best practices in community garden management to address participation, water access, and...

8/18/2019 Best Practices in Community Garden Management to Address Participation, Water Access, and Outreach.pdf

1/27

Best Practices in Community Garden Management to Address

Participation Water Access and Outreach

Abstract

As community gardens expand across the U.S. Extension professionals can support

them not only in horticultural education but also in planning and organization.

Knowledge of community garden management is helpful in this regard. Existing

research focuses on outcomes and criteria for successful gardens but is less clear

about how community gardens work. We use ethnographic methods to examine

community garden management in New Jersey. Spatial and social contexts shape key

issues such as water access participation and horticultural techniques. Extension

professionals can more effectively support community gardens by tailoring their advice

to these contexts.

Luke Drake

Assistant Professor

Department of Geography

California State University Northridge

Northridge California

[email protected]

Laura LawsonProfessor and Chair Department of Landscape Architecture

Dean Office of Agriculture and Urban Programs School of Environmental and

Biological Sciences

Rutgers University

New Brunswick New Jersey

[email protected]

Community gardening has gained significant exposure in recent decades in the U.S.Buoyed by a long history in American cities Bassett 1981 Lawson 2005 community

gardening is currently gaining legitimacy and interest due to its diverse range of

benefits and outcomes. Today it is no longer just an urban activity or something found

only in major metropolitan regions—our recent work has documented community

gardening in all 50 states from large cities to suburbs small towns and even rural

areas Lawson & Drake 2013. Through recreation and exercise access to fresh

vegetables and increased gardening knowledge and civic engagement it touches

people's lives in a number of ways Alaimo Packnett Miles & Kruger 2008 FirthMaye & Pearson 2011 Moore Samuel & Israel 2014 Patel 1991. Taken together

this is a way that people participate directly in food production and community

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/27

development—relevant to Extension professionals in urban suburban and rural areas

across the U.S.

Given the increase in community gardens it is important to better understand the key

issues that affect participation and productivity in them. Best practices in home

gardening and commercial agriculture might not work in the social dynamics and

spatial contexts of community gardens. For example while crop rotation is a simple

technique to manage pests and diseases the arrangement of individually controlled

plots within a collectively managed space makes rotation difficult in community

gardens. Micromanagement of where certain crops can be grown is often not feasible

because gardeners might all grow similar crops because gardeners develop strong

connections to their plots by investing time and effort they may resist moving to other

plots Turner 2011. Recent research has shed light on the ways Extension

professionals can support urban agriculture Oberholtzer Dimitri & Pressman 2014.

Likewise community gardens deserve research attention as unique social andhorticultural spaces that are growing in popularity both for the general public and for

Extension Benson 2014. A better understanding of day-to-day community garden

management would contribute to effective Extension support.

While studies have examined how to start community gardens and the subsequent

outcomes few have evaluated community garden management. Emerging evidence

points to some components of success including sustained gardeners' interest

community engagement and a well-designed space Armstrong 2000 Bradley

Lelekacs Asher & Sherk 2014 Milburn & Vail 2010. Knowledge sharing is important

for starting and sustaining community gardens Loria 2013 while land security is a

long-recognized barrier to garden longevity Schmelzkopf 2002. It is important to

sustain participation but community gardens are more informal than volunteer

programs like Master Gardeners and 4-H Boyd 2004 Rohs & Westerfield 1996

Stone 2009. Our recent large-scale study identified participation as a key garden

management issue Drake & Lawson 2015.

This article extends these contributions by examining key issues in community garden

management. We do so through research on how spatial and social contexts shape the

effectiveness of horticultural techniques in community gardens. Spatially this relates

to internal characteristics such as the juxtaposition of garden plots relative to water

access as well as external factors like the relationships between gardeners and nearby

residents or garden location in urban suburban or rural areas. Socially participation

in both individual and collective work must be balanced for example community

gardeners must tend their own individual plots and also contribute to maintainingpaths toolsheds and other common areas. While food production is often considered

a major goal of gardening participants are often equally or more influenced by


3/27

community development concerns— helping to improve the neighborhood provide

positive social activities engage youth etc. Taken together Extension support should

be tailored to community gardeners' objectives and should respond to the social and

spatial dynamics of community gardens.

Methods and Data

New Jersey offers a representative case given its diversity in community gardenenvironments. Although it has the highest population density in the nation there are

also expanses of suburban sprawl and rural farming communities Hasse & Lathrop

2003. Zoning and government support for community gardens varies widely as 565

local governments exercise autonomy in land use planning through "home rule. "

We located 218 community gardens across these environments. Because there was no

statewide directory we used three survey methods to identify those gardens. We

emailed questionnaires to Extension staff in each county accessed surveys completedby attendees at the 2011 and 2012 New Jersey Community Garden Conference and

searched Internet databases. We do not however assume this is an exhaustive list.

We used qualitative methods—suited for explaining complexity and nuance—to

research the process of community garden management Denzin & Lincoln 2003. We

sampled gardens in three geographic contexts—urban suburban and rural—for

maximum variation and used three data collection methods to ensure triangulation

Table 1. Site observations allowed comparisons of spatial context garden size andshape were examined relative to geographic context and land use. Interviews revealed

key issues addressed across those contexts and questions were asked about the

processes of starting and sustaining gardens along with key challenges and methods

used to address them. Participant observation provided in-depth experience of

management issues and garden dynamics.

Table 1.

Methods and Data

Method Data Sources

13 Site observations and analyses Urban 7 suburban 4 and rural 2 gardens

36 Semi-structured interviewsCommunity gardeners 34 and extension agents2

Participant-observation

Drake worked as community gardener for two

years including one year as garden president andworked in a citywide community garden coalition

for two years. Both co-authors supervised summer

internship programs to observe and assist in

community gardens throughout New Jersey forthree years.

Decision-Making in Community Garden Space


4/27

The social dynamics of community gardens are not just focused on maximizing yields

because objectives often include environmental and community well being Nettle

2014. Furthermore decisions are complicated by the way that gardens are

simultaneously decentralized and communal. Within the grid structure of plots

decisions are typically left to individual gardeners—within the bounds of any existing

garden rules. However community gardeners must also reach consensus on how to

maintain the overall site. Although rules are intended to balance the needs of theoverall garden with those of individual members interpretation can be difficult.

Community gardeners who encourage organic practices for instance may define

those practices differently. As one garden president remarked: "Organic to one person

means just pull stuff off by hand. To another person it means use a plant-based

pesticide. To another person it means don't use Miracle-Gro." These are not trivial

issues however as someone from another garden said "The problem in a community

garden is that if someone sprays and I don't there's drift." Gardening techniques are

not straightforward given this decision-making dynamic and the close proximity ofgardeners.

Built Environments

The built environment around the garden can constrain planting decisions within it.

Urban community gardens are often bordered by tall buildings that reduce full sunlight

hours Figure 1. The ideal for north-south orientation may be affected by neighboring

parcels roads or other features Figure 2. Irregularly oriented and proportioned lots

means that gardeners must carefully consider whether and how to allow tall crops such

as corn or fruit trees. Suburban gardens might not face those same constraints but

they can be limited by automobile-only access Figure 3. Garden size can affect

resource provision for gardeners—small sites may not have enough room to store

sufficient compost and large sites may be challenged by long distances to carry waste

and compost.

Figure 1.

Narrow Community Garden Parcel Bordered by Houses in New Brunswick Photo by

Chantae Moore


5/27

Figure 2.

Four of the 13 Site Plans that Show the Range of Size and Orientation See

acknowledgements for full credits.


6/27

Figure 3.Suburban Community Gardens Might Have Room to Expand. Photo courtesy of

Friends of the East Brunswick Environmental Commission.


7/27

Water Management

Water delivery is a tangible aspect of garden management that links internal and

external contexts. Water must first reach the garden site and once there it must

reliably reach all parts of the garden. Urban gardens built on vacant lots or within

public rights-of-way may not have water meters. In these cases non-profit

organizations and local governments may be able to subsidize the extension of water

mains from nearby structures to service the garden fire departments also use

hydrants to fill rain barrels. Suburban or rural gardens may require digging or drilling

wells. In cases where the garden is between two residential buildings neighbors might

allow gardeners to attach rainwater catchment systems to a house's downspout. Local

regulations though may call for variances or other permits. As such consistency in

watering can be difficult to attain.

Once water is available gardeners must decide how to provide water for all of the

plots. Taps that are obstructed by sheds or other objects or far away from plots make

this simple task of watering plants more difficult. One garden coordinator wanted to

change the location of the tap: "We want to put in a [water] line that goes into the

middle so people don't have to pull the hose out [of the corner]." In her case

gardeners would more easily water their plots through a centrally located tap than one

at the corner of the garden site. Hoses are convenient but can cause damage when

dragged across other gardeners' plots. Solutions range from installing tall stakes

around each plot to keep hoses on the paths to requiring gardeners to use watering

cans. The decision on where to put taps within the site plays a big part in the daily use

of the garden and can affect participation—the assumption being that if people find it


8/27

easier to water their plots they are more likely to participate regularly.

Conversely automated irrigation is an option but gardeners may lose incentive to visit

the garden because it replaces some of their required labor thus reducing social

interaction or regular weeding. It also means there is additional equipment to maintain

which may be beyond gardeners' abilities. An Extension agent remarked on how

irrigation in one of Atlantic City's community gardens became troublesome: "They've

had so many issues here. They've dug down and split [the line] so it flooded.... I would

never do another [irrigation system] it sounds like a great idea but—well they use the

hose itself and fill up the watering cans so I think it's a way better idea." This last point

shows how the spatial context of a garden can influence the social relationships

between community gardeners to which we turn next.

Managing Participation

Community garden management means not only encouraging members to take care oftheir own plots but also to share in the work of maintaining the overall site. Ideally

gardeners help maintain paths compost toolsheds and other shared space and

materials. When gardeners do not participate regularly they detract from the social

environment and can contribute to the spread of weeds pests and diseases.

"Pull" strategies encourage participation through education and social events.

Community gardens across the state host orientations each spring to explain

responsibilities to new members and update returning members. For instance the NewBrunswick Community Garden Coalition fosters camaraderie by hosting workshops and

events that bring together gardeners from across the city. Other strategies used by

garden managers across the state include harvest potlucks which often occur

throughout the year so that gardeners can prepare seasonal dishes to share from food

they grew in their plots. At "seed swaps" gardeners from within the same garden or

across gardens in a city or region share surplus seeds they have saved.

Garden managers use "push" strategies to ensure necessary work is completed.Community gardens require participation in a variety of ways typically by asking

members to contribute to shared work at various intervals for instance weekly

monthly or seasonally. Weekly tasks are minor like picking up trash and organizing

toolsheds. Monthly and seasonal work includes responsibilities like mowing mulching

paths or maintaining infrastructure such as fencing or water taps Figure 4. In some

gardens members contribute a certain number of "volunteer labor" hours over the

course of a season. In these cases there are no official group workdays and gardeners

contribute informally on their own or with other people. Some gardens account for

volunteer hours by asking members to record their time in a ledger located in the

garden shed. The purpose of recording is for garden coordinators to verify that


9/27

members have put in their share of work and also to foster a sense of responsibility

among gardeners who know that their participation will be recorded for others to see.

However some garden coordinators acknowledge that such a system may lead to

conservative estimates because not all gardeners take time to record their entries. A

variation of this system is to specify volunteer hours over each month of the gardening

season rather than a lump sum. In Hopatcong New Jersey many members of a new

community garden fulfilled their yearly volunteer requirements in the first monthbecause of the large amount of work needed to build the site. The management

committee then proposed a monthly volunteering requirement to ensure that site

maintenance was performed on a regular basis throughout the season.

Other sites use rotating work schedules. In this system one or more gardeners assume

all shared work for a given time period and then those tasks would shift to another

group. A garden coordinator in Maplewood New Jersey uses group work days along

with a rotating schedule: "We do two workdays a year—one at the beginning and oneat the end and you have to come. Then I assign everyone a workweek. In that work

week you have to maintain all of the common areas." This way of using just a few

people to maintain the entire site works best in small gardens. In larger sites such as

those with upwards of 100 or 200 plots a grounds committee or scheduled group

workdays are best for shared work. There volunteer labor is crucial for maintaining

large amounts of green waste that can accumulate as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4.

Group Work Days Help to Maintain Shared Areas. Photo by Luke Drake.

When Gardeners Quit: Abandonment


10/27

A more difficult issue comes when individuals abandon their plots. This not only

detracts from the social environment but also contributes to weeds and diseases that

can affect other plots. Garden managers in our study use a variety of techniques to

prevent and handle abandonment:

Deadlines early in the gardening season to make sure members clear their plots

of weeds sow seeds and transplant seedlings to get started in a timely manner

Deadlines to clean up your plot at the end of the season to be able to renew the

next year

Use of "vacation flags" to alert other gardeners that you are away so that others

can harvest and maintain your plot gardeners returning to overgrown plots are

more likely to quit

Reclassifying abandoned plots as "donation plots" for local food pantries or

community centers

Expulsion is seldom used because those people have stopped participating anyway

the more pressing concern is learning if the gardener intends to come back. Indeed

there is often not the conscious decision to stop gardening but instead gardening

becomes less of a priority as the season proceeds. In mid- to late-summer family

schedules get hectic as people go on vacation or juggle multiple work schedules and

childcare—all during the period when frequent garden maintenance is most crucial.

Heat humidity weeds and insects increase the amount of time one needs to spend in

the garden but they can also discourage trips to the garden. Each case though calls

for individual attention and one must not assume these absences are due to lack of

interest. A garden leader in East Brunswick suggests finding out what is going on in

their lives by talking to them in person or over the telephone or by email:

Once known other gardeners can help out with someone's plot if they want to stay or

they can make arrangements to turn it over to someone else.

Outreach

Gardeners often want to engage the community beyond the garden but are not aware

of the different opportunities to do so. In New Jersey there are a variety of techniques

used. Members invite non-gardening neighbors for social events and they alsodistribute food to other locations. They often coordinate efforts to collect gardeners'

surplus food and donate to nearby community centers or food pantries service


11/27

organizations might also obtain garden plots to grow food exclusively for their use. The

following list contains some of these techniques used to engage the community

through food distribution.

Putting surplus food in "donation coolers" near the garden entrance Figure 5 a

designated gardener delivers food on a regular schedule

Setting up a table outside the garden for passersby to take fresh food Figure 6

Selling flowers herbs or compost as a fundraiser or social enterprise

Staff from service organizations e.g. food bank Boy Scouts using garden plots

for their own distribution

Gardeners designating plots that they will plant and harvest separately from their

personal plots and distribute that food exclusively to service organizations such

as senior centers or homeless shelters

Directly engaging the outside community by inviting non-members to participate

and harvest Figure 7

As much as outreach is a way to engage the community beyond the garden many

community gardeners may also have concerns about vandalism and theft. However

while some gardeners opt for fencing as a necessary security measure previous

research has indicated that others consider fences as divisive barriers Drake 2014

Kurtz 2001. We found similar patterns in the research for this article. The community

garden shown in Figure 7 resulted from a deliberate effort by a church in Atlantic City

to provide fresh food for anyone living near the garden including homeless people.

Through gardeners' intensive outreach this garden came to be tended not only by its

members but also by people from the surrounding neighborhood who were not garden

members per se. In contrast some New Brunswick community gardens with fences

suffered from theft. Through interviews gardeners suggested that theft may have

occurred not through maliciousness but by confusion among non-members about the

definition of community garden. That is some passersby may assume that

"community" includes non-gardeners and that it is okay to pick plants. Furthermore

theft may not only come from the outside but can also occur within gardens buildingstrong internal communication and relationships is thus key to mitigate internal theft.

These issues underscore the need for community gardeners and Extension

professionals to conduct outreach so that such objectives and understandings are

clear. Indeed placing food Figure 6 or setting up garden beds outside the fence have

proven to be effective ways to deter theft while maintaining good relations with non-

members living nearby. In suburban and rural community gardens fencing may be

necessary to deter deer and rabbits rather than people. In sum there is no universalanswer to the issue of theft and fencing and as a result the decision to install fencing

is highly context-dependent.


12/27

Figure 5.

Donation Bin Near the Entrance of Morris County Parks Community Garden Photo by

Luke Drake

Figure 6.

Harvested Food Available for Passersby Outside of Cooper Sprouts Community

Garden Camden Photo by Luke Drake

Figure 7.


13/27


14/27

Extension and gardeners to identify watering techniques that are efficient yet

encourage participation. In sum community gardens are as diverse as their locations

but awareness of how they work can help Extension professionals provide support that

works in their socio-spatial environments.

Extension agents' involvement in planning and managing community garden programs

beyond offering technical advice can be a way to build stronger and more meaningful

relationships with community gardeners. Work with community garden associations to

host gardening workshops—hold them in community gardens so the spatial context is

immediately apparent. Work with community gardens on a regular basis to better

understand how Extension knowledge intersects with garden dynamics. Conduct

experiments in community gardens to better understand the effectiveness of various

techniques in those settings. At a statewide scale Extension can facilitate knowledge

exchange by organizing community garden conferences. These activities have all been

done by Extension faculty and staff in New Jersey with positive results. Seeing fromcommunity gardeners' points of view will help bridge Extension expertise and

community concerns more productively.

Conclusions

This article contributes to Extension efforts to support community gardening by

illustrating some of the key issues in community garden management. With community

gardens expanding in urban and suburban areas across the U.S. Extension

professionals are likely to have opportunities to engage with these activities. This

geographical ubiquity calls for understanding the similarities and differences in the

needs and functions of community gardens in these various contexts. Although each

community garden is shaped by its own local context they all share some

characteristics that distinguish them from commercial agriculture and home gardening.

Gardeners working together in close proximity on a voluntary basis present unique

opportunities and challenges that require support suited for this space. By

understanding the social and spatial dynamics of community gardens Extension staff

can more effectively work with community gardeners.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by a New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station Hatch

Grant project NJ84105. The 13 site plans used in our analysis were drawn by Arianna

de Vries Chantae Moore Maria Torres and Frances Turner.

References

Alaimo K. Packnett E. Miles R. A. & Kruger D. J. 2008. Fruit and vegetable intake

among urban community gardeners. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior 40


15/27

94-101.

Armstrong D. 2000. A survey of community gardens in upstate New York:

Implications for health promotion and community development. Health & Place 6 319-

327.

Bassett T. J. 1981. Reaping on the margins: A century of community gardening in

America. Landscape 25 1-8.

Benson M. C. 2014. Exploring Extension involvement in farm to school program

activities. Journal of Extension [On-line] 524 Article 4FEA4. Available at:

http:www.joe.org joe2014augusta4.php

Boyd B. L. 2004. Extension agents as administrators of volunteers: Competencies

needed for the future. Journal of Extension [On-line] 422 Article 2FEA4. Available at:

http:www.joe.org joe2004aprila4.php

Bradley L. K. Lelekacs J. M. Asher C. T. & Sherk J. T. 2014. Design matters in

community gardens. Journal of Extension [On-line] 521 Article 1TOT9. Available at:

http:www.joe.org joe2014februarytt9.php

Denzin N. K. & Lincoln Y. S. 2003. Introduction: The discipline and practice of

qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln Eds. Collecting and interpreting

qualitative materials 2nd ed. pp. 1-45. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Drake L. 2014. Governmentality in urban food production: Following "community"

from intentions to outcomes. Urban Geography 35 2 177-196.

Drake L. & Lawson L. J. 2015. Results of a US and Canada community garden

survey: Shared challenges in garden management amid diverse geographical and

organizational contexts. Agriculture and Human Values 322 241-254.

Firth C. Maye D. & Pearson D. 2011. Developing "community" in community

gardens. Local Environment 166 555-568.

Hasse J. E. & Lathrop R. G. 2003. Land resource impact indicators of urban sprawl.

Applied Geography 232–3 159-175.

Kurtz H. E. 2001. Differentiating multiple meanings of garden and community. Urban

Geography 227 656-670.

Lawson L. J. 2005. City bountiful: A century of community gardening in America.Berkeley: University of California Press.

Lawson L. J. & Drake L. 2013. 2012 Community gardening organization survey.

http://www.joe.org/joe/2014february/tt9.phphttp://www.joe.org/joe/2004april/a4.phphttp://www.joe.org/joe/2014august/a4.php


16/27

Community Greening Review 18 20-41.

Loria K. 2013. Community garden information systems: Analyzing and strengthening

community -based resource sharing networks. Journal of Extension [On-line] 512

Article 2FEA6. Available at: http:www.joe.org joe2013aprila6.php

Milburn L.-A. S. & Vail B. A. 2010. Sowing the seeds of success: Cultivating a future

for community gardens. Landscape Journal 291 71-89.

Moore A. Samuel N. & Israel G. 2014. Improving participation of non-traditional

Extension audiences: The Empower Ocala Garden Project. Journal of Extension [On-

line] 525 Article 5FEA4. Available at: http:www.joe.org joe2014octobera4.php

Nettle C. 2014. Community gardening as social action. Farnham Surrey England:

Ashgate.

Oberholtzer L. Dimitri C. & Pressman A. 2014. Urban Agriculture in the United

States: Characteristics Challenges and Technical Assistance Needs. Journal of

Extension [On-line] 526 Article 6FEA1. Available at:

http:www.joe.org joe2014decembera1.php

Patel I. C. 1991. Gardening's socioeconomic impacts. Journal of Extension [On-line]

294 Article 4FEA1. Available at: http:www.joe.org joe1991wintera1.php

Rohs F. R. & Westerfield R. R. 1996. Factors influencing volunteering in the MasterGardener program. HortTechnology 63 281-285.

Schmelzkopf K. 2002. Incommensurability land use and the right to space:

Community gardens in New York City Urban Geography 234 323-343.

Stone E. 2009. The benefits of community-managed open space: community

gardening in New York City. In L. Campbell & A. Wiesen Eds. Restorative commons:

Creating health and well-being through urban landscapes. General. Technical Reports.

NRS-P-39 pp. 122-137. Northern Research Station: U.S. Department of Agriculture

Forest Service.

Turner B. 2011. Embodied connections: sustainability food systems and community

gardens. Local Environment 16 6 509-522.

Abstract

Marion County Extension created the Empower Ocala Garden project to increase

participation among low-income minority populations and address "food desert"

conditions around its office. The project built trusting relationships created a

community garden for 12 households and provided bi-weekly garden skills trainings.

http://www.joe.org/joe/1991winter/a1.phphttp://www.joe.org/joe/2014december/a1.phphttp://www.joe.org/joe/2014october/a4.phphttp://www.joe.org/joe/2013april/a6.php


17/27

Participation attitudinal changes and knowledge gains were evaluated using pre- and

post-project questionnaires. On average participants attended 53.4% of sessions.

Attitudes improved by 9.82% across four gardening-related indicators while

knowledge increased by 19.57% across eight indicators. Overall the project

successfully engaged new clients positively changed attitudes and knowledge and

may benefit other Extension professionals serving these audiences.

Introduction

As diversity increases in the United States Extension faces a growing challenge to

meet the needs of minority limited-resource and other non-traditional audiences.

Extension programs should achieve parity in the clients they serve University of

Wisconsin 2011 but evidence is scarce. One of the few available studies reports

Hispanic participation in Texas Extension programs to be less than 70% of parity et

al. 2005. Although a less direct measure of involvement respondent attributes from

customer satisfaction surveys and survey data show clients in Florida to be primarily

white non-Hispanic 90% and having some college or more education 70% Galindo-

Gonzalez & Israel 2010. These data support the view that Extension programs serve

mostly a "white middle-class audience" Grogan 1991 p. 1.

Recognizing this need the urban horticulture agent in Marion County Florida

investigated opportunities for developing relevant programming to improve outreach to

non-traditional audiences. The county is largely rural while the county seat Ocala is

urban and densely populated US Census Bureau 2013. Marion County's poverty rate

16.5% is just above the national average US Census Bureau 2013. However the

Extension office is located in an economically depressed area with a poverty level of

over 30%. Several adjacent apartment complexes are Section 8 subsidized housing

managed by the Ocala Housing Authority and residents are disproportionately low-

income and non-white. The area is also designated a "food desert" by the United

States Department of Agriculture characterized by both low income and low access to

healthy foods fruits and vegetables USDA n.d.. These factors presented an

opportunity for Extension to address poverty-related issues faced by residents in its

immediate surroundings and to serve a population not traditionally involved in

programming.

In September 2012 an informal needs assessment was conducted. Two members of

the urban horticulture program visited the apartment complexes adjacent to the office

and interviewed a convenience sample of 20 residents. Interviewees were exclusively

Black with ages ranging from 18 to 70 and represented both genders. Interviewees

were asked what they knew about Extension whether they had any gardening

knowledge or experience and whether they would be interested in participating in a

gardening program. Overwhelmingly interviewees expressed ignorance of Extension


18/27

despite the office being within eyesight general lack of gardening experience and

moderate interest in a gardening program. Observations were also taken about the

potential for home gardening at the complexes where most residents had small but

mainly unused planting areas at their units.

Consequently Marion County Extension developed a community garden program for

neighboring households. Urban community gardens have been conducted with diverse

populations in a variety of environments and can help provide residents of food desert

areas with fresh and healthy foods American Community Gardening Association n.d..

Furthermore the Extension office had a vegetable garden that was difficult to maintain

due to lack of volunteers. Converting that land into smaller plots assigned to individuals

or households could be mutually beneficial and cost-effective Hoorman 2002. Thus

the program's objectives were to create a community garden program that engaged

non-traditional participants low-income minorities provided the gardening training

and experience necessary to grow vegetables at home and increased consumption offresh vegetables by participants.

Program Activities

A program team was formed to implement the Empower Ocala Garden Project

consisting of the urban horticulture agent a horticulture intern and two Master

Gardener volunteers. The team included members with prior experience working with

non-traditional audiences. Its efforts were guided by Rogers' 2003 Diffusions of

Innovations theory particularly the concept of homophilyheterophily and how it

affects diffusion. Homophily suggests that individuals who interact possess similar

traits such as: economic status ethnicity culture education and beliefs. In contrast

heterophily indicates differences in the aforementioned attributes. When Extension

agents and clients are heterogeneous their limited common experiences language

and understanding are barriers to building trust and this impedes social interaction. By

developing familiarity and deepening relationships with target audiences resistance to

participation and change can be reduced.

Based on these concepts project implementation occurred in two phases: 1

generating community interestsupport and relationship building with potential

participants and 2 hands-on training in gardening skills for identified participants.

Phase One: Relationship Building

Phase one was conducted over a 3-month period October to December 2012. As

recommended by Webster and Ingram 2007 substantial time was spent generatingcommunity support and buy-in and relationship building and trust building within the

target audience. This step is usually not needed when working with traditional


19/27

Extension audiences. However trustworthiness of the change agent from the

perspective of the target audience can influence learning and the diffusion of

innovations especially as heterophilous individuals are less trusting of each other

Placek 1975. With greater heterophily Webster and Ingram 2007 recommend that

change agents work to develop trust prior to implementation of the program to ensure

high quality and sustainability.

First to build partnerships with local community organizations program leaders

attended and presented the program at two local churches and contacted apartment

complexes near the Extension office. Two complexes managed by the Ocala Housing

Authority expressed interest in participating. Furthermore the Housing Authority

agreed to promote the program in its monthly newsletter facilitate distribution of

program materials to residents and offer community service hours to entice residents

to participate.

Next an informational meeting was held at the county Extension office. Community

members were invited through the aforementioned channels yet the turnout was quite

low. Attendees suggested that informational flyers and off-site meetings were not

effective ways to stimulate interest. Frequent and regular sessions were also

determined necessary to keep potential participants from exiting the program.

A container gardening session was conducted in November 2012 on-site in the

apartment complexes to generate interest in the project. Twenty residents participated

and seven signed up for garden plots. In December 2012 a holiday crafts session was

held for community members at the Extension office. The turnout was much higher

than the original meeting and additional participants signed up for plots. At that point

the program had successfully identified 12 households for the spring 2013 growing

season.

Through this process program personnel and residents got to know each other

exchange contact information and begin to develop trust. One member of the project

team took the lead as the community liaison and relationships were cultivated through

bi-weekly telephone contact with participants throughout phase one. These

conversations were informal and usually involved thanking the residents for

participating in previous sessions discussing their interest in gardening and soliciting

ideas for the upcoming garden program.

Phase Two: Hands-On Training

Phase two of the program was anticipated to repeat each spring and fall growing cycleand last 4 months February to May and August to November respectively. The

second phase of the program commenced January 2013 at the Extension office.


20/27

Participants attended a planning meeting where they chose garden plots picked

vegetables to grow and drafted rules for participation. Project personnel facilitated

this meeting and deferred to participants in decision-making whenever possible.

Master Gardener volunteers were also present to meet the participants and a team-

building exercise was conducted.

Over the next 4 months participants attended free bi-weekly 15-20 minute training

sessions on gardening skills followed by one-on-one assistance from team members.

Topics included: soil preparation planting garden maintenance composting

harvesting and cooking harvested vegetables. All sessions except the last were

conducted in the gardens and used hands-on teaching methods. Training materials

used with traditional Extension audiences were simplified to suit this audience e.g.

poster boards and pictures instead of PowerPoint presentations consistent with

Hoorman 2002 and Webster and Ingram 2007. Sessions were conducted on

Saturday mornings to accommodate participants' work schedules. A youth-orientedgarden activity was included to promote whole family involvement and to prevent

childcare from being a potential barrier to participation Ingram & Syvertsen 2005.

Participants also had open access and regularly tended their gardens between

scheduled activities.

Maintaining high levels of participation with this audience required an atypical strategy.

At the beginning of phase two all participant households were given a project

schedule for the 4-month growing cycle. Extensive follow-up was also conducted to

maintain participation. One week prior to each session a written letter was mailed to

each household discussing the topic location and time of the activity. However

literacy andor education level made these letters ineffective without follow-up.

Consequently a day before each session the project community liaison called each

participant to provide a verbal reminder. This phone call became an essential step

towards maintaining participation levels but also helped the project team understand

and remove barriers to participation lack of transportation need for childcare etc.

while building trusting relationships with participants.

Program Evaluation

Phase two also included evaluation to help identify and address challenges to program

delivery and to allow for improvements in subsequent project iterations. Thus the level

of inclusion of non-traditional Extension audiences and impacts on project participants

during the spring 2013 growing cycle. Vegetable consumption was not measured due

to unavailability of data. The resulting evaluation objectives were to:

1. Measure participation by non-traditional Extension audiences

2. Evaluate attitude changes related to vegetable gardening and


21/27

3. Evaluate knowledge changes related to vegetable gardening

Methods

The team identified indicators and measurable variables for each objective Table 1

and designed appropriate evaluation tools Rossi Lipsey & Freeman 2004. For

Objective 1 participation was measured through sign-up sheets provided at the project

planning meeting and the six training sessions. Data were included for eachparticipantfamily.

Table 1.Project Evaluation Framework

Objective Indicator Variable

Participation by non-traditional

Extension audiences Obj1

Program participant

households are identified

in sufficient numbers to

assign to each of the 12

plots

Program participants

regularly attend and

participate in vegetable

gardening sessions

Participant Attrition Rate

Participant Attendance

Rate

Attitude changes related to

vegetable gardening Obj2


develop an interest in

gardening

Attitude about Vegetable

Gardening

Attitude about Growing

own Vegetable GardenProgram participants


gardening at home andor beyond the program

Attitude about Growing

own Vegetable Garden at

Home



incorporating healthy

vegetables into their diets

Attitude about Eating

Garden Vegetables at

Home

Knowledge changes related to

vegetable gardening Obj3


increase their knowledge

of small-scale vegetable

production

Knowledge of Preparing

Garden Soil

Knowledge of Composting

Knowledge of Planting

Vegetable Gardens

Knowledge of Controlling

Bugs and Pests

Knowledge of Maintaining

Vegetable Gardens

Knowledge of Garden

Observations and Note-Taking

Knowledge of Cooking

Garden Vegetables


22/27


increase their knowledge

of the nutritional value of

fresh vegetables

Knowledge of Importance

of Fresh Vegetables to

Health

Objectives 2 and 3 evaluated multiple indicators. Attitudinal indicators included

opinions of vegetable gardening the importance of fresh vegetables to health and

intentions to garden at home as a result of the program while knowledge indicators

focused on the specific gardening topics. The simple pre-post study method was

selected which gathers pre- and post-project data to assess gains made on

knowledge and attitudinal indicators over the course of the program Ary Jacobs

Sorensen & Razavieh 2009 Rossi et al. 2004. As such the pre-test was given to

participants at the planning meeting in January 2013 while the post-test was

completed following the final training session in May 2013. Participant attrition and

non-response led to a sample size of n=10 for this data set.

The one-page written instrument was developed in collaboration with an evaluation

specialist. The instrument included a single question to assess each of the evaluation

variables Table 1. Respondents were asked to rank their answers along a balanced

five-point Likert-type scale Ary et al. 2009. Likert-type scales are effective at

quantifying attitudes and knowledge Kellogg Foundation 2004 and are less

intimidating and confusing to respondents of varying education levels and experience

with evaluation Dillman Smyth & Christian 2009 Tourangeau & Rasinski 1988.

Data from Objective 1 were analyzed by determining the attrition level of participants

over the course of the program. Twelve plots were deemed a manageable number to

pilot the project with future adjustments based on program success. Attrition was

quantified by the percentage of the original 12 households still involved in the program

by the final training session. Participation percentages for each session were also

calculated to determine levels of and trends in participation at various points during

the program.

To analyze data from Objectives 2 and 3 participants' attitudes and knowledge scores

from the pre-test and post-test were compared Rossi et al. 2004. Participants rated

their attitudes on four attitudinal questions and their knowledge about a series of eight

gardening topics along a five-point Likert-type scale Dillman et al. 2009 Rossi et al.

2004. A score of one represented very negative attitudes or very low knowledge

levels while a score of five represented very positive attitudes or very high knowledge

levels.

An overall index and the means for each of these questions were computed from both

the pre- and post-test to allow for comparison. Changes in the mean responses were

calculated to show the impacts of the program for each variable. Percent change was


23/27

also determined to help present level of impact. Finally paired t-tests were conducted

at =0.1 to test the statistical significance of observed differences Agresti & Finlay

2008. This alpha level is recommended for low sample sizes that may lack statistical

power Noymer 2008.

Results

Attrition rates for the program were low 8.3%. Only one of the 12 participants left theprogram. Special accommodations were made for this participant by the addition of a

wheel-chair accessible bed although transportation and health problems made her

continuation impossible. All remaining participants expressed the desire to continue in

the fall growing cycle and requested a summer component be added to the program.

The participants had also begun to discuss the program in their apartment complexes

and recruited neighbors to the program.

Despite ongoing interest in the program attendance rates were moderate. The averagenumber of participant households at any given session was 6.43 of 12 or 53.6% of

the total group. Familywork obligations and transportation issues were frequently

cited reasons why participants were unable to attend sessions. On average

participants attended 3.75 of the 7 sessions 53.4% although this number increased

to 4 of 7 57.1% when the participant that was unable to continue was removed from

the calculations. It should be noted that all participants visited their plots between

sessions as determined through observations by Extension personnel.

Table 2.

Attitude Changes Related to Gardening

Attitudes about…Pre-Test

Mean

Post-Test

Mean

Mean

Change

%

Change

P-Value

=0.1

Vegetable Gardening 4.50 4.90 +0.40 +8.89% 0.0519

Growing own Vegetable

Garden4.70 4.90 +0.20 +4.26% 0.0839

Growing own VegetableGarden at Home 4.00 4.50 +0.50 +12.50% 0.1494

Eating Garden Vegetables at

Home4.40 5.00 +0.60 +13.64% 0.0119

Total: 4.40 4.83 0.43 +9.82% 0.0041

Participants entered the program with very positive attitudes about the four indicators

and the overall mean attitude was 4.40 out of 5. Despite the high initial scores mean

responses did improve. Indeed results from the post-test show positive changes in

participants' overall attitudes and for all four variables. The overall mean increase was

9.82% while the individual increases ranged from 4.26% to 13.64%. Even with high

initial scores statistically significant changes were found in overall attitudes and


24/27

attitudes about vegetable gardening growing one's own vegetable garden and eating

garden vegetables at home. Only attitude changes related to growing a home

vegetable garden were not statistically significant.

Table 3.Knowledge Changes Related to Gardening

Knowledge about…Pre-Test

Mean

Post-Test

Mean

Mean

Change

%

Change

P-Value

=0.1

Preparing Garden Soil 3.10 3.90 +0.80 +25.81% 0.0349

Composting 2.80 3.30 +0.50 +17.86% 0.1222

Planting Garden Vegetables 3.30 3.90 +0.60 +18.18% 0.1394

Controlling Bugs & Pests 2.80 3.10 +0.30 +10.71% 0.2799

Maintaining Vegetable

Gardens3.20 4.00 +0.80 +25.00% 0.0519

Garden Observations & Note-

Taking2.60 3.70 +1.10 +42.31% 0.0242

Cooking Garden Vegetables 4.00 4.50 +0.50 +12.50% 0.1611

Importance of Fresh

Vegetables to Health4.80 5.00 +0.20 +4.17% 0.0839

Total: 3.33 3.93 +0.60 +19.57% 0.0003

Participants initially reported a slightly above average 3.33 knowledge of gardening

topics. However closer analysis showed a wide range of knowledge and often bipolar

distribution suggesting that some participants had prior gardening experience while

others had none. Following participation mean knowledge scores all showed positive

changes. Overall participant knowledge increased by 19.57% and was statistically

significant. Changes among the individual indicators were also sizable with some

increasing by up to 42.31%. These improvements suggest the program had a major

impact on the gardening knowledge of participants. Statistically significant changes

occurred in knowledge of preparing garden soil maintaining vegetable gardens

garden observationsnote-taking and the importance of fresh vegetables to health.

Discussion

The Empower Ocala Garden Project is an example of an Extension program that

successfully engaged new clients from a low-income minority population and positively

changed attitudes and knowledge while team members gained a level of satisfaction

from their involvement. Consequently the following lessons learned may be beneficial

to Extension professionals seeking to better serve these audiences.

First engaging non-traditional Extension audiences requires significantly more efforttime and resources than with traditional audiences. Attention to relationship building

and trust building communication and barriers to participation is critical. Allotting time


25/27

for trust building is particularly beneficial Webster & Ingram 2007. For example the

first few months of this project included non-horticultural activities to establish

relationships with participants before the gardening activities.

Project teams should consider ways to develop homophily by including minority

members or those with experience working with non-traditional Extension audiences

Rogers 2003. It is also helpful to designate a community liaison to facilitate

communication and recruitment to sessions. This expedites familiarity and trust

building allows consistency in contact and helps boost participation. In this case

although the project team and audience served were mostly heterogeneous this did

not impede the success of the program.

Recruitment to sessions may also be different for this audience. Whereas traditional

Extension programs are advertised through indirect marketing email social media or

local newspapers these means did not adequately reach low-income participants.

Instead direct or personal contact by phone or face-to-face proved to be effective for

communication and recruitment to Extension sessions Guion 2005. Similarly

attempts to get participants to pre-register for sessions failed. This was attributed to

lack of comfort contacting the Extension office as participants preferred to

communicate through the community liaison with whom trust had already been built.

Despite the challenges teaching low-income minority audiences can be successful if

programs are designed appropriately. Early success is important to achieving

attitudinal and knowledge gains and it is recommended that programs serving similar

audiences have mechanisms that protect against failure Rogers 2003. In this case

the data demonstrated that attitudes improved as participants had success with their

gardens. Correspondingly these positive attitudes helped knowledge increase

especially among participants without prior gardening experience. Thus there is an

opportunity for Extension to positively affect the lives of non-traditional audiences and

a desire by these audiences to be served.

Non-traditional audiences may also require extra attention to the appropriateness of

materials and teaching methods. Using simple non-technical language in

correspondence and during educational activities is necessary to serve clients with a

range of educational backgrounds Hoorman 2002. During meetings and trainings

team members interjected to simplify any confusing terms. Also because participants

are often more hesitant to ask questions than traditional Extension audiences it is

essential to include check-for-learning activities to indicate whether additional

explanation of the material is required.

Finally it is important to highlight the program benefits of greatest importance to

participants to encourage participation Guion 2005 Rogers 2003. Knowles Holton


26/27

and Swanson 2005 identified that learners are motivated primarily when information

is tangibly important and relevant to their lives. As such participants in the Empower

Ocala Garden Project reported food costs savings as their primary motivation whereas

traditional Extension audiences may be motivated by other factors.

Overall the Empower Ocala Garden Project successfully met its objectives and

provided an effective and educational Extension experience to non-traditional

participants in Marion County. Although further research may be required to fully

understand the successes and challenges of serving these audiences the experiences

and lessons learned have the potential to benefit other Extension professionals who

use and modify this model.

References

Agresti A. & Finlay B. 2008. Statistical methods for the social sciences 4th ed..

New York NY: Pearson Publishing.

American Community Gardening Association. n.d.. Community gardening . Retrieved

from: http:www.communitygarden.orglearn

Ary D. Jacobs L. Sorensen C. & Razavieh A. 2009. Introduction to research in

education. Belmont CA: Wadsworth.

Dillman D. Smyth J. & Christian L. M. 2009. Internet mail and mixed mode surveys:

the tailored design method . New York NY: J. Wiley.

Galindo-Gonzalez S. & Israel G. D. 2010. The influence of type of contact with

Extension on client satisfaction. Journal of Extension [On-line] 481 Article 1FEA4.

Available at: http:www.joe.org joe2010februarya4.php

Grogan S. 1991. Targeting audiences for the 21st century. Journal of Extension [On-

line] 294 Article 4FUT1. Available at: http:www.joe.org joe1991winterfut1.php

Guion L. A. 2005. Personal marketing: A strategy for marketing to diverse audiences.

Utah State University Extension. Retrieved from:

http:extension.usu.edudiversityfilesuploadsPersonalMarket1105.pdf

Hoorman J. J. 2002. Engaging minority and culturally diverse audiences. Journal of

Extension [On-line] 406 Article 6TOT2. Available at:

http:www.joe.org joe2002decembertt2.php

Ingram P. D. & Syvertsen A. K. 2005. Hearing their needs: Voices of the

underrepresented. Journal of Extension [On-line] 435 Article 5FEA1. Available at:

http:www.joe.org joe2005octobera1.php

http://www.joe.org/joe/2005october/a1.phphttp://www.joe.org/joe/2002december/tt2.phphttp://extension.usu.edu/diversity/files/uploads/PersonalMarket1105.pdfhttp://www.joe.org/joe/1991winter/fut1.phphttp://www.joe.org/joe/2010february/a4.phphttp://www.communitygarden.org/learn/


27/27

best practices in community garden management to address participation, water access, and...

Documents