Community Gardening in Lealman Feasibility Study

Yilin Zhuang

Abstract

Research has proven that community gardening has a variety of benefits, such psychological and

social well-beings, effective educational tool, and meaningful physical activity. This study

analyzes the strengths, weakness, opportunities, and threats for Lealman to carry out the

community gardening. The vacant land gives Lealman enough space for community gardens,

however, the soil is does not suit for gardening. The soil preparation can solve the problem, but

requires funding. Funds are also required for the garden maintenance. Although community

gardening will bring various opportunities for Lealman’s community development, it also faces

some threats. The unstable residents and housing ownership may prevent the residents’

participation and implementation community gardening.

1. Introduction

1.1. Community Gardening

Community gardens were first introduced to the U.S. by European immigrants in the late

1800s and early 1900s (Waliczek et al., 1996). It is growing up with the abandonment of inner

city (Warner, 1987). An example of a well-established community gardening program is Seattle's

P-Patch. Gardeners share the tool and other amenities but take care of their individual plots in a

gardening area. Another example of community gardening is Greensgrow Farm in Philadelphia.

It utilizes an abandoned site as urban farm to teach the community how to grow their own food.

1

Community gardening is not restricted in an open area. Roof also allows the urban dwellers to

maintain green spaces without setting aside undeveloped land or open space (Viljoen et al.,

2005).

Research on community gardening shows a variety of benefits, such as improving

psychological well-being (Armstrong, D. 2000; Blair et al., 1991; Glynn, 1981; Kaplan, 1973;

Lewis, 1978), and social well-being (Gold, 1997; Patel, 1991; Ferris and Sempik, 2001; Sommer

et al., 1994). Community gardening is also proven as an effective educational tool to teach kids

about healthy eating and meaningful physical activity (Heathet al., 1991; Lineberger and Zajicek,

2000). Full Circle Farm in Silicon Valley, for instance, is established in a middle school and

carried out as an educational urban agriculture to enable the students get real agriculture

experiences (Bestet al., 2010.).

Community gardens can be classified by their functions, such as leisure gardens, child

and school gardens, entrepreneurial gardens, crime diversion gardens, work and training gardens,

healing and therapy gardens, neighborhood pocket parks etc. (Ferris et al., 2001). The labels,

however, are not mutually exclusive and community gardens can usually combine several

functions. The proposed Lealman community garden is a vegetable garden, which is the

combination of entrepreneurial as well as educational garden.

1.2. Lealman Community

Lealman is a community located in Pinellas County with a land area of 4.01 square miles

and a water area of 0.07 square miles. The population in 2010 was 8,013 (U.S. Census, 2010),

50% of which is male population. 20% of the population is under 18 years and 16% are over 65

years (Figure 1).

2

Figure 1. Age Distribution in Lealman

The majority of the population is white, and around 10% is black or African American

and 10% are Asian. However, English is not the first language for some residents in Lealman,

which increases the difficulties finding jobs.

77%

9%

1% 10%

0% 3%

RaceWhite

Black or African American

American Indian and Alaska Native

Asian

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander

Some Other Race

Figure 2. Race Distribution in Lealman

3

2. Methods

A SWOT (Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats) method is employed to analyze

the feasibility of community gardening from social, economic, and environmental aspects. Data

can be categorized as three types: a) reported data, b) tested data, and c) interviewed data.

2.1. Reported Data

2010 U.S. census data is used as a main source of the demographic data, such as

population, and housing. The land cover and land use is obtained from Southwest Florida Water

Management District.

2.2. Tested Data

The soil sample was collected according to the instruction sheet from Pinellas County

Agriculture Extension. Soil in the upper 6 inches from 16 different spots in the back yard of

Lealman and Asian Neighborhood Family Center (family center) were mixed as one soil sample

and tested by University of Florida Institution IFAS Extension.

4

Figure 3. Soil Type in Lealman

The star sign in Figure 3 represents the location of the soil sample. Most of the soil is in

the category of Urban Land – Myakka Complex. The sample taken from family center can be

regarded a good representative for the whole community.

2.3. Interviewed Data

A main factor distinguishing a community garden from a private garden is the ownership

of the garden. A community gardening requires a program coordinator. Considering the work the

family center is doing, this study interviewed the people from family center to see if they are

interested in carry out the community vegetable garden or a pilot study.

5

3. Findings

3.1. Strengths

3.1.1. Open land

Land is always premium. Agricultural land is always competing with the residential land.

Some community gardens are considered to be in danger of losing land (Armstrong, 2000).

However, Lealman has enough open space to carry out the community gardening. Figure 4 is the

land use in Lealman. There is 32.70-acre open land (shown in green) in total, which is large

enough for community gardens, which is usually 5 acres. The vacancy of the housing also

increases potential land for community garden.

Figure 4. Land Use in Lealman Community

6

3.1.2. Support from Family Center

Family center provides services and launches different programs for kids and families

living in Lealman. After talking to the family center about the idea of community gardening,

they show great interest and willingness. The incorporation with family center, such as adding

gardening to after school program, or give vegetable growing lectures to adults, will facilitate the

implementing of community gardens. They can also help with gardening problems, guide to

harvest and use the vegetables, instruct to preserve and store garden produce.

3.2. Weaknesses

3.2.1. Soil

Soil plays a key role in determining the site’s suitability for gardening. The ideal soil for

most plants is a rich, sandy loam. However, the soil characteristics do not support vegetable

gardening. Most vegetables grow best on a soil that has a pH between 5.8 and 6.3 (Stephens,

J.M., 1994). The pH of in Lealman is 7.6. The contents of alkaline matters, such as limestone,

marl, shell, are ten times higher than the ideal condition. There is no practical way of

permanently lowering soil pH (Stephens et al., 1991). The application of acidic organic matters

will help decease the pH value, however, it is only temporary. The regular application of acidic

organic matters, such as granular sulfur, and soil test is necessary to ensure the optimal pH

values for vegetable growing.

Besides, the content of the basic nutrients in the soil is also very low, shown in Figure 5.

There are barely nutrients in the soil. And content for magnesium is close to zero.

7

Figure 5. Result of Soil Sample Test

Fertilizers have to be applied to improve the soil condition. According to the

recommendation given by UF IFAS, every 100 square feet of garden soil needs 0.20 pounds of

nitrogen, 0.30 pounds of phosphorous, 0.30 pounds of potassium, and 0.08 pounds of

magnesium. The equivalent of 35 pounds of magnesium per acre in a soluble form, such as

magnesium sulfate or potassium magnesium sulfate, as well as 10 pounds of gypsum per 1000

square feet as a calcium fertilizer source should be applied to the soil.

Moreover, vegetables cannot tolerate standing water from excessive rainfall or irrigation,

though, at the meanwhile, vegetables need soil moisture to grow and produce. The types of

plants for the rain season and dry season should be carefully chosen.

3.2.2. Lack of funding

Carrying out a community gardening program requires funding, such as soil preparation,

seed purchase, daily maintenance cost, and educate the basic plant growing knowledge. Right

now, however, they do not have funds for community gardening.

3.3. Opportunities

8

Just as what other studies indicated, community gardening has a variety of benefits. The

main opportunities for Lealman community include:

a) Change the appearance of the neighborhood and utilize the vacant land, which may

appeal more people to settle down in the community.

b) Educate the participants about food production and preparation, healthy eating habits, or

some composting skills, which may improve job and life skills.

c) Reduce the residents’ food costs by providing fresh vegetables, and have a positive

impact on the property values which results in the increase in tax revenues.

d) Enhance communication of residents and the sense of community pride.

3.4. Threats

3.4.1. Lack of security of tenure

However, the lack of security of tenure put a big threat. It acts as a preventive for farming

due to the uncertainty in the use length of the land.

Figure 7. Occupied and Vacant Housing

9

The unstable residents will be an obstruct for the community involvement.

Approximately 16% of housing units are vacant, and only 18% of the occupied housing units are

owned free. The rest 82% of occupied housing is still face the threat being vacant.

3.4.2. Disease spread

Though the goal of community gardening is to increase the food security, the

inappropriate or incautious use wastewater for irrigation may result in the spread of diseases in

the community. The runoff of the gardening water may also contaminate the soil. Cultivating on

the contaminated soil will also put a threat to human health.

4. Conclusion

Community gardening is another aspect to the urban agriculture. Overall speaking,

community gardening will provide Lealman a new opportunity for recreation and education as

well as a way for neighborhoods to strengthen their bond within their community. Participating

families can grow fresh produce to lower the food budget while keeping the green space. More

important, a beautiful surrounding of neighborhood will appeal more people to move in and

occupy the vacant housing units. Community gardening is just at the beginning stage in the State

of Florida. Successful practices include UF/IFAS managed community gardens in Jacksonville

and the Palm Bay Community Gardening Program managed by the City Council. Palm Bay

program utilizes city owned property designated for recreation and open space where there is no

a developed park. More practices of community gardening are located in Rustbelt, such as

Seattle, Chicago, Philadelphia etc, where cities are facing the problem of losing population and

increasing vacant land in their inner cities. They are good examples for Lealman to learn, which

10

is also facing the problem of increasing vacant property. Another vantage for Lealman to start

community gardening is the support from family center, who is willing to take the leadership and

instruct the participants on planting growing and already has mature kid or adult programs.

However, there are also some barriers and challenges. The crucial issue is lack of funding

to carry out the program, especially in soil preparation. The soil in Lealman is a little bit alkaline,

not suitable for vegetable growing, and lack of nutrients too. Besides, though the vacant land

provides the area for gardening, the insecurity of tenure (low in own rate without loan) puts a

threat in the community involvement.

Reference

Armstrong, D. 2000. A Survey of Community Gardens in Upstate New York: Implications for

Health Promotion and Community Development. Health and Place, 6: 319-327

Blair, D., Giesecke, C., Sherman, S. 1991. A Dietary, Social and Economic Evaluation of the

Philadelphia Urban Gardening Project. Journal of Nutrition Education, 23: 161-167.

Best, P., Earls, M., Haddock, B., Nassiri, S. 2010. A Feasibility Study for Blending Housing and

Urban Agriculture in Lansing, MI. Retrieved on October 18, 2011,

http://spdc.msu.edu/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=urOETI38DDw%3D&tabid=249

Ferris, J., Norman, C., Sempik, J. 2001. People, Land and Sustainability: Community Gardens

and the Social Dimension of Sustainable Development. Social Policy and Administration,

35 (5): 559-568.

Kaplan, R. 1973. Some Psychological Benefits of Gardening. Environment and Behavior, 5:

145-162.

11

Lewis, C. 1978. Comment: Healing in the Urban Environment. American Psychological

Association Journal, 7: 330-338.

Glynn, T., 1981. Psychological Sense of Community: Measurement and Application. Human

Relations, 34 (7): 789-818.

Gold, S.M. 1997. Social Benefits of Trees in Urban Environments. International Journal of

Environmental Studies, 10: 85-90

Heath, G.W., Wilson, R.H., Smith, J., Leonard, B.E. 1991. Community-based Exercise and

Weight Control: Diabetes Risk Reduction and Glycemic Control in Zuni Indians.

American Journal of Clinic Nutrition, 53: 1642-1646.

Lineberger, S.E., Zajicek, J.M. 2000. Can A Hands-on Teaching Tool Affect Students' Attitudes

and Behavior Regarding Fruit and Vegetables? Horticulture Technology, 10 (3): 593-596.

Morris, J., Zidenberg-Cherr, S. 2002. Garden-enhanced Nutrition Curriculum Improves Fourth-

grade School Children’s Knowledge of Nutrition and Preference for Some Vegetables.

Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 102 (1): 9.

Patel, I.C. 1991. Gardening's Socioeconomic Impacts: Community Gardening in an Urban

Setting. Journal of Extension, 29:7-8.

Saldivar-Tanaka, L. 2002. Culturing Neighborhood Open Space, Civic Agriculture, and

Community Development: The Case of Latino Community Gardens in New York City.

Thesis, Cornell University.

12

Sommer, R., Learey, F., Summitt, J., Tirrell, M. 1994. Social Benefits of Resident Involvement

in Tree Planting: Comparison with Developer-planted Trees. Journal Arboriculture, 20

(6): 323-328.

Stephens, J.M., Brown, S.P., Treadwell, D., et al. 1991. Florida Vegetable Gardening Guide.

University of Florida, IFAS.

Stephens, J.M. Soil Preparation and Liming. 1996. University of Florida, IFAS Extension,

edis.ifas.ufl.edu/vh024, retrieved on November 7, 2011.

U.S. Census, 2010. http://factfinder2.census.gov/main.html Retrieved on November 13, 2011

Viljoen, A., Bohn, K., Howe, J. 2005. Continuous Productive Urban Landscapes: Designing

Urban Agriculture for Sustainable Cities. Oxford Architectural Press.

Waliczek, T.M., Mattson, R.H., Zajicek, J.M. 1996. Benefits of Community Gardening on

Quality-of-Life Issues. Journal of Environmental Horticulture, 14 (4): 204-209.

Warner, B.S. 1987. To Dwell is to Garden. North Eastern University Press, Boston.

13