Community Gardening and Community Development: Individual, Social and Community Benefits of a Community Conservation Program

Abstract

Community agriculture and conservation initiatives have become increasingly important components of sustainable community development strategies, particularly in disadvantaged neighborhoods. This study examines a community conservation program whose goal was to foster revitalization through the establishment of floral and vegetable gardens primarily in distressed areas. Respondents indicated that the program contributed to revitalizing neighborhoods, as well as their beliefs and behavior regarding conservation issues, sense of community, and volunteerism. Motivation for involvement in the program was high. The most important reasons for involvement were to beautify and give back to the community and to support conservation of green space. The more volunteers were engaged in the program, the greater their motivation, conservation ethic, and volunteerism in other community activities. This study illustrates the importance of community gardening and conservation efforts in improving and beautifying distressed communities, promoting sustainable community development, and increasing civic engagement and conservation practices. Implications for practice are also discussed.

KEYWORDS:

• community conservation
• community gardening
• community development
• sustainable community development
• volunteer ethic
• conservation ethic
• sense of community

Community agriculture and conservation initiatives have become increasingly important components of sustainable community development strategies, particularly in disadvantaged neighborhoods (Hampstead & Quinn, 2005; Hess & Winner, 2007; Holland, 2004; Irvine, Johnson, & Peters, 1999). This study examines a community conservation program whose goal was to foster revitalization through the establishment of floral and vegetable gardens, conservation stewardship projects, and gateway green spaces, primarily in distressed urban areas. The goals of the program were to establish community building, horticulture and environmental enhancement initiatives, and reinforce the connection between empowerment, conservation, volunteerism, and prosperity (Meadowcroft, Ohmer, & Freed, 2005).

Prior research demonstrates the importance of community conservation and gardening programs to revitalizing and strengthening neighborhoods, including reclaiming devastated urban areas and fostering neighborhood social ties and interaction, neighborhood pride, community involvement, political activism, and feelings of safety and adjustment (Armstrong, 2000; Glover, 2004; Glover, Shinew, & Parry, 2005; Hung, 2004; Saldivar-Tanaka & Krasny, 2004). Moreover, individuals volunteer for community conservation and gardening programs for a variety of reasons, including a desire to improve their neighborhoods (e.g., cleaning up vacant lots, reducing crime), and to increase their accessibility to fresh and better tasting food (Armstrong; Hung). Individuals also volunteer because they enjoy nature and the outdoors. This study examines the reasons volunteers and program partners became involved in a community conservation program in Western Pennsylvania and analyzed the individual, social, and community benefits of the program for garden volunteers and participating communities.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Community conservation can refer to a variety of community greening projects, such as greenway initiatives, floral and vegetable programs, and other types of conservation programs that tie communities to the natural environment. The focus of this study is on community gardening and greenway projects, including floral and vegetable gardens. Community conservation and gardening programs serve multiple functions in neighborhoods, providing open space and greenery, as well as cost-conscious fruits and vegetables for local communities. Historically, urban agriculture was used as a way to improve local food supplies, while contemporary community gardening often focuses on renovating vacant lots and turning them into green spaces that include fruit and vegetables, but also floral beds, sitting areas, and other amenities (Saldivar-Tanaka & Krasny, 2004). Transforming vacant lots into green spaces has also created opportunities for community building (Armstrong, 2000), civic participation (Glover, 2004), and youth and community development (Hung, 2004) in communities throughout the United States. More recently, community gardening and conservation have become major components of sustainable community development strategies that integrate social, environmental, and economic concerns (Hess & Winter, 2007; Holland, 2004). The following review traces the history of urban agriculture and community conservation efforts focused on the development of community gardens and green spaces, along with research documenting how communities and individuals are affected by their involvement in community conservation and gardening initiatives.

Community Gardening: Definition and Brief History

Glover (2003) defines a community garden as an organized section of land located in an urban environment that is used to produce food and/or flowers and benefits both individuals and communities. Community gardening is internationally recognized as an important strategy for improving local food supplies and increasing opportunities for open space, greenery, and leisure and recreational activities (Ferris, Norman, & Sempik, 2001). According to Saldivar-Tanaka and Krasny (2004), contemporary community gardens are not just sites for the production of traditional fruits and vegetables; they also serve as meeting spaces for various events within the community. Moreover, community gardening has been used as a community development strategy to address locally defined problems and to improve social, economic, cultural, and environmental conditions in distressed neighborhoods (Saldivar-Tanaka & Krasny). For example, community gardening has been used to combat crime (e.g., drug dealing, vandalism, loitering) and address urban decay by turning dilapidated and abandoned lots into green spaces that include vegetation, flowers, sitting areas, and playgrounds (Glover, Shinew, & Parry, 2005) By the mid-1990s, there were more than 1 million individuals participating in more than 15,000 community gardening programs in the United States (Malakoff, 1995; Bicho, 1996 as cited in Saldivar-Tanaka & Krasny).

Historically, community gardening was used as a way to improve local food supplies. During the late 19^th century, mass migration into urban areas and economic depression increased the demand for accessible and inexpensive food, particularly during World War I, World War II, and the Great Depression (Saldivar-Tanaka & Krasny, 2004). Community gardens provided opportunities for residents, particularly the poor, to grow their own food on vacant lots. City owned lands were provided to the unemployed and impoverished during the Great Depression through the Works Progress Administration (Armstrong, 2000). In addition, the Victory Gardens Program implemented by the U.S. Department of Agriculture during World War II produced approximately 40% of the fresh vegetables in the U.S. from 20 million gardens located in communities across the country (Murphy, 1991, as cited in Armstrong).

More recently, sustainable community development strategies have integrated the use of community greening and urban agriculture as important components to revitalizing and sustaining development in communities. The Earth Summit of 1992 was one of the most powerful forces for sustainable community development, which focuses on integrating social, environmental, and economic concerns in policy making at international, national, and local levels (Hess & Winner, 2007; Holland, 2004). Agenda 21, which was part of the Earth Summit, formulated a local approach to sustainable development, encouraging community participation in developing local solutions to local problems (Holland). There are several examples of how community greening and urban agriculture projects have been integrated into sustainable community development initiatives. For example, in the Alex Wilson Community Garden in Toronto, Canada, the community was intimately involved in the preservation of a community garden and public green spaces. The garden responded to the needs of low income residents by providing 40 plots for food production, and responded “to Alex Wilson's concern for creating meaningful urban spaces through ecological restoration and landscape design, and in promoting an understanding of the natural history of the landscape” (Irvine, Johnson, & Peters, 1999, p. 41). In the United Kingdom, Holland (2004) examined how community gardens associated with the Federation of City Farms and Community Gardens informed the development, progress, and expansion of local sustainability efforts. The results demonstrated that while the gardens served a variety of purposes, including health, education and training, they were all connected through a sense of community participation and provided all three of Agenda 21's mechanisms for community change, addressing economic, social, and environmental concerns.

The Social and Community Benefits of Green Space and Community Gardens

Neighborhood green space and community gardens can also provide benefits for individuals and communities, particularly in facilitating social interactions among residents and overall community development. In fact, the mere presence of green space, including trees and grass, can facilitate social interaction and ties among neighbors. Kuo and colleagues (1998) examined the effects of the neighborhood environment on the development of neighborhood social ties in a public housing community in an inner-city neighborhood in Chicago. The results demonstrated that common areas with more vegetation and greenery were significantly associated with stronger neighborhood social ties among residents occupying that space (Kuo, Sullivan, Coley, & Brunson, 1998). Kuo and colleagues explained that “compared to residents living adjacent to relatively barren spaces, individuals living adjacent to greener common spaces had more social activities and more visitors, knew more of their neighbors, reported their neighbors were more concerned with helping and supporting one another, and had stronger feelings of belonging” (p. 843). Another study conducted in the same public housing community in Chicago found that 90% more people used green space versus barren space, and that 83% more residents engaged in social activities in the green spaces versus the barren spaces in the community (Sullivan, Kuo, & DePooter, 2004). These studies demonstrate the importance of green space in facilitating social interaction among neighbors, particularly in neighborhoods that often lack greenery and gardens.

Prior research has demonstrated that involvement in community gardening can also facilitate social ties and interaction among neighbors. Glover (2004) argues that “community gardens are less about gardening than they are about community” because they provide places for social interaction that foster norms of reciprocity and trust, which are “conventional forms of social capital” (p. 143). In his study of community gardening in a midwestern U.S. city, Glover collected personal narratives from 14 residents: 8 were members of the neighborhood association responsible for the gardens and 6 were gardening volunteers. The results demonstrated that the community gardening project enhanced the level of social capital in the community that had begun developing through the neighborhood association's earlier revitalization efforts, including providing opportunities for residents to network and talk to one another, which led to further socializing outside of the gardens. This networking and socializing was a “resource upon which neighbors drew when facing other issues in the neighborhood,” providing them with a sense of community and security (Glover, p. 151). However, the study also found that garden participants who were not part of the core group felt removed from decision-making process for the gardens, which weakened their ability to utilize the social capital produced by the garden network to achieve their specific goals. On the other hand, garden participants who were able to use the resources associated with social connections felt they were able to achieve their goals, including improving the neighborhood and increasing property values. Glover's research illustrates that community gardening can facilitate social capital among residents, particularly those in decision-making roles, and improve the appearance of urban neighborhoods.

Prior research on community gardening also demonstrates its importance to overall community development in distressed neighborhoods. Saldivar-Tanaka and Krasny (2004) examined the effects of community gardening on open space, civic agriculture, and community development in Latino community gardens in New York City. Using participatory action research methods, the researchers interviewed 32 gardeners from 20 gardens and staff of 11 gardening support organizations, reviewed organizational documents, and observed the gardens. The majority of the gardens were previously vacant lots that were developed by residents to eliminate community hazards, such as trash, abandoned cars, and drug sales. The study revealed that community gardens were not only used for growing food, flowers, and other vegetation, but served as cultural and social neighborhood centers, where residents celebrated special community events and socialized with their family members, neighbors, new residents, and even visitors. The gardens were also used to educate youth and other community members about the value of farming, food and the Latino culture. The study concluded that community development was recognized by both garden volunteers and garden support organizations as the most important role of community gardening, followed by the provision of open space and the production of food. Community gardening had a major role in empowering members to become more active in their communities by reclaiming and transforming devastated areas in their neighborhoods (Saldivar-Tanaka & Krasny).

Volunteer Involvement in Community Gardening: Motivation and Benefits

The act of volunteerism can have positive mental, psychological, and social effects on individuals. Wilson and Musick (2000) argue that volunteerism fosters “interpersonal trust, toleration, empathy for others, and respect for the common good” (p. 148). Volunteering for a community gardening project can strengthen the connection among neighbors, commonly regarded as social integration or social capital. It can also establish personal validation for the individual that can promote self-efficacy, and foster a belief in the individual that he or she can make a difference (Wilson & Musick). Participating in creating and maintaining a community garden can facilitate volunteers' skills, abilities, and relationships in distressed communities.

Glover (2004) found that residents were motivated to get involved in their neighborhood's floral garden to improve their community, including addressing crime and blight. Residents accomplished their objectives by reclaiming a devastated space in their community and getting to know their neighbors through their involvement in the garden, which increased their sense of security. Volunteers were also motivated by their desire to preserve the neighborhood and its cultural heritage and aesthetics, and increase property values.

Armstrong (2000) surveyed 20 program coordinators of 63 community gardens in upstate New York to identify their reasons for participating in the gardens, almost half of which were located in low-income urban areas. The most important reasons for participating were the ability to access “fresh/better tasting food, to enjoy nature and open space, and because of health benefits,” including engaging in healthy outdoor activities and improving mental health (p. 322). However, these reasons were cited more by coordinators who worked on gardens in urban areas. In rural areas, the most cited reason was the ability to practice traditional culture. Coordinators felt that having a community garden in a neighborhood helped to improve residents' attitudes toward their neighborhood in 55% of the gardens, evidenced by improved maintenance of other properties, decreased litter, and increased pride. Community gardens located in low-income areas were four times more likely to lead to addressing other neighborhood issues, including other beautification efforts, crime watch programs, and tree planting. Similarly, Saldivar-Tanaka and Krasny (2004) found that 20% of the volunteer gardeners in their study engaged in political activism as a result of their involvement in the community garden program, including forming coalitions to work on fundraising, workshops, rallies, outreach, and other local campaigns.

Glover and colleagues (2005) compared the political citizenship of community garden leaders and nonleaders in order to understand the democratic effects of participating in community gardens in St. Louis, Missouri. The main purpose of the gardens was to revitalize low and moderate income communities in urban areas by converting dilapidated and vacant lots into green spaces that included flowers, vegetables, and fruit. Garden leaders had significantly stronger democratic values than regular garden volunteers, spent significantly more time in the garden, and were more likely to talk or visit with other community gardeners in a typical week. In addition, the amount of time both garden leaders and regular volunteers spent in the garden was a significant predictor of political citizenship, defined as “the extent to which the participants believed they should be involved directly in the discussion, selection, and implementation of policy alternatives in their communities” (Glover et al., p. 82).

Community gardens can provide a unique educational opportunity for youth and help them to acquire a sense of self, identity, and ownership for their neighborhood. Hung (2004) examined a community gardening program in Brooklyn, New York that provided the community with fresh and affordable vegetables, preserved public space, and engaged local youth in community development in devastated areas. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 18 youth interns who worked for the program, which engaged adolescents between the ages of 10 and 16 in cultivating and harvesting the produce, and assisted the local farmers market where the produce from the garden was sold. The youth developed a sense of self and identity that demonstrated their importance and value to the community, along with new gardening knowledge and interpersonal skills, such as how to nurture a garden, and how to work with a team to achieve goals. The gardens provided a safe space in the community where youth could interact with each other and with trusted adults. Youth contributed to improving their communities by transforming a place in their neighborhood into something beautiful, offering fresh and inexpensive produce to local residents.

Summary

While community gardening originally began as a way to improve local food supplies in the early 20^th century, it has evolved into a strategy for improving overall community and sustainable development in neighborhoods, including promoting social, environmental, and economic concerns. Prior research shows that community gardening can facilitate social interaction, community involvement and volunteerism, and education of community members regarding horticulture and gardening methods. Community gardening has also become an important community development strategy, turning devastated and vacant lots into beautiful spaces with flowers, trees, shrubs, and other vegetation that can be enjoyed by the entire community

THE COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PROGRAM: AN EVALUATION

The Community Conservation Program establishes community gardens in towns and cities throughout Western Pennsylvania and connects people in the urban core with nature, sometimes for the first time (Meadowcroft, Ohmer, & Freed, 2005). Since 1982, the program has facilitated greening projects in more than 170 primarily distressed communities with the assistance of community groups and residents, private foundations, corporations, schools, churches, and government agencies. Partnerships are established with local community and economic development organizations that include community greening initiatives as a strategy for addressing urban blight and revitalization. Joining with local residents, the program aims to improve the overall quality of life in neighborhoods that face often overwhelming obstacles to revitalization, including crumbling buildings and urban flight. The overall goal is to engage people in the production of vibrant neighborhoods, not only through the production of tangible and beautiful community assets, but also through stimulating volunteerism, connections, and conservation.

The purpose of the evaluation of the Community Conservation Program was to learn what a broad group of program stakeholders believed were the primary outcomes of the program and use this information to improve the program's functions in facilitating volunteer, community, and conservation activities (Meadowcroft, Ohmer, & Freed, 2005). A utilization-focused and participatory approach to evaluation was used to ensure that the results of the evaluation would be helpful to key stakeholders (Patton, 1997). The evaluators engaged key program staff in all stages of the evaluation, including designing and developing interview, focus group, and survey instruments, discussing and interpreting results, and creating useful reporting formats.

The objectives of the evaluation were to (1) assess the perceptions of both garden volunteers and partners regarding the program, including: (a) their motivation for involvement; (b) the impact they believed the program had on participating communities; and (c) their perceptions of how the program influenced their conservation beliefs and practices (e.g., conservation ethic), sense of community, and involvement in other volunteer activities (e.g., volunteer ethic; garden volunteers only) and (2) examine the association between volunteer involvement in the garden program and (a) volunteers' motivation for involvement in the program; (b) sense of community; (c) conservation ethic; (d) volunteer ethic; and (e) views of the community impact of the gardens.

METHODS

The primary evaluation methods consisted of interviews and mailed surveys. One-hour, in-depth interviews were conducted with 48 out of 72 (response rate 67%) garden volunteers, community partners, and funders. Out of the original 72 individuals contacted for in-depth interviews, 10 declined to participate, and 14 did not respond to the request after several attempts. A five-page survey was mailed to 547 volunteers (program volunteers and Garden Stewards) (N = 258; response rate 47%), and a four-page survey was mailed to 560 community partners and funders (N = 201; response rate 36%) that were currently involved in the program and had viable mailing addresses. For the mailed surveys, approximately 80% of actual respondents returned their surveys within 2 weeks.

Sample

The sample for the in-depth interviews consisted of 27 garden volunteers, including 20 Garden Stewards (lead volunteers/coordinators) and seven other volunteers; 10 community partners, including public officials and representatives of community organizations; and seven foundation and four corporate financial supporters. Over half of the mailed survey respondents were garden volunteers (56%; N = 258), with 19% (N = 85) Garden Stewards and 38% (N = 173) regular volunteers. Forty-four percent (N = 201) of respondents were program partners, with 33% (N = 150) representing local community organizations (e.g., community associations, schools, churches), and the remainder representing elected officials (6%; N = 28), corporate supporters (4%; N = 20), and foundation partners (1%; N = 4). Garden volunteers were involved in the program an average of 5 years, and partners were involved an average of 6 years.

Socioeconomic demographic information was gathered from only the garden volunteers through the mailed survey. Sixty-seven percent (N = 167) were female, while 33% (N = 82) were male. The average age of volunteers was 50 years old, while the youngest was 12 and the oldest was 81 years old. The majority of respondents were White (91%; N = 233), with the remaining African American (6%; N = 15) and Hispanic (3%; N = 6). In addition, most volunteers were employed (66%; N = 155), while 25% were retired (N = 59) and 9% (N = 22) were unemployed. The majority of respondents had either a college (29%; N = 70) or graduate/professional degree (26%; N = 61), while the remainder had a high school degree or GED (24%; N = 56) or less than a high school degree (5%; N = 12). Almost half of respondents earned between $35,001 and $75,000 annually (49%; N = 93), while 22% (N = 41) earned $35,000 or less, and 30% earned over $75,000 (N = 57).

Measures

During the qualitative interviews, community garden volunteers, partners, and financial supporters were asked questions regarding their connections to the program, why they were initially attracted to it and why they stayed involved. They were also asked about the value of the program to themselves and/or their organizations, the impact of the program on the communities surrounding the gardens, and how they feel the program could be improved and/or changed in the future.

Table 1 summarizes the quantitative measures used, along with their reliability examined using the Cronbach's alpha statistic. The measures that were used for both the garden volunteer and community partner surveys were motivation for involvement in the community gardening program, conservation ethic, sense of community in connection with the gardens, and community impact of the gardens. The measures that were used for the garden volunteers only were level of involvement in the gardening program, volunteer ethic, and sense of community in the neighborhoods in which volunteers lived.

TABLE 1 Quantitative Measures Used in the Current Study

Measure	Sample items	Reliability
Motivation for involvement in the program (scale from 1 “not important, to 3 “very important”)
Volunteers and partners (6 items)	Items: “to help beautify the community,” “to support the conservation of green space,” and “to facilitate community engagement.”	.68
Volunteers only (5 additional items)	Items: “because I enjoy gardening,” “because I want to give back to my community,” and “because I enjoy activities with my family.”	.79
Partners only (6 additional items)	Items: “to demonstrate commitment to the community,” and “to demonstrate commitment to the environment.”	.75
Conservation ethic (scale from 1 “strongly disagree,” to 4 “strongly agree”)
Volunteers and partners (7 items)	Items: “more aware of the value of green space,” “more interested in conservation issues,” “more involved with conservation groups.”	.93
Volunteers only (2 additional items)	Items: “more knowledgeable about gardening,” and “read more about conservation issues.”	.93
Sense of community—gardens (scale from 1 “strongly disagree,” to 4 “strongly agree”)
Volunteers and partners (6 items)	Items: “notice that people have more pride in their community,” “think the communities with gardens are better places to live,” and “have become better acquainted with people in the communities with gardens.”	.85
Community impact of the gardens (scale from 1 “strongly disagree,” to 4 “strongly agree”)
Volunteers and partners (10 items)	Items: “make the community more visually attractive,” “project a more positive image of the community,” “increase community volunteerism,” “improve the overall quality of the environment,” and “increase economic investment in the community.”	.89
Level of involvement in community garden program
Volunteers were asked to indicate which of 5 community garden activities they had been involved with over the past year, including: “spring planting of gardens,” and “fall pull-out of gardens.”		N/A
Volunteer ethic
Volunteers were asked to indicate which of 6 volunteer activities they had participated in over the past year, including: “helping the neighborhood,” “and “education/mentoring.”		N/A
Sense of community—neighborhoods (scale from 1 “strongly disagree,” to 4 “strongly agree”)
Volunteers were asked about items such as: “I can recognize most of my neighbors,” “I care about what my neighbors think of my actions,” “It is very important to me to live in this neighborhood.”		.83

Limitations

This study is limited to the analysis of respondents' perceptions using self-report and interview data. The current study also used a cross-sectional design, so that causal relationships cannot be inferred. However, several variables that could have influenced the key study variables (e.g., demographics) were controlled in the multivariate analyses. Future studies should integrate the use of non-self report measures (e.g., using observational data) and longitudinal designs. The findings are not generalizable beyond the study population; however, similar community conservation programs may use these results as a benchmark for their impact on garden volunteers and participating communities. Strengths of the current study include triangulation, using both qualitative and quantitative methods, and the reliability of the measures, which can be used in future studies.

RESULTS

Descriptive Results

The qualitative data were analyzed by organizing the content into various themes related to the specific objectives of the evaluation. While the main focus of this article is to present the findings from the survey data, qualitative data are presented to illustrate and give depth to quantitative results. Direct quotes from key stakeholders who participated in the interviews are provided, including community partners who contributed to the program, Garden Stewards who provided volunteer leadership to the gardening programs in each community, and garden volunteers who worked on the gardens. Table 2 summarizes the descriptive statistics.

TABLE 2 Descriptive Statistics for Quantitative Variables in the Study

Variable	N	Score range	# of items	Mean	Median	SD	Skewness
Motivation for involvement
Volunteers and partners∗∗	415	1–3	6	2.44	2.50	.38	−.55
Volunteers only	242	1–3	11	2.43	2.50	.36	−.69
Partners only	144	1–3	8	2.54	2.50	.34	−.41
Conservation ethic
Volunteers and partners∗∗	355	1–4	7	3.05	3.14	.71	−.95/.50∗
Volunteers only	220	1–4	9	3.00	3.11	.71	−.85/.43∗
Partners only	134	1–4	7	3.10	3.14	.70	−1.0/.50∗
Sense of community in connection with gardens
Volunteers and partners	373	1–4	6	3.22	3.33	.64	−.99/.57∗
Volunteers only	240	1–4	6	3.20	3.33	.66	−1.0/.57∗
Partners only	133	1–4	6	3.25	3.33	.60	−.89/.57∗
Community impact of gardens
Volunteers and partners	288	1–4	10	3.48	3.56	.45	−1.4/.54∗
Volunteers only	175	1–4	10	3.46	3.50	.44	−.92/.54∗
Partners only	113	1–4	10	3.50	3.60	.48	−2.1/.54∗
Volunteer only
Level of involvement in garden activities	258	0–5	5	2.55	2.00	1.4	.11
Volunteer ethic	258	0–6	6	1.20	2.0	1.5	.76
Sense of community in neighborhood they live in	225	1–4	12	3.17	3.25	.56	−.74/42∗
∗Transformed variable measure.
∗∗Items answered by both volunteers and partners were used to develop these scales.

Volunteers and community partners

Motivation for involvement (using the six commonly answered items) among both garden volunteers and partners was high (M = 2.44; scale from 1 to 3), with the top three reasons being to help beautify the community, give back/demonstrate commitment to the community, and support conservation of green space. The fourth most important reason for partners only was to demonstrate a commitment to the environment. When analyzing motivation among garden volunteers only, the next most important reasons for their involvement in the program were because they enjoyed outdoor exercise and gardening. Respondents had the following comments during the interviews regarding their reasons for involvement:

• “I got involved in the community garden program to specifically give something back to the community.” (Garden volunteer)

• “I want my grandkids to be able to enjoy open spaces.” (Garden volunteer)

• “I think it's crucial for city neighborhoods to have green spaces, especially with flowers.” (Garden steward)

• “Community involvement brings me back year after year. The dedication of the teacher and the kids and my love of plants and dirt.” (Garden volunteer)

Volunteers and community partners “somewhat agreed” that the program influenced their feelings and behavior regarding conservation issues (M = 3.05; scale 1 to 4), with the greatest influence on making them more aware of the value of green space in the community, and making them feel more connected to the natural world. Community partners also felt the program caused them to more often act to support environmental improvement or protection, and as well as more knowledgeable about green space. Volunteers felt that the community garden program had helped them to become more knowledgeable about green space and gardening, as well as more interested in conservation issues. These findings are also revealed in the comments from community partners and volunteers:

• “The gardens demonstrate an interest in conservation and improving the general quality of life.” (Community partner)

• “The gardens have changed my ideas about green space. It's made me more aware of urban sprawl. I like to see grass and open space. I would rather have developers use the older spaces instead of digging up great green spaces.” (Garden volunteer)

• “Kids bring their parents out there to see their work. It develops appreciation for conservation and plants for young people.” (Garden volunteer)

Both volunteers and community partners “somewhat agreed” that the community gardens increased the sense of community in participating neighborhoods (M = 3.22; scale 1 to 4). Respondents' comments included the following:

• “The garden helped in getting all the organizations like the garden club, etc. to work together.” (Community partner)

• “The gardens are a tangible means to demonstrate that people care about where they live and who they are and that's important.” (Community partner)

• “I have lived in this area my whole life. I have seen good and bad things happen to the community. It's nice to be able to give back to it, and it gives me a sense of pride. I take pride in the town through my actions, including the garden.” (Garden volunteer)

• “It's really fun to get together with neighbors, it draws different kinds of people out who might not sit around in meetings, but [who would] rather come out and get their hands dirty.” (Garden volunteer)

In addition, volunteers and partners felt the program positively impacted their communities (M = 3.48; scale 1 to 4), with the greatest impact on making the community more visually attractive, projecting a positive image of the community, and increasing community pride, green space, and gardens. Respondents' comments about community impact included the following:

• “The gardens eliminate blight—they take a negative and turn it into something positive.” (Community partner)

• “The gardens make some of the places that are around us every day more beautiful to be around, rather than just having big blocks of cement, we have beautiful spaces to look at.” (Community partner)

• “Whenever there is something pretty it makes people feel better … the garden has an even greater impact in an area like this because there is so little else that is pretty.” (Garden volunteer)

• “The current garden faces a restaurant and the owner has talked to me many times stating what a draw the garden is to his business, patrons can eat and enjoy a beautiful view at the same time.” (Garden volunteer)

Volunteers only

Garden volunteers were involved in an average of 2.5 (out of a total of 5) garden program activities over a year period. Almost all of the volunteers were involved in the spring planting (90%), over half were involved in the fall pull-out of the gardens (57%), 50% were involved in maintaining the gardens, 42% had told people about the program, and only 16% were involved in the program's annual spring kickoff. Forty-one percent of garden volunteers stated that they felt their involvement in the garden program had increased their involvement in other volunteer activities a moderate amount and 9% said a lot, while 45% said not at all. Volunteers were involved in only 1.2 (out of a total of 6) other volunteer activities in their communities over a year period, with greatest involvement in helping at a social service/nonprofit organization (50%) and helping the neighborhood (42%). Approximately one-third of respondents were involved in helping with conservation/environmental causes (31%), helping at faith-based institutions (28%), and education/mentoring (28%). Twenty-two percent were involved in helping with sports/recreational activities. Respondents' comments about volunteer ethic included the following:

• “In volunteering for the garden, people meet people they don't normally meet; one volunteer activity leads to another.” (Community partner)

• “Volunteers have gotten involved with other projects that help the community with beautification.” (Garden volunteer)

• “I have met many people I didn't know and I can use this networking to get more things done in the town.” (Garden volunteer)

• “The garden has been a good and well-received addition to the community, it has rippled effects to other activities to clean up the community and beautify it.” (Garden volunteer)

• “Participating in the program gives kids a sense of volunteer ethic. They work so cooperatively together when they do the garden. It's an accomplishment for them and they work together.” (Garden volunteer)

Finally, garden volunteers had a fairly strong sense of connection to their own neighborhoods (M = 3.17 on a scale from 1–4). Volunteers' comments included the following:

• “When you see the sites in certain areas of town that aren't the good side of town you find out that really every part of the city there are people who care about their area.”

• “There is a sense of community pride and beautification of green space, especially in communities where there is economic hardship.”

Results From the Multiple Regression Analyses

The evaluation also assessed how volunteer involvement in the community garden program was related to volunteers' motivation for involvement in the program, sense of community, conservation ethic, involvement in other volunteer activities (volunteer ethic), and perceptions about the program's impact on participating communities, controlling for sex, age, employment, and education. The control variables were determined using a series of bivariate analyses revealing that these demographic variables were associated with the several of the key study variables. The motivation for involvement and conservation ethic variables that were used in these analyses included all of the items that volunteers responded to on the mailed survey (see Table 2—volunteers only). No cases were eliminated, and the examination of the histograms revealed normal distributions. The examination of the residual plots showed that the assumption of linearity was met; multicollinearity was not a problem.

Table 3 presents the results for volunteer involvement in the program and its connection to motivation and sense of community. For volunteer involvement in the community garden program and motivation for involvement, the model was significant (R = .25, R² _adj = .04, F (5, 191) = 2.53, p < .05) controlling for demographics. The more involved the volunteer, the greater their motivation for participating in the community garden program (β = .197, t (191) = 2.73, p < .01). For volunteer involvement and sense of community in connection to the garden program, the model was significant (R = .26, R² _adj = .01, F (5, 193) = 2.85, p < .05) controlling for demographics. However, volunteer involvement did not individually contribute to sense of community in connection with the garden program (β = –.110, t (193) = −1.56, p = .12). The results did demonstrate that volunteer involvement was associated with a volunteer's age (β = −.168, t (191) = −2.22, p < .05). For volunteer involvement and sense of community in which the volunteer lived, the model was not significant (R = .18, R² _adj = .01, F (5, 186) = 1.23, p = .30) controlling for demographics.

TABLE 3 HMR: Volunteer Involvement in the Gardening Program and Motivation for Involvement and Sense of Community

Variables	B	SE B	β	t	Δ R^2
Motivation for involvement
Step 1
					.03
Sex	−.08	.05	−.11	−1.49
Age	.00	.00	.07	.91
Employment	.01	.05	.02	.23
Education	−.01	.02	–.03	−.37
Step 2
					.04∗∗
Volunteer involvement	.05	.02	.20	2.73∗∗
Sense of community (connected with the gardens)
Step 1
					.06∗
Sex	−.02	.03	−.05	−.70
Age	−.00	.00	−.17	−2.22∗
Employment	−.02	.03	−.05	−.63
Education	−.02	.01	−.13	−1.65
Step 2
					.01
Volunteer involvement	−.02	.01	−.11	−1.56
Sense of community (in volunteer's neighborhood)
Step 1
					.03
Sex	.03	.09	.03	.41
Age	.01	.00	.12	1.45
Employment	.08	.08	.09	1.08
Education	.01	.04	.02	.27
Step 2
					.00
Volunteer involvement	.01	.03	.02	.33
∗p < .05
∗∗p < .01.

Table 4 presents the results for volunteer involvement and its connection to conservation ethic, volunteer ethic, and volunteers' perceptions of the impact of the gardens on participating communities. For volunteer involvement and conservation ethic, the model was not significant (R = .21, R² _adj = .02, F (5, 181) = 1.68, p = .14) controlling for demographics. However, volunteer involvement was marginally associated with conservation ethic (β = −.136, t (181) = 1.82, p < .07). For volunteer involvement and volunteer ethic, the model was significant (R = .30, R² _adj = .07, F (5, 205) = 4.09, p < .001) controlling for demographics. Volunteer involvement was positively associated volunteer ethic (β = .226, t (205) = 3.32, p < .001), demonstrating that the more a volunteer was involved in the community garden program, the more involved they were in other volunteer activities in their community. In addition, volunteer involvement was also associated with a respondents' gender (β = .142, t (205) = 2.12, p < .05). For volunteer involvement and community impact, the model was not significant (R = .24, R² _adj = .02, F (5, 142) = 1.74, p = .13) controlling for demographics.

TABLE 4 HMR: Volunteer Involvement in the Gardening Program and Conservation Ethic, Volunteer Ethic, and Community Impact of the Gardens

Variables	B	SE B	β	t	Δ R^2
Conservation ethic
Step 1
					.03
Sex	−.05	.04	−.11	−1.46
Age	.00	.00	−.01	−.11
Employment	−.05	.03	−.12	−1.40
Education	−.01	.02	−.03	−.35
Step 2
					.02
Volunteer involvement	−.03	.02	−.14	1.82
Volunteer ethic
Step 1
					.04
Sex	.46	.22	.14	2.12∗
Age	−.01	.01	−.12	−1.66
Employment	.08	.19	.03	.44
Education	.15	.09	.12	1.65
Step 2
					.05∗∗
Volunteer involvement	.26	.08	.23	3.32∗∗
Community impact
Step 1
					.06∗
Sex	.05	.02	.20	2.32∗
Age	.00	.00	.07	.81
Employment	−.02	.02	−.12	−1.23
Education	−.01	.01	−.09	−.94
Step 2
					.00
Volunteer involvement	.00	.01	.02	.18
∗p < .05;
∗∗p < .01.

In summary, volunteer involvement in the community gardening program was significantly associated with motivation for involvement and volunteer ethic, and marginally associated with conservation ethic. Motivation explained 20% of the variance in a volunteers' level of involvement in the garden program, volunteer ethic explained 23% of the variance, and conservation ethic explained 14% of the variance. Volunteer involvement in the program was not associated with sense of community in connection with the gardens, sense of community in the neighborhoods in which volunteers lived, or the community impact of the program.

DISCUSSION

The quantitative results in the current study confirm prior research (e.g., Armstrong, 2000; Saldivar-Tanaka & Krasny, 2006) by finding that volunteer involvement in the community gardening program was associated with increased involvement in other volunteer activities in the community, including helping with other neighborhood activities, addressing conservation and environmental issues, and helping at a social service/nonprofit agency. In addition, 50% of volunteers felt that their involvement in the gardening program had increased their involvement in other volunteer activities in the community. These results are similar to other studies that found that volunteer involvement was related to increased involvement in other neighborhood improvement efforts as well as political activism.

The current study contributes to existing research by finding that volunteer involvement in the community garden program was also associated with volunteers' motivation for involvement. The descriptive results in the current study demonstrated that the most important reasons for both volunteer and partner involvement in the program were to beautify and give something back to the community, and support the conservation of green space. Similar to other studies (e.g., Armstrong, 2000), volunteers in the current study were also involved in the program because they enjoyed outdoor activities, as well as gardening.

This study contributes to research on community gardening by examining conservation ethic. While volunteer involvement in the program was only marginally associated with conservation ethic, the descriptive results demonstrated that volunteers believed that the program helped them to become more knowledgeable about gardening, and both volunteers and partners felt the program increased their knowledge and awareness of green space and other conservation issues, as well as their sense of connection to the outside world.

While volunteer involvement was not associated with either of the measures of sense of community, the descriptive and qualitative results showed that despite their level of involvement, both volunteers and partners felt that the program had increased the sense of community and positive social interactions in the neighborhoods in which the gardens were located. These findings are similar to prior research, which found that community gardeners experienced an increase in social capital, ties, and interaction among residents (e.g., Glover, 2004).

While volunteer involvement in the community gardening program was not significantly associated with volunteers' views regarding the community impact of the program, the qualitative results showed that both volunteers and partners believed the program had a positive impact on the participating communities, including helping to make their communities more visually attractive, projecting a positive community image, and increasing community pride, green space, and gardens. The qualitative results illustrate how the gardening program contributed to community development in the participating communities.

Community development is so much more than bricks and mortar; it is about people, people taking responsibility for their neighborhood. And that means beautifying your neighborhood, cleaning up your neighborhood, painting your houses. It is all of that where people take pride in where they live; they come together to try to find ways to improve it. In a neighborhood where that happens, then you experience something different—you can see it. (Community Partner)

Similar to Hung (2000), the community gardening program provided an opportunity for young people to get involved in community development activities in their communities.

I like to work with young people because it lets them know that they are capable of doing things. It teaches kids that they are important, and if they try they can accomplish beauty. It also gives them a chance to feel like they can make a positive difference and be appreciated by the community for doing so. The kids learn to work together to accomplish the goal of beautifying their community and not have trash and debris. It teaches them to be proud of where they live. The joy and excitement show in their faces after they finish working in the garden. (Garden volunteer)

Similar to prior research (e.g., Glover, 2004), the qualitative results demonstrated that respondents felt the gardens helped them to address crime, vandalism, and litter issues in their communities. One community partner commented,

I think the community impact of the gardens is like how we keep graffiti down—if you eliminate graffiti right away it is less likely that buildings will be covered with graffiti … by taking care of how property appears, vandalism is actually reduced … So I can't help but think the gardens do that for our communities. If a community does things to make it more beautiful, litter, etc. reduces.

Other participants in the program also commented about the connection between the gardens and crime prevention, including the following:

• “Planting a garden instills pride, once pride is instilled people start cleaning up their backyards, graffiti drops down, vandalism drops down.” (Community partner)

• “In seven years of having these gardens in the front and back of the school, we have never had one incident of vandalism or damage. This speaks directly to the community pride and respect for the beauty of nature.” (Garden volunteer)

Finally, a community partner demonstrated how community based organizations addressing revitalization issues have used the program to create momentum for their efforts.

Community people are often overwhelmed—you are dealing with crime and drug dealing and business. Often community based organizations (CBOs) form to deal with those issues, but it is difficult to put their hands around those things. The community garden program allows CBOs and people who live in the neighborhoods to have an immediate impact. And it is a learning tool for them—how do we work together, how do we deliver the goods to the neighborhood, if we are going to be a CBO representing people how do we get their buy-in and serve them. These are hard things to do. First, it is important to form a nucleus in the community and then next to get something done. For a lot of people, the first thing they got done was the community gardens.

Implications for Practice

Given the importance of community agriculture and conservation initiatives in sustainable community development efforts, community practitioners should develop strategies to strengthen community gardening programs in disadvantaged neighborhoods. The current evaluation revealed several strategies, including providing ongoing support to volunteers, using the greening programs to educate the broader community about community conservation issues, strengthening ties to community partners, and linking programs more strongly to community revitalization and development strategies in neighborhoods.

This study revealed that garden volunteers were engaged in the program and felt the program benefited their communities. However, sustaining volunteer engagement over time may be a challenge. More than half of the volunteers participating in the Community Conservation Program (54%) indicated they would like more support and coordination from the sponsoring agency. Providing ongoing support and coordination to volunteers is important to sustain their involvement and it may also help to deepen their conservation ethic and involvement in other community programs. Understanding why volunteers get involved in conservation programs can also help community practitioners recruit and sustain volunteers.

Community practitioners can also use gardening programs as an opportunity to educate the community about conservation and environmental issues. In the current evaluation, a majority of the respondents (54%) indicated that the Community Conservation Program should provide education about conservation and the gardening program to the broader community as well as to individuals directly involved with the gardens as a way of improving the experiences of those involved and increasing collaboration within communities (Meadowcroft, Ohmer, & Freed, 2005). Educational strategies could be integrated into existing program efforts. For example, garden leaders could attend meetings of community organizations to inform residents about garden programs and how they contribute to conservation issues. Signs could also be posted at the gardens explaining their connection to overall greening initiatives in the neighborhood.

Finally, community practitioners should develop strategies to strengthen partnerships with agencies and organizations that contribute to gardening initiatives, as well as link programs more strongly to community development strategies. The sustainability and expansion of community conservation and gardening programs rely on building and strengthening strong relationships and partnerships with community partners (Meadowcroft, Ohmer, & Freed, 2005). Through strategic partnerships with community organizations, additional resources could be leveraged to support community organizations in their efforts to recruit and support volunteers, as well as raise additional resources for greening and conservation projects. This study demonstrated the importance of the gardening program to the community development and revitalization efforts of local organizations. Moreover, nearly half of survey respondents (49%) indicated that the program should focus on increasing the financial support of other local green space projects. Practitioners could work more closely with community leaders to help integrate gardening programs into other greening and community development projects, including identifying green space issues through community planning efforts, and linking programs to affordable housing, crime prevention, and youth programs. These strategies could facilitate sustainable community development, integrating social, environmental, and economic concerns.

Summary

The current evaluation illustrates the importance of community conservation and gardening efforts in improving and beautifying distressed communities, promoting sustainable community development, and increasing civic engagement and conservation practices. While community gardening programs were initially designed to increase affordable food supplies during the world wars and Great Depression, they have evolved into broader and more comprehensive and sustainable community development efforts. While today's community garden programs are designed to provide green space for the production of food and flowers, they also help to reclaim devastated urban areas, engage residents and other community stakeholders in conservation practices and other community improvement efforts, and facilitate social interaction and a sense of community among residents. The results of the current evaluation demonstrate that volunteers and partners involved in community gardening believe they are important tools for improving communities, particularly distressed neighborhoods that often lack green space and community gardens.