Emailing: gardening.htm

---

• provide garden model alternatives for community gardening projects in rural areas;
• analyze the positive and negative factors associated with these models; and
• identify obstacles to gardening in rural areas as well as their possible solutions.

Respondents worked on projects in AZ, CA, HI, KS, LA, ME, MO, MT, MS, OR, NY, VT, and WI. More than one project was surveyed in MO and MT. Although the small sample size limits the generalizability of the results, the geographical distribution of the sample highlights models used in different physical, social, and economic environments.

“Traditional” community gardening systems (community gardens with individual plots) are most common in urban areas, and often implemented in rural areas. Respondents in New York and Mississippi used this approach. A number of additional models, however, are currently applied in rural regions throughout the United States. An exploration of these models highlights the potential benefits and constraints faced by rural community gardening projects.

One project in Arizona is moving away from the “traditional” notion of community gardens because of a low population density. Also, plenty of land is already available to individuals. This group found that transportation to a communal site has not made sense in the past. Instead, one community garden adjacent to a health center is tended by high school students and project staff, as well as used for demonstration purposes. In addition to this communal site, the project provides technical support for individual plots (on private property behind individual homes). This approach has been more effective than the prior establishment of a number of community gardens.

A Montana project also has a single community garden site and supports individual gardening efforts. The community garden is used for education and demonstration purposes, as local residents have little history of gardening. Gardeners are required to take at least one of three classes offered by project staff at the demonstration garden. After completion of the class, gardeners receive free seeds and tilling, as well as technical assistance from the project. Groups in Louisiana and Maine also reported focusing mainly on individual gardens with the use of a limited number of community gardens for education or demonstrations.

Pros: use of private, individual gardens enables participation without the transportation time necessary for participation at a community garden; continues to provide educational component through maintenance of single community garden site; provides assistance to gardeners on private plots.

Cons: may reduce interaction among individual gardeners.

A second project in Montana gardens communally. In other words, a large plot of land is collectively tended instead of divided into individual plots. Since the project donates all produce yields to a local emergency food service, distribution among garden volunteers was not an issue.

Pros: collective efforts enhance gardener interaction; neighbors might be able to share transportation costs.

Cons: if all yields are not distributed to charity, project may encounter produce distribution difficulties without a clearly articulated distribution scheme.

In Hawaii, a plot is used to teach people how to grow their own food. Food grown that is not distributed to volunteers is sold to a local food bank at market rate. Money from the sale of this produce goes towards funding the garden as well as to support local growers. After purchasing the fresh produce, the local food bank sells it to local businesses, like restaurants and hotels, at a higher than market price. Profits from sales go directly to the food bank.

Pros: volunteers taught gardening skills; produce sales yield income for community members and organizations; engages many community groups and businesses.

Cons: low-income families and individuals less likely to directly benefit from fresh produce, as it is sold to local businesses.

A Wisconsin gardening project, Nutrition Through Gardening, consists of a nutritionist who teaches classrooms involved with a school garden about the USDA Food Guide Pyramid and nutrition. A school garden is established in both elementary and middle schools, and the program is built into the school curriculum. During the summer, children attending summer school or programs tend the garden.

Pros: in-class lessons are reinforced and enhanced through experiential learning in the garden; children receive nutrition education; students provide a constant volunteer base; school can contribute to garden oversight and management.

Cons: requires teacher and administration willingness to incorporate lessons into curriculum; requires outside assistance from a nutritionist or the purchase of a curriculum accompanied by training for teachers.

Instead of creating a community garden system, one project in Vermont partners local, experienced gardeners with people in the community that are interested in gardening. The project provides seeds and technical assistance to individuals who want to garden at their homes. This has been determined as the best approach because members of this rural community are hesitant to get involved with “city-fied” gardens (the typical urban community garden model). The project seeks to utilize existing community capacity and resources. In addition, local residents do not want to pay for a plot of land, which is often the case in urban environments, when land is readily available.

Pros: incorporates local knowledge and builds local capacity; utilizes existing private land resources; gardening assistance and skill building personalized; eliminates an “insider/outsider” dynamic.

Cons: time is required to build community trust and enlist volunteers; informal approach to gardening is difficult to justify to funders.

One interesting approach used in Kansas (not from a rural area) is to establish gardens through affiliations with existing organizations or institutions. For example, community gardens were established at senior centers and a local girls shelter. Individuals associated with these groups tend to the gardens. The idea behind this concept is to have groups build a sense of garden ownership, so that projects can be run independently in the future.

One component of a rural Wisconsin project established community gardens in trailer parks and low-income apartment complexes. Sites were chosen in five pockets of poverty based on Census data. Community garden sites are tended collectively by residents. Tenants and other community residents can therefore easily participate in gardening projects.

Pros: projects can create a sense of ownership among participating organizations; potential for transfer of garden management to agencies, which increases the sustainability of projects; can tailor projects to meet the needs of specific populations; can provide a steady volunteer base; reduces transportation issues if participants already make trips to the organization.

Cons: even though community members without a direct connection to programs are encouraged to participate, establishment of gardens in conjunction with another entity may deter broad community participation.

• Turnover in garden volunteers – maintaining a steady volunteer base was frequently cited as a major challenge for rural community gardens. In low-income areas with high unemployment, it may be difficult to encourage community members to embrace volunteering (labor in exchange for no money). Compensation for volunteers is an option for some; however, promotion of the benefits of receiving produce in exchange for labor should be highlighted.
• An “outsider/insider” dynamic between those managing food security and development projects, and community members – communities can be suspicious about outside organizations entering their area to do development projects if previous efforts have been unsuccessful. Skepticism can be overcome by the incorporation of local individuals and knowledge into projects.
• Inexperienced gardeners – since lack of experience leads to failed plantings and subsequent frustration, stress or require that all participants attend gardening skill-building classes.
• Transportation – this is especially problematic for children who cannot get to sites after school or in the day during the summer. Geographic distribution of community gardens can ease the distance between children’s homes and therefore reduce transportation distance and time.

The findings of this project challenge the assumption that the traditional urban approach to community gardening will be effective in rural areas. Although implementation of the traditional model continues to exist in rural areas, some rural garden managers have discovered that this is not always the most effective or efficient approach. Only through an examination of the environment in which one works can the most appropriate model be identified.

The findings of this survey have a number of implications for community garden projects in rural areas. First, major funders of community food security and garden projects must recognize that the traditional model of urban gardening is not the only effective method of increasing a community’s access to fresh food through gardening. The allocation and use of millions of dollars in grant awards should take this into account.

Since there is little documentation of the effectiveness of various gardening models, convincing donors that alternative models of gardening can be successful requires candor. Establishment of gardens in communities takes more than one to three years, as it takes time to build trust within the community, lay groundwork for a project, and actually establish gardens. In the absence of immediate, measurable, quantitative results from projects, donors may not be willing to fund initiatives. Candid communication with donors will be an essential component for securing future funding for projects that use alternative gardening models. Funders should consider allocating grant money for program evaluation to facilitate documentation of successful efforts.

One important funding source is the USDA, which provides grants intended to help eligible private non-profit entities that need a one-time infusion of federal assistance to establish and carry out multi-purpose community food projects. Community food projects, which typically have a community gardening component, receive a one-time matching grant from $10,000- $250,000 over one to three years. An important funding source, the USDA will allocate $2.5 million annually through the year 2002 for community food projects (USDA, Community Food Projects).

Due to the constraints of community garden implementation in rural areas, such as lengthy transportation times to garden sites, organizations should consider using other methods to improve food security and nutrition in these areas to compliment garden initiatives. Organizations can promote use of federal safety nets. For example, outreach to families about federal nutrition initiatives like the Food Stamp Program, WIC, and School Breakfast, Lunch, and Summer Food Programs, may increase participation in these programs. Promotion of family economic security through enhancement of work income, promotion of Individual Development Accounts (IDAs), and making work more feasible for individuals by providing health care and child care subsidies, can all impact household food security and nutrition.

For those involved in community gardening projects in rural areas:

• Do not assume that the model of community gardens implemented in urban areas can be directly transferable to rural communities. Translating programs to other communities does not necessarily work.
• Identify obstacles to community gardening implementation and possible solutions. For example, how will the project maintain a steady volunteer base in a community with a widely dispersed population?
• Identify, respect, and operationalize the values of the community into the design, implementation, and evaluation of the program, whether you agree with the values or not. Conduct focus groups to identify what residents think is most important for their community. Respect of the community is the willingness to respect the agenda of the community (Carballeira, 1999). Until major concerns of community residents are addressed, there may be little interest in community nutrition and garden projects.
• Incorporate different types of models into a project to see which is most effective if unsure about which might work best in a community.
• Focus on creating a sense of ownership of the gardens so projects become sustainable and not dependent on project funding.
• Examine the social and environmental factors that hinder participation.
• Incorporate as many local organizations and groups in gardening projects as possible. Local banks may be able to provide small business loans for micro-enterprise development related to gardens, and the local fire department may be able to refill water storage tanks during water shortages.

Ohri-Vachaspati P and Warrix M. “Fruit and Vegetable Consumption Among Urban Gardeners”. Ohio State University Extension. As published in the 1999 SNE Annual Meeting Proceedings, page 33.

Savoie KA. “Growing Good Nutrition: EFNEP Improves Dietary Behavior Through Gardening”. University of Maine Cooperative Extension. 1998.