RESEARCH ARTICLE

A Dietary, Social and Economic Evaluation of the Philadelphia Urban Gardening Project

DOROTHY BLAIR, I CAROL C. GIESECKE, I AND SANDRA SHERMAN2

lNutrition Department, College of Health and Human Development, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802; and 2National Child Nutrition Project, 1501 Cherry St.,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106

ABSTRACT To evaluate the Philadelphia Urban Garden­ing Project, 144 gardeners were selected from a stratified ran­dom sample of garden sites throughout the city. Sixty-seven non-gardening controls were selected from the neighborhoods surrounding these sites. Data collected during home or garden interviews included demographic variables, food frequencies and dietary habits, measures of life satisfaction, and neighbor­hood involvement. The yield of 151 garden plots was assessed and the economic value calculated, based on retail produce prices. Garden sites yielded an average of $160 worth of pro­duce. Gardeners ate 6 out of 14 vegetable categories signifi­cantly more frequently, and milk products, citrus, sweet foods and drinks less frequently. Except for citrus, the reduced gar­dener consumption remained significant when other key var­iables were controlled. Gardening was positively associated with community involvement and life satisfaction.

IJNE 23:161-167, 1991)

INTRODUCTION

An estimated one million households are involved an­nually in community gardening in the U. S. (1). Intui­tively, gardening projects would seem to be a potent tool for improving dietary quality, especially vegetable con­sumption. However, there is little concrete data to test this assumption. Brownrigg's review of the existing in­formation on gardening projects in international settings and in the U. S. shows that little information exists on nutritional, social and economic outcomes, although these have been assumed to be favorable (2). No systematic or detailed evaluation of aU. S. community gardening proj­ect can be found in the literature.

If diet is positively affected by gardening, then im­proving access to gardening could provide nutrition ed­ucators with an alternative to traditional methods of im-

Address for correspondence: Dorothy Blair, Ph. D., S-125C Health and Human Development Building, Nutrition Department, Penn State University, University Park, PA 16802; (814) 863-2912. 0022-3182/91/2304-0161$03.00/0 © 1991 SOCIETY FOR NUTRITION EDUCATION

161

proving dietary behavior. Where low income is a barrier to following nutritional advice, gardening could possibly be an empowering component of a nutrition intervention strategy.

This report describes a study of the dietary, social and economic correlates of involvement in the Philadelphia Urban Gardening Program. One of the largest gardening projects in the country, this program is sponsored by the Pennsylvania State University Cooperative Extension Service, which provides technical assistance, and the Philadelphia Horticultural Society, which provides soil amendments, water and fencing. Nearly 5000 families, including the urban poor, the elderly, and members of diverse ethnic groups, are involved in local projects at 560 gardening sites, many of which are located in vacant lots.

The study addressed the following types of questions: 1. Dietary; Do gardeners eat more vegetables than non­gardners? If vegetable consumption is increased, are other foods eaten in lesser quantity? Do gardeners use vege­tables differently than do controls? 2. Psycho/social: Why do people garden? How is gardening related to life sat­isfaction and neighborhood involvement? 3. Economic: What is the monetary value of the produce grown? 4. Ethnicity: Are there differences among ethnic groups in the above parameters? Do different ethnic groups obtain different benefits from the gardening experience?

METHODS

Sample selection. The primary sampling unit was the garden site. The 560 garden sites were stratified by pri­mary ethnic group users, location in Philadelphia, num­ber of plots per site, the length of time the garden had been established (between 1 and 18 years), and the num­ber of old and new families using the garden site. A random numbers table was used to select a subsample of 64 garden sites. Individual gardeners at these 64 sites

162 Blair et al. / URBAN GARDENING PROJECT

were either selected randomly from a garden coordina­tor's list when available, or were recruited directly at the garden site. The gardeners were interviewed either in their homes or at their garden site. Control subjects were selected on the same ethnic and geographic criteria as were the gardeners. Intent to garden was the third cri­terion for selecting control subjects, so as to minimize gardener/control differences on factors other than veg­etable access. However, waiting lists for garden plots from which to make random selections proved to be unavailable. Therefore, friends of the gardeners and po­tential gardeners identified by the garden coordinators were selected. Data were collected on 144 gardeners and 67 controls: 40 black gardeners and 21 controls, 40 Ko­rean gardeners and 20 controls, 40 white gardeners and 20 controls, and 24 Hispanic gardeners and 6 controls. The full complement of Hispanic subjects was not ob­tained because of the difficulty of retaining skilled bilin­gual Hispanic interviewers.

Subjects provided informed consent as approved by the Human Subjects Committee of the Pennsylvania State University. Each subject was paid $20 for his or her partici pation.

Interviewer selection and training. Interviewers were selected for their ethnicity, linguistic ability in the cases of the Hispanic and Korean subsamples, familiarity with the neighborhoods, and ability to collect dietary data. Interviewers were trained in data collection techniques and were observed while practicing 3-4 interview sched­ules. Their recorded responses were compared, and more training was provided, if necessary, to improve inter­viewer reliability.

Dietary information. A non-quantitative food fre­quency questionnaire, patterned after the National Nu­trition Health Examination Survey form (3), was used to collect information on 23 categories of vegetables, six categories of fruits, and six other categories of foods con­sumed in the past month. Additional questions were asked about vegetable use in meals. The vegetable cat­egories were later re-categorized into 14 groups based on nutrient content. The collection of quantitative die­tary data was not feasible, as bilingual nutritionists fa­miliar with intercity populations were not available.

Measures of life satisfaction. Two questions from a compendium of tested measures of social psychological attitudes (4) were used to measure subject mood. Two other questions measured the frequency of positive life events.

Garden plot assessment. A horticulturalist evaluated the potential yield of 160 garden plots drawn from the original subsample of 64 garden sites; 100 were the plots assigned to interviewed gardeners and 60 were chosen

randomly. Because recruitment of the gardener subjects was delayed, early harvest yields were not estimated for 100 plots. Garden plots were assessed in July/August and again in September/October 1987. Data on nine gardens was incomplete; thus, 151 plots were characterized by the amounts of different fruits and vegetables grown. As it was not feasible to monitor the actual harvest, each planting was rated for its potential yield on a scale of very good (90% of potential yield) to poor (25% of po­tential yield).

Economic value of gardening. The market value of in­season vegetables and fruits was collected from retail market outlets in the summer and fall of 1987 and 1988. Expected yields per vegetable and fruit species, and in some cases per variety, were calculated from unpub­lished 1986-1988 yield data provided by the Rodale In­stitute (5) and from Jeavons (6). In the few cases where yield data were unavailable, yields per plant were as­sumed to be similar to those of the closest species. The economic value of each vegetable and fruit was calculated as the expected yield/plant X assessed number of plants grown x assessed potential yield (0.90 to 0.25) x 1987-1988 dollar market value. These dollar figures were then summed to obtain the market value of the garden.

Time frame. The survey began in June 1987. All data on garden plots were collected by October 1987. Inter­views of gardeners and controls began in July 1987 and were completed for all but the Hispanic subjects by No­vember 1987. Hispanic interview data were collected in the last quarter of 1988.

Data analysis. All data were analyzed on the Pennsyl­vania State University IBM 3090-400E, using The Sta­tistical Package for the Social Sciences (7). Analysis of variance was used to test for differences between groups, and the Scheffe test was used to test the difference be­tween pairs of ethnic groups. Covariance and multiple regression techniques were used to examine the effects of possible confounding variables on group differences.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Comparison of gardeners and controls. Table 1 pro­vides means and standard deviations or percentages com­paring gardeners, controls, and gardener ethnic groups by age, gender, education and income. The gardeners were older than the controls (p < .001), but there was no significant gender difference between gardeners and controls. Gardeners had a lower mean education by cat­egory compared with the controls (p < .001). Income by category was not significantly different between garden­ers and controls, though gardeners tended to have lower incomes. Overall, the Korean and black gardeners were

J. of Nutr. Educ. Vol. 23, No.4 August 1991 163

Table 1. Demographic information: comparison between gardeners and controls, and among gardener groups (means ± SD or percentages).

(n)

Age Gender (% female) Income categories (%)

<$3000 $3000-7,999 $8000-12,999 $13,000-22,999 >$23,000 Missing

Education Categories (%) <8th grade 9th-11th H.S. grad (or equiv) Some college Bachelor's or grad.

degree

Gardeners (144)

60.3 ± 15.1*** 53.8

6.9 45.1 13.2 11.8 18.1

4.9

26.4 31.3 17.4

6.3 16.7

Controls (67)

Blacks (40)

Gardener Groups

Whites Hispanics (40) (24)

45.5 ± 15.3 64.8 ± 9.7wH 49.9 ± 16.2 50.4 ± 12.9 65.7 67.5K 55.0 62.5

9.0 29.9 14.9 23.9 20.9

1.5

4.5*** 20.9 32.8 14.9 26.8

5.0 42.5 17.5 15.0 10.0 10.0

37.5 37.5 15.0 5.0 2.5

2.5 20.0 17.5 52.5

7.5

2.5 10.0 22.5 10.0 52.5

33.3 33.3 12.5 16.7 4.2

62.5 16.7 16.7

4.2

Koreans (40)

72.2 ± 5.8BWH

32.5

97.5 2.5

17.5 55.0 15.0 7.5 2.5

Missing 2.1 2.5 2.5 2.5

* p < .05; ** P < .01; *** P < .001: F test for means and Chi-square test for categories between gardeners and controls. BlWIHIK (first initials of ethnic groups) indicate significant differences (p < .05) between pairs of groups on Scheffe Procedure (means only).

older than the white or Hispanic gardeners, and Korean gardeners were most likely to be male. By observation, whites had strikingly higher incomes and education than the other gardener groups.

Gardeners were longer-time Philadelphia residents than the non-gardeners (26.3 ± 19.7 years vs. 18.1 ± 13.4 years; p < . OS) and had lived in their neigh­borhoods significantly longer (lS.2 ± 14.2 years vs. 10.4 ± 8.9 years; p < .OS). Consistent with their age, fewer gardeners reported working full time (20.1% vs. 35.8%) and more reported being retired (21.S% vs. 1.5%). Almost equal percentages of gardeners and controls re­ported not working at the present time (39.6% vs. 38.8%), primarily because Korean gardeners of retirement age consistently reported their work status as not working at the present time.

Description of gardeners. Of the sample of 144 gar­deners, 77.8% were cultivating a plot at a community garden and 20.8% were gardening in a vacant lot or space near their home. Fifty-one percent had never gardened before the 1987 season. Gardeners had maintained their garden plot a mean of 4.1 ± 3.0 years, with a range of 1-13 years. A mean of 11. 7 ± 11. 3 hours per week were spent in the garden; 5.6 ± 7.1 of these hours in "heav­ier" work like hoeing, digging, planting or pulling weeds.

On the average, gardeners ate their produce fresh from the garden for 5.0 ± 3.1 months of the year; 9.7% har­vested vegetables for 12 months a year. Food preser­vation was practiced by 62%. Thirty-five percent of the

gardeners had access to a separate freezer where they froze an average of 17.4 ± 27.S pints of produce. The freezer compartment of a refrigerator was used by 47.2% of the gardeners to freeze a mean of 13.0 ± 20.0 pints of produce. Thirty-six percent of the gardeners canned a mean of 16.0 ± 25.3 pints of produce. Twenty-nine percent dried a mean of 4.4 ± lS.3 pint equivalents. Home preserved food was consumed for an average of 7.2 ± 4.2 months per year.

Table 2 shows with whom and how often the gardeners shared their produce. Gardeners were most likely to share their produce with their neighbors and relatives, often on a weekly basis. More than 40% of the gardeners had shared their produce with a church or community organization.

Gardeners were asked in an open-ended question the reasons they gardened and which was the most important reason. Their responses to the latter question were grouped into categories. Recreation (21 %), mental health (19%), physical health and exercise (17%), produce qual­ity and nutrition (14%), spiritual reasons, including con­tact with nature (10%), self expression/self-fulfillment (7%), and cost and convenience (7%) accounted for 9S% of the responses. Even in this predominantly inner city, low income sample the perceived monetary benefits of gardening were outweighed by the perceived positive effects of life quality and health. Nearly S3% of the Ko­rean gardeners named physical health and exercise as primary reasons for gardening, whereas no whites gave these reasons as primary. Twenty percent of the black

164 Blair et al. / URBAN GARDENING PROJECT

Table 2. Frequency of sharing vegetables with others: number of gardeners and (%), N = 144.

Never Sometimes Weekly Daily Missing

Relatives outside 21 (14.6) 85 (59.0) household

Neighbors or friends 7 (4.9) 87 (60.4) Church or community 75 (52.1) 52 (36.1)

groups Passers-by 55 (38.2) 75 (52.1)

and the white gardeners were primarily motivated by the nutritional benefits of gardening, whereas few His­panics and Koreans gave this reason.

The effect of gardening on diet. Tables 3 and 4 report the mean number of times per month that gardeners, controls and gardener groups reported consuming veg­etables, fruits and other foods. Gardeners consumed the following vegetables significantly more frequently than did controls: cole crops (cabbage, broccoli, brussels sprouts, kale, cauliflower, pak choi and a variety of Chinese vegetables), okra and eggplant, sweet and hot peppers, summer squash (zucchini, bitter melon and chayote), tomatoes, and herbs. Other than iceberg let­tuce, celery and fresh salad greens, the gardeners' veg­etable consumption frequency was always slightly higher than the controls.' White gardeners had consumption frequency significantly higher than at least one other ethnic group for eight of the vegetable categories. Korean gardeners had a low consumption frequency for eight of the vegetable categories, in part because the categori­zation used does not reflect Asian eating patterns.

Non-gardeners consumed more fruits than the gar­deners, specifically in the category of citrus fruits and juices. White gardeners consumed more fruits that other groups. Meat, poultry, fish and egg consumption was similar between gardeners and controls. Korean garden­ers consumed animal flesh less frequently than did the other gardener groups. Gardeners consumed less milk products (fluid milk, cheese, ice cream, buttermilk, cot­tage cheese), sweets (cakes, pies, sweet rolls, doughnuts, candy, and chocolate), and sweet drinks (soda, Kool-Aid and punch) than did the controls. Korean and black gar­deners consumed fewer milk products than did the white or Hispanic gardeners, perhaps due to intolerance to the lactose in milk.

The Nationwide Food Consumption Survey data sug­gest that the consumption of dark green and deep yellow vegetables increases with age (8). Controlling for age, the differences shown in Table 3 between gardener and non-gardener vegetable consumption remained signifi­cant, except for the pepper category. Controlling for education increased the significance of the difference between gardener and control consumption of cole crops.

Age and income, but not education, were significantly related to milk consumption frequency. Gardening re­mained a significant predictor of milk consumption after

26 (18.1) 4 (2.8) 8 (5.6)

36 (25.0) 7 (4.2) 8 (5.6) 7 (4.9) 0 10 (8)

4 (2.8) 0 10 (8)

controlling for age and income (r = - 0.225, partial r = - 0.182, P < .01). Controlling for age and education did not affect the significance of the difference in gar­dener and control consumption of sweet drinks (r =

-0.271, partial r = -0.236, p < .01) and only slightly lowered the significance of the difference in consumption of sweet foods (r = 0.264, partial r - 0.171, p < .05). Age explained the difference between gardeners and controls in the frequency of consumption of both total and citrus fruits.

Gardeners and non-gardeners reported similar vege­table eating patterns. There were no differences in how often they ate vegetables cooked as a side dish, in stews and casseroles, raw in salads, or between meals for snacks. However, gardeners were more likely than non-garden­ers to eat vegetables in meatless meals (p < .05). White gardeners were significantly more likely than other groups to eat vegetables raw in salads, and more likely than blacks to eat vegetables between meals and in meatless meals.

Community perceptions and participation. Gardeners were more likely than controls to regard their neighbors as friendly, but were no more likely to regard their neigh­bors as helpful. Gardeners and controls were in close agreement about the conditions in their neighborhoods with regard to vandalism and to cleanliness of public areas and private property.

Gardeners were more likely than controls (p < .001) to participate in food distribution projects, neighborhood cleanups or beautification projects, and neighborhood barbecues and social events. Controlling for the number of years in the neighborhood slightly reduced the sig­nificance of this relationship for participation in cleanups, but had no effect on gardeners' increased involvement in food distribution and social events. Korean gardeners were most likely to distribute food, and black gardeners were more likely than whites or Hispanics to participate in neighborhood cleanups.

Life satisfaction. Table 5 presents the responses to the questions on psychosocial wellbeing and frequency of meaningful life events. Gardeners gave a significantly more positive response than did the controls to each question. There were no significant differences among the gardener groups. Though causality cannot be in­ferred, it appears that those who are involved in gar-

J. of Nutr. Educ. Vol. 23, No.4 August 1991 165

Table 3. Consumption frequencies for vegetable categories: mean number of times per month ± SO. Comparison between gardeners and controls, and among gardener groups.

(n)

Peppers Tomatoes Iceberg lettuce

& celery Peas & beans Cole crops Herbs in quantity

Non-orange root crops

Carrots Okra & eggplant Fresh salad greens

Cooking greens Summer squash Sweet corn Sweet potatoes & winter

squash

Gardeners (144)

26.4 ± 23.4** 21.3 ± 16.7*** 14.6 ± 13.1

14.1 ± 19.2 12.0 ± 15.1* 10.1 ± 17.7***

9.3 ± 10.1

7.8 ± 9.6 5.9 ± 12.1** 5.4 ± 9.0

4.7 ± 7.2 4.7 ± 8.7* 4.5 ± 7.4 3.0 ± 6.0

Controls (67)

16.0 ± 18.9 11.2 ± 11.3 15.3 ± 12.6

11.2 ± 15.3 7.7 ± 7.7 2.7 ± 6.0

9.0 ± 10.2

6.5 ± 8.2 1.7 ± 33.0 7.3 ± 11.5

4.4 ± 7.0 1.9 ± 2.6 3.6 ± 5.4 2.7 ± 4.1

Blacks (40)

13.8 ± 17.2 20.0 ± 10.8 11.4 ± 10.1

16.2 ± 26.5 9.0 ± 8.8

11.7 ± 21.1K

13.3 ± 9.3K

6.4 ± 7.7 11.3 ± 17.9HK

3.9 ± 4.6

9.0 ± 7.7KH

3.7 ± 6.2 7.2 ± 8.4K

3.2 ± 3.4

Gardener Groups

Whites (40)

17.4 ± 17.1 31.5 ± 21.1BHK 17.8 ± 15.6

13.8 ± 12.9 14.5 ± 13.0 19.2 ± 20.2K

12.0 ± 11.0K

11.5 ± 10.1H 6.4 ± 9.8

13.1 ± 13.2BHA

5.6 ± 8.7K

10.5 ± 12.7BHK

4.3 ± 6.7 4.8 ± 9.8K

Hispanics (24)

16.8 ± 13.5 20.3 ± 14.0 12.3 ± 11.2

19.2 ± 20.1 7.2 ± 8.7 8.5 ± 12.4

10.5 ± 8.3k

3.3 ± 6.7 2.5 ± 5.9 2.5 ± 4.9

1.6 ± 5.1 1.2 ± 2.9 5.1 ± 6.7 3.4 ± 4.9

* p < .05; ** P < .01; *** P .0001: F test between gardeners and controls.

Koreans (40)

53.9 ± 15.4BWH

12.9 ± 12.7 16.1 ± 13.5

9.3 ± 14.2 17.5 ± 22.0 0.2 ± 0.9

2.0 ± 7.1

8.3 ± 11.1 2.2 ± 7.6 1.0 ± 1.7

1.3 ± 1.8 2.0 ± 4.9 1.7 ± 6.6 0.6 ± 1.4

BIWIHIK (first initials of ethnic groups) indicates significant differences (p < .05) between pairs of groups by Scheffe Procedure.

Table 4. Consumption frequencies for fruits and other food categories: mean number of times per month ± SO. Comparison between gardeners and controls, and among gardener groups.

(n) Fruits All fruits Deep yellow fruit

Sweet melons Citrus & juices Bananas! plaintains

Apples!pears Other Foods Meats!poultry! fish

Eggs Milk products Sweets Salty-snack

foods

Gardeners (144)

32.7 ± 6.5 ±

26.3 9.5

6.5 16.6

9.5

± 10.5 ± 15.5 ± 11.8

11.6 ±

21.1 ±

13.9 ± 26.0 ± 10.6 ± 7.9 ±

13.6

18.9

12.1 21.2 12.2 11.2

Controls (67)

40.9 6.4

± 27.7* ± 12.7

4.9 ± 21.8 ± 11.3 ±

9.2 21.5' 13.6

10.8 ± 10.6

22.8 ± 19.4

17.5 39.7 24.0 10.3

± 14.0 ± 40.6* ± 36.8" ± 15.9

Blacks (40)

23.7 ; 24.9 10.8 ± 11.2K

11.1 12.6 10.9

± 11.9K

± 12.7 ± 13.3

10.8 ± 11.1

21.7 ± 8.2K

13.8 ± 18.2 ± 8.9 ± 4.4 ±

11.0 21.6 10.6 7.2

Sweet drinks 18.3 ± 21.3 35.6 ± 39.6'" 21.9 ± 25.3w

Gardener Groups

Whites Hispanics (40) (24)

53.3 ± 9.1 ±

32.6BHK

10.7K

8.2 21.6 14.1

± 10.3K

± 14.7K ± 13.9K

21.2 ± 17.3BHK

32.2 ± 26.3BK

± 10.9 9.6 36.2 ± 13.2 ±

11.13 ±

21.0BK 13.9 13.8

9.1 ± 11.5

26.8 ± 5.6 ±

16.0 6.4

± 12.2 5.7 24.7 ±

8.8 ±

5.9 ±

19.5BK

8.5

6.8

27.5 ± 14.0K

21.8 ± 34.8 ± 10.7 ± 6.6 ±

34.5 ±

11.2W 22.3BK

10.5 9.5

27.3WK

, p < .05; *' P < .01; **' P .0001: F test between gardeners and controls.

Koreans (40)

24.8 0.3

± 10.5 ± 1.1

0.5 ± 10.8 ±

3.8 ±

1.3 12.8 6.3

6.3 ± 9.2

6.0

13.8 18.5 9.7 8.7

14.4

± 6.9

± 12.7 ± 13.7 ± 12.8 ± 11.8

± 12.9

BIWIHlK (first initials of ethnic groups) indicates significant differences (p < .05) between pairs of groups by Scheffe Procedure.

dening find life more satisfYing and feel they have more positive things happening in their lives than those who are not.

Evaluation of the garden plots. Garden plots varied tremendously in quality of care, diversity of plantings and gross value. The mean quality factor of the garden

plantings was .77 ± 0.13. Thus, an average planting yielded 77% of its potential. Gardens contained a mean of 8.1 ± 5.1 species of plants, with a range of 1 to 29 species.

The mean economic value of the 151 assessed garden plots was $160 ± $178 for one year, with a range of $2 to $1134. This is similar to the median yield value cat-

166 Blair et al. / URBAN GARDENING PROJECT

Table 5. Life satisfaction: comparison between gardeners and controls, and among gardener groups (means ± SD).

Gardener Groups'

Gardeners n (144)

Controls (67)

Blacks (40)

Whites Hispanics Koreans (40) (40) (24)

Taking all things together, how would you say that things are these days?2 Very happy (1) Pretty happy (2) Not too happy (3)

1.85 ± .65 2.06 ± .60* 2.03 ± .67 1.70 ± .52 2.08 ± .83 1.70 ± .46

In general, how satisfying do you find the way you are spending your life these days?2 Completely satisfying (1) Pretty satisfying (2) Not very satisfying (3)

1.79 ± .54 2.00 ± .46* 1.80 ± .61 1.90 ± .38 1.79 ± .72 1.67 ± .47

How often do you have the chance to do things that really matter to you? Very often (1) Fairly often (2) Sometimes (3) Not very often (4) Never (5)

2.01 ± .96 2.45 ± .94** 2.07 ± 1.06 1.62 ± .75 2.29 ± .91 2.15 ± .98

How often do things happen which help you improve your daily life? Very often (1) Fairly often (2) Sometimes (3) Not very often (4) Never (5)

2.19 ± 1.08 2.55 ± .90* 2.23 ± .87 2.21 ± 1.42 2.35 ± .98 2.07 ± .94

* p < .05; ** P < .01: F test between gardeners and controls. , No significant differences between group pairs by Scheffe Procedure. 2 From Robinson and Shaver, Measures of Social Psychological Attitudes, p. 13.

egory of $101 to $250 for community vegetable produc­tion reported by the National Gardening Association sur­vey of community gardens (1). Using these value categories, 49.7% of the Philadelphia urban garden plots yielded produce worth :5 $100, 29.2% had a yield worth between $101 and $250, 15.1% yielded between $251 and $500, and 6% yielded produce worth ;:::: $500. The comparable figures from the National Community Gar­dening Survey were 44%, 26%, 23% and 7%, respec­tively (1). Most likely the average value of the Philadel­phia garden plot assessment was underestimated, as neither early planting nor the value of flowers were as­sessed.

Gardeners spent an average of $47 per person on plants, seeds, fertilizers and pesticides, tools, soil, soil improve­ments, and fencing. This is close to the $41 estimated for all gardeners nationally (9). The net value of the gar­den plots after expenses was $113.

Differences in gardening benefits among ethnic groups. Though gardeners were divided into ethnic groups for the purposes of this study, gardeners at spe­cific sites tended to reflect the ethnic mixture of the community; however, some generalizations can be made. The older community gardens in predominantly black neighborhoods often served as social centers for the com­munity, green oases in the hot Philadelphia summers. Smaller and newer gardens in Hispanic areas were often sources of neighborhood pride. Gardens helped reinforce social cohesiveness among the Koreans, who frequently worked together on their garden plots. Whites tended to garden in large sites distant from their neighborhoods, thus their gardening did not strengthen neighborhood relations.

White and black gardeners tended to eat vegetables

more frequently than did the Hispanic or Korean gar­deners. Interest in nurtrition and nutritional spinoffs of gardening appeared to be greater for the former groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The major findings of this study are that gardening is related to an increased frequency of vegetable con­sumption and to the reduced frequency of milk product consumption. However, the lack of a completely random sample selection limits the interpretation of these data. Gardening remained a significant negative predictor of milk product consumption even when significant pre­dictors such as age and income were controlled. Gar­deners also ate sweet foods and drinks less frequently than did the controls. Thus, it appears that gardeners do eat some foods less frequently when vegetable con­sumption frequency increases. However, it cannot be inferred from this non-quantitative food frequency data that the diet of the gardeners suffered from lack of cal­cium. It is possible that cole crops helped provide some of the calcium that the milk products would have pro­vided for the gardeners. The finding that gardeners con­sume milk products less frequently indicates that nutri­tion advice should be dispensed along with horticultural advice for gardeners. Perhaps gardeners could be pro­vided with produce-utilization recipes that incorporate milk products or vegetables high in calcium.

Inner city residents may have difficulty obtaining fresh vegetables due to the cost, the exodus of supermarkets, and a lack of adequate transportation (10). Using the criteria of Rody (11), this study provides evidence that gardening access in the inner city is an empowering nu­trition strategy that overcomes many of the barriers to

J. of Nutr. Educ. Vol. 23, No.4

increasing vegetable consumption. Gardeners are able to use their own resources to meet part of their food needs in the manner they deem appropriate. Gardeners have greater control over the variety, quality, and quan­tity of the produce they consume. Finally, gardening appears to facilitate community self-help. Gardeners were more active than non-gardeners in community projects, and shared their vegetable wealth with family, friends, passers-by, and church food pantries, thereby becoming nutrition change agents in their own right. 0

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Thanks are due to Dr. Peter Feretti, Horticulture Extension Specialist, The Pennsylvania State University, for help in plan­ning the garden plot evaluations and for suggesting the yield scale.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

Sommers, L. and B. Butterfield. Special report on community gar­dening in the U.S. Burlington, VT: National Gardening Association, 1985, 7 p.

2 Brownrigg, L. Home gardening in international development: What the literature shows. Washington, DC: League for International Food Education, 1985, 126 p.

3 U.S. Department of Health Education and Welfare, Health Serv­ices and Mental Health Administration, Public Health Service, National Center for Health Statistics. Plan and operation of the Health and Nutrition Examination Survey-U.S. 1971-1973, Vital Health Statistics, Series 1, No. lOb, 1977, p. 22.

4 Robinson, J.P. and P.R. Shaver. Measures of social psychological attitudes. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, 1970, p. 13.

5 Weintieger, E. Unpublished data ofhorticu!tural trials of vegetable yields, 1986-1988. Kutztown, PA: Rodale Research Center, 1989.

6 Jeavons, J. How to grow more vegetables. Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press, 1982, p.

7 Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. Users' guide, 2nd cd. Chicago, 11: SPSSX, Inc., 1986, 988 p.

8 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Human Nutrition Information Service, Consumer Nutrition Division. Food intakes: lndicic/uals in 48 states, year 1977-78. Nationwide Food Consumption Survey 1977-1978, Report No. I-I, HyattSVille, Maryland 20782, pp 294-377.

9 National Gardening Association. National gardening survey fact sheet, Burlington, Vt.: National Gardening Association, 1986, 8 p.

10 U. S. Conference of Mayors. Municipal food policies: H owfive cities are improving the availability and quality of foodfor those in need, Washington, DC: U.S. Conference of Mayors, 1985, p. 21.

11 Rody, N. Empowerment as organizational policy in nutrition in-

August 1991 167

tervention programs: A case study from the Pacific Islands. Journal of Nutrition Education, 20:133-41, 1988.

RESUME Afin d'evaluer un projet de jardinage de la ville de Philadelphie, 144 jardiniers travaillant dans differents sites de jardinage a travers la ville ont eM selectionnees. Ils ont ete choisis au hasard parmi differentes ethnies. Soixante-sept autres personnes ayant l'intention de jardiner ont ete selectionnees comme groupe controle. Les donnees recueillies durant les entrevues effectuees a la maison ou au jardin, induent des variables demographiques, la frequence de consommation de differents aliments, les habitudes alimentaires, des mesures sur la satisfaction de la vie et i'implication dans la vie com­munautaire. Le rendement de 151 sites a ete evalue et la valeur economique calculee, basee sur Ie prix de detail des produits. Les sites ont rapporte une valeur moyenne de $160.00 chacun. Les jardiniers consommaient plus frequemment 6 categories de legumes sur 14, et ce de fa<;on significative, et consommaient moins de produits laitiers, de fruits citrins, d'aliments et bois­sons sucres. (A part les fruits citrins, la consummation feuille des jardinicrs demeurent significative lorsque les principales variables sont controllees.) Le jardinage a ete associe positive­ment avec !'implication dans la vie communautaire et la sat­isfaction de la vie en general. IJNE 23:161-167, 1991)

Translated by Louise Soucy, R.P.Dt.

RESUMEN En los Estados Unidos se estima que mas de un millon de personas participan en la produccion de alimentos en huertos comunitarios. El presente estudio evaluo el proy­ecto de Huertos Urbanos en Filadelfia. 144 'jardineros' (par­ticipantes en el proyecto de huertos) fueron seleccionados al azar de una muestra estratificada de todos los huertos en la ciudad. Se selecciono a un grupo control de 67 residentes de las mismas areas urbanas. Durante visitas a domicilio y para observar el trabajo en los huertos, se recolecto informacion sobre variables demografica, frecuencia de con sumo de ali­mentos y habitos dieteticos, medidas sobre satisfaccion en la calidad de vida y medidas de participacion comunitaria (en su vecindad). Se evaluo el rendimiento de 151 huertos, y se calculo el valor economico bas ado en los precios actuales en eI mer­cado, para la venta de verduras al menudeo. En promedio los huertos obtuvieron un rendimiento de $160 por el valor de las verduras. Los participantes 'jardineros' consumieron 6 de las 14 categorias de verduras 0 vegetales, con mayor frecuencia, y consumieron productos lacteos, citricos, dulces y bebidas, con menor frecuencia, que el grupo control. Estos datos fueron estadisticamente significativos. Con la excepcion de las frutas citricas, y controlando para otras variables importante, la dis­minucion en el consumo de los otros productos indicados por los participantes, tam bien fue estadisticamente significativo. Los huertos fueron positivamente asociados con las variables de participacion comunitaria y de satisfaccion con la cali dad de vida. IJNE 23:161-167, 1991)

Translated by Maria Teresa Cerqueira

GERONTOLOGICAL SOCIETY ANNUAL MEETING

The 44th Annual Scientific Meeting of the Gerontological Society of America will be held in San Francisco, California, November 22-26, 1991. For further information, please contact The Gerontological Society of America, 1275 K Street, NW, Suite 350, Washington, DC 20005-4006; (202) 842-1275.