Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Review Article
The development of a model of community garden benefits to wellbeing
Victoria Egli
a,
⁎,MelodyOliver
b
, El-Shadan Tautolo
c
a
Faculty of Health and Environmental Sciences, AUT University, Auckland, New Zealand
b
Human Potential Centre, AUT Millennium Campus, AUT University, New Zealand
c
Centre for Pacific Health and Development Research, Faculty of Health and Environmental Sciences, AUT University, New Zealand
abstractarticle info
Article history:
Received 29 February 2016
Received in revised form 13 April 2016
Accepted 20 April 2016
Available online 21 April 2016
Community gardens contribute to community wellbeing by influencing the nutritional and social environment.
The aim of this research was to develop a model thatcommunicates the manybenefits of community gardenpar-
ticipation as described inthe academic literature, to a diverse audience of laypersons. This model is an exampleof
effectiveknowledge translation becausethe information is able to be morethan simply understoodbut also prac-
tically applied. From April to August 2015, a model depicting the many benefits of community garden participa-
tion was prepared based on a global, critical literature review. The wellbeing benefits from community garden
participation have beengrouped into factorsinfluencing the nutritional health environment and factors influenc-
ing the social environment. The graphic chosen to form the basis of the model is a fractal tree of life. In October
2015, to test the models comprehension and to obtain stakeholder feedback this model was presented to a di-
verse group of community members, leaders and workers from the Tāmaki region of Auckland, New Zealand.
The model we present here effectively and clearly translates knowledge obtained from the academic literature
on the benefits to wellbeing from community garden participation into a tool that can be used, adapted and de-
veloped by community groups, government agencies and health promoters.
© 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Keywords:
Knowledge translation
Community
Gardens
Wellbeing
Health promotion
Contents
1. Introduction.............................................................. 348
2. Methods................................................................ 349
3. Results................................................................. 349
4. Discussion............................................................... 351
4.1. Limitations............................................................ 352
4.2. Futuredirections......................................................... 352
4.3. Letusknowhowyouuseit.................................................... 352
5. Conclusion............................................................... 352
Conflictofinterest.............................................................. 352
Acknowledgements ............................................................. 352
References.................................................................. 352
1. Introduction
Community gardens are sections of land collectively gardened for
the specific purpose of growing fruits, vegetables and/or herbs for self-
consumption; and include allotments, school gardens as well as
teaching/demonstration gardens. Contemporary community gardens
first became widespread across the United Kingdom, Europe and
North America during the First and Second World Wars to supplement
war-time food shortages (Ginn, 2012). These gardens played an impor-
tant role innational food security, by supplementing rations and provid-
ing essential nutrients that were unable to be otherwise supplied by the
food environment of the time(Buckingham, 2005). Community gardens
today are often established by volunteers in the hope they will function
as alternatives to the current food environment, providing
Preventive Medicine Reports 3 (2016) 348–352
⁎Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: vegli@aut.ac.nz (V. Egli), meoliver@aut.ac.nz (M. Oliver),
dtautolo@aut.ac.nz (E.-S. Tautolo).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2016.04.005
2211-3355/© 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Preventive Medicine Reports
journal homepage: http://ees.elsevier.com/pmedr
opportunities for food and income generation and for urban residents to
engage in outdoor physical and social activities.
Wellbeing is a multidimensional construct that is becoming an in-
creasingly popular measure for health promoters, government agencies
and academics as an indicator of societal contentedness and population
progress. Wellbeingis more than the absenceof disease; it encompasses
optimal physical and mental functioning with resilience, positive emo-
tional experiences and overall life satisfaction (Huppert and So, 2013).
Wellbeingis important to consider in the context ofcommunity gardens
because while wellbeing may not be the intended end goal of commu-
nity gardens, many of the outcomes of community garden participation
positively influence wellbeing.
Community gardens often occupy spaces of contested land use
(Schmelzkopf, 1995) and are commonly run by layperson volunteers.
Community gardens regularly require advocacy to secure funding
needed for garden establishment and expansion, when obtaining or
reobtaining permission for land use and in the face of public opposition
(Schmelzkopf, 2002; Staeheli et al., 2002). Many articles on the health
and social benefits of community garden participation have been pub-
lished in the academic literature. To date this information has not
been summarised in a form that effectively communicates the key mes-
sages to a wide audience of laypersons.
This research involved the development of a model that succinctly
summarises the key findings from the literature. This model is an exam-
ple of effective knowledge translation, where large quantities of aca-
demic research have been synthesised into an attractive format
applicable for use and adaptation by community groups, health pro-
moters and government agencies.
2. Methods
A literature review was conducted using the following databases:
MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus and PsycINFO with the keywords ‘commu-
nity garden*’;‘allotment*’;‘school garden*’and ‘teaching garden*’.In
order to prevent publication bias, manual searches of references lists
were also carried out. Only articles that had undergone peer-review
were selected. Articles were excluded if they related to soil contamina-
tion and/or plant health, or were not published in English. Conference
abstracts, dissertations, letters, and books were excluded, however ref-
erence lists of these information sources were checked for additional
relevant publications. Searches were not restricted by date of
publication.
Articles were read by the corresponding author and themes identi-
fied. Themes were grouped initially into two tiers: (Ginn, 2012)major
themes (i.e. these themes included concepts that were multidimen-
sional e.g. food security, healthy body weights, and physical activity)
and (Buckingham, 2005) minor themes (i.e. these themes included spe-
cific concepts that, while complex, contributed to a major theme e.g. the
economic benefits (minor theme) of community garden participation,
receiving fruits and/or vegetables at little to no financial cost, can con-
tribute to better food security (major theme) for the individual, their
family and the community overall). What emerged from the grouping
of themes were two distinct sets of major and minor themes. To encap-
sulate both sets of themes and to place them within an environmental
context the following descriptive terms were chosen, the nutritional
health environment and the social environment. Decisions on wording
and grouping of themes occurredwith advice and guidance from thead-
ditional authors.
For graphical representation, searches were conducted for nature or
garden related images that could be modified into a diagram depicting
the benefits to wellbeing from participation in community gardens. A
range of sources was examined including: art and graphic design print
media available in theAuckland City Library and AUT University Library
collection, as well as photographs, infographics, and flow-charts publi-
cally available on social media and through Internet search engines.
The criteria for choosing the final graphic were: nature or garden
themed, eye-catching, and able to be understood by a wide lay audience
without the need for accompanying text.
To test comprehension and to obtain stakeholder feedback a black
and white version of the model was presented to a diverse group of
community members in the East Auckland Region of Tāmaki New
Zealand in October 2015. 24 stakeholders comprising community, reli-
gious, and cultural leaders, members of local community gardenorgani-
sations, local council representatives and community health workers.
Tāmaki was chosen as an appropriate location to test the model's com-
prehension, as it is young and culturally diverse with a high level of en-
gagement and participation in existing community projects. Two of the
three authors
a,c
have ties to the community.
3. Results
Articles meeting the inclusion criteria were read by the lead author
and grouped inductively into themes. The themes were not
predetermined but arose from the literature. A table of themes includ-
ing how the major and minor themes are grouped can be seen in
Table 1. The main themes included: healthy body weights, physical ac-
tivity, food security, ownership and pride, urban beautification and
community cohesion. The minor themes, where there was a contribu-
tion to each of the major themes was grouped as follows: fruit and veg-
etable consumption (Alaimo et al., 2008; Hanbazaza et al., 2015; Litt
et al., 2011) and the influence of social networks (Zick et al., 2013)
into healthy body weights; nature contact (Maller et al., 2006)andreg-
ular movement (Park et al., 2014) into physical activity; economic ben-
efits (Litt et al., 2011; Wang et al., 2014) and shortened supply chains
(Wang et al., 2014) into food security; crime reduction and decreased
stress (Art McCabe, 2014) into ownership and pride; civic engagement
(Saldivar-Tanaka and Krasny, 2004) and political activism (Litt et al.,
2011) into urban beautification; and cultural identity (Graham and
Connell, 2006; Li et al., 2010) and shared goals and experiences
(Buckingham, 2005) into community cohesion.
Of the graphics that met the aforementioned inclusion criteria im-
ages based on trees and spirals were selected.Trees form an appropriate
skeleton for this model as they are both nature and garden themed and
easily recognisable globally. Spirals effectively symbolise infinite recur-
sion and commonly occur in nature (e.g., pinecones, snails, sunflowers).
The graphic chosen to base the model on was the fractal Tree of Life, es-
sentially combining both trees and spirals.
The term community gardens were placed on the trunk of thetree to
form the foundation ofthe branches of benefit to wellbeing. The two de-
scriptive terms, the nutritional health environment and the social
Table 1
Grouping of major and minor themes that arose from the literature.
Major theme Minor theme Reference
Nutritional Health Environment
Healthy body
weights
Fruit and vegetable
consumption
Alaimo et al., 2008; Hanbazaza et al.,
2015; Litt et al., 2011
The influence of social
networks
Zick et al., 2013
Physical
activity
Nature contact Maller et al., 2006
Regular movement Park et al., 2014
Food security Economic benefits Litt et al., 2011; Wang et al., 2014
Shortened supply
chains
Wang et al., 2014
Social Health Environment
Ownership and
pride
Crime reduction Art McCabe, 2014
Decreased stress Art McCabe, 2014
Urban
beautification
Civic engagement Saldivar-Tanaka and Krasny, 2004
Political activism Litt et al., 2011
Community
cohesion
Cultural identity Graham and Connell, 2006; Li et al.,
2010
Shared goals and
experiences
Buckingham, 2005
349V. Egli et al. / Preventive Medicine Reports 3 (2016) 348–352
environment, divide the left and right sides of the tree and its associated
branches. The major themes are situated on the innermost branches of
the tree and the minor th emes on the outermost branch es. Small images
were inserted in-between the branches to visually depict the ideas
associated with the nearby text, thereby increasing the eye-catching ap-
peal and overall comprehension of the image by layperson audiences.
The term wellbeing was placed in the centre at the top of the tree, in
the position where the sweetest fruit is often harvested.
The feedback received from the meeting was overwhelmingly posi-
tive. Community members noted that the model was easily understood
and visually appealing but having an option to use a colour version
would be ideal. Members from the various community garden organisa-
tions expressed delight at having a graphic they could use in applica-
tions for funding and the members of the local council noted that the
many and varied benefits to wellbeing form community garden partic-
ipation was clearly conveyed.A selection of comments that captured the
key themes and sentiments expressed by attendees at the community
meeting can be seen in Table 2.
The model can be easily reproduced in both colour and black and
white and adapted to best suit the cultural context of the intended audi-
ence. The text is easily translatedinto other languages, and the font size
can be adjusted to fit neatly within the branches. Every effort was taken
to ensure the small images within the tree were suitable for use in a va-
riety of diverse contexts. However to increase feelings of ownership of
the model and to aid comprehension in different cultural contexts
these images can be changed to better appeal to the intended audience
e.g. varieties of fruits and vegetables can be replaced with the most
Fig. 1. Model of community gardens and wellbeing, black and white.
Table 2
A selection of comments received at the community meeting.
Comment Made by
“Thank you for including us in the process of developing this
valuable community resource.”
Community
Member
“I can see us using this model in all our future (funding)
applications.”
Community Garden
Member
“I like that you have included these images (points to
traditional New Zealand vegetables, stars from the New
Zealand flag and the icon of the New Zealand Silver Fern),
it makes us feel like this model is ours.”
Community Leader
“Looking at this (the model) makes me feel like all the hard
work I do in the garden is really doing good for the whole
community, not just putting food on my plate.”
Community Garden
Member
“I never knew there were so many benefits to come out of
community gardens.”
Local Council
Representative
“Can I have a copy of this (the model) to take with me
today? I'd like to show (other community members) who
weren't able to come today.”
Community Worker
350 V. Egli et al. / Preventive Medicine Reports 3 (2016) 348–352
common fruits and vegetables consumed by the target audience and/or
those grown in local community gardens. The final version of the model
can be seen in Figs. 1 and 2 (black and white and colour versions, re-
spectively). Table 3 depicts a sample of suggestions on using the
model in a variety of settings.
4. Discussion
Clearly conveying complex messages are a challenge for public
health and graphical models can be useful tools for accomplishing this.
This is the first time that the benefits to wellbeing from community gar-
den participation has been presented in a model suitable for use by
community groups, health promoters and government agencies alike.
For knowledge translation to be effective in the field of public health,
it must move beyond simple synthesis and dissemination and incorpo-
rate elements of actual use of that knowledge (Straus et al., 2009). This
model accomplishes this by being a tool for both bottom-up advocacy
actions and in aiding the top-down decision-making process.
Key priority areas for many health agencies at present are physical
activity, healthy body weights and food security (Mendis et al., 2014).
This research clearly portrays how these are affected by participation
in community gardens and how they, combined with social benefits of
Table 3
Suggestions for how to use the model.
Adapt it Example
Change the colour scheme. If a community group has a logo or set of colours
normally associated with it, change the colour of
the model to match.
Change the images. Change the vegetables to those most commonly
grown in the community garden; or add photos
from the community garden and wider
community in place of some/all of the smaller
images.
Change the language of the text. If English is not the primary language spoken in
a community, use a translator to help modify
the text.
Include it Reason
Add the model to funding
applications and official
letters.
Show providers and authorities, clearly and
simply, the benefits that have been shown to
come from community gardens.
Show the model at community
meetings.
Help garner support for local community
gardens, encourage participation and
acceptance by highlighting the benefits that
come from community gardens.
Fig. 2. Model of community gardens and wellbeing, colour.
351V. Egli et al. / Preventive Medicine Reports 3 (2016) 348–352
community cohesion, urban beautification and ownership and pride,
contribute to overall wellbeing.
4.1. Limitations
There are limitations to the final design chosen and the final wording
of the themes. The connections between specific concepts, those on the
outer branches, are not clearly communicated, for example nature con-
tact and decreased stress are two themes which have been shown to in-
fluence each other (Kaplan, 1995). However, due to space allocation and
connection to other major themes, they appear on the model as unre-
lated entities located on opposite sides of the tree.
4.2. Future directions
The steps described in the development of this model can be re-
peated for other topics relevant to community health and wellbeing,
where community involvement and effective knowledge translation
would be beneficial.
Globally, school garden programmes are becoming increasingly
popular (Berezowitz et al., 2015). While many of the benefits from
school gardens mirror those of community gardens further research is
needed to create a model specific to school gardens and their influence
on child wellbeing. Children are excellent co-producers of knowledge
and the incorporation of child-participatory research methodologies in
the development and design of such a model would yield novel insights
for governments, schools, teachers, parents, health promoters and child
health researchers interested in the health, development and overall
wellbeing of children.
To accommodate the limitations of displaying connections between
specific concepts, further consideration could be given to modifying the
graphic. However, it is presently unknown in what manner it would be
appropriate to do this without losing other important meanings cur-
rently displayed in the model.
To give a complete picture of community gardens, future research on
factors influencing the successful operation and functioning of commu-
nity gardens could be added to the model and potentially displayed as
roots of the tree.
4.3. Let us know how you use it
Community groups, government agencies, health promoters and
others are invited to use this model, adapt it and document the process.
The authors invite readers to share with them how they used this
model. Was it adapted? What purpose did it serve? What was the out-
come? Please share your experiences with the corresponding author,
using the contact details provided. The documentation and sharing of
the processes and outcomes will ensure that the model of benefits to
wellbeing from community gardens is able to evolve and remain a dy-
namic, useful and purposeful resource for communities globally.
5. Conclusion
There are many benefits to wellbeing from community garden par-
ticipation and the model presented here summarises these benefits as
described in the academic literature and displays them in a model that
was presented and well received by a diverse, layperson audience. The
benefits to wellbeing can be grouped into factors influencing the nutri-
tional health environment and factors influencing the social environ-
ment. This model is an example of effective knowledge translation
and it can be used,adapted and developed by community groups, health
promoters, government agencies and health departments
internationally.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare there are no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgements
We wish to thank to the community of Tāmaki for their honest and
thoughtful feedback on the model. Thanks to Candace Weir, Tara Moala,
Nerissa Henry and Karen Clifford for their assistance and support of
Tāmaki community garden research. We thank Ezra Whittiker-Powley
for the graphic design of the model and the AUT Food Network for pro-
viding the funds for his time. Thanks to Richard Main from Gardens 4
Health, Diabetes Project Trust for his thoughtful insight on the future di-
rections and day-to-day applicability of this model as a useful tool for
advocacy by other community groups.
References
Alaimo, K., Packnett, E., Miles, R.A., Kruger, D.J., 2008. Fruit and vegetable intake among
urban community gardeners. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 40 (2), 94–101.
Art McCabe, J.D., 2014 . Community gardens to fight urban youth crime and s tabilize
neighborhoods. Int. J. Child Health Hum. Dev. 7 (3), 223.
Berezowitz, C.K., Bontrager Yoder, A.B., Schoeller, D.A., 2015. School gardens enhance ac-
ademic performance anddietary outcomes in children. J. Sch. Health 85 (8), 508–518.
Buckingham, S., 2005. Women(re) construct the plot: the regen (d) eration of urban food
growing. Area 37 (2), 171–179.
Ginn, F., 2012. Dig for victory! New histories of wartime gardening in Britain. J. Hist.
Geogr. 38 (3), 294–305.
Graham, S., Connell, J., 2006. Nurtu ring relationsh ips: the gardens of Gr eek and
Vietnamese migrants in Marrickville, Sydney. Aust. Geogr. 37 (3), 375–393.
Hanbazaza, M.A., Triador, L., Ball, G.D., et al.,2015. The impact of schoolgardening on Cree
children's knowledge and attitudes toward vegetables and fruit. Can. J. Diet. Pract.
Res. 76 (3), 1–7.
Huppert, F.A., So, T.T., 2013. Flourishing across Europe: application of a new conceptual
framework for defining well-being. Soc. Indic. Res. 110 (3), 837–861.
Kaplan, S., 1995. The restorative benefits of nature: toward an integrative framework.
J. Environ. Psychol. 15 (3), 169–182.
Li, W.W., Hodgetts, D., Ho, E., 2010. Gard ens, transitions a nd identity reconstruction
among older Chinese immigrants to New Zealand.J. Health Psychol. 15 (5), 786–796.
Litt, J.S.,Soobader, M.-J., Turbin, M.S., Hale, J.W., Buchenau, M., Marshall, J.A., 2011. The in-
fluence of social involvement, neighborhood aesthetics, and community garden par-
ticipation on fruit and vegetabl e consumption. Am. J. Public Healt h 101 (8),
1466–1473.
Maller, C., Townsend, M., Pryor, A., Brown, P., St Leger, L., 2006. Healthy nature healthy
people:‘contact with nature’as an upstream health promotion intervention for pop-
ulations. Health Promot. Int. 21 (1), 45–54.
Mendis, S., Arms trong, T., Bettcher, D., et al., 201 4. Global Status Re port on
Noncommunicable Diseases 2014. World Health Organization.
Park, S.A., Lee, A.Y., Lee, K.S., Son, K.C., 2014. Gardening tasks performed by adults are
moderate-to high-intensity physical activities. Hortic. Technol. 24 (1), 58–63.
Saldivar-Tanaka,L., Krasny, M.E., 2004. Culturing communitydevelopment, neighborhood
open space, and civic agriculture: thecase of Latino community gardens in New York
City. Agric. Hum. Values 21 (4), 399–412.
Schmelzkopf, K., 1995. Urban community gardens as contested space. Geographical Re-
view 364–381.
Schmelzkopf, K., 2002. Incommensurability, land use, and the right to space: community
gardens in New York City. Urban Geogr. 23 (4), 323–343.
Staeheli, L.A., Mitchell, D., Gibson, K., 2002. Conflicting rights to the city in New York's
community gardens. GeoJournal 58 (2–3), 197–205.
Straus, S.E., Tetroe, J., Graham, I., 2009. Defining knowledge translation. Can. Med.Assoc. J.
181 (3–4), 165–168.
Wang, H., Qiu,F., Swallow, B., 2014. Can community gardens and farmers' markets relieve
food desert problems? A study of Edmonton, Canada. Appl. Geogr. 55, 127–137.
Zick, C.D., Smith, K.R., Kowaleski-Jones, L.,Uno, C., Merrill, B.J., 2013. Harvesting morethan
vegetables: the potential weight control benefits of commu nity gardening. A m.
J. Public Health 103 (6), 1110–1115.
352 V. Egli et al. / Preventive Medicine Reports 3 (2016) 348–352
