Dynamic Perspective on Community Engagement in Low Income Urban Neighborhoods: A Case of Urban Community Gardens

Purpose and Background:

Community engagement plays an important role in community development of low income urban neighborhoods (Chaskin et al. 2001). Although community engagement is a dynamic process, mostly linear cause-effect perspective has been used to understand motivation for participation (Ohmer, 2010). Therefore, we are unable to understand the dynamic processes that result in eroding or sustained engagement over time (Fishman et al., 2013; Louis et al., 2005). A community group can collaborate and work together but as internal processes and external environment change the level of engagement also changes (Ostrom, 2000). For programs to be successful, it is essential that community engagement is sustained over time (CDC, 2012). The goal of this study is to understand the processes that result in sustained community engagement within the context of community gardens in a low income urban neighborhood.

Methods:

This study utilizes a novel method, system dynamics modeling to understand the processes that sustain engagement in community gardens. The study was based on a census of community gardens (N= 14) within a low income urban neighborhood. Community gardens literature, theories of collective action and social capital, and other relevant system dynamics models were reviewed to develop an initial Community Garden Sustainability Model (CGSM I). Based on the initial model, data was collected from all the community gardens through key informant interviews and garden reports. The data was analyzed both deductively and inductively to develop a second iteration of the Community Garden Sustainability Model (CGSM II). All the relationships in the model were defined as a set of simultaneous differential equations using Vensim DSS, a system dynamics software. A suite of tests were employed to create a robust model as outlined by Sterman (2000).   

Results:

Several mechanisms were identified in the model as playing a crucial role in sustaining engagement. The development of a core group of leaders was vital for sustaining activities in the midst of high turnover. Trust and reciprocity among the gardeners was important for the functioning of the garden. Gardeners needed to trust others to follow up in commitments, adhere to guidelines and rules of the garden, not harvest others produce, and contributing to the overall maintenance of the garden. One of the most important factors was building partnerships. Community gardeners would rely on various resources including volunteers, money, tools, knowledge, seeds, mulch, and building materials to sustain their garden. Without building partnerships with various local organizations sustaining the garden would be difficult.

Conclusions

This study provides a dynamic perspective on community engagement within the empirical context of community gardens. This has implications for both social work macro practice and research. From a practice perspective it provides insights to the various mechanisms responsible for sustaining community engagement. From a research perspective it shows how a system dynamics approach can be used to study communities from a dynamic and system’s points of view.