Research That Matters (January 17 - 20, 2008)

Purpose: This study evaluates a community conservation program whose goal was to foster a positive community image through the establishment of floral gardens, trees and other green spaces in distressed communities. The purpose was to improve civic connections, volunteerism, and the use of conservation practices to improve the quality of life and environment. Its premise is that a stronger commitment to conservation and volunteering strengthens a community from the inside out. Prior research demonstrates that community conservation/gardening programs foster neighborhood social ties/interaction, neighborhood pride, community involvement, and feelings of safety/adjustment (Armstrong, 2000; Kuo, Sullivan, Levine-Coley & Brunson, 1998; Saldivar-Tanaka & Krasny, 2004).

Methods: The purpose of the evaluation was to understand the motivation for involvement in the program and how the program affected volunteers, community partners, and participating communities. The evaluation had two components: (1) in-depth interviews of 61 garden volunteers, community partners (public officials, community organizations, funders), and program staff/board; and (2) surveys mailed to 547 volunteers (N=258; 47%) and 560 community partners (N=201; 36%). Measures were adapted from prior studies (e.g., Perkins, Florin, Rich, Wandersman & Chavis, 1990; Speer & Peterson; 2000), or created for the current study. (Current study Cronbach Alpha's ranged from .68 to .92). Results were evaluated using descriptive, t-test, and hierarchical multiple regression analyses controlling for demographics.

Results: Motivation for involvement was high (M=2.44; scale from 1 to 3), with the most important reasons being to help beautify and give something back to the community, and support conservation of green space. The t-test demonstrated that community partners (M=2.54) had a significantly higher level of motivation than volunteers (M=2.43) (t = -3.18, p < .01). Respondents “somewhat agreed” that the program influenced their feelings/behavior regarding conservation issues (M=3.05; scale 1 to 4), and increased their sense of community (M=3.22; scale 1 to 4). Respondents 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, and increasing community pride, green space and gardens. While partners had higher scores than volunteers on conservation ethic, sense of community, and community impact, these differences were not significant. The evaluation also assessed how volunteer involvement in the program was related to their motivation for involvement, and feelings about the program's impact on the community, conservation ethic, sense of community, and other forms of community involvement. The HMR demonstrated that the more volunteers were engaged in the program, the greater their motivation for involvement (p < .01), and the more they volunteered for other community activities (p < .001). Volunteer involvement was marginally related to conservation ethic (p = .07). Volunteer involvement was not related to sense of community, or their perception's of the program's impact. Qualitative results supporting these findings will be shared during the presentation.

Implications: The study demonstrates the importance of conservation/community gardening efforts in improving and beautifying distressed communities, particularly in increasing civic engagement and conservation practices. The study also contributes to limited research on community interventions (Author, in press).