meet with
you at a time and place of your convenience.

Your participation in this study is completely voluntary.

Please contact me if you are interested in participating in this study or have any
questions.

Bob Kirkby

310A Natural Resources
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48823
Phone: 485-8898

E-mail: kirkbyro@msu.edu

163

e. Are you associated with the subjects (e.g., they are your students,
employees, patients)? [X] No[ ] Yes
If yes, please explain the nature of the association and what measures you are

taking to protect subjects ’ rights, including safeguards against any coercion.

f. If someone will receive payment for recruiting the subjects please explain the
amount of payment, who pays it and who receives it.

9. Will the research subjects be compensated? [X] No [ ] Yes.

If yes, provide details concerning payment, including the amount and
schedule of payments including any conditions. In addition, this
information must also be explained in the consent form. (See Instructions
item 6, p. 14)

h. Will the subjects incur additional financial costs as a result of their
participation in this study? [X] No [ ] Yes. If yes, please also include
an explanation below and in the consent form.

i. Will this research be conducted with subjects who reside in another country,

or
who reside in the US. but in a cultural/ethnic context different from
traditional
U.S. society/culture?

Note: This may include ethnic groups/subcultures! and other non-mainstream
minorities, and would include non-English language speakers.
[X] No [ ] Yes.

(1) If yes, list the country(s) below, if applicable:

(2) If yes, will there be any corresponding complications in your ability
to minimize risks to subjects, maintain their confidentiality and/or
assure their right to voluntary informed consent as individuals?

[ ] No [ ] Yes.

(3) If your answer to H2) is yes, what are these complications and
how will you resolve them?
19. How will the subjects' privacy be protected? (See Instructions p. 11)

Confidentiality of the research subjects’ identities will be maintained. The name of
each subject will be coded with an alias. A master list of the identities will be
maintained electronically on a password-protected computer and in paper form in a
locked file cabinet. Only the research investigators will have access to this and any
other data collected in the study.

Interview audiotapes and written transcripts will likewise be maintained in a separate
password-protected computer and a file cabinet. Audiotapes will be erased following
written transcription. Written transcripts of the interviews will be retained for a
minimum of 3 years in a secure file cabinet. These transcripts will identify the
subjects only by their alias.

164

20. Risks and Benefits for subjects: (See Instructions p. 11.)

Participation in this study poses very little risk to the subject. Individuals will
voluntarily provide information on their community gardening experiences. A
potential risk may be the identification of subject comments in the final research
product. This could potentially include negative comments about the community
gardening experience or negative comments regarding others in the community. This
risk will be managed through the careful protection of subject confidentiality outlined
in Section 19.

The benefits of subject participation in this study include the potential improvement
of the community gardening program. This study may assist program staff in
improving the community gardening program through an enhanced understanding of
the needs and beliefs of participants. This may include improvements to gardener
education programs and gardening facilities that will result in enhanced enjoyment
and greater community involvement. This research may also benefit other
community gardening programs by providing important insights into the needs of
urban gardeners and provide a method of discovery for other researchers in the field
of community development.

21. Conflict(s) of Interest (See Instructions p. 12 8. Table 3, Item 5, p.15)
a. Have you or will you or a member of your immediate family receive, from the
sponsor of the research, financial or other forms of compensation?

X No Yes

b. Do or will you or a member of your immediate family have a vested interest in
the company/agencylfirrn that is to sponsor the research (answer “no” if there
is no sponsor for the research.)

X No Yes

If the answer to either 21a. or 21 b is yes,
(1) Describe the relationship between you or a member of your immediate
family and the sponsor of the research.
and (2) Include a statement in the consent form addressing potential conflicts
of interest (see Table 3, Item 5, p. 15) or state below why you believe such a
statement is not necessary for the protection of human subjects.

c. Are you submitting FDA form 3454 or 3455 (Conflict of Interest)?
X No Yes
If yes, please enclosed two (2) copies with this application

22. Consent Procedures (See Instructions pp. 12-14)

The research subjects will be notified of the voluntary nature of their participation
beginning with the initial contact. Most individuals will be contacted via telephone.
During this contact, the potential subject will be informed of the purpose of the
research project. This initial contact will also stress the voluntary nature of
participation (See 18d).

165

Immediately prior to the interview with the subject, the researcher will again explain
the purpose and intent of the research. The subject will be provided with the
attached informed consent form. This information will be read aloud to the subject
for clarity.

Subjects who agree to participate will sign the informed consent form and will be
reminded that they can withdraw from the study at anytime without penalty.

CHECKLIST: Check off that you have included each of these items. If not applicable, state N/A:

[
[

HHHHH

] Completed and signed application
I

The correct number of copies of the application, Instruments (e.g., surveys, interview questions.
questionnaires, etc), and measures according to the category of review (See Instructions, Table
4, p.18)

Copy(s) of consent form (or script for verbal consent) and debriefing document, if applicable
Two copies of grant application for FULL REVIEW projects, if applicable

Two copies of FDA form 3454 or 3455 (Conflict of Interest), if applicable

Advertisement, if applicable

One complete copy of the methods chapter of the research proposal (if available)

_HHHH

166

APPENDIX F

Learning and Personal Empowerment Through Community Gardening:
A Case Study of Foster Park Community Garden

The purpose of this study is to determine the Garden Project’s impact upon the neighborhoods
that it serves. This study relies upon information provided by community gardeners.

You are being asked to participate in this study because your community gardening experiences
are critical for an understanding of the impact of the Garden Project upon the local community.
This study will also be used to fulfill the researcher's thesis requirement of a Masters degree in
Resource Development from Michigan State University.

Your participation in this study is strictly voluntary. You may refuse to participate or refuse to
answer any question. You may discontinue your participation in this study at any time without
penalty. Your voluntary participation in this research project will require approximately one
hour.

For the purposes of this study, you are being asked to submit to an interview. I would like to
record this interview on audiotape to assist with the collection of data. The tape recordings will
be used solely for the creation of a written transcription of the interview. The tapes will be
securely stored in a password protected computer and a locked filing cabinet. This information
will be available to only the researcher. Your name will not be identified in any report of
research findings. You may choose not to have this conversation recorded on tape. If you agree
to have this interview recorded you may request the tapes be erased at any time. Your privacy
will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law.

Your assistance in this study is very much appreciated. If you have any questions about the study,
please contact me:

Bob Kirkby

Graduate Student

310A Natural Resources

Michigan State University

East Lansing, MI 48824

Phone: (517) 485-8898 E-mail: kirkbyro@msu.edu

If you have questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or are dissatisfied
at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact — anonymously, if you wish:

Ashir Kumar, M.D.

Chair of the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS)
202 Olds Hall, Michigan State University

East Lansing, MI 48824.

Phone: (517) 355-2180 Fax: (517)432-4503

E-mail: ucrihs@msu.edu

My signature below indicates that I voluntarily agree to participate in this study.

 

 

Signature Date

167

refen'al

- childhood
-adult

Formal T

Gardener

Skills?
Formal

Garden

Informal
rial and Error

riends/F

Need

different view of food or food
for Food
diet
ncreased control over food
Increased control over
ncreased control over

food
food

of

 

168

Benefits AB‘CA'DEFGHIJ K'LUNOVPQ'RS
ofaccomplishment XXX X X
X

       

identity x x
Mental Health
Aesthetics

Commitment
Plants
with Nature
Health

Access

size
Pests & Disease
see

Personal
&

169

nu:
GARDEN
PROJECT

 

2002 Community Garden Guidelines

General Guidelines:

0 Plant your garden as soon as possible after plots have been assigned. This is important in
order to get a good start on the growing season, and also to prevent weeds from getting out of
hand.

(Two week planting deadline: )

0 Wear your ID card when you are in the garden. Persons without an ID card may be
questioned by other gardeners. You may get enough ID cards for each household member
who will be working in the garden. Non-gardeners are permitted only when accompanied by
a registered gardener.

0 Keep your plot weeded throughout the summer. Gardeners with plots that have not been
wwded for several weeks will be notified. If for any reasons you cannot take care of your
plot throughout the summer, please call The Garden Project ofiice.

o Gardeners are responsible for keeping the pathways around their plots clean-weeded and
trash free.

0 At the end of the gardening season, remove all string, stakes, fencing and miscellaneous
supplies. Clean-up deadline for this season is October 14, 2002.

0 Please report any vandalism, theft, or unusual behavior to your site coordinator(s) and/or The
Garden Project office.

0 If you are gardening in an organic section, no synthetic chemicals (i.e., pesticides, herbicides,
etc.) may be used.

Neighborliness:

o It is requested that gardeners be considerate and not grow tall plants (like corn or sunflowers)
in a location that will shade neighboring gardener’s plots.

0 Please do not litter at the gardens. Take your trash home with you when you leave the
garden. The gardens need to be kept clean so that we can continue to use the land.

0 Please respect other people’s plots. Do not walk in them unless invited. There are pathways
throughout the garden for the convenience of gardeners.

Garden plot reassignment/loss of gardening privileges:
0 Any plots that have not been planted two weeks alter the assignment date and afier a
reminder call will be reassigned.
0 You may risk losing your gardening privileges for the next year if:
e you abandon your plot at any point during the gardening season
e you do not harvest your vegetables in a timely manner
e your plot is not cleaned by the fall clean up deadline
0 Any gardener caught taking vegetables from other gardener’s plots will lose his/her plot and
forfeit any firture gardening privileges.
If you have any questions or problems, contact your garden’s volunteer coordinator

, or call The Garden Project office at 887-4660.

 

170

APPENDIX I:
Garden Project Mission Statement

The Garden Project is dedicated to improving the food self-reliance of people
throughout the Greater Lansing area. This is accomplished by providing access to fresh
and nutritious food, primarily through community and home gardens. The Project is
committed to providing land, services, and educational support so that gardeners can
grow, harvest, prepare and preserve their own vegetables and fi'uits. The Garden Project
is unique in that it gives people the opportunity to grow their own food. Through self-
help efforts, the Project enables families to take an active role in improving their own
nutritional, economic, and social condition. Without such efforts, relief would take the

form of a food or cash handout.

171

APPENDIX J:

Greater Lansing Food Bank Organizational Chart

 

 

Board of Directors

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GLFB Executive
Director
F I
Clerical Garden Project Food Movers
Assistant Director Director
I l
Garden/Gleaning Office Community
Supervisor Support Organizer

Volunteers Volunteers

 

 

172

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX K:
FY2002 POVERTY THRESHOLD GUIDELINES
UNITED STATES HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

Persons in Household 1 2 3 4 5 6
Poverty Threshold $21,050 $24,050 $27,050 $30,050 $32,450 $34,850
(Annual household

incomeL

 

 

 

 

173

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ACGA (1998). “National Community Gardening Survey: 1996.” American Community
Gardening Association Philadelphia

Armstrong, Donna (2000). “A Survey of Community Gardens in Upstate New York:
Implications for Health Promotion and Community Development. ” Health and
Place. 6(4): 319-327.

Ball, Jeff (1983). The Self-Sufficient Suburban Gardener. Emmaus, PA: Rodale Press.

Barrs, Rob. “Sustainable Urban Food Production in the City of Vancouver: An
Analytical and Strategy Framework for Planners and Decision-Makers.” School
of Community & Regional Planning, University of British Columbia, 2000.

Bassett, Thomas, J. (1981). “Reaping on the Margins: A Century of Community
Gardening in America.” Landscape. 25(2): 1-8.

Bentley, Amy (1998). Eating for Victory: Food Rationing and the Politics of
Domesticity. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Berg, Bruce L. (1998). Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.

Berkowitz, S. (1996). Using Qualitative and Mixed Method Approaches. Chapter 4 in
Needs Assessment: A Creative and Practical Guide for Social Scientists, R.
Reviere, S. Berkowitz, C.C. Carter, and C. Graves-Ferguson, Eds. Washington,
DC: Taylor & Francis.

Berman, Laura (1997). How Does Your Garden Grow? A Guide to Community Garden
Success. FoodShare Toronto.

Blair, D., Giesecke, C. & Sherman, S. (1991). “A Dietary, Social and Economic
Evaluation of the Philadelphia Urban Gardening Project.” Journal of Nutrition
Education. 23(4): 161-167.

Blaylock, James R. and Gallo, Anthony E. (1983). “Modeling the Decision to Produce
Vegetables at Home.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 65(4): 722-
729.

Boyer, Chris (2002). “Gardens Open For Use”. The State News, February 15, 2002, page
3A.

Breton, Margot. (1994). “On the Meaning of Empowerment and Empowerment-Oriented
Social Work Practice.” Social Work with Groups. 17(3): 23-37.

174

n.’ 1 Q-.

Brown, Kate H., Jametown, Andrew L. (2000). “Public Health Implications of Urban
Agriculture.” Journal of Public Health Policy. 21(1): 20-39.

Casperson, C., Bloemberg, B., Saris, W., Merritt, R., Kromhout, D. (1991). “The
Prevalence of Selected Physical Activities and Their Relation with Coronary
Heart Disease Risk Factors in Elderly Men: The Zutphen Study, 1985.” American
Journal of Epidemiology. 133: 1078-1092.

CFSC (1999). Community Food Security News. Winter/Spring. Community Food
Security Coalition

Chiang, Ya-Hui, Diebel, Alice, Masuda, Chinae and Patgaonkar, Vaishali. (n/d). The
Garden Project: Analysis for Strategic Planning. Unpublished paper. Michigan
State University.

Cleveland, David A., Orum, Thomas V., Ferguson, Nancy. (1985). “Economic Value of
Home Vegetable Gardens in an Urban Desert Environment.” HortScience. 20(4):
694-696.

Crouch, David and Ward, Colin (1980). The Allotment: It ’s Landscape and Culture.
London: Faber and Faber

DeKay, Mark (1997). “The Implications of Cormnunity Gardening for Land Use and
Density. ” Journal of Architectural and Planning Research. 14(2): 127-149.

Dunnet, Nigel and Qasim, Muhammad (2000). “Perceived Benefits to Human Well-
Being of Urban Gardens.” HortTechnoIogy. 10(1): 40-45.

Eisen, Arlene (1994). “Survey of Neighborhood-Based, Comprehensive Community
Empowerment Initiatives.” Health Education Quarterly. 21(2): 235-252.

Florin, Paul and Wandersman, Abraham. (1990). “An Introduction to Citizen
Participation, Voluntary Organizations, and Community Development: Insights
for Empowerment Through Research.” American Journal of Community
Psychology. 18(1): 41-54.

Francis, M., Hester, RT. (1990). The Meaning of Gardens. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Gutierrez, Lorraine M. (1990). “Working with Women of Color: An Empowerment
Perspective.” Social Work. 35(2): 149-153.

Hackman, Robert M. and Wagner, Elizabeth L. (1990). “The Senior Gardening and

Nutrition Project: Development and Transport of a Dietary Behavior Change and
Health Promotion Program.” Journal of Nutrition Education. 22(6): 262-270.

175

Hartlieb, Paul J. (n/d). “An Evaluation of the 1983-1984 SelfHelp Program of the
Greater Lansing Food Alliance.” Unpublished Plan B paper. Michigan State
University.

Herbach, Geofl‘. “Harvesting the City: Community Gardening in Greater Madison
Wisconsin.” Madison Food System Project Working Paper Series MFSP-1998-01.
University of Wisconsin, 1998.

Hungerford, Harold R. and Volk, Trudi L. (1990). “Changing Learner Behavior Through
Environmental Education.” Journal of Environmental Education. 21(3): 8-21.

Hynes, Patricia H. (1996). A Patch of Eden: America’s Inner City Gardeners. White
River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing Co.

Jamison, Michael S. (1985). “The Joys of Gardening: Collectivist and Bureaucratic
Cultures in Conflict.” The Sociological Quarterly. 26(4): 473-490.

Kantor, Linda Scott (2001). “Cormnunity Food Security Programs Improve Food
Access.” Food Review. 24(1): 20-26.

Kaplan, Rachel and Kaplan, Stephen (1989). The Experience of Nature: A Psychological
Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kaplan, Rachel (1973). “Some Psychological Benefits of Gardening.” Environment and
Behavior. 5(2): 145-162.

Kim, M, Ohls, J. & Cohen, C. (2001). Hunger in America: 2001 National Report.
America’s Second Harvest. Chicago.

Lacy, William B. (2000). “Empowering Communities Through Public Work, Science,
and Local Food Systems: Revisiting Democracy and Globalization.” Rural
Sociology. 65(1): 3-26.

Landman, Ruth, H. (1993). Creating Community in the City. Westport, CT: Bergin and
Garvey.

Lineberger, Sarah E., and Zajicek, Jayne M. (2000). “School Gardens: Can a Hands-On
Teaching Tool Affect Students Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Fruits and
Vegetables?” HortTechnology. 10(3): 593-597.

Lofland, J ., and Lofland, L.H. (1995). Analyzing Social Settings: A Guide to Qualitative
Observation and Analysis, 3rd Ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Magnus, K., Matroos, A., Strackee, J. (1979). “Walking, Cycling or Gardening, With or

Without Seasonal Interruption, In Relation to Acute Coronary Events.” American
Journal of Epidemiology. 1 10(6): 724-733.

176

Malakoff, David (1995). “What Good is Community Greening?” ACGA Monograph.
Philadelphia: American Community Gardening Association.

MacRae, Rod (1999). “Not Just What, But How: Creating Agricultural Sustainability and
Food Security by Changing Canada’s Agricultural Policy Making Process.”
Agriculture and Human Values. 16: 187-201.

Miles, MB, and Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis, 2nd Ed., p. 10-12.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Moran, Dennis (1990). The Allotment Movement in Britain. New York: Peter Lang
Publishing.

Naimark, S. (1982) Boston Urban Gardeners: A Handbook of Community Gardening.
New York: Charles Scribe and Sons.

Orum Anthony M. Feagin, Joe R. and Sjoberg, Gideon. (1991). "The Nature of the Case
Study." In A Case for the Case Study. Anthony Orum, Joe R. F eagin, and Gideon
Sjoberg (Eds). Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, p. 1-26.

Pate, R., Pratt, M, Blair, 8., Haskell, W., Macera, C., Bouchard, C., Buchner, D.,
Ettinger, W., Heath, G., King, A., et al. (1995). “Physical Activity and Public
Health.” JAMA 273(5): 402-407.

Patel, Ishwarbhai C. (1991). “Gardening’s Socioeconomic Impacts: Cormnunity
Gardening in an Urban Setting.” Journal of Extension. Winter 1991: 7-8.

Patel, Ishwarbhai C. (1994). “Rutgers Urban Gardening: A Study in Cultural Diversity
and Gardening.” HortTechnology. 4(4): 402-403.

Patel, Ishwarbhai C. (1996). “Rutgers Urban Gardening: A Case Study in Urban
Agriculture.” Journal of Agricultural and Food Information. 3(3): 35-46.

Poppendieck, Janet (1998). Sweet Charity?: Emergency Food and the End of Entitlement.
New York: Viking Press.

Pothukuchi, Kameshwari and Kaufinan, Jerome, L. (1999). “Placing the Food System on
the Urban Agenda: The Role of Municipal Institutions in Food Systems
Planning.” Agriculture and Human Values. 16: 213-224.

Pottharst, Kris (1995). “Urban Dwellers and Vacant Lots: Partners in Pride.” Parks and
Recreation. 30(9): 94-101.

177

Power, Elaine M. (1999). “Combining Social Justice and Sustainability for Food
Security.” In: For Hunger-Proof Cities: Sustainable Urban Food Systems. Eds.
Koc, Mustafa, MacRae, Rod, Mougeot, Juc J .A., Welsh, Jennifer. Ottawa:
International Development Research Centre. P: 30-41.

Putnam, J ., Kantor, L., & Allshouse, J. (2000). “Per Capita Food Supply Trends: Progress
Toward Dietary Guidelines.” Food Review. 23(3): 2-14.

Rappaport, Julian. (1987). “Terms of Empowerment/Exemplars of Prevention: Toward a
Theory for Community Psychology.” American Journal of Community ...;
Psychology. 15(2): 121-148.

Rappaport, Julian. (1990). “Research Methods and the Empowerment Social Agenda.” In
Researching Community Psychology: Issues of Theory and Methods. Eds. Tolan,
Patrick, Keys, Christopher, Chertok, Fern, and Jason, Leonard. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association, p: 51-63.

‘h’jj '3-

Relf, Diane. (1992). “Human Issues in Horticulture.” HortTechnology. 2(2): 159-171.

Rissel, Christopher. (1994). “Empowerment: The Holy Grail of Health Promotion?”
Health Promotion International. 9(1): 39-47.

 

Schmelzkopf, Karen (1995). “Urban Community Gardens as Contested Spaces.”
Geographical Review 83(3): 364-381.

Schukoske, Jane E. (2000). “Community Development Through Gardening: State and
Local Policies Transforming Urban Open Spaces.” Journal of Legislation and
Public Policy. 351.

Sjoberg, G., Williams, N., Vaughan, T., & Sjoberg, A. (1991). “The case study approach
in social research.” In Feagin, J., Orum, A., & Sjoberg, G. (Eds), (1991). A Case
for Case Stuay (pp. 27-79). Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

Speer, Paul W. & Hughey, Joseph. (1995). “Community Organizing: An Ecological
Route to Empowerment and Power.” American Journal of Community
Psychology. 23(5): 729-748.

Stake, Robert E. (1994). "Case Studies" in Handbook of Qualitative Research. Norman
K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln (Eds). London: Sage Publications. P.236-247.

Stoelzle, Karen and Chambers, Jessica. (2000). “An Evaluation of a Children’s Garden in

Developing Greater Sensitivity of the Environment in Preschool Children.”
HortTechnology. 10(2): 385-390.

178

 

Sumagaysay, Anne and Winchester, Lucy (n/d). “Oak Park Gardeners with the Lansing
Area Self Help Garden Project: Motivations, Needs, and Benefits Derived fiom
Participation”. Unpublished Research Paper, Michigan State University.

Thorpe, H. (1975). “The Homely Allotment: From Rural Dole to Urban Amenity: A
Neglected Aspect of Urban Land Use.” Geography. 60(3): 169-183.

Trout, Sally (2002). “Gardeners Dig Raising Their Own Produce” The Lansing State
Journal. May 12, 2002 page 3A.

US. Census Bureau (2003). United States Census 2000. Retrieved March 8, 2003 fi'om
http://www.census.gov

Von Hassell, Malve (2002). The Struggle for Eden: Community Gardens in New York
City. Bergin and Garvey. Westport, CT.

Waliczek, Tina M., Mattson, Richard H., and Zajicek, Jayne M. (1996). “Benefits of
Community Gardening on Quality-of-Life Issues.” Journal of Environmental
Horticulture. 14(4): 204-209.

Warner, Sam Bass. (1987). To Dwell is to Garden: A History of Boston ’s Community
Gardens. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

Welsh, Jennifer and MacRae, Rod (1998). “Food Citizenship and Community Food
Security: Lessons fiom Toronto, Canada.” Canadian Journal of Development
Studies. 19: 237-255.

Wharf-Higginson, J. (1999). “Citizenship and Empowerment: A Remedy for Citizen
Participation in Health Reform.” Community Development Journal. 34(4): 287-
307.

Winston, Pamela. (2002). Welfare Policymaking in the States: The Devil in Devolution.
Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.

Yin, R.K. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.

Zimmerman, Marc A. (1990). “Taking Aim on Empowerment Research: On the
Distinction Between Individual and Psychological Conceptions.” American
Journal of Community Psychology. 18(1): 169-177.

Zimmerman, Marc A. (1995). “Psychological Empowerment: Issues and Illustrations.”
American Journal of Community Psychology. 23(5): 581-599.

179