£73552“.
*2"

,..
”‘16...”
2‘

.
. . «3:11?

I: .bv.14

.u-a
.‘-

u.

fi

..-.:-.~._.9 4"
Ar: "

“W,— .3

$3939;

131.:

., g,

."I'."

-..
,‘A
‘ ‘1:

am,- ‘ ‘
aw
a» .4;
5?

.
:52.
ii

.. .._.
17.x.

at.“
. fffii
“iv;

c.»
&‘

.y...:~. ..
v

 

233m LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

CULTIVATING SOCIAL CAPITAL: COMMUNITY GARDENS
IN LANSING, MI

presented by

Meleia Cullman Egger

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

MA. degree in Geography

 

 

 

Major Professor’s Signatfie

4r! H Lo?

Date

MSU is an affirmativeaction, equal-opportunity employer

 

-— .--'--o-u-o-n-o-a-c-u--I—I-o--u-c-u-o-v---I-v-I---a-o-----qu‘

au---.—~.—.-

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
SEP15 ~1’

'II ‘5
205 14

121‘ 'MARtozml
~ 1

l Dim?" “ "

l ' .' l
i MAY 2 9 2013

FEB 2 6 2014

 

CULTIVATING SOCIAL CAPITAL: COMMUNITY GARDENS IN LANSING, MI

By

Meleia Cullman Egger

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTERS OF ARTS

Department of Geography

2007

ABSTRACT

CULTIVATING SOCIAL CAPITAL: COMMUNITY GARDENS IN LANSING, MI

By

Meleia Cullman Egger

Community gardens are tremendous assets to the social and physical health of
communities. They provide people with benefits far beyond the infusion of fresh
produce. Around the world these spaces serve urban residents by improving their quality
of life. Social capital as an invisible but palpable force is the strong fabric of humanity.
Although multiple benefits are clear from both social capital and community gardens the
relationship between the two is not yet understood.

This research considers some of the ways which community gardens foster trust,
reciprocity, and social interaction (factors that can lead to social capital) for communities.
Also it investigates the dynamic two-way flow of social benefits between community
gardeners and garden neighbors. This is a case study of seven community gardens in
Lansing, MI. They provide examples of the powerful relationship that exists between

community gardeners and social capital.

DEDICATION: For Cecelia Stein Cullman (1914-2007) who was my wonderful
friend, mentor, and grandmother. Her infectious enthusiasm and unwavering love
inspired this thesis. She pushed me to learn, to question, and always to push for real

change. Thank you Gammy.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:

First and foremost, my heartfelt thanks to all the community gardeners who
went the extra mile to help me, but especially those I interviewed—you deeply
enriched this project. To Garden Project staffer Anne Raucher, you have been there
every step of the way. Your cheerful support is deeply appreciated. I value the
involvement and input of the garden coordinators especially Linda Anderson who
gave me great advice along the way, be it for surveys or thinning carrots.

Thanks to my advisor and mentor Dr. Antoinette WinklerPrins. You are why
I came to MSU, why I stayed at MSU, and why I am leaving MSU fully transformed
into a geographer. I feel so lucky to have an advisor I respect and adore. Thanks to
my committee members Dr. Igor Vojnovic and Dr. Laura Delind for all their
patience, advice and support.

I appreciate Angelo for being my persistent thesis coach throughout, and for
making my maps. I was greatly aided by the technical help of Lansing Librarian Liz
Kudwa; she gave me incredible help with maps and demographic data. I was also
aided by Bruce Pigozzi who gave me statistical and survey advice. I got great
assistance from statistical consultant Wenmei Huang who helped me with my
statistical analysis so carefully and skillfully. I also thank John Schweitzer for taking
the time to give me wonderful advice on the complicated world of social capital.
Over the past three years, I have really appreciated the friendly faces around the
department and MSU belonging to Alan Arbogast, Jay Harman, Bruce Piggozi,
Morris Thomas, Gabriela Valdivia, Jeff Andresen, Ashton Shortridge, Tracy Dobson,

iv

and Anne Ferguson. Your doors were always open to me, and for that I am truly
gnnefifl.

I have been in some amazing places and surrounded by some amazing people
while this thesis was in progress. The time I spent out at the Student Organic Farm
was magical and helped keep me sane. The farm eventually led me to my thesis
topic, and I learned the skills needed to have my own garden for this study. I
appreciate that that space, time, and my wonderful farm friends Emily, Michelle,
Marty, Jeremy, Tom, and Corie. Thanks to the feminist reading group Natalie,
Julie, Lori, and Shannon for their friendship, support, and humor. Thanks to all my
amazing badminton friends Saori, Andre, Perry, Nok, Chee, and especially Steven
for all the wonderful talks and meals. I am grateful to my wonderful GJEC alumni
friends Sara, Deb, Sandra, Courtney, Dori and Kristin (your baking rules). I
appreciate all my brothers and sisters from the GEU and AGEL for their friendship,
commitment, and solidarity.

Major credit to all my diverse and incredibly helpful fellow basement
dwellers, we have had some very late nights-I am proud to have you all as my
colleagues. Thanks to Trevor for bagels and laughter, to Brad for wondrous
procrastination and pider, to Audry for quality chair time, and to Joel for his amazing
digestive digressions. Finally, thanks to my officemate who came late to my MSU
life but entered with great pizzazz. The famous laughter of Kristy has been a
fantastic addition. Thanks for the 10,000 great little office moments (and the big

ones too).

From day one here, two people were essential to my life. Steve Aldrich has
scraped me up off the floor many, many, times including saving my computer
consistently (which is the same as saving your life in graduate school). It has been
three years of fim memories and good works. Co-President, thank you so much-just
quit dressing like me. Bilal has always pushed me further than I ever thought
possible. From my first day in the Natural Science Building, he has been an
inspirational and enormous presence in my life and work here. Bilal, I thank you for
your sharp wit, support and honesty.

I am so thankful for my deep Madison, Michigan and Pottersville roots, and
for the people who feed these roots daily (you know who you are). In fact, I am
deeply indebted to all of the amazing people in my life. The Midwest triangle... I
really appreciate you moving out here for me. Liz, since 2000 it has been a grand
adventure of scarves, justification, and unstoppable laughter. Lindsey, you are my
favorite biopsychologist in Indiana, and my favorite potluck companion. Dan, you
are always there for me-no matter the beverage, or location you are an amazing
comfort. Ariel] Ahearn, here is to journeys past and yet to come, from New York to
Mongolia, we are the last two people in Japan. Lastly, I am so thankful for my
family who steadies me. Michael, your influence resonates throughout this work, “I
am learning to be astonished”(Oliver 2006). Most of all, Mom & Dad, my anchors-
this work would have been impossible without you. I am humbled by the
extraordinary people in my life.

vi

Table of Contents

I. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1
11. Literature Review ..................................................................................................... 8
a. Introduction .............................................................................................. 8
b. Civic and Urban Agriculture .................................................................... 8
b. Community Gardens ................................................................................ 9
d. Green Space ........................................................................................... 11
e. Social Capital ......................................................................................... 13
f. Political Ecology ..................................................................................... 17
III Methods .................................................................................................................. 21
3. Introduction ............................................................................................ 21
b. Garden Selection .................................................................................... 21
c. Surveys ................................................................................................... 21
(1. Interviews ............................................................................................... 23
e. Participatory Observation ....................................................................... 23
f. Data Analysis .......................................................................................... 24
g. Research of Secondary Data .................................................................. 25
IV. Study Area and Historical context ........................................................................ 27
a. Community Gardens .............................................................................. 27
b. Lansing, Michigan ................................................................................. 30
c. The Garden Project of the Greater Lansing Food Bank ......................... 32
d. Gardens Included in this Study .............................................................. 37
la. Airport Garden ...................................................................................... 41
lb. Airport Neighborhood ........................................................................... 43
2a. Armory Garden ..................................................................................... 43
2b. Armory Neighborhood .......................................................................... 45
3a. ELF Garden ........................................................................................... 46
3b. ELF Neighborhood ............................................................................... 49
4a. Foster Garden ........................................................................................ 50
4b. Foster Neighborhood ............................................................................ 51
5a. Henry North Garden .............................................................................. 52
5b: Henry North Neighborhood .................................................................. 54
6a. Letts Garden .......................................................................................... 56
6b. Letts Neighborhood .............................................................................. 57
7a. Towar Garden ........................................................................................ 59
7b. Towar Neighborhood ............................................................................ 60

vii

V. Findings and Disscussion ....................................................................................... 61

a. The Three Themes .................................................................................. 61
1. Trust ....................................................................................................... 61
i. Trust among Gardeners ........................................................... 61

ii. Trust Among Neighbors and Gardeners ................................ 62

2. Reciprocity ............................................................................................. 63
i. Reciprocity Among Gardeners ................................................ 63

ii. Reciprocity Among Neighbors and Gardeners ...................... 68

3. Social Interaction ................................................................................... 74
i. Social Interaction Between Gardeners .................................... 74

ii. Social Interaction Among Neighbors and Gardeners ............. 81

b. Negatives ................................................................................................ 83
0. Of Gardeners and Garden ....................................................................... 84
(1. Social Capital, One Earthworm at a Time ............................................. 85
e. Larger Picture Benefits .......................................................................... 86
VI. Summary and Implications ................................................................................... 89
a. Cultivating Social Capital ...................................................................... 89
b. Literature and Theory Contribution ....................................................... 90
i. Garden Literature ................................................................... 91

ii. Political Ecology Contributions ............................................ 91

0. Methods .................................................................................................. 92
(I. Study Limitations and Future Studies .................................................... 92
e. Individual Impacts .................................................................................. 93
f. The Garden Project ................................................................................. 94
g. Lansing ................................................................................................... 95
h. National Urban Context ......................................................................... 95
VII. Appendicies ......................................................................................................... 98
Appendix 1. IRB approval letter ................................................................ 98
Appendix 2. Consent form ......................................................................... 99
Appendix 3. Community garden returning members survey ................... 100
Appendix 4. Community garden non-member survey ............................. 103
VIII. Works Cited ..................................................................................................... 106

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Some known benefits of social capital ........................................................... 3
Table 2. Some known benefits associated with community gardens. ........................... 4
Table 3. Some selected definitions of social capital ................................................... 14
Table 4. Demographics for Garden Neighborhoods ................................................... 39
Table 5. Demographics for Garden Neighbohoods II ................................................. 40
Table 6. Averages for three questions about trust. ...................................................... 62

viiii

LIST OF FIGURES*

Figure 1. Flow chart of hypothesized social capital fiom community gardens. ........... 7
Figure 2. Hmong girls at seed distribution May 2006 ................................................ 34
Figure 3. All community gardens of the garden project 2006 .................................... 35
Figure 4. Community gardens included in this study ................................................. 38
Figure 5. Airport Garden aerial View. ......................................................................... 41
Figure 6. Airport Garden May 2006 ........................................................................... 42
Figure 7. Airport Garden August 2006 ...................................................................... 42
Figure 8. Armory Garden aerial view. ........................................................................ 44
Figure 9. Armory garden gathering space August 2006 ............................................. 45
Figure 10. ELF Garden aerial view ............................................................................. 47
Figure 11. ELF Garden August 2006. ......................................................................... 48
Figure 12. ELF Garden in August 2006 ...................................................................... 48
Figure 13. Foster Garden May 2006. .......................................................................... 50
Figure 14. Foster Garden August 2006 ....................................................................... 51
Figure 15. Foster Garden aerial View. ......................................................................... 52
Figure 16. Henry North Garden May 2006 ................................................................. 53
Figure 17. Henry North Garden August 2006 ............................................................. 54
Figure 18. Henry North Garden aerial view. .............................................................. 55
Figure 19. Letts Garden May 2006 ............................................................................. 56
Figure 20. Letts Garden August 2006 ......................................................................... 57
Figure 21. Letts Garden aerial view. ........................................................................... 58

X

Figure 22. Towar Garden aerial view. ........................................................................ 59
Figure 23. Map of differences in social capital in the US .......................................... 96

*Images in this thesis are presented in color.

xi

I. INTRODUCTION

On about October 17th 2006, the US. population hit the 300 million people mark,
and 87% of this population is urban. In fact, the United Nations claims that worldwide
50% of people live in cities as of 2007(World Bank 2006). As these urban centers
become more prominent, the environmental challenges (i.e. water management, power
use, pollution) they present accelerate. The urban, now more than ever, deserves the
attention of researchers and policy makers. Large cities create growing human alienation
fi'om the natural ecosystems which are the basis of life. As nature and natural processes
grow more invisible they allow for disconnection in the consciousness of city dwellers.

In turn, this disconnect creates an artificial but deeply entrenched psychological
separation from natural systems.

Community gardens are a solution to this alienation that addresses many problems
at once by serving communities in multiple ways. Within growing urban centers, planners
have to find land use that can simultaneously benefit the social and environmental needs
of urban communities. The mounting cost of space in the city cannot hinder the quest for
environmental and social connection. Instead, this pressure must serve as a mandate for
intelligent urban land use that aids communities to feed their physical and social needs.
Higher urban population density means that environmental challenges must be attacked
simultaneously; our solutions must be as integrated and complex as our problems.

Urban green spaces offer environmental and social reprieve from the physical and
mental pressure of city life. These green spaces can be places of active civic and social
engagement. Green spaces are also essential for a number of physical ecosystem services

for cities such as air filtration, micro climate regulation, noise reduction, rainwater

drainage, and sewage treatment (Bolund and Hunhammar 1999). At the same time, green
space serves human physical health by providing recreation areas (Krenichyn 2006;
Freudenberg et al. 2006) and even increasing perceived general health (Maas et a1. 2006).
Green space has even positively influenced social aspects of communities by reducing
crime (Kuo and Sullivan 2001) providing psychological benefits (Kaplan and Kaplan
1998) and by carving out spaces for social interaction and connection to place (Kweon et
al. 1998).

Community gardens are green spaces transforming and improving urban
neighborhoods. At an international scale community gardens are impacting people’s
social and environmental health (Holland 2004). Community gardens as one component
of urban agriculture raise social consciousness about where our food comes fiom, and
illuminates how food systems are intertwined and symbiotic with city life. Community
gardens are innovative and exciting forms of green space contributing many valuable
benefits and uses within urban centers.

Although not always immediately intuitive or apparent, community gardens create
changes and benefits in neighborhoods far beyond food and pleasant aesthetics. The
social benefits of community gardens can be transformational. Dating back to 1985, the
National Association of Community Gardening in the US. has emphasized community
gardens as social spaces that can connect neighbors (Pigg 1992).

One benefit mentioned recently in the community garden literature is the
possibility that community gardens foster social capital for both the gardeners and the

neighbors adjacent to the garden (Glover, Parry et al. 2005). Although some evidence for

social capital generation through gardens exists, the link between community gardens and
social capital has been understudied and needs to be explored and better understood.
Social capital is a phenomena that has been deeply explored by social scientists in

many contexts and at many scales. The existence of social capital has been linked to

many benefits (Table 1).

 

 

Hunclil .\llltl_\
Mental Health Almedom 2005
Lochner et a1. 2003; Liukkonen et al.
Physical health 2004; Kawachi, Kennedy, and Glass
1999

 

Economic benefits Putnam 1993; Routledge and Amsberg

 

 

2003
Democratic participation Putnam 1993
. Kennedy et al. 1998; Galea, Karpati,
Commurnty safety and Kennedy 2002)

 

 

 

 

Table 1. Some documented benefits of social capital.

It is also important to realize that social capital is a not only a political, economic,
and social concept but also a geographic concept. This is because the quality of the
relationships contributing to social capital are shaped by the places within which people

interact (Mohan and Mohan 2002).

Likewise, community gardens have been linked to many benefits (Table 2).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Elena—11 Slutlx

Mental Health Stoelzle and Jessica 2000
Physical Health Patel 1991; Armstrong 2000
Economic Benefits Holland 2000

mm... .22..
Raises environmental Francis and Hester 1990; Kaplan
awareness 1973

Ease racial tension Shinew et a1 2004

 

 

 

Table 2. Some known benefits associated with community gardens.

The potential for fostering social capital is clear in the community garden context
because of commonly identified attributes of social capital, and because of the overlap in
known benefits of community gardens and the known benefits of social capital. In other
studies, scientists isolate aspects of social interaction to use as a proxy for measuring
social capital. Some of the commonly identified underlying inputs which can lead to
social capital are trust, reciprocity and social interaction, (Grootaert et al. 2004; Paper
2003; Commission 2003; Government 2006) . These are the three themes (trust,
reciprocity, and social interaction) I chose to measure for this study.

This thesis explores the relationship of community gardens to social capital in the
context of Lansing, Michigan. The study focuses on the social space and human
relationships that form through gardens. Although the ecological space of gardens is not
formally included in my data collection the ecological environment of the garden is an
essential component of this study. Because of the complex human-environment
interactions taking place in the garden this research is contextualized in a political

ecology framework. Political ecology is a framework that considers the inter-relationship

4

of the ecological and the socio-political. By using political ecology to frame this work I
take into account the dynamic human-environment interaction taking place in community
gardens.

More specifically, my study focuses on the construction of the social space of the
garden while seeking to understand how the nature of this social space translates into
benefits for people (both gardeners and garden neighbors). Additionally, I focus on
understanding the processes created by the community gardens that foster trust,
reciprocity, and social interaction.

The research questions I address in this study are:

1. Are elements (trust, reciprocity, and social interaction) of social capital
fostered for neighbors by the presence of community gardens?

2. Is trust, reciprocity, and social interaction fostered for community
gardeners by their participation in community gardens and resulting
interactions with garden neighbors?

3. What are the processes in the community garden that contribute to social
capital?

I hypothesize that trust, reciprocity, and social interactions are fostered by the
existence of a community garden in a given neighborhood. More specifically, I
hypothesize that the community gardens of Lansing, MI, serve as a mechanism to foster
trust, reciprocity, and social interaction for both the gardeners themselves, and for the
people living in the immediate (three block radius) neighborhood (Figure 1). Figure 1
illustrates the hypothesized flow of benefits that community gardens provide for both

gardeners and the neighbors. These hypotheses are based on evidence from the literature

on positive aspects of community gardens, and from personal experience with the
socially transformational nature of community gardens.

If these three themes are increased in a community they have the potential to
create social capital, social benefits and political alliances. Because communities are
rapidly loosing these three elements; spaces that can create real community and slow

environmental degradation simultaneously are worthy topics of inquiry.

   
 

.28: 35:89.35.
$05.83.“ 355235.
5.8: 3.0.3.85.
amazon 252.com.
notes?! oEtU-
@8835 305on5 £30-

”wEocom

 

   
 

   
 

“.5833
82m

2029382.. 3.82.. 38
$893.82 55 8 $533 Sagas a .3 min». Eunxem 385—588 22>: no:
«5 2o wu§oo\&o.~em§x Mat 283.8% §§Esoo Eo§M22~=nog «4%ch 3?th

Bang 382. 36 “Korea 83% ”3.53388 hmnumfioQb‘Ro :93 32k N Miami

 

 

  

3&8
38m

mEmEunooE
5va .EEEEoU

83885
So..."— J

 

 

 

nephew
2: can:

, eBamaz

a.
$33.80

 

 

 

 

 

 

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

a. Introduction: Community gardening is a political act. Urban dwellers are
responding to growing food alienation and food insecurity all over the world. By
gardening in an urban context, community gardeners are challenging the power structures
and assumptions of the agricultural-industrial complex by improving their own food
security and food sustainability. Because of the dynamic nature of community gardens
there are many strands of academic literature that need to be understood to help
contextualize this study. The discipline of geography is uniquely positioned to inform
community garden research because of its pluralistic nature. In this chapter I review the
relevant literatures.

b. Civic and Urban Agriculture: The phrase ‘urban agriculture’ is no longer a
contradiction in terms. The statistics are staggering. In 2000, an estimated 800 million
people were engaged in urban agriculture worldwide. Of those people engaged in urban
agriculture, an estimated 200 million people are market producers employing 150 million
people full time. The possibilities of urban agriculture for helping address social
problems such as hunger, lack of infrastructure, and unemployment are immense
(Mougeot 2000). The urban agriculture literature generally focuses on the developing
world where larger threats to food security exist, but it can also encompass first world
urban agriculture including community gardens.

Given the entrenched agro-industrial food system, food systems that counter act it
need to be diverse, inclusive, innovative, and sustainable. Community gardens are part of
alternative food systems challenging this status quo. Such challenges have been deemed

‘civic agriculture’ and include food systems that are environmentally and socially

responsible. Civic agriculture includes, but is not limited to, CSA (community supported
agriculture), farmers’ markets, and community gardens (Lyson 2004). Involvement in
civic agriculture can lead to greater ‘food citizenship,’ which, “involves the practice of
food system localization, as well as the embodiment of values of caring for the
community and the environment”(Lauren 2004).

b. Community Gardens: “Gardening can be a political act. Creativity, fulfillment,
connection, revolution—it all begins when we get our hands in the dirt” (Flores 2006: 1).
Community gardens are a form of urban agriculture and green space that provides an
extremely diverse range of community services and positive impacts. An immediate
impact of community gardens is ofien their use of vacant lots where trash and rubble are
removed, improving the space. Gardens can serve as bioremediation sites for polluted
soil (although clearly not safe for food production until the soil recovers) (Roberts in
Williamson 2002). Gardens as green space can also improve air quality and reduce the
‘heat island’ microclimate condition common to urban areas.

As a related positive impact, community gardens serve overall environmental

sustainability in a variety of ways:

No other economic development activity has as much
appeal to those concerned with sustainability as urban
agriculture: city-dwellers connecting with the earth,
growing their own healthful food, [. . .] abandoned lots
being cleared of debris and transformed into beautiful green
public spaces, filled with life, color, and value, in the bleak
urban jungle; people of all ages with little or no
employment possibilities learning job and life skills
working with nature; cities reducing the fuel-burning and
air-polluting impact of transporting solid waste and food
long distances because organic waste is recycled into
compost and food is grown in the neighborhood where it is
consumed; and food production moving away from the

9

herbicides, pesticides, and other toxins upon which
American agribusiness has become so dependent (Lazarus
2000:7)

Community gardens provide an avenue for food production that does not require
much travel. This dramatically cuts down on use of fossil fuels in food distribution given
that US food travels on average 1,500-2,500 miles to get to the plate (Pirog et al. 2001 ).
Additionally, food in community gardens is often grown organically, reducing use of
fertilizers and pesticides. Perhaps, most significantly community gardens have the
potential to raise the community’s consciousness about environmentally sustainable food
practices such as eating locally, seasonally, and organically which may, in turn, influence
purchasing habits.

The society-nature interaction found in community gardens can lead to fascination
with nature, environmental sensitivity, and foster personal creativity and self expression
(Francis and Hester 1990; Kaplan 1973; Stoelzle and Jessica 2000). These gardens ofien
create genuine participation and empowerment for communities, while simultaneously
providing remediation of polluted, desolate, or unused spaces (Holland 2004).
Community gardens also help with tight food budgets for people suffering from food
insecurity (Blair et al. 1991).

Better nutrition is often another tangible benefit of community gardens through
access to a wide variety of fresh vegetables (Patel 1991). Also, in some cases,
community garden participants have an increased frequency of vegetable consumption
and decreased consumption of sweet foods and drinks (Blair et al. 1991). This indicates a
substantial behavioral change in eating habits that exceeds simply eating what the

gardener has grown.

10

Other research has revealed the complex networks, biodiversity, processes,
politics, cultures and histories at work in community gardens (Christie 2004; Doolittle
2004; Kimber 2004). Gardens are sites of both cultural preservation and biological
preservation (WinklerPrins 2006). It is clear that, “garden products go far beyond edible
plants to include social networks and healthy environments, economies, and
people”(Christie 2004: 1). In this way community gardens are unique as active green
space that feeds people physically and spiritually. This means that community gardens as
green space not only serve as potential places for food production, exercise, and learning,
but as environments for healthy and pleasant social interaction.

d. Green Space: Urban green space is essential to the environmental health of
urban places, and improves this health in remarkable ways. Green spaces provide diverse
ecosystem services for cities such as air filtration, micro climate regulation, noise
reduction, rainwater drainage, and sewage treatment, (Bolund and Hunhammar 1999).
One of the major trends in urban centers over the last century is an increase in
impenetrable surfaces such as asphalt, which amplify urban runoff immensely. As a
direct result, runoff pollutes fresh water systems with nitrogen from lawn fertilizer and
other chemicals. The rising costs (economic and environmental) of this hard
infi'astructure has prompted the rise of green infrastructure that uses natural systems to
create sustainable cities with green spaces (Boone and Modarres 2006).

Green space also serves human physical health in a number of ways. First, by
providing recreation and exercise space for walking, biking, running, and a wide variety
of sports (Krenichyn 2006; Freudenberg et al. 2006). One recent study found an increase

in perceived general health associated with proximity to green space (Maas et al. 2006).

11

Second, green space improves psychological health. Noted psychologists Rachel and
Stephen Kaplan point out that, “the availability of nature meets an essential human need;
fortunately, it is a need that is relatively easy to meet. “A garden patch, some trees
nearby, and a chance to see them can all be provided at minimal cost and for enormous
benefit” (Kaplan and Kaplan 1998: 132). These contributions to mental health from the
presence of green space in urban areas are encouraging given the emotional stress often
associated with city life. Green space can also positively influence social aspects of
communities by reducing crime, particularly in low income neighborhoods (Kuo and
Sullivan 2001) and by carving out spaces for social interaction and connection to place
(Kweon et a1. 1998).

This exposure to nature is hugely influential for peoples’ overall quality of life
and local satisfaction. In fact, “Fried's 1982 and 1984 studies found that access to nature
was the strongest predictor of residents' local satisfaction and was second (after marital
status) in the category of 'life satisfaction'. More importantly, these findings were
particularly strong for those in a lower economic status”(Kaplan 1990: 129). This
contribution to life satisfaction from green space is evidenced by an increase in property
values closer to parks (Nicholls 2004).

Passive aspects of green space such as wilderness areas do have benefits for
communities. However, active aspects such as playground equipment or a basketball
courts may provide space for positive psychological development, social interaction, and
exercise in addition to the known benefits of passive green space. It seems that, “the
most valued open areas are often the intimate ones which play a part in people's daily

lives, rather than the distant parks...” (Burgess et al. 1988: 456). As an active green

12

space with the potential to be a social center of a community, community gardens have
unique capacity as a green space that can impact the social capital of a community.

e. Social Capital: There is something magical about strong, tight-knit
communities, but no one is exactly sure what it is. It is obvious that people are social
animals enjoying the benefits of relationships and that they live in groups for many
purposes. In some communities people interact with their neighbors by simply watching
out for each other. Sometimes neighbors regularly share stories, or neighbors offer food
and support during times of tragedy. For anyone who has lived in a neighborhood where
these things regularly occur they know how valuable they are, how irreplaceable, and
how intangibly satisfying. These neighborhood interactions are different from full
fledged friendships, they are a special kinship. Living in a community where these
relationships with neighbors are prevalent, life is not only richer and fuller but people feel
more secure.

Researchers have titled this social connection within networks, communities, and
geographic units as social capital. Social capital can exist at many scales and within
many contexts. James S. Coleman deserves primary credit for developing the ‘social
capital’ theoretical framework in his piece ‘Social Capital in the Creation of Human
Capital’ in the American Journal of Sociology (1988), but the first scholar to use the term
‘social capital’ in its current sense was Jane Jacobs, in her book, The Death and Life of
Great American Cities (Putman 1995). Social capital has had many definitions over the

years (Table 3).

13

llllL‘

\thm‘

Dulllllllmll

 

Pierre Bourdieu: The Forms of
Capital

1983

Made up of social obligations
("connections"), which is convertible, in
certain conditions, into economic capital
and may be institutionalized in the forms of
a title of nobility (Bourdieu 1983).

 

Robert Putnam: The Prosperous
Community: Social Capital and
Public Life

1993

The glue that holds a community together.
Specific processes among people and
organizations, working collaboratively in an
atmosphere of trust, that lead to
accomplishing a goal of mutual shared
benefit (Putnam 1993).

 

World Trade Organization: Health
promotion glossary

1998

Social Capital represents the degree of
social cohesion in communities. It refers to
the processes between people that establish
networks, norms and social trust, and
facilitate coordination and cooperation for
mutual benefit.

 

Dana Petersen: The potential of
Social Capital Measures in the
Evaluation of Comprehensive
Community-Based Health
Initiatives.

 

 

2002

 

Social capital is both the interactions
between individuals through systems that
enhance and support that interactions, and
culmination in behaviors that are
predictable and mutually beneficial
(Petersen 2002).

 

Table 3. Some selected definitions of social capital

14

 

For the purpose of this study, I am defining social capital as ‘the processes and
interactions among people that lead to accomplishing goals that are mutually beneficial,
and that lead to behaviors that are predictable’. This is adopted from Petersen’s
definition (Petersen 2002). I used this definition because it relates most directly to the
social capital context for community gardens in Lansing. Also, this definition is the most
useful framework for understanding how I operationalized social capital for this study.

It is important to realize that although I am defining social capital as an attribute
of a community of people, it is experienced by the individual in ways reflecting that
person’s individual actions, personality, relationships, and power and privilege. It is clear
that sometimes power structures play a role in the equity or inequity of distribution of
social capital. In some cases, social capital is experienced by individuals based on status
(Glover 2004). This is important because social capital can mirror inequity, thus it is not
always a positive and equitable thing.

In a compelling review of social capital research, George Kritsotakis and Eva
Gamarnikow note, “In the last 10 years, social capital has acquired a new dimension and
has been related to health” (Kritsotakis and Gamarnikow 2004: 43). The examples of
research linking social capital to a positive impact on both physical and mental health
come fi'om a vast array of cultural contexts and geographic locations (Almedom 2005;
Lindstrom et al. 2001).

Social capital cannot be put in the bank. There are usually some monetary gains
derived from high social capital in a community; however, social capital typically results
in higher quality of life rather than higher economic status. Social capital is generally

premised upon the notion that an investment in social relations will result in a valuable

15

return in some non economic form to the individual whether obvious or subtle (Lin

2001). Social capital as a concept deemed worthy of research, programs and public
policy, is an exciting departure from the value of capital as something with concrete
monetary value.

In research contexts, social capital has been broken down into themes for the
purpose of better understanding and measurement. The many themes of social capital
include, but are not limited to, civic participation, volunteerism, trust, reciprocity, and
social interaction. These themes appear in nearly every social capital research project
and every social capital measurement instrument.

In the literature, the connection between community gardens and social capital
has started to be explored. In the case of community gardens, there are studies that relate
community gardens to these themes of social capital (Glover 2004; Glover, Parry et al.
2005; Alaimo and Hassler 2003). Moreover, some websites and guides about social
capital suggest that to create social capital in a neighborhood a community garden should
be initiated. For example in Better Together’sI 150 ways to improve your community’s
social capital, ‘start a community garden’ is listed as number seven. Also on a popular
work of art (printed on book marks, posters and post cards) created by the Syracuse
Cultural Workers Peace and Justice Publisher entitled, ‘How to Build Community’ within

the listed suggestions is simply, ‘garden together’. However, in these casual contexts it is

 

I Bettcrtogetherorg is an initiative of the Saguaro Seminar on Civic Engagement in America
at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government.

16

never directly explained how community garden contribute to social capital. This study
will expand and deepen knowledge of social capital as it relates to community gardens.

f Political Ecology: Community gardens are spaces where people can reclaim
power over their own food production and over their own social spaces. At the
intersection of the social and environmental networks, community gardens may be seen
as a microcosm of many of the socio-environmental and challenges facing the world.
Political ecology is often used as a framework for refuting the myth of human-nature and
rural-urban dichotomies. Political ecology also places community gardens in a necessary
web of intricate social and environmental systems. Based loosely in political ecology,
this study considers how the community gardens shape peoples’ relationships to the
environment and to each other.

Political ecology has been defined in many different ways (Robbins 2004). I
define it as an area of research that reveals the complex, often hidden, and dynamic
human-environment relationships, while always politicizing and contextualizing these
relationships. When originally conceived political ecology was used to understand
environmental issues in deve10ping countries. Political ecology is capable of integrating
detailed local studies and general principles (Watts 2000). This capacity of political
ecology to incorporate the detailed local and general principles nicely frames my research
because it focuses on detailed local-scale data but the mechanisms revealed are general
principles of how community gardens positively influence social networks. I use
political ecology to explore how these social networks are built in social-ecological
contexts (community gardens), that can potentially lead to social capital, political alliance

and empowerment. Although this research does not directly address embedded power

17

structures or broader political and ecological processes, it does contribute to
understanding where the fuel for political engagement and social capital comes from in
community garden contexts.

Political ecology is an essential framework for this research because community
gardens are at the intersection of human-environment interactions and simultaneously
immersed in the social, political and ecological aspects of urban green space. The social
networks constituted through the gardens are an example of communities building
resilience against the ongoing harmful social and enviromnental degradations taking
place in urban contexts. Such social degradations include: alienation from neighbors,
urban hunger, disempowerment in political processes, and lack of ownership and identity
of place. Community gardens are grounding people to their social networks and
neighborhoods simultaneously. Gardens are fostering these social networks and therefore
can lead to a myriad of social benefits. Unfortunately community gardens, and more
generally, urban agriculture has been somewhat overlooked by political ecology
(Hovorka 2006; WinklerPrins and Souza 2005). This is a strange omission when you
consider how embedded in social and environmental systems community gardens are.

The urban sphere, although somewhat neglected in the past by political ecologists
(Watts 2002; Robbins 2004), is now a vibrant area of research with many fascinating
research foci irnmerging in the literature. Following the 1992 Rio Earth summit, cities

were highlighted as places that are dramatically contributing to environmental problems

18

and Local Agenda 2152 were initiated as extensions of this new international mandate for
sustainable cities. Particularly exciting in the Rio Summit’s urban sustainability push,
was an integral social component of the sustainability. Urban political ecology as a study
focus is rooted in many strains of intellectual thought for example eco-feminism, eco-
Marxism, and eco-archaism (Keil 2003). In these urban political ecologies contexts, the
socioecological relationships are consistently shifting and shaping the environment.
Therefore, these issues require the attention of researchers to ensure the use of radical
eco-political strategies that meet the growing challenges in cities (Swyngedouw and
Heynen 2003).

This research is situated in the political ecology literature in five specific ways.
First, it is a response to the call for symmetry in political ecology because it focuses on
the first world which is currently an underrepresented area of study in the political
ecology literature. Second, this research recognizes cities as political ecologies (Robbins
2004). Third, although much work in political ecology focuses on the deterioration of the
socio-environmental systems, this research builds on the understanding that the
construction of social networks can have positive ecological benefits. In short this is a
political ecology of hope. Fourth, this research, while highly localized and detailed, also
reveals the processes of community gardens contributing to social networks; and these
mechanisms are generalizable. Lastly, the power structures of capitalism, individualism,

and agribusiness have lefi urban communities socially and environmentally deficient.

 

3 Agenda 2] is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally. nationally and locally by
organizations of the United Nations System, Governments. and Major Groups in every area in which
human impacts on the environment which was developed in the earth summit in Rio in l 992

19

These gardens are a direct reaction to these deficiencies. Therefore, these community
gardens represent an implicit (whether conscious or subconscious) political choice in
opposition to social and environmental alienation, marginalization, and powerlessness.
With the emergence of international, urban environmentalism, green space in
cites is constantly being re-assessed, evaluated, and contested. In this volatile context
community gardens are spaces that must compete in a ruthless land market. Therefore, it
is essential for us to understand the detailed and nuanced benefits of community gardens

so that their future is secure.

20

HI METHODS

a. Introduction: We do not understand how community gardens enhance and
maintain social capital for the communities in which they are located. There is some
evidence that community gardens contribute to aspects of social capital (Alaimo and
Hassler 2003). To understand this social capital process I investigated how trust,
reciprocity, and social interaction are being generated by these community gardens. By
asking specific questions relating to these themes, I wanted to get a better understanding
of what mechanisms are contributing to the relationship between community gardens and
social capital. I used a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods to collect my
data. To reiterate, my hypothesis is that the community garden serves as a mechanism
fostering trust, reciprocity and social interaction elements of social capital, both for the
garden members and the garden neighbors.

b. Garden Selection: To decide which gardens to include in my study I consulted
with garden project staff past and present, in order to include gardens with diverse sizes,
ages, social compositions, and surrounding communities. I settled on the following seven
gardens for inclusion: Airport, Armory, ELF, Foster, Henry North, Letts, and Towar. All
gardens, with the exception of ELF, according to their location. I was looking for
gardens that were spread out spatially. Due to the ethnic diversity of these gardens, it
was necessary for me to select gardens with enough English speakers to comfortably
survey and interview participants.

c. Surveys: I developed the first survey for gardeners (Appendix 3) and the second
for neighbors living near the garden (Appendix 4). The questions on my surveys were

developed and chosen based on questions used in other social. capital studies. These

21

include: Better Together’s short survey questions4 the United Kingdom’s compilation of
social capital questionsS, and a social capital questionnaire practitioner’s guide.6 Some
of the questions on the surveys were revised to be more specific to community gardens
and adopted to uniform format. Other questions were generated strictly for this particular
study (i.e. I trust community gardeners __ than other people). Also, the questions
were reviewed and critiqued by four faculty members with survey experience and two
anonymous reviewers during the UCHRIS process.7

The aim of the surveys was to measure important social capital variables in the
neighborhoods around the gardens and within the gardens. The questions were often
directly related to possible manifestations of these themes. While some related to the
gardens specifically, some questions related to the community generally. These three
themes of trust, reciprocity, and social interaction were chosen based on their known
relevance to community gardens as evidenced through other studies and personal

experience. The questions related to the garden directly assessed the overall social

 

3 Better together is a final report of The Saguaro Seminar: Civic Engagement in America, an
exciting initiative of Professor Robert D. Putnam at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard
University, began in I 996. The project focused on expanding what we know about our levels of trust and
community engagement and on developing strategies and efforts to increase this engagement.

‘ Based on the 2000 survey and other surveys in 2001/2002, the Saguaro Seminar has distilled down the
25-minute Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey into a Short Form

5 The Social Capital Question Bank is based on the ONS survey matrix developed in 2001, and contains
related questions from 15 major government and non-government surveys.

6 Measuring Social Capital in Five Communities in NS W - A Practitioners Guide - P. Bullen & J. Onyx -
January I 998

7 IRB #06-328was granted on 05/20/06 and is valid through 05/19/07 (see Appendix] & 2).

22

experience of people in the garden as well as the generation of social capital from
interactions in the garden. I surveyed a total of 33 gardeners in the 7 gardens.

To measure the ‘spill over effects’ or indirect effects of the garden on the social
networks of the immediate neighborhood, non-members with little or no contact to the
garden were surveyed about the same specific themes of social capital. To accomplish
this I went door to door talking to neighbors within 3 blocks of the garden. I surveyed
about 7-10 neighbors per garden within three blocks of the garden for a total of 52
neighbor surveys. I took field notes about the overall ‘feel’ of the neighborhood, the
reactions I got from knocking on doors, and informal conversations about the community
garden.

d. Interviews: For a deeper and more nuanced understanding of the communities
in which the gardens are located and the garden spaces themselves I conducted semi-
structured interviews with 6 gardeners each from a different garden. In some most cases
I tired to select interviewees who were in the garden for a number of years and had lot of
social experiences to share. In some cases however, I tried to select gardeners who
seemed not as involved to gain insight from their perspective. The main focus of these
interviews was to gain a deeper understanding of the social aspects of the garden and to
expand on the survey answers. These sources can be cross referenced with measured
behaviors and attitudes (Petersen 2002). The open ended structure of the interviews
allowed the participants to convey what they felt was important about the garden even if
the questions fell short of engaging all their ideas.

e. Participatory Observation: I participated in the gardens by attending monthly

potlucks, a workshop, work days, and volunteering time at the resource center where

23

gardeners came to borrow tools and get free seed and seedlings. I observed and
participated in the open resource hours of the resource center approximately 2-5 hours a
week for the first 5 weeks of summer. During this time I engaged in informal
conversations with home and community gardeners, got a sense of the interaction
between gardeners, and learned more about the overall structure of the garden project.

I spent approximately 8-10 hours a week in the gardens when there were no
formal events occurring to see day to day activities. For these hours I participated to the
extent that I felt was socially appropriate. I spent my time chatting, weeding or involved
in other tasks in the garden, but most of my time was spent simply watching, waiting and
recording observations in my field journal. I took on my own garden plot in Towar
garden because of its close proximity to my house.

Having my own garden plot became an essential component of learning how these
gardens work and what it is like to be a new gardener in a community garden.
Participatory observation is an important research method because it often enhances the
quality of the fieldwork data. It improves and aids interpretation of the data, and
encourages the formation of new questions and hypotheses (Dewalt and Dewalt 2002).
In my case this was essential to understanding these social spaces. Participatory
observation allowed me to understand social interaction in a way not possible through
any other method. There is simply no substitute for getting a full sensory experience of
your research site and the social interactions that take place there.

f Data Analysis: All data were analyzed thematically and organized into social
capital components. I used six categories to measure the three themes( 2two categories

per theme) of social capital I identified. The 6 categories I catalogued the data into were:

24

(1) Trust between gardeners,

(2) Trust between gardeners and neighbors,

(3) Reciprocity between gardeners

(4) Reciprocity between gardeners and neighbors,

(5) Social interaction between gardeners

(6) Social interaction between neighbors and gardeners.

Quotes and observations fro field notes were also put into these same data
categories. While I chose the best fit, some overlap is inevitable.

The survey was analyzed question by question and the responses were placed into
6 categories. As one statistical measurement of survey data, numerical question
responses were consolidated in each category to create a score for trust, reciprocity, and
social interaction. Then the results of the neighborhood surveys were separated into
neighbors who had interacted with the garden and those who had not interacted with the
garden. The scores of trust, reciprocity, and social interaction were then analyzed using a
T-Test to compare the scores of neighbors who interacted with the garden and those who
did not.

g. Research of Secondary Data: Secondary data about the neighborhood
composition, the food bank, the garden project and individual gardens came from a
variety of sources. To get demographics and other information on the neighborhoods
surrounding the gardens two sources were consulted. First, I looked at US. census data

directly. Second, US. census data were analyzed and organized using an ESRI program

25

called ‘Business Decision’, which provided detailed information about the people living

in these neighborhoods including Tapestry8 category data.

 

8 The 65-segment Tapestry system classifies U.S. neighborhoods based on their socioeconomic
and demographic composition. These are generalizations but have some relevance to the neighborhood
characteristic and feel.

26

III. STUDY AREA AND HISTORICAL CONTEXT

a. Community Gardens: The history of US. community gardening tells the story
of war, economic trends, and political movements. U.S. gardening dates back to the
18908 and has its roots in the United Kingdom allotment systems. The UK allotment
systems originated in the 17005 in response to agricultural transformation and
urbanization that pushed people towards the city who still had the skill and knowledge of
farming. The creation of the first US. gardens coincides with the economic depression
between 1893-1897. One of the most comprehensive community garden programs
during this time was the Potato Patches of Detroit Michigan (Lawson 2005; Warman
1999)

This program raised funds and facilitated the use of open land for residents to
grow food. The program introduced in 1894 by social reformist Mayor Pingree was
highly criticized because no one took the idea of community gardening seriously. During
the first year less than a third of those who applied were able to participate due to the
shortage of space. Despite a dry year and a late planting date, the Detroit potato patch
project produced an estimated $14,000 dollars worth of produce in the first season which
quieted earlier critics of the program. In 1895, the city embraced the program with a
budget of $5,000 realized $44,000 dollars worth of food for its investment. All told
2,000 families were involved in the program (Lawson 2005). There were other benefits
associated with the program beyond nutrition such as hope, self-respect, exercise, and
socialization of immigrant populations.

A report of Detroit’s efforts during this time notes that the city’s poor declined by

sixty percent. The very beginnings of urban community gardening in America began in

27

Michigan, and New York, Philadelphia, Buffalo, and other cities would follow with
impressive community gardening programs. Despite the success of the vacant lot garden
era, few of these programs and spaces were made permanent and the surge of community
garden receded with economic prosperity (Bassett 1981).

The next wave of American community gardening occurred during World War I.
The motivations sprang not only from food shortages and food prices but from patriotism.
People of all classes became involved during this time to support the war effort
(Williamson 2002). Liberty gardens were about American pride and gardeners were
patriotic soldiers. The food grown during this time in urban contexts, cutback on
shipping costs of food, and allowed farmers to ship crops overseas to feed the troops.
The National War Garden Commission provided some site preparation and the ability to
buy fertilizer, seed, and tools at group and wholesale prices for group gardening (Bassett
1981)

The Liberty Gardens under Woodrow Wilson’s leadership were part of a
concerted propaganda campaign to encourage gardening and food self reliance. Songs,
chants, posters and slogans planted the idea of community gardening as a national
necessity for family food security and victory. This was not the last time patriotism and
war would be tied to community gardening. The idea of gardening as patriotic would be
re-kindled in the victory gardens of World War II (Lawson 2005).

When the Great Depression hit in the 19305, some gardens still remained fi'om the
first waves of community gardening. No national level effort or organization emerged
because local leaders felt confident to organize community gardens, although several

federal level organizations had garden committees. Relief gardens served two purposes

28

during this time: subsistence and employment. The New York City relief gardens alone
produced five dollars worth of vegetables for every one dollar invested. Relief gardens
were beginning to wane as the country pulled out of the depression, then war broke out in
1939 (Warman 1999).

The Victory gardens of World War II revisited the patriotic nature of community
gardening. The Food War administration headed up the National Victory Garden
Program, which worked to again make commercial crops more available to the armed
forces. In its initial stages there was some hesitation at the idea of promoting small scale
gardening because of concern over seed and fertilizer waste. However public desire to
help in the war effort, coupled with newly realized benefits of community gardening such
as, health, recreation, and morale convinced officials to support the urban garden
movement again (Lawson 2005).

The US. government had learned some important lessons fi'om the First World
War in terms of food security. The World War H campaign was so successful that 20
million victory gardens produced 44% of the fresh vegetables in the United States
(Bassett 1981). The victory garden era was characterized by a resurgence of the idea that
gardening was good for mental health. It was acknowledged as a social and
psychologically beneficial activity. Gardening was even seen as a powerful de-stressor
that could assist the public with anxiety over the war (Lawson 2005).

Although community gardens never completely vanished, it was not until the
1970, that community gardens had their next resurgence. An energy crisis coupled with a
growing environmental movement pushed community gardening back into the public

spotlight. Newly emerging groups such as the Green Guerillas of New York and Boston

29

Urban Gardeners (BUG) worked to create new garden spaces. Community gardens
became a form of urban activism to re-claim space and empowerment in decaying
neighborhoods. Gardens were appreciated as method for teaching the public about
environmental concerns in the food system and for creating much needed green space. In
1979, the American Community Garden9 association was founded after the first
conference of community garden associations in Chicago. Types of community gardens
diversified to encompass programs such as, school gardens, company gardens, children’s
gardens, job-training gardens, and senior citizen garden (Lawson 2005).

In 2004, the American Community Gardening Association (ACGA) estimated
that there were 18,000 community gardens across the USA and Canada. Community
gardens in the US. community gardens remain a part of the fabric of American cities. In
addition to food production, They remind us of our connection to nature, our connection
to our neighbors, and our human capacity for creativity, ingenuity, deeper ecology, and
holistic thinking (Williamson 2002).

b Lansing, Michigan: Lansing has an interesting and varied history. In 1835
Michigan was admitted to the Union, and the Constitution of 1837 made Detroit the first
capital of the new state. Then in 1847, after months of debate in the legislature, the
governor signed into law a bill naming Lansing Township in Ingham County as the new
state capital. Despite being the capital of Michigan since 1837, Lansing did not become

incorporated city until 1859 (Society 1998).

 

9 The American Community Gardening Association (ACGA) is a bi-national nonprofit
membership organization of professionals, volunteers and supporters of community greening in urban and
rural communities. The Association recognizes that community gardening improves the quality of life for
people by providing a catalyst for neighborhood and cormnunity development, stimulating social
interaction, encouraging self-reliance, beautifying neighborhoods, producing nutritious food, reducing
family food budgets, conserving resources and creating opportunities for recreation, exercise, therapy and
education(Association 2004).

30

The economic history of Lansing in many ways reflects the economic history of
Michigan’s generally declining auto industry. Lansing began to prosper in the late 18005
because of the auto industry. Ransom Eli Olds, a native of the city of Lansing, was the
founder of the Oldsmobile division of General Motors. In 1897 Ransom E. Olds began
making his cars in Lansing. Then in the 19105 public demand for automobiles grew
through the decade. Parallel to this demand the Oldsmobile factory in Lansing grew and a
new assembly plant was added (Wieland 2006).

Then in the 19205 Durant Motor Co. built a factory on Verlinden Avenue in
Lansing. When the great depression hit this plant was forced to close until 1935 when
General Motors (GM) bought it. Over the next 70 years, GM suffered economic
downturns, strikes, globalization pressures, and in 1977 moved its headquarters to
Detroit. Regardless of these turbulent trends, GM’s presence in Lansing and base
economic support is still fundamental to the region’s economy (Wieland 2006).
Manufacturing in Michigan is not completely faded yet. In a new study released by a
Chicago-based industrial research group, Michigan ranks as the third-best state in the
nation for manufacturing (Wallbank 2006).

The social trends of Lansing reflect the city’s tumultuous economic history. In a
recent publication of key indicators of the vitality of the Capital Area’s 400,000 residents,
most indicators of social and economic growth had positive trends. For example, high
school graduation rates were up slightly, the percentage of population with education
beyond high school was up, and teen pregnancy was down in 2004. The greater Lansing
Business index increased between 1997-2003, but unemployment went up fi'om 2000-

2003 levels, and home ownership rates had essentially stagnated (We 2004). While some

31

of this data seems hopeful, much work is left to be done to counteract the devastating
effects of the declining base economy. One such program working to increase Lansing’s
economic, social, and environmental health is the Garden Project of the Greater Lansing
Area Food Bank.

c. The Garden Project of the Greater Lansing Food Bank: The focus of this case
study is a community garden program in the greater Lansing area called, “The Garden
Project” which is an extension of the Greater Lansing Food Bank. In the 19705 the
national recession hit Michigan and prompted a depression in the faltering auto industry.
Just as thousands were unemployed the federal government cutback on assistance
programs making the situation even more serious (Hartlieb 1984).

In response to these new economic challenges in Lansing, local leaders met to
discuss options for food assistance. As a result of these meetings, in 1981 the food bank
was established. The Food Bank was originally founded with the following purposes:

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
area; and

4. Promote and encourage and emphasizes self-help programs toward the
goal of food self reliance (Hartlieb 1984).

The average number of families requesting aid increased dramatically fi'om 1981-
1988 (Sreen and Lamore 1988) and continued to rise during 1990 and 1991 (Pigg 1992).

The food bank is unfortunately still relevant today and has helped over 1,000,000

32

individuals with emergency food since 1981 (Bank 2005). Even 2006 was a tough year

for the hungry in Lansing:

With one in four Lansing residents living in poverty
according to the US. Census, local food banks and soup
kitchens have reported increases in clients as they begin
holiday drives. Others are seeing more first-time visitors.
‘This year, it's gotten worse than it's ever been,’ said
Sharon Miller of Our Savior Lutheran Food Bank in
Lansing (DomsicStaff 2006).

The Garden project grew out of the Food Bank in 1982 when the Food Bank

formed a ‘Self-Help Committee’ that received a $60,000 dollar grant to establish a

community garden program (Hartlieb 1984). The original Garden Project formed around

six goals:

. To enable 1,500 families to grow their own food by preparing 20 acres of

unused and donated land in fifteen Lansing area locations;

. To enable 800 families to garden in their backyard through rototilling and

land preparation effort;

. To glean at least 10,000 lbs of food;

. To provide employment for five senior citizens, five unemployed youth, a

secretary a project director, and 100 youths;

. To offer workshops on food preservation and budgeting; and

. To involve five community groups in a commitment to project

continuation after 1983 (Hartlieb 1984).

The program also had several alliances with associated programs ranging from

school programs to neighborhood block coordinators. One such program was the Hmong

refugee nutrition project, which established the Garden Project’s long term relationship

33

with the Hmong community in Lansing (Figure 2). As of 2002, Asians were Lansing's
fastest growing minority group, and were also the biggest users of the Greater Lansing
Food Bank's Garden Project (ChrisStaff 2002). Nearly 200 Asians-including Hmong,
Vietnamese, Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans were a part of the garden project in 2002
(ChrisStaff 2002). In an article about the Asian users of the garden project one gardener
shared, “This is a way for me to remember my country. Sometimes we can meet friends
here" (ChrisStaff 2002: 3).

Currently, the Garden project reaches an impressive 500 families in Lansing/East
Lansing (Project Summer 2006) up from 400 in 1990 (Pigg 1992). The garden project
facilitates community gardening, home gardening assistance, and the collection and

distribution of extra agricultural products through gleaming. The garden project has 17

community gardens distributed throughout the Lansing/East Lansing area (Figure 3).

 

Figure 2. Hmong girls at seed distribution May 2006. Photo by author.

34

 

2006 Garden Project Community Gardens
i L“! "T r g s

5 1“; \fl ' l a..- i
5

    

 

M, j

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Map produced by Tn-County Regional Planning Commussuon

Figure 3. All community Gardens of the Garden Project 2006

35

Gardens are located on land owned by a variety of organizations including
churches, schools, and Sparrow Hospital, but the vast majority are located on land owned
by Lansing Parks and Recreation.

Each garden has a coordinator who is responsible for a number of garden duties
throughout the season. These responsibilities can include organizing work parties,
keeping in touch with gardeners about weed management and path maintenance, and
attending coordinator meetings to check in with the Garden Project staff. The gardens
vary greatly in size, diversity, neighborhood characteristics, and water access. The yearly
operations of the garden project involve registering community garden participants plots
(typically 25 by 25 feet) in the various garden locations and paying a $5.00 fee per plot.
Plot assignments occur in early spring after plowing and are preferential to returning
gardeners for desired plot placement.

The Garden Project advertises in pamphlets distributed through food banks, social
service agencies, university housing offices, displays at local community events, some
area businesses and through broadcasts and print media (Kirkby 2003). In some
neighborhoods, neighborhood associations act as a mediator between the garden and the
neighborhood in an unofficial capacity recruiting gardeners. Despite this outreach, it
seems the vast majority of gardeners hear about the garden project through word of
mouth or direct neighborhood contact. Reinforcing word of mouth as a major gardener
recruiting system, Paul Hartlieb noted in 1984, “a lot of the ladies came after others
recommended it to them”. Another study found 8 of 20 Foster gardeners surveyed in

2003 were introduced to the garden project through a friend (Kirkby 2003). It is

36

significant that many gardeners are brought in by friends because this contributes to the
social dynamic of these spaces.

d. Gardens Included in this Study: The gardens included in this study are diverse
with respect to access to water, size, age, social composition, and surrounding
communities. Also, the basic demographics of these neighborhoods are diverse (Table 4
& Table 5). They are scattered throughout the Lansing/East Lansing area (Figure 4).

For the purpose of this study, I investigated six community gardens that are part of The
Garden Project located in residential land use areas. The Airport Garden is not located in

an immediately residential area.

37

included in

 

Study Gardens
* Airport
Armory
* ELF Garden
* Foster Park
* Henry North School
* Letts Community Center
* Towar Avenue

Figure 4. Community Gardens Included in This Study. Map by Angela Podogrosi.

38

3...: 5 as Sea :5.

63:3 98w 8: 352. Sufi 3:..th :39: .333». 2.054% #35:: nomwsgfiua 9.5.6 .3 unfiioxn SeQ
gig—‘3»: . .Ewmuew 5:8. =6 3.?qu b~au5- .93 2.5a: BEE-=8 ass—ates: uEhEmeEuQ V .wEeh

 

25:32.02

 

  

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5:23.035 .85 88¢. :85 -- -1- =< womb 985.
9:3 :33 can

$.0th wdnmw --. --. :-- w=_o=uc~..m .5 ER: ow8o><
8380 o> «Ea 22.. .5 E m

2.: 3.2 I: ll ---- $.va v8.2 0:8; .8 E85;
a

8.33 wmdmom .-- 1.. 5. new 83.... :o anm omEo><
. . . 2:0;
wow mm o 50 mm ---- .-- .-- a U08 :0 ER; omfio><
tn ad and owd mod aim 20:38: 0 So><
9mm m; _ .--- .-- 02on £22.33 55 2:8th

, . “Mums-

o R N om -:. .--- .:. .858 :wE 5:: E85;
w. _ m mdm v. _ m Wmm m.mm &< 5602
2 2 m.” 3 9m :23 ESE-
Qw I o. _ N «.3 2h xuflm Eco-am:
3: Eva Woe New .5- 223 E85.—
ond cod 9.6— 3.9 loony 2:. :3 323 Econ-em
mom; 5 @— mama coda»: _ w 8&2.me 8.5m; mm oEoos "Em—NU be
$1me 513m oodmwémw 8.30.3» 8.3043 2:85 2023502 5:82
wage-mm 95.08 2:85 Eocomzo: owfio><

 

«Ion

 

8.310. _

8.§.wmo.o

 

8.0— 105.com

 

scum—sued

39

3.: 5 o; .58; :5

63.3»... been .2: outs». SS» FEM—.5 :35: San-own 36535 $0335 numwfieefia 95.8 .3 33:93 SeQ
$3353.03: . 533.5% 5:3. :5 3.3630 bunumeh ES 2.53 Logs-3e... =o._3=te\5 oikEneEwQ .m. 633.“

 

20.28800

22:09:. :37...“

macacuEE .30

:38.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

moEEnn. wcso> mica; can .300 6qu 55 0:02 .2389ng EEO .2288an EEO oEo: .umvm b5 SEE womb Panda.
. . 28 :33 new
_ 2.03 003$ 3.3.3" 8 mm; mm mama @6592» no Euam omnb><
. . . . . 8380 o> “Ea E5 :0 Eu m
vm 2 mm 2 EN 2 K E 3 0. Emu—E 08.. 050: he Euobm
. . . . a
3.03% 2 33 mo mwmm 0m «9% ow 83 can 2:5 :0 E2: umflo><
. . . . . . . . . . . 0:5;
mode» 3 2 N3 3 em 0; mm 0m vmn mm «m one mm E 008 .8 Evan omflo><
w.~ EN Nd RA Wm 0N: 20530: e EM.><
0.0m Wm. w.o_ m0 0.0 women 222on 5.3 ESSA
. . gulc-
0_mm QR m.m~ _ mm o cm .033. :wE 5:5 Eoobm
Own Dom w.mm m0N Nmm uw< 5:82
wé : E 3 wd =23... Eoubm
Nam. QC m6 New 05 gum—m Eoobm

. . . {0 . v
. N 323 Eoubn—

 

 

 

oEooE a: «U .5...—

 

 

 

 

oEooE 20:38: 5:52

 

 

0585 29.3.5: 0 Eo><

 

 

coma—smog

,: _:/_;
.:.,.:7_.._/

.172: z;

 

40

la. gmort Garden: When you enter the Airport garden it sounds like a sleepy
rural place with cicadas humming and wind moving through the trees. Located on the
northern edge of Lansing out near the airport, this garden is the most rural of the gardens.
It has the look of a communal farm due to its size and location. The only houses nearby
are sparsely located farmhouses. The drive there feels like a departure from the city.
Historically the Airport garden has had a Hmong section where many Hmong families
grew food. In 2006, it was consolidated into one large garden. It is by far the largest
community garden in the study with 154 plots and 61 gardeners. The Airport garden
tends to have a late till date due to it being in a low area which can remain wet well into

spring (Figure 5, Figure 6 and Figure 7).

( .(X)3ik‘

 

Figure 5. Airport Garden aerial view. Google Earth [last accessed 2-1-07]

41

'x

w.» i:.'- ' ‘
33:; :wyiv gas a .

 

Figure 7. Airport Garden August 2006. Photo by author.
42

1b. Airport Neighborhood: There is only one house visible fiom the airport
garden. The rural landscape is agricultural with patches of woods. According to the US.
census in 2000 the 94 residents within a .5 mile radius (figure) of the garden have the
highest average household income of the seven neighborhoods $66,476. The population
is 94.7% white and has the oldest median age of any garden (39.3 years) suggesting some
retirees. The educational status of the people in this area contains 26% with a high
school degree or higher and 11% with a bachelors degree or higher. The Tapestry
Types10 this group of people as ‘Green Acres’.

Green Acres people are described as, maintaining and remodeling their homes
with paint, decks and patios, and spas. They own all the necessary power tools to
accomplish their projects including power saws, drill presses, and welders. Gardening,
especially vegetables, is also a priority, again with the right tools——tillers, tractors, riding
mowers, edgers, and even separate home freezers for the harvest (CivicTechnologies
2004). This fits with my experience of the homes near this garden. I saw people working
outdoors; there was hay for sale, and large gardens near homes.

2a. Armory Garden: When in Armory garden you often hear the sound of
construction at the nearby middle school. This is indicative of the kind of changes
Armory has been through (Figure 8). Armory began in circa 1991 and because if its

location has undergone many evolutions of locations and topsoil challenges. It is

 

’0 The 65-segment Tapestry system classifies U.S. neighborhoods based on their socioeconomic
and demographic composition. These are generalizations but have some relevance to the neighborhood
characteristic and feel.

43

currently fenced in between the armory and a middle school under construction. The
garden has been moved, out off fi'orn water, and had topsoil removed, but it continues to
thrive. Although the garden location is new this year the garden space is enhanced by
several benches, a storage shed/tiny greenhouse, and an arbor (Figure 9). At the corner of
each garden, is a small circle chicken wire fence with stones collected from the garden

piled inside to create the look of a small stone tower.

 

4 ( :tkkflk'
. 0‘ ‘

Figure 8. Amory Garden aerial view. Google Earth [last accessed 2-1-07]

 

Figure 9. Armory garden gathering space August 2006. Photo by author.

2b. Armog Neighborhood: The Armory neighborhood is on the growing, trendy
eastside of Lansing. The average household income of the 292 people living in a .1 mile
radius of the garden is $35,275. The racial composition is 78% white 8% black and 3%
Asian reflecting the diversity of this area. The median age was 31.8. The Armory
neighborhood has the second highest percent of people with a bachelors degree at 23.6%.
The most common tapestry type found in this area is ‘Great Expectations,’ and the
second most common is ‘Metropolitans’.

The ‘Great Expectations’ category includes, homeowners who are not afraid to
tackle smaller maintenance and remodeling projects, ofien preferring to complete them
on their own, but they also enjoy a young and active lifestyle. Going to bars, dancing, and
playing pool are some of the leisure activities they enjoy. They go out for dinner and a
movie, attend music concerts, visit a theme park, and go to the zoo or the beach

(CivicTechnologies 2004).

45

The Metropolitans, according to the Tapestry coding, pursue an active, urbane
lifestyle. They travel frequently, on personal trips and for business. They listen to
classical, public, jazz, news—talk, and sports radio; play backgammon; participate in
yoga, roller blading, hiking/backpacking, go to museums and zoos; attend rock concerts;
rent foreign videos/DVDs; and read epicurean magazines. Health conscious
Metropolitans buy natural/organic foods. Metropolitans residents participate in numerous
civic activities such as volunteering for environmental causes, addressing public
meetings, and working for a political party/candidate (CivicTechnologies 2004).

These two categories define the feel of this neighborhood remarkably well. When
I knocked on doors”, people were Very friendly and polite, virtually everyone who was
home was willing to participate in my study. The households seemed to be young
families with one child, couples, or singles. The homes had individual character and
diverse exteriors. There were political signs in the yards for progressive causes and
candidates. Nearby is a block with a tea house, intemet café, and several other businesses
suited to the people described in the Tapestry categories of these neighborhoods.

3a. ELF Garden: When you enter ELF (Enthusiastic Lansing Folks) (Figure 10
Figure 11 & Figure 12) you hear a rush of traffic along the very busy Oakland Ave an
odd contrast with the tranquil sights and smells of the garden small plots. ELF garden
started in 2001 as an idea of Jacob Toman for his Eagle Scout project. It is a small
garden of nine plots located on a street quite busy with car traffic. This garden has the
best defined and welcoming gathering space of all the gardens in the study. Several

arbors, benches, and paths lined with flowers welcome visitors in. These features of the

 

” I walked around in the neighborhoods to collect surveys and take field notes on my general
observations of the area, which I further discus in the methods section

46

garden were conceived and constructed by the gardeners and the materials were
purchased through grants awarded through the city of Lansing. Many social events have
taken place over the years including story telling for kids, food gatherings, and harvest
festivals. It is a no till garden so the gardeners can determine for themselves when the
growing season begins. ELF is also the only garden not named for its location but rather

by the gardeners.

“(gloogle

'22»

 

Figure 10. ELF Garden aerial view. Google Earth [last accessed 2-1-07]

47

 

Figure 12.ELF Garden in August 2006. Photo by author.
48

3b. ELF Neighborhood: ELF neighborhood is immediate to the garden and
vandalism has been an ongoing problem for this garden. The neighborhood average
household income is $27,157, the 3rd lowest average of the seven gardens. The
population is 47.8% white, 37.5% black, and 2.8 Asian with a median age of 28.2 years.
The average family size in this neighborhood is the largest of the gardens with 3.5 per
household. The largest Tapestry type in this neighborhood is, ‘Metro City Edge’ with
‘Home Town’ second.

Metro City Edge people are, “one of Tapestry’s youngest segments, and tend to
be single parents, singles, and multigenerational families. Edge residents’ primary
concern is the welfare of their children, which means they must spend their money
wisely. They tend to shop at grocery stores such as Food Lion, Kroger, and Piggly
Wiggly but will make trips to superstores and wholesalers to purchase household and
children’s items in bulk. They tend to exercise at home and enjoy walking and
participating in community sports such as basketball and football. Most meals are made
at home; families go to restaurants only once in a while” (CivicTechnologies 2004).

“Home Town residents savor their quasi-country lifestyle by spending time
outdoors, gardening, fishing, swimming, and walking and, when indoors, reading and
playing cards. Many are pet owners. They make the most of their urban locations,
enjoying nightclubs, bars, movies, museums, and zoos”(CivicTechnologies 2004). When
walking around this neighborhood some signs of poverty were clear such as littered yards
and homes in disrepair. People were less welcoming overall and were quite busy with
their children. There were “beware of dog” and “no loitering” signs and many over the

top Halloween decorations.

49

4a. Foster Garden: Foster (Figure 13 & Figure 14) sounds like a mix of city noises
one part traffic, one part sounds of neighborhood youth and one part bass from slow
moving car stereos. Foster garden began circa 1991. It is located right across from the
resource center of the garden project and near the demonstration garden and volunteer
flower garden. Additionally, it is one block from Paradise Community Garden and so it
is right in the hub of much garden project activity. Foster takes full advantage of being
located so close to the resource center by harrowing tools from the center and filling

water buckets from the center’s hoses.

 

Figure 13. Foster Garden May 2006. Photo by author.

50

 

Figure 14. Foster Garden August 2006. Photo by author.

4b. Foster Neighborhood: Although very close to the Armory garden, this
neighborhood (Figure 15) is starkly different. This is the neighborhood with the greatest
number of residents living below the poverty line 32% and it was apparent. Many homes
were in disrepair condemned, or littered. There were young adults or kids in groups often
in the park unsupervised. When I knocked on doors sometimes people would not come
to the door even if they were home. Once in the door people were quite friendly, but
expressed general distrust and dislike of the neighborhood even warning me of certain
homes not to approach. Foster was the garden with the most food thefi.

The racial composition is 64 % white and 20% black, and only 6.3% have a
bachelors degree. The average household size is 3.27 people. This is almost one person

greater than Lansing average of 2.39 people per household. The Tapestry types here are

51

‘Great Expectations’ and ‘City Dimensions’. Great Expectations is discussed above
(page # 39) but the City Dimensions median household income is $26,000. More than
10% of the households receive Supplemental Security Income and public assistance
benefits. A lack of college and even high school education restricts the type of work

available to this category. They work full-time or part-time jobs primarily in service or

manufacturing sectors in skilled and unskilled roles (CivicTechnologies 2004).

 

Figure 15. Foster Garden aerial view. Google Earth [last accessed 2-1—07]

5a. Hggy North Garden: Henry North (Figure 16 & Figure 17) sounds like the
empty nearby Henry North elementary school during the quiet summer months. The

nearby playground noises are muffled by the fence, and the buzzing sounds of the road

52

sound like echoes. Henry North is located in a school yard on the far south side of
Lansing. This garden has 40 plots arranged in a large rectangle It is a garden with a
larger storage shed than any of the other gardens and nearby orchard. The orchard is
used in school programs. It has a locked chain link fence around it, the combination lock
known only by the gardeners. Many of the gardeners have been there for quite a while
and feel their plot is an extension of their homes. It is set back somewhat away from the

neighborhood in a comer of the space near Henry North School. It has water hose access

and a large building for storage.

 

Figure I 6. Henry North Garden May 2006. Photo by author.

53

 

Figure I 7. Henry North Garden August 2006. Photo by author.

5b: Henry North Neighborhood: The neighborhood (Figure 18) around Henry
North seems largely unaware that there is a community garden in their neighborhood.
The garden is separate from the neighborhood. The average income is $31,027 with 10%
living below the poverty line. Median age is 33.9 years suggesting a slightly older
population and an average household size of 2.2 people, which is low considering the
proximity to the school.

The Tapestry categories in this area are ‘Great Expectations’ and ‘Rustbelt
Traditions’. Great Expectations has already been discussed (page # 39). In the Rustbelt
Traditions category, “residents are the backbone of older industrial cities in states

bordering the Great Lakes. They are citizens who have lived, worked, spent, and played

54

in the same area for years. Ofien Rustbelt Traditions residents own work boots and
gloves, lawn mowers, and snowblowers” (CivicTechnologies 2004).

When walking in this neighborhood around three out of four people at home
would answer the door. Homes were in generally in good repair. Multiple vehicles were
not uncommon. When people were home, there were usually more than three people
around and most people had pets I got to meet. Generally, each household seemed like a

small community unto itself with a unique culture.

1 -

i (it ‘ RIC

 

Figure 18. Henry North Garden aerial view. Google Earth [last accessed 2-1-

07]

55

6a. Letts Garden: Letts (Figure 20) sounds like a zone of central activity, a mix of
children playing, and tennis fi'om the adjacent tennis courts. Letts is a brand new garden
this year of 9 plots. It finally began afler several attempts and proposals fizzled out due
to resistance from Lansing Parks and recreation. It has a brand new sign, water barrels,
and a compost bin. It also has a tool storage trunk chained to the fence near the garden.
Letts gardeners wanted to do a few things differently during the staking out of the garden.
The layout of Letts is unique with several sections of perennial patches, which are
communal, and some variation in plot size. Letts is located adjacent to a community

center which presents an interesting context because kids are so prevalent around the

garden.

 

Figure 19. Letts Garden May 2006. Photo by author.

56

 

Figure 20. Letts Garden August 2006. Photo by author.

6b. Letts Neighborhood: This was the most diverse neighborhood of any in the
study (Figure 21). It seemed to have extremes. The percent below the poverty line is 26
yet some homes are very expensive with formidable exteriors with fences and fountains.
The average household income is $24,374, but I think there must be many households
well above that figure and many well below the median income is $39,655. Reflecting
the friendly feel of this area, everyone who was home came to the door and was quite
kind and polite.

The tapestry types in this neighborhood are ‘Cozy and Comfortable’ and ‘Metro
City Edge’. Metro City Edge is discussed above. Cozy and Comfortable are often,

middle-aged, married couples who are comfortably settled in single-family homes in

57

older neighborhoods. Although the labor force is older, people are in no hurry to retire.
They enjoy attending hockey and pro football games as well as playing golf at home and

on vacation (CivicTechnologies 2004).

r!"

'( k \\ iglt‘

 

Figure 21. Letts Garden aerial view. Google Earth [last accessed 2-1-07]

58

7a. Towar Garden: The sounds of Towar (Figure 22) were usually bird songs
including catbirds, robins, and bluebirds. Also the crack of the bat and roar of the crowd
from the baseball diamond in the nearby park made the summer evenings there feel
tangibly childlike. Towar garden is a 60 plot garden located down a dead end street in
East Lansing. Its driveway is a hidden dirt road which is gated and locked; only
gardeners know the combination. It has two large sections and one small organic section.
It is one of the oldest and most established community gardens in the project actually

beginning as an independent garden before joining up with the Garden Project.

 

in. ~
3 (.UUOIL'
. b a.

Figure 22. Towar Garden aerial view. Google Earth [last accessed 2-1-07]

59

7b. Towgr Neighborhood: This neighborhood has the second highest average
household income of any of the gardens in the study (S3 7,742). It has the largest number
of individuals with a bachelor’s degree at 26.6%. It has an average household size of 2.5
people. The racial composition is 75% white and 13.5% black and the highest proportion
of Asians (4.8%) of any neighborhood. The Tapestry Category for this neighborhood is
‘Aspiring Young Families’.

Most ‘Aspiring Young Families’ residents are young, start-up families, a mix of
married couple families (with and without children), and single parents with children.
Leisure time may include dining out, dancing, going to the movies, and attending
professional ball games. Other activities include playing baseball or basketball, joining
religious clubs, writing or phoning radio and TV (CivicTechnologies 2004). This was
my impression of this neighborhood when I knocked on doors. Young couples with
children and lots of energy made me feel welcome in their homes. This youthful energy

feeds into the positive social interactions in the garden.

60

IV. FINDINGS AND DISSCUSSION

a. The Three Themes

1. Trust: The dictionary defines trust as, “a charge or duty imposed in faith or
confidence or as a condition of some relationship (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary
1997: 1255). I will define trust for the purpose of this study as, the belief that others will
be honest and behave in ways that will not harm or hinder anything intentionally.

i. Trust among Gardeners: Gardeners initially are required to trust their fellow
gardeners not to do harm to their plots. The only groups of people who have access to
the garden, in cases of locked gardens, are fellow gardeners. Many people do feel quite
protective of their plots. One gardener even told me she liked to rake at the end of the
day so she could check for footprints to make sure no one had been in her space.

Within the survey, several questions were asked related to trust. I will present the
trends in this survey data. Of the 27 responses to the question, “I trust fellow gardeners

than other people?” 21 people or 78% said “more than”, four or 15% percent
said “slightly more than” two or, 7% said as much as and 0% said slightly less or far less.
This indicates that gardeners do trust other gardeners more than other people.
Reinforcing this finding of greater trust of gardeners than people generally, a series of
questions were asked about trust starting with: do you trust people in general?, in the
neighborhood? and finally in the community garden? Of the 33 community gardeners
who responded to these three questions, 27 people said that they trusted gardeners more
than people in general and 8 said they could trust gardeners more than both people in
general and neighbors. The average responses to these questions are displayed in (Table

6).

61

llltll\ltlllill.\ Mum-gt: Il‘nst 1—5

 

 

 

People in General 2
People in Neighborhood 1.81
People in Garden 1.12

 

 

 

 

Table 6. Averages for three questions about trust all answers on a scale of 1-5

n=33 (1 Trust them a lot- 5 Trust them not at all).

In this progression of questions, trust at the garden scale is the highest. Based on
the survey it appears gardeners do trust other gardeners.

ii. Trust Among Neighbors and Gardeners: The most basic component of the
formation of trust between gardeners and neighbors is the physical space they share.
When asked if neighbors trust community gardeners, 22 of the 34 respondents said they
trust community gardeners more than people in general. Additionally 97% or 33 of the
34 who responded to this question trust gardeners as much as, or more than, people in
general. This is somewhat surprising given that some of these respondents do not know
the gardeners at all. This seems to indicate that community gardening is an activity that
sways others to trust the individuals involved. The encouragement of an activity that
builds trust in a community is exactly what is needed in Lansing neighborhoods with
lower incomes (5 of the 7 garden neighborhoods have lower per capita income than the
Lansing average), or other socio economic disadvantages. This is particularly important
with so much insecurity in the Lansing economy.

To measure if interaction with the garden is fostering trust in neighbors, I
compared an average of trust for neighbors who had interacted with the garden versus
those who had not. From this analysis a trend of improved trust for those who have

interacted with the garden is apparent. A score was taken including the values for each

62

question about trust and the averages were compared with a T-test. Although there does
appear to be some difference between the trust averages between these groups, the p-
value for this test was .371 or not statistically significant. This does not prove the
community garden is the causal factor, but it does point to more trust associated with
interaction with the garden.

Another indication of trust between the gardeners and the neighbors is the access
of the neighbors to the garden itself. In all but one of the seven gardens, neighbors had
walking access to the garden. Also the gardens were highly visible to the surrounding
neighborhood in five of the seven gardens.

2. Reciprocity: Reciprocity is defined by the dictionary as, “a relation of mutual
dependence or action or influence” (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary 1997: 965).
Reciprocity in this study is defined as, behaviors that flow between people evenly, and the
belief that good deeds towards others will invoke good deeds in return.

i. Reciprocity Among Gardeners: One consistent message that echoed through
nearly every gardener’s experience, including my own, was that people liked to learn
from other people. People liked gardening in a social context to learn how other people
organized their gardens, strategies for weed control, what is planted where, and pest
control. Gardeners also appreciated belonging to a garden where some plots were less
well tended and produced less than theirs, and some plots that were better tended and
produced more. No matter how out of control my weeds got, or how insect eaten my
eggplants were, I could at least compare them to those of the other gardeners. When

comparing I found that someone else’s plot needed more work than mine and, of course,

63

many looked much better. This comparison is very helpful to encourage new and old

gardeners and help them learn. As one gardener put it during an interview,

Brandon”: I wanted to know, ‘have you seen those bugs
on our squash this year’? I found myself looking around to
see if people were having similar problems. No matter how
many years you have been gardening you can always learn
something you know, someone’s grandfather did it this way
or someone read about a new tactic. It seems like every
year some food does well and some does not for whatever
reason. I would say % of the time we went out there to
garden, we would stroll around and look at everyone else’s
garden. The driving force was to have a place to garden,
but after that we found that we really enjoyed being out
there with people.

As is true with many of the quotes I feel this quote gets at more than one of my
measured themes. Reciprocity is represented in the comments about wanting to see what
other gardeners are doing in their plot. Although he is not learning through actually
interacting with gardeners, gardeners indirectly learn from other gardeners in this way all
the time. By simply observing other peoples’ plots, gardeners learn what is possible in
their own plots. This is actually a less intimidating way to learn. For first time gardeners
who might be shy or ashamed of their lack of knowledge, it is nice to be able to simply
observe methods. The last part of the quote where Brandon found he really enjoyed

being out there with people speaks to the social interaction of the garden.

 

,
I’ All names are pseudonyms

64

Another gardener felt so strongly about this learning component of the
community garden that she explained this will be the primary thing she will miss (after

moving to be near to a job):

Stella: It was my first community garden experience, I was
there three years, and I am going to miss it. I will miss
talking to other people and figuring out what is doing well
and finding out what other people are doing. It is true-it is
a constant learning experience. Every year we learn new
stuff and watch people tie things up differently or try
different ways of dealing with pests. I will miss it- we will
stop learning to a degree now that we have moved away.

This quote again supports the themes of both reciprocity through learning, and of
social interaction. This quote is representative of a theme through out the interviews and
field notes-the shared experience of learning and struggling to grow food. There was a
real sense that gardeners were all in the endeavor of growing food together. Everyone
struggled with weeds, pests, not enough rain, and the possibility of their crops not
producing. Over and over gardeners expressed that they liked to see what other people
were doing in their plots. This exchange of gardening tips and ideas was a major element
of the reciprocity between gardeners.

In terms of direct actions as favors, 18 out of 27 (66%) respondents reported
doing at least one favor (watered, weeded, watched over a plot) for a gardener over the
course of the summer and five out of the 18 reported doing over five favors (a high
category for this question). The survey revealed that gardeners often exchanged tips,
tools, and advice. If you compare the columns of when gardeners favors shared versus
favors received, only 8 of the 26 or (30%) responses are unequal between how much was

given and how much was gotten in return. This suggests that flows of shared ideas, tools,

65

and advice, etc, are relatively equal between gardeners. This balance is important
because often in collective spaces and civic projects a few individuals end up giving far
more than they receive.

The question I feel most accurately captured reciprocity was, “do you feel you get
back what you give in the garden?” For this question, 22 of the 29 (77%) respondents
reported that they felt they always or mostly got back what they gave in the garden
(examples advice, produce, tools) only seven responded ‘sometimes’ and with no one
marking ‘rarely’ or ‘never’. The survey does reveal elements of reciprocity present in the
community gardens. Also, I personally witnessed and exchanged tools and produce
exchange while doing participant observation.

Another expression of reciprocity was in the care gardeners took of common areas
such as the paths and sitting areas. Some paths were lined with woodchips, but often it
was up to the gardeners to stomp down or weed in the paths. The gardens varied widely
in how well maintained the common areas were kept and even within one garden edges
of individual plots varied widely. The community gardens with woodchips on the paths
were ELF and Armory, and both held work days to spread the woodchips. ELF and
Armory were also the two gardens that had common areas for sitting that were worked on
by the gardeners on planned work days.

Armory even constructed a shed/little greenhouse in the common space of their
garden. The maintenance and improvement of these common areas benefits everyone in
the garden and the garden overall. Armory has a guideline for its gardeners of two work
days from its participants so that everyone is involved in the maintenance of the common

areas. This seems to work well to encourage reciprocity through common work because

66

people usually get their days in. The coordinators keep track of who completes the work
days, and they have gotten some grant money for supplies and food for workers on work
days. Armory also has started an Armory garden blog so gardeners can communicate
fieely without needing a bulletin board near the garden. This only works for gardeners
with intemet access, but is a creative idea for improving garden communications.

Along the same lines of common work for the common good of the garden,
Towar garden had a garden cleanup at the start of the 2006 growing season to remove an
accumulation of garbage that had been dumped down the dead end dirt road illegally for
years. This was a great experience for those who took part and the effect was

transformational:

Brandon: That clean up that we did we pulled out 45 bags
of garbage out and at least two truck loads of metal scraps.
People had been dumping back in that garden for years I
mean literally. We are talking vacuums buried in briers.
That was really rewarding we sent out 2-3 emails and made
a few phone calls and what transformation. A lot of people
showed up with trucks and bags. It was something to see
really we thought it would just be us and a couple other
people. It did not take us that long because we had so
many people. It transformed that garden.

Stella: You don’t really see the pride people take in their
community garden because it is their own plot, but for
something like that [the garden clean up] you begin to
realize how important community gardens are. When
people show up to clean up an area that has nothing to do
with improving each individuals plot but the garden as a
whole.

In these quotes it is clear that gardeners care about the garden beyond the
boundaries of their individual plots. As well as maintenance of common areas, another

way that reciprocity was expressed between gardeners was in the exchange of recipes and

67

crops. This idea is fully explored in the section on gardener social interaction (see page
79). Another example of gardener reciprocity is the annual perennial exchange hosted at
the flower garden near Foster Park and the resource center. Gardeners bring and
exchange a great diversity of perennial plants, and sometimes neighbors come as well.

ii. Reciprocity Among Neighbors and Gardeners: Flows of benefits from the
gardeners to the neighbors are occurring in a number of interesting ways. The first thing
that community gardeners are clearly doing for neighbors is using a neighborhood space
for an aesthetically pleasing way. It makes the area both beautiful and productive. This
is clearly illustrated in the above example of the Towar garden trash cleanup.

The land at Towar garden has had a bit of a dark and sordid past. It began with an
older Polish man who had lots of berry gardens and he shared his berries with the
neighborhood. Sadly, he committed suicide in his home and the state took the land.
Eventually, it became a community garden. Garbage dumping persisted due to the
combination of the vehicle access road and secluded location. Once a man was even
found there badly beaten, and so now there is a gate with a lock to try to prevent garbage
dumping and crime. Between the gate as protection of the space, and the presence of the
garden as a use of the space, it seems the piece of land has been turned around (Brandon
pers. comm).

Neighbors, when expressing what they valued about the neighborhood in causal
conversation, would mention the community garden sometimes before I did, ”This is a
nice neighborhood it has a community garden”-a neighbor. A gardener shared, “one day
we were walking Harold and a guy walked up with his dog and said, ‘oh there is a garden

here what a nice neighborhood.’ I think people have the perception that it is a nice

68

neighborhood because there is a garden”-Karen. Having people physically out in the
space makes it more approachable, “I have not talked to them yet but I see them out there
on nice days they are a nice dedicated group” -—neighbor.

In fact, Pigg’s research on the garden project in 1992 found 50.7% joined gardens
to ‘improve the neighborhood’ (Pigg 1992). Also, a sense of community in the original
Armory garden project was a paramount finding from the project coordinator and the
project participants’ responses in 1984 (Hartlieb 1984). My findings reinforce these
earlier studies that gardeners are gardening, in part, to contribute something to the
surrounding community regardless of whether they live in the neighborhood or not.

One clear direct benefit from the gardeners to the neighbors is the flow of fresh
produce. Some neighbors I talked to told me they received welcomed gifts of produce
from the gardeners. Sometimes, gardeners invite friends to harvest what they wanted,
when they wanted, from their plot. There were even some examples where produce was
offered to neighbors they did not know. “I was out taking a walk and I stopped to say hi
to the gardeners, and someone offered me some squash, and I said I cannot take it now I
am on a walk!”-a neighbor. One gardener explains how he gave out his produce on his

neighborhood block:

Steve: Everyone on my street is pretty happy with tomatoes
and zucchini and squash everyone on my street my little
block got some. I planted a butt load of squash ...that is a
scientific unit for squash. So, everyone on my street got
lots of zucchini and yellow squash. There is this family
fi'om the south that really ate that stuff up, and took all I
could give them so that was really cool.

Meleia: Did you know the neighbors you gave produce to
well before you started giving them produce?

69

Steve: I don’t know that I knew them well... we have a
neighborhood block party every year so we get together at
least once a year for a potluck. I can say at least we know
all our neighbors names.

Meleia: Do you feel like bringing the produce to them gave
you another way to interact ?

Steve: oh. . .Yea! I mean they enjoyed it, it is fun being able
to share stuff you grew. And when it hits you have more
than you could possibly use, so that was great I enjoyed
that.

The amount of produce (depending on the season) allows for gardeners to give to
each other as well as the neighbors. On a related point, although not a direct flow fiom
the garden to the neighborhood, some gardeners grow extra produce for hungry people in
the community. Two Sundays during harvest season they donate these excess crops to
Grow A Row, a charitable program that provides produce for the needy. This fresh food
feeds people through out the community because it is distributed through central systems.
This shows reciprocity on a larger level. The garden project as a program is using land
largely owned by the city, and in turn the program provides positive use of the space and
dbnating food to the city’s hungry. This is especially important given the recent rise in
Lansing’s residents requesting food aid.

On the survey, several questions related to reciprocity in the neighborhood. When
asked if they agreed with the statement, would they be comfortable asking certain people
to watch their home 30 of 34 (88%) replied they strongly agreed or tended to agree.
When asked if they agreed that the area around the garden is a place where local people
look after each other 24 of the 34 (70%) replied that they strongly agreed or tended to
agree. Moreover, 25 of 34 (73%) agreed or strongly agreed that they tend to get back

what they give in the neighborhood; and 31 out of 34 (91%) had done at least one favor
70

for their neighbor and some as much as once a week. This data shows that the
neighborhoods around the gardens have somewhat high levels of reciprocity but it does
not clearly show that the garden is a contributing factor to this reciprocity.

To understand if interaction with the garden influences levels of reciprocity a
score of reciprocity was taken based on all the questions designated to measure
reciprocity and a difference of means T-test was done to see if interaction with the garden
makes a difference for levels of reciprocity. The trends in the data indicate that those
who interacted with the garden have higher levels of reciprocity than those who did not
however, the P-value for this test was .739 so there was no statistically significant
difference in reciprocity detected. Overall, the data is showing that gardeners do provide
positive benefits to the neighborhood in a variety of ways holding up their end of the
reciprocity equation. But, how do neighbor give back to the garden?

The neighbors respond to the garden and gardeners in a variety of ways.
Neighbors (who may or may not be gardeners or former gardeners) may watch over

community gardens.

Alberta: When I first met Maya she took over a plot that
was already planted. Now she is one of my favorite people
and even though she doesn't garden at ELF anymore she
watches the garden. She will call me and say, ‘you better
get over there I see people in there taking food’. . .You have
to find someone from the neighborhood if you don’t have
someone from the neighborhood it is harder. [. . .] Maya
watches but we need a few more people. We have to work
that out.

This quote illuminates a couple of things. First, it provides one specific direct
example of a neighbor watching over the community garden on behalf of the gardeners
when Maya called Alberta to alert her about trouble in the garden. Reinforcing this idea

71

the surveys revealed that gardeners felt fairly confident that if neighbors saw something
suspicious in the garden they would call the police. Second, this quote shows that
gardeners feel that having neighbors involved in the garden is important for the gardens
survival. If gardeners want neighbors involved in supporting the garden they will be
inclined to build those relationships. The realization that neighbor-gardener social
relationships are important for the garden provides motivation for gardeners to reach out
to garden neighbors. It is in this context, when community members feel intertwined
through necessity that broader political alliances often occur.

Neighbors may also defend the garden, as shown in the case of Towar when East

Lansing people were willing to speak up for the garden to the city,

Brandon: When we were fighting against the water park
when it got built many community people were fighting to
save the community garden and get that fence in so even
though they were not directly involved they saw it as an

asset and fought for it. It was something they were proud
of.

This is a very important quote because it demonstrates a couple of important
points. First, it shows the reciprocity between neighbors and gardeners because both
groups were willing to work together to fight the water park. Secondly, it is one of the
few pieces of evidence (from this particular study) for the community garden creating a
bigger political alliance beyond simply fostering the three themes that were narrowly
defined and measured. In this case, mutually loyalty to the garden and neighborhood
spaces, enabled gardeners and neighbors to join together to fight against the water park.

Another example of reciprocity flow between neighbors and gardeners, in the case

of Towar, is when neighbors directly helped out in the garden,

72

Brandon: I don’t know if you know much about Towar but
it has an extremely active neighborhood association. Stella
and I were very involved with programs for kids and parties
it is a really cool social neighborhood. There was a core
group of peOple always planning stuff and one of them was
the guy who came out and did our [garden] driveway for us
[leveled it with his personal backhoe] and they were always
very supportive.

This quote shows the continued building of reciprocal relationships through the
garden. Brandon knew the neighbor with the backhoe and felt comfortable asking him to
help in the garden. In another example of neighbor to gardener reciprocity from Towar a
gardener explains, “That was another surprise the horse farm was very great about the
manure compost”-Stella. A local horse farm donated manure compost which was
dumped in a big pile at the garden for all gardeners to use, and other individual gardeners
got some of their own. In this case, the neighboring horse farm wanted to get rid of its
manure but rather than selling it, it gave it to the community garden for free. Modesto (a
fellow gardener at Towar) got truck loads of manure throughout the summer and would
share them with me. I, in turn, gave him bales of my hay for mulching.

A gardener at Letts gardeners expressed excitement about neighborhood kids

getting involved and hope this would lead to firrther engagement with the community,

Steve: Early on there were a few incidents of kids helping
with things, and I am hoping their parents will come out
and get plots because the kids were clearly jazzed about it.
If there was any kind of organization kids would get really
into this. If kids were deeply identified with this [garden] I
don’t think there would be any problem with vandalism or
anything.

Other incidents of neighbors helping in the garden and appreciating the garden

certainly occurred. In one garden, leaf litter was donated to the garden to use for mulch.

73

In sum, benefits seem to flow evenly from gardeners to neighbors and neighbors to
gardeners.

3. Social Interaction: I define social interaction for this study as, friendly and
cordial contact among two or more people.

i. Social Interaction Between Gardeners: The major difference between a garden
at home and a community garden is the people. Is fact, a survey of the Garden Project’s
participants in 1989 found that growing food and recreation were equally given as
reasons for joining Lansing’s community gardens (Sumagaysay and Winchester 1989).
My observations at the resource center seemed to support the notion of the garden as a
space for social interaction.

The resource center serves community gardeners and low-income eligible, home
gardeners. I volunteered at the resource center quite often at the start of summer when
people were coming in for seeds, tools, and plant starts. It was a limited timefiame of
interaction often only lasting ten minutes. Within these ten minutes people typically
gathered their supplies, chatted for a moment, and left.

Even with this limited interaction at the resource center I noticed a difference
between the home gardeners I talked to, versus the community gardeners. The home
gardeners would always comment on something about gardening, for example:’ the
peppers were amazing last year’, or ‘I had bugs demolish my greens’, or ‘how do you
grow parsnips’? The community gardeners nearly always commented on something
social about the garden like, ‘Hey I saw Emily, she had her baby’, or ‘Ralph has such

amazing tomatoes every year’, or ‘have you seen Rachel, is she gardening again’? It was

74

clear the major difference between these two groups of gardeners was that one had a
social context for gardening while the other did not.
If fact, when I asked a gardener about her favorite story about the community

garden it was not about her crops but rather,

Stella: Maybe my favorite story is Fred’s obsession with
the woodchuck. It was all he talked about when it took out
a couple of his things. Fred was really worried about it so I
think he had someone come out and catch it or kill it. He
never really admitted what happened to this woodchuck but
he was proud of the fact that it was no longer there. I think
in his mind he thought it was the only one there. He
thought if he could get rid of this one woodchuck it would
solve all of his problems and he had the worst time with
woodchucks that year. I thought he was going to give up
gardening.

This quote illustrates the colorful personalities and scenarios that occur when
people garden together. People can have quirky gardening techniques or strategies that
give social life and color to a garden that might otherwise be a isolated moment with
plants. I know I enjoyed these kinds of interactions with the gardeners at the garden
where I had my plot. One gardener in particular was always teased and chastised for not
taking enough care of certain plants, I found this endearing.

The relationships among some of the gardeners in the community gardens in this
project were sometime very close and intimate. Other times the gardeners were simply
friendly acquaintances, and occasionally complete strangers who never interacted. Often,
the produce gave people a context for generosity not just materially but through advice.
The older gardeners enjoyed being ‘experts’ to the younger gardeners; for some this was
the only context where they were teachers and knowledgeable friends. Beyond the

advice on growing strategies the actual products of the garden were shared. As one

75

gardener noted “people are nice around here, if you ask them for a cucumber they will
just give you one”-a gardener.

People found interesting ways to get to know each other in the garden, “We bring
our pug Herald over there and then he becomes the star of the garden and then everyone
talks to you so it has kind of been a fun way to meet people”-Karen. Meeting new
people is clearly happening in the garden context. Sometimes people new to the area
have the garden as a place for meeting people, “I moved to East Lansing a couple of
years ago and the nicest people I met was through the garden. I was not really meeting
people any other way’ ’-Stella. It was a social venue to meet new people and expand
social horizons. People often shared plots with friends to strength bonds and spend
quality time. The garden gave people a conversation starter for people who they may not
have interacted with otherwise. One women commented, “I was hoping to find a man
here I am recently divorced”-a gardener.

To confirm that the garden is viewed as a friendly social space I asked gardeners
if they viewed the garden as a socially friendly space. In the replies, 26 of 28 (92%)
strongly agree or tend to agree that the garden is a socially friendly place. When asked if
they preferred to garden with people or alone 19 of 24 (79%) community gardeners
preferred to garden with people. Often, in casual conversation with gardeners people
lamented that they did not see people out in the garden more. They would cite examples
of fun times they enjoyed with fellow gardeners, and then would say, ‘I wish I would run
into people more often’.

How well these gardeners actually know each other is of course highly dependent

on the garden and the individual. However, 27 out of 34 (79%) reported knowing some,

76

many, or a majority of the gardeners in the community garden. In terms of interaction,
30 out of 34 gardeners reported talking to a gardener at least once or twice a month. In a
question about inviting a gardener to their house, 15 of the 28 (53%) respondents
reported inviting a gardener to their house. This is a pretty big step moving the
relationship from a public venue to a private home. This is clearly evidence for trust too
because the gardeners are opening their homes to other gardeners. Additionally, 21 of 26
(80%) gardeners reported making a friend from participating in the community garden.
Reinforcing this finding, in 1992, Pigg found that 74% of gardeners joined the garden to
make fiiends.

Another gardener commented, “We have got to meet some neat people for sure
people with similar interests and stuff. We did not necessarily maintain relationships
outside of the garden but we certainly enjoyed meeting people like you and Anne and
John [a neighbor] from down the street who helped us move the compost”.-Brandon This
quote from Brandon is an example of the individual positive relationships forming as a
result of social interaction. However, over a longer period of time gardeners and

sometime whole gardens become tight communities,

Alberta: Well when we first started, we were at the
Armory, that was back in the old days, people would be
there all the time. I could go there in the morning or early
evening after supper there was always someone there. So it
was just fun. There was no water access so we took the
wagon put the water in between the kids on the wagon and
we would go and they had their little plastic hoes and just
go at it. We met a lot of people and so it was fun, it was
definitely community. . ..I grew up in a little town so it was
nice to go someplace where somebody knew my name.

77

These feelings of kinship found in community gardens can be very strong. One
gardener expressed the intimate bond she felt with her fellow gardeners in a more explicit

way,

Meleia: Is there anything else you want to share with me
about your experiences in the community garden?

Alberta: One of the sad things about the garden is when
people leave. It bothers me that people leave. Somehow I
want it to stay the same. I want people to stay they are-like
family to me. They are my garden family.

Additionally, these deeper relationships can be enduring when gardeners return to

the same location for a number of years:

Alberta: There would be people I would see year after year
I guess I didn’t realize I guess it is not so much that way
now but back then there was so many so it was a real
gathering place for people in the city. I am surprised that
there are still people I see now from those days around
town.

One powerful aspect of the social interaction in the community garden context is
the amazing level of diversity in terms of age, ethnicity, race, class, education, political
persuasion and religion. Community associations can provide especially valuable social
capital when they cross ethnic or other cleavage lines (Putnam 1993). Because the only
thing people in the community garden have in common is gardening these spaces can be

freeing and socially interesting. As one gardener interviewee put it:

Meleia: What surprised you about the community garden?

Karen: The other gardeners! One gardener has a plot who
works at the student organic farm and his plot is beautiful

78

and meticulous. Another plot, I did not even realize what
was being gardened and then in the middle of summer corn
popped up. I have kind of been surprised by the variety of
people who garden there is one probably 60 or 70 year old
woman from England, and then there are some pretty
young people who garden.

Again this quote exemplifies how the diversity of garden plots reflects the
diversity of people and how this can be delightful and surprising.

Diversity of all kinds, and particularly ethnic and age diversity have a long and
rich history in Lansing’s community garden project. In a study in 1984, a sense of
belonging in their new American culture was a reoccurring theme found in the responses
of the refugees in the refugee service project associated with the garden project in the
early years (Hartlieb 1984).

There are many examples from the Garden Project of how this ethnic diversity
leads to education about other cultures through the common ground of food. Many

people talked about fascination with other types of crops being grown:

Meleia: What surprised you most about the community
garden?

Stella: What people chose to grow you know you would
think everyone would grow basics like lettuce, tomatoes,
peppers but there was a lot of international families that
grew tons of one thing like tons of Thai basil, 3 whole plot
of greens, or a whole garden of okra. So I find it interesting
what people put all their effort into you usually grow what
is most important to you so.

This is yet another example of plot diversity reflecting human diversity and
leading to learning and social interaction across cultures. A garden project staffer tells

one of her favorite stories about a Chinese gentleman who had planted peas and when the

79

shoots came up be harvested them to the horror of the other community gardeners. When
they asked what he was doing, he explained that he loves pea shoots in stir fry and could
not find them here. He was excited to be able to grow them for himself. Thus, even what
part of plant which is eaten can serve as cultural exchange. Clearly cultural exchange
through learning about types of crops contributes not only to social interaction but also
reciprocity. Another example of simultaneous social interaction and reciprocity is
gardeners sharing recipes for uncommon parts of plants like the leafy greens of brussel
sprouts or broccoli stems.

All types of recipes are shared in the garden context. Not only do gardeners share
them on the fly out in the garden, but the garden project newsletter always contains
seasonal recipes that can sometimes come from gardeners. One gardener remarked, “It is
fun to see the different things people grow. Then you can ask them what do you do with
that stuff? That is another nice thing- people give you recipes and it is fun to share
recipes”-Stella. Also, the harvest dinner and monthly potlucks organized by the garden
project for all the gardens, at the central location of the resource center, serve as a venue
for recipe exchange and social interaction. The attendance at the potluck waxed and
waned throughout the season but it had all the diversity of people and fresh food of the
season found in the gardens themselves.

No conversation about reciprocity, and social interaction in the community
gardening would be complete without mentioning Modesto. Modesto is a Philippino
gardener who has multiple plots at Towar Garden. He is fiiendly and an avid gardener. I
had many conversations with him in the garden and he helped me with my plot

periodically throughout the summer. He also insisted that I take some of his bumper crop

80

of squash or greens home with me each time I saw him. Unfortunately, I could not
interview Modesto because his English is limited, but he delighted in learning the English
names for crops like the many varieties of squash. Of my many encounters with Modesto
the one that sticks out in my mind is a time when he told me a woman had showed him he
could eat some mystery greens serving as a cover crop near his squash. Inspired by the
sharing of new crops, I showed him my lemon grass and shared some with him which
brought on a big Modesto grin.

One of the things I found most amazing about the garden’s social interaction, was
how the garden could serve as a medium through which to express emotions and
relationships. Some comments about the garden could mean complex emotional ideas.
For example, I became close with a gardener named Aaron who had moved in with
another gardener Lindsay as a roommate. After a few months he needed to move again
and, I went to help him pack up. At the end of the packing the two gardeners needed to
express that their relationship would continue in a gracious way after the living
arrangement did not work out. Lindsay wanted Aaron to know she still cared about him,
and they needed a cahn fiiendly set of departing words. Lindsay turned to my fiiend and
said, “There is a frost warning for tomorrow night” and my friend simply said, “Thanks”
and then left.

ii. Social Interaction Among Neighbors and Gardeners: The garden gets people
out into the neighborhood so neighbors and gardeners can interact in a mutual space.
They do, over the course of the season, get to know each other or at least recognize each

other somewhat. One gardener noted, “I have noticed that when I am out walking Herald

81

I recognize people from the neighborhood and so it is nice to be able to say hello to
them”. -Karen

The neighbors can enjoy the flow of people into the garden, “I wave to the little
old Chinese man who rides his bike to the garden a lot” —a neighbor. The community

garden which has done the most outreach to the neighborhood is ELF,

Alberta: Where does ELF get it’s name? Enthusiastic
Lansing Folks. My son got everyone together and they
took a vote, and he drew a little elf. Then in all the
correspondence and all the newsletters we always could say
the elves invite you... so it was great for the children. In
the past our evening in the garden has been a party, with
punch and cookies and the storyteller so it's been really
different fiom what we did this year. Some children come,
and he reads them stories and they walk all through the
garden. That is where the idea of a gathering place began.
We were just saying that it is probably time to send out
another newsletter in the spring. Our evening in the garden
in the past has always brought people from the
neighborhood

ELF has made the effort to put invitations on doors nearby to reach out to garden
neighbors. Their events allow people and especially kids from the neighborhood to enjoy
the garden.

Even in gardens where there is not really a structured context for social

interaction the potential is acknowledged,

Steve: It was not the kind of garden where people hung out,
we definitely need a bench and a small chess table. Where
you can watch the garden grow and hang out. This would
be a great place to put one in. I think there is an unknown
benefit to the neighborhood just in having it. I mean people
see it, and I think that builds community a little bit without
them even being a participant.

82

Five of the seven gardens have somewhere to sit somewhat close to or inside of
the garden such as a bench or picnic table. This does not mean they are heavily used, or
used for organized events, but at least there is somewhere for people to sit if they so
chose. Because there is this space for sitting, it makes the space more inviting.

As a final piece of evidence for the garden fostering social interaction in
neighbors I wanted to measure the difference in the social interaction between those who
had interacted with the garden versus those who had not. When the T-test was run, the P-
value was .02. This shows that the difference in social interaction between those who
had interacted with the garden versus those who had not was significantly different. This
analysis demonstrates that one group is more socially interactive, and that that group is
the one that had contact with the community garden, however this does not prove
causation.

b. Negatives: The community garden consists of a large group of people coming
together, and some gardeners are pleasantly surprised at the positive social environment.
For example one gardener commented, “What surprised me is how respectful everyone is
of other’s gardens, I would think there would be a lot more fighting over edges and you
know taking stuff and borrowing people’s tools and you know very little trouble” —Ste11a.
However garden social interactions, like interactions anywhere, are not always perfect

In my observations and conversations some conflicts arose between gardeners.
One gardener who was new was sharing a plot with an old time gardener. She
complained to me about the lack of weeding he was willing to do. She felt like she was
doing all the work. She expressed this to me was with a great amount of easy—going

humor, the way you might complain about a brother picking on you. Another example, is

83

when a gardener made the mistake of fencing in part of another gardener’s plot and
covering a row of someone else’s potatoes with mulch. When he told me about it he said,
“I will have to talk to her, what was she thinking?” He was upset, but instead of lashing
out or getting angry as he might have given the circumstances, he showed the kind of
restraint and kindness often reserved for close friends and family members. It seemed
people treated these conflicts calmly and with great amounts of tolerance.

c. 0f Gardeners and Garden: It would be a mistake to claim that if a community
garden is placed in a neighborhood with social problems the garden will magically
alleviate these problems. This study reinforces the findings of other research that it is the
social relationships and human agency foster positive relationships within in the physical
space and is not an inevitable product of the physical environment itself (V ojnovic 2006).
Although, I would argue that community gardens are uniquely suited to act as third
places13 and to foster positive social interactions, it is the gardeners not the garden who
shape the social space through their behavior and agency. This is evident in this study
because not all community gardens are fostering social ties equally. For example, the
social life of ELF garden is stronger because of the deliberate efforts of its gardeners to
build the social fabric of the garden, constructing gathering spaces, and organizing social
events. Whereas, other gardens such as Airport have placed far less emphasis on social

interaction.

 

'3 The third place is the place that is neither home (first place) or work (second place). Third
places are spaces that host regular informal and voluntary gatherings of people such as bars, town squares,
hair salons, cafes, and bookstores (Oldenburg 1999).

84

d. Social Capital, One Earthworm at a Time: I would like to end my findings and
discussions section with transcription from an interview I did with a gardener as he was

actually doing garden work:

Meleia: Are you familiar with the term social capital, and
what does it mean to you?

Steve: Look, now there is a surprise we have earthworms!
Meleia: Yay! Let me just move it for you.

Steve: We did not have any earthworms prior to this. The
soil is better than it was in just one year. So the soil
improved. That was something I was very sad about there
were no earthworms when we were first here. I turned a lot
of the soil over and it was very dead here there nothing
happening in it. It was dirt rather than soil. We had a lot of
dirt and we are building soil here. Sony, 1 was caught up in
the soil capital for a second. I am very familiar with the
term social capital, it is a hard thing to measure.

Meleia: What does it mean to you?

Steve: Social capital is an abstract term that is sort of
modeled on economic theory. It is this idea that there is
this thing called ‘capital’ that is a resource that can be
applied or it can be measured. It is a concept aligned with
wealth but it is probably best observed in its absence.
Where there is a lot of social capital it is not really obvious
because it is resiliency and interconnection in a social
system, and that is difficult to observe. It is much easier to
observe the absence social capital where it’s sparse. Is that
an onion?

Meleia: Oh yeah there's two over there.

Steve: You may have those if you want, we have a
refiigerator full.

Meleia: Oh great, thanks!

85

Steve: Ummmm so social capital- it’s a valuable concept
but getting quantitative about it I don't know. It is
definitely real, and I think these Gardens are a good
example of contributing to it and help foster it.

This quote was quite humorous because Steve interrupted his answer about
community gardens and social capital to do an action (giving out produce) which is one
of the processes I argue is leading to social capital in garden contexts. Also, this quote
illustrates the complexity of social capital as a term and in its relationship to social capital
as Steve’s answer starts out confident and clear and rambles into complexity and
vagueness.

e. Larger Picture Benefits; Although this study was aimed at learning about
community gardens as a venue for increasing trust, reciprocity, and social interaction,
some other benefits for garden participants were documented. Many of these direct
benefits are consistent with findings from other community garden programs, and I
would be remiss to exclude these findings.

It seems that as well as gardening contributing to participant’s health, gardeners
view the act of gardening as an indication of health, particularly for the older gardeners.
Gardeners often asked after gardeners who were no longer gardening, especially the older
ones, with a great deal of interest and concern. This demonstrates that the act of
gardening is a measure of health in the minds of the gardeners.

It is clear these gardens raise social consciousness about environmentally
sustainable food production. I had many conversations with gardeners about organic
versus non-organic growing practices. The gardeners in all organic gardens took great
pride in the fact that their garden was all organic. I also talked to people about the benefit

of local food production. As one gardener put it, “it has produced a bunch of produce

86

and that is a social benefit it did not come from the store it did not come from 1500 miles
away and it showed people that you can grow a boat load of food in a small space”. —
Steve

Also, gardeners learned a lot about recycling yard material for mulch and about
composting. Six of the seven gardens, including the brand new one this season, have
compost bins. One gardener felt that the compost was an integral part of the garden and
the placement of it in the center helped remind gardeners to use it and take care of it. “We
put the compost where it is [right in the middle of the garden] because we wanted to be
part of the garden. We are glad it is where it is because it is real and reminds us to take
care of it and that it is a part of the way we do things in the garden.”-Alberta

Another direct benefit I discovered was that the community garden through its
social networks could allow people to feel comfortable in other larger civic groups. One
gardener began volunteering at a local farmers market, and another got involved in his

local neighborhood association. One gardener explains:

Alberta: We have participated now in four locations so I
think when you are in so many different spots over such a
long period of time you really get a sense of the city and
networking in the city and I think ...I really do know a lot
of people because of the garden that I would not have
known otherwise. It is not like I am important or anything,
but I can go to like a city meeting and it is like wow I know
that person because of the garden and participating in this
garden. I may know them from something else too, but it
always comes back to the garden and that first contact. I've
met people and been connected with the garden project for
so many years. It’s fun when you‘re at meeting you see
someone you know across the room. So that the long-term
benefit of being connected through the garden.

87

This ability to jump scales to larger civic engagement or involvement is a benefit
derived from social capital (Putnam 1993). Also participation in community gardens has
been linked to participation in larger organizations. This can be particularly important for
women who may feel excluded or unwelcome in more public life spaces (Glover, Shinew
et al. 2005). An additional example of political action emerging from the community
garden is the Towar garden water park fight (see page 72).

Some gardeners felt that their plot was an extension of their home or yard, others
felt it was a communal public Space, but either way gardeners expressed a sense of escape
and relaxation derived from time spent in their gardens that kept them coming back.
Indeed some gardeners said that they could not stand to be away fi'om their gardens for

more than one day.

Alberta: I think as a mom at home it is one place where
there is an immediate result and I can go and work my little
patch and immediately it looks better. It will be more
beautiful when I come back, you know here at home I
cannot always say that. It seems like for our family our
house is flexible and changes so the garden is stability.
Whether or not it is going to produce it will always be
beautiful and there will always be a bench there. I can
count on it; I can always find something even in the winter.

This quote eloquently expresses the human need for peace and stability that is
being met in this community garden context. Also this is an example of a gardener who
views the garden as a retreat rather than a social gathering place; this quote is exemplary

of the joy these gardens are bringing to peoples’ lives.

88

V. SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS

a. Cultivating Social Capital: From the data collected in this study, it is clear that
community gardens do foster trust, reciprocity, and social interaction among gardeners
and neighbors, and that this has positive impacts. The study both reinforces existing
evidence for the direct benefits of community gardens to neighborhoods and provides
some insight into how community gardens serve as venues for the creation of social
networks. As stated before, groups, organizations or associations can provide especially
valuable social capital when they cross ethnic or other cleavage lines (Putnam 1993).

Has certainly been the case with this study.

In interviews with gardeners, they expressed surprise and delight at the interesting
diversity of people gardening. They also loved how this diversity can be expressed
through crops (Hmong gardeners grew lots of Asian greens) and growing strategies (older
gardeners often grew things in easily accessible ways). Although the stated mandate of
the Garden Project is to target low income people the gardens are open to anyone and
continue to attract diverse gardeners. Therefore, the potential of garden member’s social
capital being generated is particularly strong because it can cross across all political
persuasions, ethnic boundaries, social class, educational backgrounds, and religions
affiliations.

This study does not explicitly link community gardens to social capital, but it does
show the processes that foster certain types of social relationships that provide a
foundation for social capital. Understanding how these relationships form through

participation in community gardens is a start for uncovering why community gardens can

89

be sites for the generation of social capital. With the decline in social capital in the US,
spaces that foster social capital are more important.

Not only do gardens strengthen social relationships but this happens by way of
multiple processes. The processes documented in this study are: (1) providing a space
and, in some cases, a time for people to interact, (2) providing an activity for people to
exchange labor, (3) giving people the shared experience of struggling and learning to
grow food on their own and (4) the exchange of tools, strategies, ideas, recipes,
conversation, and produce. All of these mechanisms were specifically documented in
this study and in some cases triangulated through multiple methods. These processes and
mechanisms are compelling examples of how community gardens are unique spaces for
the nurturing of social networks.

b. Literature and Theory Contribution: Generally, links have been made from
social capital to mental and physical health, crime reduction/trust, quality of life,
educational achievement, economic growth, and political involvement (Putnam 2001).
Links have also been made from community gardens to some aspects of social capital
such as health and crime reduction. One such study found that the presence of
community gardens positively affects a community’s well being by contributing to lower
crime rates, lowering instances of littering and graffiti, and increasing community pride
(Alaimo and Hassler 2003).

However, as stated before, there has been very little study of how social capital
forms within a community gardens. This study contributes to the social capital and
community garden literature by demonstrating how community gardens foster trust,

reciprocity, and social interaction. It also increases what is known about how community

90

gardens can grow the social networks of a community and this solidifies the benefits of
community gardens well beyond the tangible infusion of fresh produce to participants.
Community gardens programs can potentially address multiple changes for city
neighborhoods simultaneously. This leads to further inquiry into the role of community
gardens in neighborhood development and quality of life and how best to tap their
potential.

i. Garden Literature: This research provides another example of the social
and political importance of gardens, building on the work of Armstrong, Blair,
Christopher, Doolittle, Hynes, Kimber, Lauren, WinklerPrins and many other
researchers. The literature has already made powerful arguments for the social and
ecological importance of gardens; this study provides a more detailed understanding of
how the links from a community garden to social benefits occur. The opportunity for
collective activities and actions is alive in community gardens. This collective space
nurtures social relationships that can be part of lager political engagement.

ii. Political Ecology Contributions: As a political ecology of hope this study
illustrates how social networks form in the urban context of community gardens. These
social networks in turn can aid community resilience to the ongoing urban social and
environmental challenges. Although this study does not dwell in the political, by
analyzing community gardens with a political ecology framework, the political potential
can be appreciated.

This study focuses on the potential energy generated in community gardens that
could be realized in political alliances and larger civic engagement contexts. The

particular types of social relationships formed in community garden contexts do have the

91

power to move beyond the garden into other political contexts. The two direct examples
of this are (1) when the garden members and neighborhood members fought the water
park creation together and (2) when a gardener felt comfortable in city wide meeting
because of her relationships with other gardeners at the meeting. Given these two
examples the potential for political alliances through garden relationships seems possible
in the future.

Because this case study is in a first world urban context, it expands the ongoing
discussions of framing gardens as political ecologies in first world urban contexts.
Although the data from this study is highly focused and oriented to the local it does
reveal some principles about community gardens that are generalizable such as the
mechanisms mentioned on page 90. Understanding these mechanisms, and how to
nurture them, can be valuable for communities to build social and political alliances
through gardens.

c. Methods: This study begins to develop methods that measure trust, reciprocity
and social interaction among community gardeners and garden neighbors. My survey
and interview script can serve as a jumping off point for future studies of the social
aspects of community gardens. The survey and interview questions in this study can be
re-worked to more explicitly address the mechanism in this study fostering social
relationships.

Having the multiple methods of the surveys, interviews, participant observations,
and secondary data, allowed for evidence from several sources, and this was essential for
this study. However, based on my experience, I would recommend a better balance

between survey data and interviews than I had. I would recommend more interviews

92

because it was the interviews and participant observation that gave me the rich complex
story of the social space of the garden. This story would have never emerged from
surveys alone.

d. Study Limitations and Future Studies: A clear limitation of the study is the
small number of participants represented both in the survey (n=80) and in the interviews
(n=7). More participation would lead to a more comprehensive and accurate
understanding of these gardens. One way to build on the information gathered in this
study would be to simply expand the number of interviews to give a broader rage of
perspectives and experiences in these gardens. Also, it was hard to capture the full range
of social exchange while excluding for whom English is not their first language. Future
studies could focus specifically on the different ethnicities in the garden project rather
than excluding them.

Another way to build on this research could be a study focusing on linking the
themes measured here to social capital or social capital benefits explicitly. Although
assumed fi'om the literature I have no way to know for certain if trust, reciprocity, and
social interaction are translating into social capital for these communities. Other studies
could explicitly define and probe about social capital and community gardens on the
survey itself. These future studies could confirm that the social relationships forming
through gardens are becoming political alliances.

e. Individual Impacts: Individuals involved in this research took the time to reflect
on their garden and/or their neighborhood which made many participants realize new
things about these spaces. Individuals involved thought about the garden and

neighborhood in ways they had not considered prior to the interview or survey. On many

93

occasions people commented on a question expressing interest in the study overall or in
the responses to that particular question. Although I have no direct evidence it seemed
just by taking the time to contemplate the neighborhood or garden in a new way the
individuals involved in the study may get involved in new ways or, at minimum, will
now think about these places in a new way. Additionally, they may see the connections
between their community garden and social benefits.

For example, one woman who took the garden survey asked why I chose to focus
on the social aspects of gardening rather that the environmental. When I explained that I
felt the social aspects of community gardening are underappreciated and not well
understood she found that an interesting idea. She then asked to let her lmow how my
findings turned out.

f The Garden Project: Gardens can use this study to understand how their own
activities can contribute to social capital and the mechanisms they can use to reinforce the
processes already occurring. For example, a given community garden may want to start a
recipe exchange within the garden or establish more structured communal work days.
The Garden Project has clearly invested in hard infrastructure (signs, compost bins, water
sources, seeds and seedlings, tools, and fences). What I think is needed now is soft
infrastructure, meaning greater development of democracy, networks, social activities,
and empowerment. This could occur through more formalized communication
mechanisms such as bulletin boards and blogs, and through more regularly scheduled
events. The garden project did have first Friday of month potlucks, which were
successful, and will continue to grow. I would encourage having more individual, garden

scale activities that would bring social time to the garden level in a more systematic way.

94

Individual gardens are already doings this, for example ELF s evening in the
garden, Towar’s garden clean up, and Armory’s work days. The gardens could have a
planting day when the coordinators could borrow tools and bring seedlings directly to the
garden for a day when everyone starts their gardens. This could be particularly nice for
new gardeners who may be intimidated and mystified by the planting process. Another
simple way to build the social space of the garden would be to have a very quick name
game at the start of the season when the plots are staked out and assigned to gardeners.
This is currently the only time all of the gardeners are present in the garden together so it
is important to take some social advantage of this moment. By combining some social
interaction with the garden stake out day the gardeners can build the social and physical
at the same time.

g. Lansing: It is clear that community gardens are being used as tools by Lansing
communities to strengthen both food security and social networks simultaneously. This
is a relevant topic for Lansing because it has been deeply impacted by de-
industrialization. As the city makes the transition to more and more service sector jobs,
people will need neighborhood stability and support. Community gardens can provide
food security during tough financial times and help nurture social networks and reliance
during this difficult transition.

h. National Urban Context: Robert Putnam’s passionate and controversial book
on social capital in the US. claims that social capital has been decreasing in recent years
(Putnam 2000). Although, there is much variation in how much social capital exists in
different states (Figure 23), the trends are downward for most states in the union. He

argues that these trends are related to a huge variety of quality of life measures such as,

95

educational standards, child welfare, civic and economic equality, health, and violent
crime (Putnam 2001). Because community gardens have the potential to assist food
security and social benefits simultaneously, they can be a powerful tool for aiding
communities where social capital is on the decline. Community garden can help reverse

the negative trends in social capital and provide the cohesiveness and collective energy

needed to begin making neighborhood change.

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 23. Map of differences in social capital in the US. (Putnam 2001).

Rapid urbanization is a growing global phenomenon. As city populations expand,
conscious choices about planning these cities become more crucial. Maintaining the
quality of life of growing urban populations is a serious future challenge. Community

gardens may have a unique role to play in the community dynamics of city contexts.

96

Research that explicates the nuanced and far reaching benefits of community gardens is a
hopeful and rich area of research. Understanding the possibility of community garden
context for fostering social capital and all the benefits that accompany it will strengthen
community gardens. This strength will allow for garden permanence, growth, and

expansion.

97

VI. APPENDICIES

Appendix 1. IRB approval letter

MICHIGAN STATE

UNIVERSITY

 

Initial IRB

 

 

 

 

 

m 8 HEALTH
W m
BOARD (one)

mm
mm
Mica")

macaw
”MUM”
WM"
MI”)

202 Olds Hal

East Lanshg. Mm
48824-1046
SIT-355.2100

Far 517432-4503

unmanned:
Stmat BIB: mammoth
CRIRB aubdn‘suem

 

AGULI fl Wmiwra; nun
oval-approvals Wfllhflflfl

Application
Approval

May 22, 2006

T07 Antoinette WINKLERPRINS
207 Geography Building

Re? R8 3 06-323 Category: EXPEDITED 1-2. 2-7
Approval Date: flay 20. 2006
Expiration Date: May 19. 2007

Title: THE ROLE OF COMMUNITY GARDENS IN MAINTAINING AND ENHANCING SOCIAL CAPI IAL

The Institutional Revuew Board has completed their review of your project. I am pleased to adwse you that
your project has hon approved

The committee has found that you research protect is appropriate in design. protects the rights and weltare at
human subjects. and meets the requirements of MSU's Federal Wide Assurance and the Fedora! Guidelines
(45 CF R 4b and 21 CFR Part 50). The protection of human subjects in research 18 a partnership between the
IRB and the Investigators. We look forward to working with you as we both tutti" our responsrbilities

Renewals: 1R8 approval is valid until the expirahon date listed above. If you are continuing your project, you
must submit an Application for Ronowolapplication at least one monm before expiration. It the [30ch is
completed. please submit anApplicaflon for Palm Closure

Revisions: The IRB must renew any changes in the project. prior to Initiation oi the change. Please submit an
Application for Rovislonto have your changes reviewed. It changes are made at the time of renewal. please
include an Application for Revisionwith the renewal application.

Problems: It issues should arise during the conduct of the research. such as unanhcspated problems. adverse
events. or any problem that may increase the risk to the human subjects. notify the IRB office promptly Forms
are available to report mesa issues.

Please use the IRB number listed above on any forms submitted which relate to this protect. or on any
correspondence with the IRB office.

Good luck in your research. If we can be of further assistance. please contact us at 517-355-2180 or we email
at IRB@msu.edu Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely.

I" /7
fl: ’w a." '

Peter Vasrlenko. PhD.
SIRB Chair

C Meleia Egger

216 W Saginaw Apt 312
E .15! Lansing MI 48823

98

Appendix 2. Consent form

The Role of Community Garden: in Fosteriug'and Enhancing Social Capital
Consent Form

Support: Michigan State University Department of Geography Graduate Office Fellowship and the
Lansing Food Bank Garden Project
Researchers: Dr. Antoinette WinklerPrins (PI), Associate Professor, Department of Geography
Meleia Egger (Secondary Investigator), Masters StudanGcography Department, Michigan State

. University
Duration: May 2006- November 2006
Objective: The community gardens of Lansing /East Lansing are dynamic and fascinating spaces. They
serve the community by providing people with a space to garden, and people gain access to the benefits of
growing their own food. This research will ask if there are benefits to these community gardens beyond
the food gained by the participants. To measure social benefits of community gardens we will investigate

“social capital."

Activities: Members and non-members of the community gardens will be surveyed once or twice. Some
you will fill out a short survey, others may be asked for a longer interview which may be tape recorded
We ask for approximately l5 minutes-I hour of your time for these activities. Additionally, community
gardens will be regularly observed by one of us. All data will be stored in personal notebooks, files, and a
secure computer all located in Meleia Eggcr’s lockable office in the Geography Building at MSU for the

duration of the study.

Participation: There are no known risks associated with this study. Your participation in this study will
possibly contribute to your understanding and appreciation for your garden and neighborhood. Your
privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. Participation in this project in
voluntary, you may choose not to participate at all, or you can discontinue your participation at any point
in the study. If you chose to participate, we thank you for your valuable input and assistance. If you do

not wish to participate please let us know.

Questions on the study: If you have any questions please contact Meleia Egger: 608-335-0017 or

W.

" Questions or concerns about your rights as a study participant:
Peter Vasilcnko, Director Human Research Protection program (UCHRIS) phone: 517 3 5 5-2 130 e-mail

irb@orcs.msu.cdu Address: 202 Olds hall, East Lansing, MI, 48824

Research contact information: , .
Principal investigator: Dr. Antoinette WinklerPrins, Associate Professor. Department of Geography,
Michigan State University, 207 Geography Building, East Lansing, MI 48824-l 1 l7 Phone: 517-432-7163
B-mail antoinet@msu.cdu

Secondary Investigator: Meleia Egger, Masters StudenLGcography Department, Michigan State
University, Office [9, Geography Building. Phone: 517-432-1844 B-mail cggcrmcl@msu.edu

l voluntarily agree to participate in this study:
Please print name:

 

Si gnaturc: Date:

 

Thank you for your interest in this study!

This consent form was approved by the Social Science/BehaviorallEducetion institutional Review Board (SlRB) at Michigan State
University. Approved 05/20/06 - valid through 05/19/07. This version supersedes all previous versions. IRB # 06-328.

99

Appendix 3. Community garden returning member '3 survey

Community Garden Returning Members Research Survey on Social Capital
Many of these questions were adopted from questions found on existing questionnaires‘ known to measure social capital
though some were written exclusively for this study.

. What is your gender?
. Female

1
[ll
[]2.Male

What is your address? (Please print clearly)

2. Do you rent or own your home?
[ ] 1. Rent
[] 2. Own
3. How long have you lived in this area?

Less than 6 months, 6-12 months, 12 months-2 years, 2-3 years, 3-5 years, 5-10 years, 10-20 years, 20 years or longer
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

4. How many seasons have you been involved in the community garden?
One, Two, Three, Four, Five, 6-10, More than 10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5. Generally speaking, how do you feel about people?
Trust them a lot, Trust them some, Trust them half the time, Trust them only a little, Trust them not at all
1 2 3 4 5

6. How much do you trust people in your neighborhood?
Trust them a lot, Trust them some, Trust them half the time, anst them only a little, Trust them not at all
1 2 3 4 5

7. How much do you trust people in the community garden?
Trust them a lot, Trust them some, Trust them half the time, Trust them only a little, Trust them not at all
1 2 3 4 5

Please tell me for the following statement whether you agree strongly, agree somewhat, disagree
somewhat, or disagree strongly.

8. the area(within about 5 blocks) around the community garden is a close, tight knit community.
Strongly agree, Tend to agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Tend to disagree, Strongly disagree
1 2 3 4 5

9. The area around the garden is a friendly place to live.
Strongly agree, Tend to agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Tend to disagree, Strongly disagree
1 2 3 4 5

100

10. The garden is a socially friendly place to be.
Strongly agree, Tend to agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Tend to disagree, Strongly disagree
1 2 3 4 5

11. This area around the garden is a place where local people look after each other.
Strongly agree, Tend to agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Tend to disagree, Strongly disagree
1 2 3 4 5

12. I would be happy asking certain local people to keep an eye on my house and property
Strongly agree, Tend to agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Tend to disagree, Strongly disagree
1 2 3 4 5

13. The people who live around the garden can be relied upon to call police if someone is acting
suspiciously.
Strongly agree, Tend to agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Tend to disagree, Strongly disagree

1 2 3 4 5

14. People can be counted on to report vandalism or other criminal behaviors they see occurring in the
garden.
Strongly agree, Tend to agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Tend to disagree, Strongly disagree

1 2 3 4 5

15. The community garden is a public space.
Strongly agree, Tend to agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Tend to disagree, Strongly disagree
1 2 3 4 5

16. The community garden is generally a good thing for the neighborhood.
Strongly agree, Tend to agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Tend to disagree, Strongly disagree
1 2 3 4 5

17. The community garden increases positive interactions with my neighbors.
Strongly agree, Tend to agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Tend to disagree, Strongly disagree
1 2 3 4 5

18. I generally keep my house completely locked up
Constantly Often Sometimes Rarely Never
1 2 3 4 5

19. I generally worry about theft and vandalism in my garden plot
Constantly Often Sometimes Rarely Never

1 2 3 4 5
20. I trust fellow gardeners most people
more than, slightly more than, as much as, slightly less, far less than
1 2 3 4 5

101

21. I tend to get back what I give in the garden (examples: advice, food, tool loans)
Always Mostly Sometimes Rarely Never
1 2 3 4 5

22. I tend to get back what I give in the neighborhood (examples: advice, material things, favors)
Always Mostly Sometimes Rarely Never

1 2 3 4 5
23. Would you say that you know of the people in your neighborhood?
A majority, Many, Some, A few, None
1 2 3 4 5
24. Would you say you know of the gardeners in the community garden
A majority, Many, Some, A few, None
1 2 3 4 5

25. How often do you talk to any of your neighbors? Is it . . .
On most days, Once or twice a week, Once or twice a month, Less often than once a month, Never
1 2 3 4 5

26. How often do you talk to any of the community gardeners? Is it . . .
On most days, Once or twice a week, Once or twice a month, Less ofien than once a month, Never

1 2 3 4 5

27. In the past year, how many times have you done a favor for a neighbor?(like house sat, or helped with a
project?)
never, once a month, twice a month, three times a month, once a week, more than once a week

1 2 3 4 5 6
28. In the past year, how many times have you done a favor for a gardener?(watered their plants or helped
weeding)
never, once a month, twice a month, three times a month, once a week, more than once a week

1 2 3 4 5 6
29. Have you made a fiend from participating in the community garden?
[ ] 1. Yes
[ ] 2. No

30. Do you prefer to garden with people around or alone?
[ ] 1. With people
[ ] 2. Alone

31. B Taking everything into account, what do you think of this area as a place to live?

A very good place, A fairly good place, Neither good nor bad, A fairly bad place, A very bad place
1 2 3 4 5

102

Appendix 4. Community garden non-member survey

Community Garden Non Members Research Survey on Social Capital
Most of these questions were adopted from questions found on existing questionnaires‘ known to measure social
capital though some were written exclusively for this study.

What is your gender?
[] 1. Female
[] 2. Male

What is your address? (please print clearly)

Do you rent or own your home?
[] 1. Rent
[ ] 2. Own

How long have you lived in this area?
Less than 6 months, 6-12 months, 12 months-2 years, 2-3 years, 3-5 years, 5-10 years, 10-20 years, 20 years or longer
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Do you know there is a community garden in your neighborhood?(if no please skip to question in bold)

[]l.Yes
[]2.No

Have you ever gardened there or considered gardening there?
[ ] 1. Yes
[]2. No

Have you ever interacted with the community garden in any way?
[] 1. Yes
[] 2. No

The community garden is generally a good thing for the neighborhood.
Strongly agree, Tend to agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Tend to disagree, Strongly disagree
1 2 3 4 5

How much do you agree with the statement: The community garden is a public space.
Strongly agree, Tend to agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Tend to disagree, Strongly disagree
1 2 3 4 5

The community garden has increased social interactions with my neighbors.

Strongly agree, Tend to agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Tend to disagree, Strongly disagree
1 2 3 4 5

103

Would you say you know of the gardeners in the community garden
A majority, Many, Some, A few, None
1 2 3 4 5

How often do you talk to any of the commume gardeners? Is it . . .
On most days, Once or twice a week, Once or twice a month, Less ofien than once a month, Never
1 2 3 4 5

In the past 6 months, how many times have you done a favor for a gardener?

never, once, 24 times, 5-9 times, once a month, twice a month, once a week, more than once a week
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

How much do you trust people in the community garden?
Trust them a lot, Trust them some, Trust them half the time, Trust them only a little, Trust them not at all
1 2 3 4 5

Generally speaking, would you say that you can trust people a lot, some, only a little, or not at all?
Trust them a lot, Trust them some, Trust them half the time, Trust them only a little, Trust them not at all
1 2 3 4 5

Do you trust people in your neighborhood?
Trust them a lot, Trust them some, Trust them half the time, Trust them only a little, Trust them not at all
1 2 3 4 5

Please tell me for the following statement whether you agree strongly, agree somewhat, disagree
somewhat, or disagree strongly.

The area around the garden is a tight knit community
Strongly agree, Tend to agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Tend to disagree, Strongly disagree
1 2 3 4 5

The area around the garden is a socially fi‘iendly place to live.
Strongly agree, Tend to agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Tend to disagree, Strongly disagree
1 2 3 4 5

The area around the garden is a place where local people look after each other.
Strongly agree, Tend to agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Tend to disagree, Strongly disagree
1 2 3 4 5

I would be happy asking certain local people to keep an eye on my house and property
Strongly agree, Tend to agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Tend to disagree, Strongly disagree
1 2 3 4 5

The people who live here can be relied upon to call police if someone is acting suspiciously

Strongly agree, Tend to agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Tend to disagree, Strongly disagree
1 2 3 4 5

104

Would you say that you know of the people in your neighborhood?
A majority, Many, Some. A few, None
1 2 3 4 5

How often do you talk to any of your neighbors? Is it . . .

On most days, Once or twice a week, Once or twice a month, Less oiten than once a month, Never
1 2 3 4 5

In the past 6 months, how many times have you done a favor for a neighbor?
never, once, 24 times, 5-9 times, once a month, twice a month, once a week, more than once a week

I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

I generally keep my house completely locked up
Constantly Often Sometimes Rarely Never
1 2 3 4 5

I tend to get back what I give in the neighborhood (examples: advice. material things. favors)
Always Mostly Sometimes Rarely Never
1 2 3 4 5

How many times in the past twelve months have you had friends over to your home?
On most days, Once or twice a week, Once or twice a month, Less often than once a month, Never
1 2 3 4 5

All things considered, would you say you are. ..
Very happy, Happy, Fairly happy, Not very happy, Not happy at all
1 2 3 4 5

Some say that by helping others you help yourself in the long run. Do you agree?

No, Not much, Somewhat, Yes, Very much
1 2 5 3 4

 

' The questions which were the basis for many of the above questions were found in three sources: (l)The
2000 survey and other surveys in 2001/2002, the Saguaro Seminar has distilled down the 25-minute Social
Capital Community Benchmark Survey into a Short Form (2)The Social Capital Question Bank is based on
the ONS survey matrix developed in 2001, and contains related questions from 15 major government and
non-govemment surveys. (3)Measuring Social Capital in Five Communities in NSW - A Practitioners
Guide - P. Bullen & J. Onyx - January 1998

105

VH. WORKS CITED

Alaimo, K., and D. Hassler. 2003. From Seeds to Stories: the Community Garden
Storytelling Project of F lint. Edited by Flint Urban Gardening and Land Use
Corporation Flint, ML: Flint Urban Gardening and Land Use Corporation and The
University of Michigan School of Public Health's Prevention Research Center of
Michigan.

Almedom, A. M. 2005. Social capital and mental health: An interdisciplinary review of
primary evidence. Social Science & Medicine 61 (5)2943.

Armstrong, D. 2000. A Survey of Community Gardens in Upstate New York:
Implications for Health Promotion and Community Development. Health Place 6
(4):3 1 9-27.

Association, A. C. G. American Community Gardening Association Homepage 2004
[cited 3/4/07. Available fi'om hm;://www.communi§ggarden.org/index.php.

Greater Lansing Foodbank 2006. Greater Lansing Food Bank Facts. Greater Lansing
Foodbank 2005 [cited 12-10—2006 2006]. Available from
ht_tp://lansingfoodbank.org/index.php/abouflglfb-facty.

Bassett, T. J. 1981. Reaping on the Margins: A Century of Community Gardening in
America. Landscape 25 (2).

Blair, D., C. C. Giesecke, and S. Sherman. 1991. A Dietary, Social, and Economic
Evaluation of the Philadelphia Urban Gardening Project. Journal of Nutrition
Education 23 (4):161-167.

Bolund, P., and S. Hunhammar. 1999. Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecological
Economics 29:293—301.

Boone, C. G., and A. Modarres. 2006. City and Environment: Temple University Press.

Bourdieu, P. 1983. Forms of Capital, Soziale Ungleichheiten: Goettingen: Otto Schartz &
Co.

Burgess, J., C. M. Harrison, and M. Limb. 1988. People, Parks and the Urban Green: A
Study of Popular Meanings and Values for Open Spaces in the City. Urban
Studies 25 (6):455 - 473.

ChrisStaff, G. 2002. Area Asians are biggest users of food bank community plots.
Lansing State Journal, September 1, 2002, 4.

106

Christie, M. 2004. The Cultural Geography of Community Gardens. The Geographical
Review 94 (3).

Christopher, M. S., and E. K. Hilda. 2003. Community Gardens and the Politics of Scale
in New York City. 93 (2): 193.

CivicTechnologies. 2004. Business Decision Tapestry Data Manual, ed. ESRI. Pasadena,
CA.

Commission, P. 2003. Social Capital: Reviewing the Concept and its Policy Implications:
AusInfo, Canberra.

Dewalt, K., and B. Dewalt. 2002. Participant Observation A Guide for F ieldworkers.
Oxford UK: Altamira Press.

DomsicStaff, M. 2006. Tough Times: Food banks, soup kitchens see increase in needy.
Lansing State Journal, November 14, 2006.

Doolittle, W. E. 2004. Gardens are Us, We are Nature: Transcending Antiquity and
Modernity. Geographical Review 94 (3).

Flores, H. C. 2006. Food Not Lawns: How to Turn Your Yard into a Garden and Your
Neighborhood into a Community: Chelsea Green Publishing.

Francis, M., and R. T. Hester. 1990. The Meaning of Gardens. Cambridge Mass: MIT
Press.

Freudenberg, N., S. Galea, and D. Vlahov. 2006. Cities and the Health of the Public.
Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.

Glover, T., K. J. Shinew, and D. C. Parry. 2005. Association, Sociability, and Civic
Culture: The Democratic Effect of Community Gardening. Leisure Sciences
(27):75—92.

Glover, T. D. 2004. Social Capital in the Lived Experiences of Community Gardeners.
Leisure Sciences 26: 143—162.

Glover, T. D., D. C. Parry, and K. J. Shinew. 2005. Mobilizing Social Capital in
Community Garden Contexts. In Eleventh Canadian Congress on Leisure
Research. Malaspina University-College, Nanaimo, BC: Canadian Association
for Leisure Studies.

Government, U. K. 2006. National Statistics Website.

107

Grootaert, C., D. Narayan, V. N. Jones, and M. Woolcock. 2004. Measuring Social
Capital: An Integrated Questionnaire, ed. The International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development: Copyright Clearance Center.

Hartlieb, P. 1984. An Evaluation of the 1983-84 Self Help Food Program of the Greater
Lansing Food Alliance, Department of Natural Resources, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, MI.

Holland, L. 2004. Diversity and Connections in Community Gardens: A Contribution to
Local Sustainability. Local Environment 9 (3):285-305.

Hovorka, A. J. 2006. The No. 1 Ladies' Poultry Farm: A feminist political ecology of
urban agriculture in Botswana. Gender, Place and Culture: A Journal of Feminist
Geography 13 (3)207 - 225.

Hynes, H. P. 1996. A Patch of Eden: America 's Inner City Gardeners. White River
Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Pub.

Kaplan, R. 1973. Some Psychological Benefits of Gardening. Environment and Behavior
5 (2)2145-162.

 

. 1990. The Psychological Benefits of Nearby Nature. Paper read at The Role of
Horticulture in Human Well-Being and Social Development: A National
Symposium, at Arlington, Virginia.

Kaplan, R., and S. Kaplan. 1998. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological
Perspective. Edited by C. U. Press. Cambridge Mass.

Keil, R. 2003. Urban Political Ecology. Urban Geography 24:723.

Kimber, C. 2004. Gardens and Dwelling: People in Vernacular Gardens. 94 (3):263.

Kirkby, R. J. 2003. Private Gardens in Public Spaces - Community Gardening: the
Struggle to Empower Individuals and Build Community, Dept. of Resource
Development, Michigan State University. 2003.

Krenichyn, K. 2006. ‘The only place to go and be in the city’: women talk about exercise,
being outdoors, and the meanings of a large urban park. Health & Place 12
(4h631.

Kritsotakis, G., and E. Gamarnikow. 2004. What is Social Capital and How Does it
Relate to Health? International Journal of Nursing Studies 41 (1):43.

Kuo, F., and W. Sullivan. 2001. Environment and Crime in the Inner City: Does
Vegetation Reduce Crime? Environment and Behavior 33 (no. 3):343-367.

108

Kweon, B.-S., W. C. Sullivan, and A. R. Wiley. 1998. Green Common Spaces and the
Social Integration of Inner-City Older Adults. Environment and Behavior 30
(6):832-858.

Lauren, E. B. 2004. Tending Cultural Landscape and Food Citizenship in Toronto’s
Community Gardens. 94 (2)1305.

Lawson, L. J. 2005. City Bountiful: A Century of C ommunity Gardening in America.
Berkeley CA: University of California Press.

Lazarus, M. 2000. Urban Agriculture. New Village Journal, Spring, 2000, 64-69.

Lin, N. 2001. Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action. New York:
Cambridge University Press.

Lindstrom, M., B. S. Hanson, and P.-O. Ostergren. 2001. Socioeconomic Differences in
Leisure-time Physical Activity: the Role of Social Participation and Social Capital
in shaping health related behaviour. Social Science & Medicine 52:441—45 1.

Lyson, T. A. 2004. Civic Agriculture: Reconnecting Farm, F ood, and Community: Tufts
University Press.

Maas, J ., R. A. Verheij, P. P. Groenewegen, S. de Vries, and P. Spreeuwenberg. 2006.
Green Space, Urbanity, and Health: How Strong is the Relationship? Journal of
Epidemiology Community Health 60 (7):587-592

Mohan, G., and J. Mohan. 2002. Placing Social Capital. Progress in Human Geography
26:191.

Mougeot, L. J. A. 2000. Urban Agriculture: Definition, Presence, Potentials and Risks. In
Growing Cities, Growing Food: Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda, ed. N.
Baker, 1-42. Feldafing, Germany: Deutsche Stifiung Fur International
Entwicklung.

Nicholls, S. 2004. Measuring the Impact of Parks on Property Values: New Research
Shows that Green Spaces Increase the Value of Nearby Housing. Parks &
Recreation.

Oldenburg, R. 1999. The Great Good Place: Cafes, Coffee Shops, Bookstores, Bars, Hair
Salons, and Other Hangouts at the Heart of a Community: Marlowe & Company.
Oliver, M. 2006. Thirst: Poems: Beacon Press.

Patel, 1. C. 1991. Gardening's Socioeconomic Impacts. Journal of Extension 29 (4).

109

Petersen, D. 2002. The Potential of Social Capital Measures in the Evaluation of

Comprehensive Community-Based Health Initiatives. American Journal of
Evaluation 23 (1):55—64.

Pigg, S. M. C. 1992. Community Gardeners in Lansing, Michigan: Education, Motivation
and Their Relation to Feelings about Pest Control, Dept. of Resource
Development, Michigan State University, Lansing.

Pirog, R., E. Cook, K. Enshayan, and T. V. Pelt. 2001. Food, Fuel and Freeways: An
Iowa Perspective on How Far Food Travels, Fuel Usage, and Greenhouse Gas
Emissions: Iowa State University, Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture.

Garden Project. Summer 2006. Garden Project News Letter, 2: The Garden Project of the
Lansing Food Bank.

Putrnan, R. 1995. Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital. Journal of
Democracy 6 (1):65-78.

Putnam, R. 1993. The Prosperous Community; Social Capital and Public Life. The
American Prospect, 35-45.

 

. 1993. The Prosperous Community. The American Prospect 4 (l3).

 

. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New
York: Simon and Schuster.

. 2001. Measurement and Consequences Social Capital. Isuma Canadian Journal
of Policy Research 2 (1).

 

Robbins, P. 2004. Political Ecology: A Critical Introduction. Blackwell Publishing
Limited.

Sreen, P., and R. Lamore. 1988. Community Economic Development-Case Studies in
Michigan. East Lansing: Center for Urban Affairs and Department of Natural
Resources of Michigan State University.

Stoelzle, K. a. C., and Jessica. 2000. An Evaluation of a Children's Garden in Developing
Greater Sensitivity of the Environment in Preschool Children. Horticultural
Technology 10 (2):385-390.

Sumagaysay, A., and L. Winchester. 1989. Oak Park Gardeners With the Lansing Area
Self Help Garden Project: Motivations, Needs and Benefits Derived fi‘om
Participation. In ACE 868 Research Note. East Lansing.

Swyngedouw, E., and N. C. Heynen. 2003. Urban Political Ecology, Justice and the
Politics of Scale. Antipode 35 (5):898.

110

 

Vojnovic, I. 2006. Building Communities to Promote Physical Activity: A Multi-Scale
Geographical Analysis. Geografiska Annaler Series B-Human Geography 883

(1 ):67-90.

Wallbank, D. 2006. Study puts Michigan at No. 3 in US. manufacturing. Lansing State
Journal, November 2 2006.

Warman, D. S. 1999. Community Gardens: A Tool for Community Building. Urban
Agriculture Notes.

Watts, M. 2002. Political Ecology. In A Companion to Economic Geography, eds. E.
Sheppard and T. Barnes, 552: Blackwell Publishing Limited.

The Power of We. 2004. Strengthening Community Connections for Action. In The Well
Being of the Capital Area Community. Lansing MI: The Power of We.

Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary. 1997. Edited by H. Bosley. Springfield Mass:
Merriam Webster.

Wieland, B. 2006. Lansing's rich history: Making cars since 1897. Lansing State Journal,
November 12, 2006.

Williamson, E. 2002. A Deeper Ecology: Community Gardens in the Urban
Environment. Degree of Masters of Arts, Urban Affairs and Public Policy,
University of Delaware.

WinklerPrins, A. 2006. Urban House-Lot Gardens and Agrodiversity in Santarém, Para,
Brazil: Spaces of Conservation That Link Urban with Rural. In Globalization and
New Geographies of Conservation, ed. K. S. Zimmerer, 400: University Of
Chicago Press.

WinklerPrins, A., and P. S. de Souza. 2005. Surviving the City: Urban Homegardens and

the Economy of Affection in the Brazilian Amazon. Journal of Latin American
Geography 4 (1):]03-122.

111

   

1|111111111itilflfltifliflirltifltim