The Multiple Functions of a Grassroots Community Organization Focused on Developing Community Gardens in a Disadvantaged Neighborhood: A Case Study

Rational: Throughout US history, urban community gardens have been utilized to promote mental health, increase social interaction and provide food to the urban poor. More recently urban community gardens have been touted as an important public health strategy and are being used to transform vacant lots in disadvantaged neighborhood into positive spaces. Given the multiple functions community gardens may play, this paper presents a case study of a grassroots community organization that engages residents to convert vacant lots into community gardens in a disadvantaged neighborhood.

Methods: To understand the multiple functions of community gardens we partnered with a grassroots community organization maintaining four active community gardens in a food desert in a metropolitan city in the southwest. A case study approach was used to understand the function of the organization in its social context and the relationship between participation and health behaviors, well-being, life satisfaction and sense of community, and empowerment. To quantify the relationship between participation and these outcomes an evaluation team comprised of community residents administered 109 surveys between January and April 2012 to resident of zip code where the gardens were located.  ANOVA analyses were conducted to examine mean differences in regular participants (weekly engagement for an average of one year) (N=20), occasional participants (having ever been to the gardens to participate in activities) (N=37), and non-participants (N=51) outcomes. To augment the quantitative data and provide a more comprehensive description of the organizations activities, we conducted a series of interviews with the founder of the organization, participant observations over two years and examined the organizations print materials. A content analysis was performed on all qualitative data and themes were identified.

Results: Statistically significant mean differences were found in regular participants, occasional participants and non-participants, vegetable intake, frequency of moderate exercise, individual, community and organizational empowerment, overall well-being, life satisfaction and sense of community. For example, when planned comparisons were conducted regular participants (M = 5.35, SD = 2.25) reported significantly more vegetable intake than non-participants (M = 3.86, SD = 2.46). Both regular (Individual M= 3.64, SD=.51, Community M=3.40, SD=.76) and occasional participants (Individual M= 3.49, SD=.77, Community M=3.26, SD=.73) had higher sense of community and individual empowerment when compared to non-participants (Individual M= 3.02, SD=.85, Community M=2.81, SD=.71). Lastly, regular participants had significantly higher life satisfaction (M = 3.79, SD = .68) when compared to occasional (M = 3.02, SD = .77) and non-participants (M = 3.03, SD = 1.01). The qualitatively analysis revealed that engagement in community gardens increased participants’ capacity to engage in social change and that during the study period the organization actively engaged in community development.

Implications: The findings of this study suggest that active grassroots community gardens in disadvantaged neighborhood may be able to meet multiple needs including improving health behaviors and over all wellbeing while building a sense of community and empowerment through community development. Turning vacant lot into community gardens is a valuable tool that community practitioners can use to address both individual and structural disparities in disadvantaged neighborhoods.