Final Thesis Draft
EXPLORING THE SOCIAL BASES OF HOME GARDENING
A Thesis
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for
the Degree Master of Science in the
Graduate School of The Ohio State University
By
Justin Schupp, B.S.
Graduate Program in Rural Sociology
The Ohio State University
2009
Master’s Examination Committee:
Dr. Jeff S. Sharp, Advisor
Dr. Joseph Donnermeyer
Copyright by
Justin Schupp
2009 ABSTRACT
The study of and participation in alternatives to conventional industrial agricultural production have risen steadily in popularity in recent years. Several different types of production have been embraced, utilized, and studied. While many types of alternative production and the motivations to participate have been studied, there have been significant gaps in the literature. One such dearth appears in the work done on those participating in self-provisioning activities. This study begins to fill the gap by looking at the self-provisioning activity of household home gardening using data from the 2008
Ohio Survey of Food, Agriculture, and Environmental Issues. Discerning who the household gardeners are seems important given the recent economic, cultural, and political climate of the United States. The results show that household home gardening is occurring throughout the state of Ohio. In addition, bivariate and multivariate analysis show noteworthy associations between gardening and several household characteristics, including location in the countryside and on farms; the demonstration of environmentalist and economic hardship behaviors; and high levels of engagement in more localized food systems.
ii DEDICATION
Dedicated to my wife, Carly Keehn-Schupp, whose love and support made this possible,
and
Snoopy and Zamboni, for keeping the good life in perspective
iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
There are many individuals to whom I owe a deep sense of gratitude as I have completed this thesis. I would first like to thank Jeff Sharp as serving as my advisor. I am especially thankful for his time and guidance in helping me prepare this project, as without it I would have never been able to finish. I will forever remember our weekly chats in his office while we worked out the finer details not only of this document, but of my plans for life as an effective individual in academia.
I would also like to thank Joseph Donnermeyer for agreeing to serve on my committee. His contribution to this document was invaluable. May I one day be able to emulate the deep passion and drive that you bring to your work every day.
There are many others whom I would like to thank because their assistance was indispensable in helping me to complete this project. In no particular order, I would like to thank: Dr. Lazarus Adua, Dr. Molly Bean-Smith, Kelly Turpin, Anjel Stough-Hunter,
Dani Deemer, and Daniel Foster. All of you have contributed not only to the success in this project but also to my development as a sociologist.
Lastly, I would like to thank my wife, Carly Keehn-Schupp. Words cannot begin to express how important she has been as I have worked on this document. Her constant love, support, and challenge to succeed have been irreplaceable and, though it may not have seemed like this all the time, deeply appreciated.
iv VITA
June 9th, 1981 ...... Born, Boulder, Colorado
2005 ...... B.S. in Sociology, Colorado State University
2007 - Present ...... Graduate Student, The Ohio State University
2008 - Present ...... Graduate Teaching Associate, The Ohio State University
FIELD OF STUDY
Major Field: Rural Sociology
v TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ...... ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... iii VITA ...... v LIST OF TABLES ...... ix LIST OF FIGURES ...... x
Chapters:
1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1
1.1 Study Background and Goal ...... 1 1.2 Significance of the Study ...... 5
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 7
2.1 Review of the Literature and Propositions ...... 7 Gardening in Historical Context ...... 7 2.2 Empirical and Theoretical Foundation ...... 20 Differences between Rural and Urban ...... 22 Environmental Literature ...... 26 Economic Hardship and Self-Provisioning...... 33 Literature on Agriculture and Food ...... 43 2.3 Reviewing the Theoretical Predictions and Hypotheses ...... 49
3. RESEARCH DESIGN ...... 51
3.1 Source of Data ...... 51 3.2 Sampling Procedure ...... 51 3.3 Sample Limitations...... 51 3.4 Variable Measurements...... 52 vi 3.4.1 Dependent Variable ...... 55 3.4.2 Independent Variables ...... 57 3.4.3 Control Variables...... 70 3.5 Type of Data Analyses ...... 73 3.6 Measurement Model...... 73
4. RESULTS ...... 75
4.1 Results from Bivariate Analysis ...... 75 4.2 Bivariate Analysis Between Dependent and Independent Variables ...... 76 4.3 Logistic Regression Analysis...... 83 4.3.1 Logistic Regression Diagnostics ...... 83 4.3.2 Logistic Regression ...... 86 4.4 Putting the Results Together ...... 91
5. CONCLUSION ...... 95 5.1 Summary and Discussion of the Overall Study Findings ...... 96 5.2 Reviewing the Research Question ...... 99 5.3 Study Limitations ...... 100 5.4 Implications for Theory and Future Research ...... 106 5.5 Implications for Policy...... 108
LIST OF REFERENCES ...... 110
APPENDIX: SURVEY INSTRUMENT ...... 120
vii LIST OF TABLES
Table Page 3.1 Socio-demographic Characteristics of the Survey Sample and the state of Ohio .53 3.2 Descriptive Statistics for the Dependent Variable...... 55 3.3 Descriptive Statistics for the Rural to Urban Continuum Variable...... 58 3.4 Descriptive Statistics for the Current Geographic Location Variable ...... 60 3.5 Sample Statistic of Variables Making Up Environmental Behaviors ...... 63 3.6 Histogram of the Environmental Behavior Count Variable ...... 63 3.7 Histogram of the Economic Hardship Behavior Count Variable ...... 65 3.8 Factor Analysis Results for Engagement in Local Foods...... 67 3.9 Sample Statistic for the Variables Measuring Engagement in Local Foods . . . . . 67 3.10 Histogram of Money Spent on Buying Directly From a Farmer ...... 67 3.11 Descriptive Statistics for the Control Variables...... 71 4.1 Chi2 test on Garden Present with Independent Variables ...... 80 4.2 Independent t-sample Tests between Dependent and Independent Variables .. . . 81 4.3 Correlation Coefficients of the Independent Variables ...... 84 4.4 Logistic Regression Model for the Likelihood of Household Gardening ...... 89 4.5 Goodness of Fit Test Results ...... 89 4.6 Direction of Predicted Relationship Between Independent and Dependent Variables from the Literature Review, Study Predictions, and Model Results...... 92
viii LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page 3.1 Measurement Model ...... 73 4.1 Revisiting the Measurement Model ...... 93
ix CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Study Background and Goal
Participation in alternatives to conventional industrial agricultural production has steadily risen in popularity in recent years. Several different types of production have been embraced, utilized, and studied. One of the most cited examples of alternative agriculture production is the organic industrial production system. The United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA, 2006) reported that in 2005, for the first time, each of the fifty States in the U.S. had some amount of certified organic cropland, totaling more than four million acres nationwide. Further demonstrating this growth in production,
Fromartz (2006) states that sales of food items produced organically have increased by an average of twenty percent per year since 1990, reaching the $40 billion level worldwide in 2006 (Organic Monitor 2006). In addition, there has been an increased participation in the local foods movement, which is another indicator of the rising tide of interest in alternative production types. Both Lyson (2007) and Ostrom et al. (2007) have documented the increasing level of involvement in civic agriculture and direct farmer-to- consumer interaction as alternatives to the conventional industrial production system.
Typically, supporters have been motivated to get involved in alternative production techniques because of three overarching themes: food production preference, the consideration of the environment, and concerns of societal impact. Notably, these
1 themes are rarely subscribed to individually and should not be considered mutually exclusive.
Consumers have demonstrated an inclination for food that is produced outside the conventional agricultural norms. Govindasamy et al. (1998) found that the reemergence of farmers’ markets could be traced in part to consumers' desire to have fresher and better-quality food than the conventional industrial system offers. Similarly, Allen (2004) posits that certain individuals attempt to avoid conventionally produced food because it has, “become almost a negation of itself, either because it is absent, harmful to . . . health, or because it is virtual in the sense of any nutritional content has been neutralized (p.
24).”
Gaining significant momentum in the 1970s in the United States, Hannigan
(1995) notes, concern for the preservation of the environment has been significant in several areas of life, especially agriculture. Beus and Dunlap (1990) note that an increasing number of individuals consider the environmental cost of conventional agriculture to be too high. For example, individuals and organizations identifying themselves as environmentally concerned decry the deleterious effects of conventional food production upon the environment, especially on the soil and water utilized (see
Trautmann and Porter 1989 for example). The negative externalities have functioned as one of the prime motivating factors for attracting individuals to alternative agricultural techniques.
Concern for the social impact of conventional agriculture has served as the third motivating theme for individuals to consider alternative agriculture techniques. 2 Literature has documented numerous instances of individuals choosing alternative agricultural production techniques. For example, Rachel Carson’s seminal book Silent
Spring (1962), which documented the negative effects of DDT upon wildlife, is largely considered a major impetus to the birth of both the environmental and the organic farming social movements. Further, meat packing conditions in agribusiness (Schlosser,
2001), the solvency of farmers in the conventional market (Ostrom et al. 2006), and the erosion of community (Lyson, 2006) have all been documented as societal motivations for individuals to support alternative agricultural techniques.
While many types of alternative production and the motivation to participate in such have been studied, there have been significant gaps in the literature. One such dearth appears in the topic of self-provisioning activities. A self-provisioning activity, for the purposes of this study, is one in which an individual(s), for his or her own consumption, undertakes to self-produce and/or collect food items by means that are other-than-economic. When Inuit populations hunt caribou in Northern Canada, or when
Michael Pollen scours California for the elusive chanterelle mushroom, both parties are participating in self-provisioning activities. The purpose of this study is to examine the self-provisioning activity of home gardening as a way to begin to fill this gap in the literature.
Identifying "the gardener" is particularly interesting given the current economic downturn and political climate throughout the United States and the rest of the world.
Certain members of the US population find themselves suffering economic hardships to which they are not accustomed. For example, population groups that have not 3 historically been affected by such worries now are faced with issues of food security
(Krugman 2008, Sen 2008). However, when considering the available literature on gardening, past studies have found that economic hardship is a minor factor in determining those who are likely to participate in gardening (Omohundro 1995, Farnham
1997). One must wonder if this is still the case in today's much different economic, political, and cultural environment. It seems plausible that motivations for gardening may have changed since this research was conducted.
Because of the potentially numerous motivating factors associated with gardening, this study examines some of the social and physical factors that are associated with home gardening. Perhaps households are turning to gardening as an economic survival strategy, or perhaps individuals are gardening because is a practice embedded in the culture that exists around them. Examining these competing motivations and attempting to understand how they affect our understanding of self-provisioning activities is an important topic of study.
To explore these questions, this study draws on data from the 2008 Ohio Survey of Food, Agriculture, and Environmental Issues to empirically examine the potential relationship between relevant variables and the likelihood of a household garden.
Because of the lack of a large body of work devoted to self-provisioning activities, the analysis presented here is constructed in a way that recognizes many other potential threads of academic literature that could prove helpful in informing this project’s analytical construction. One such body of literature examined here is the long- established work that examines the differences between rural and urban populations in 4 both geographical distance and cultural manifestation (for example see Creed and Ching
1997, Falk 1996, Jones et al. 1999, Lobao 1996). Another area explored in this study is literature documenting the research on food purchasing behaviors (for example see
Ostrom et al. 2007, Tovey 1997) and motivations for participation (see Lyson 2007,
Makatouni 2002, Lea and Worsley 2005, McEachern and Warnaby 2006). In addition, this study draws on the literature exploring environment-related attitudinal and behavioral differences between individuals; in particular, the social characteristics that make individuals more likely to exhibit environmentalist behaviors. Lastly, this study examines the literature on existing self-provisioning activities as a guide to understand household home gardening (see Omohundro 1995).
The intent of bringing together this diverse set of social scientific research is to generate a sociologically informed conceptual understanding of the potentially wide range of factors contributing to individuals' decisions to foster home gardens. Due to the lack of research on contemporary home gardening, constructing a wide theoretical net seems to be a more appropriate tactic compared to focusing on one potential subset of the literature at a time.
1.2. Significance of the Study
The utility of studying the household gardener may be demonstrated on several levels. On an elementary level, and as noted above, there has been a lack of investigation on this topic in the contemporary era. Research on home gardening, though mentioned in a few works in the last ten years, has not been a major area of focus since the end of
World War II. This project is therefore academically intriguing in that it can (re)establish 5 the conversation about how home gardening manifests itself and where it fits into the social scientific literature. This study can give a sense of both who the household gardeners are and the social characteristics associated with them. In addition, this study can bring gardening, and self-provisioning activities in general, to the forefront of sociological discussion, enhancing research of the unique political, cultural, and social contexts of this time period.
This study can also have implications of a practical nature in the pursuit of agricultural alternatives. Much thought, consideration, and research has gone into addressing the current state of agriculture in the United States and abroad. Motivations ranging from agriculture’s distressing impact on the environment to social inequality and societal health have prompted researchers and supporters alike to pursue possible alternatives. This study extends that research into household gardening. Could this be another efficient facet of the local foods movement? Or is it strictly a creative outlet for gardening enthusiasts? The results from this study can be utilized by academics, governmental officials, and food activists as a means to enliven their own pursuits.
Overall, the importance of this study lies in its examination of contemporary household home gardening. This examination can be used to broaden or enhance future studies and policy decisions within the realms of food, agriculture, the environment, and economic well-being. Additionally, this study will help bring to light the social and demographic characteristics of a population that has not recently received attention in the literature. For these reasons, this study can contribute to the field and help guide further research. 6 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE AND PROPOSITIONS
The objective of this chapter is to synthesize the body of work on household gardeners and parallel environmental and food system themes into a coherent framework that can provide theoretical insights and guide the development of appropriate hypotheses. The chapter is organized into three sections. The first section reviews the significance of household gardening throughout the history of the United States. The goal is to identify what gardening has meant contextually to the populace of the United
States during distinct eras. The second section delimits a range of empirical studies that have preceded this study and that are deemed germane to understanding the social antecedents of home gardening. The purpose of this section is to organize the existing literature, identify limitations, and effectively guide the collection and analysis of data for this study. This section of literature review is organized into 4 distinct subsections: rural/ urban difference, economic hardship and self-provisioning, environmental behaviors, and agriculture and the food system. The third and final section of this chapter details the theoretical predictions and hypotheses that will be tested in this study.
Gardening in Historical Context
Though household gardening has not been a widely studied theme of sociological inquiry, it has received considerable attention in other forums. Seaton (1981) asserts that gardening has a rich and complex history within the United States. Becker (1984) echoes 7 this notion, adding that the history of the home garden is complex because of the ebb and flow of produce grown in the garden and the number of people participating in the activity. Overall, Seaton (1981) suggests that the idyllic draw of the garden has maintained it as an important part of our cultural heritage.
Starting his examination with the exploration and colonization of what became the North American continent, De Wolf (1992) notes that home gardening was practiced widely as a means of survival by the new settlers. Unfortunately, not many records exist today on the exact nature of home gardening during this time. However, the records that do exist seem to indicate that the immigrants to the area quickly adapted to the agro- ecological conditions of their newfound surroundings. Unlike their cousins in Europe, the settlers had to rely on their own food-growing ability and could not simply purchase food at markets. Becker (1984) states that “kitchen” gardens sprang up around nearly every home and were planted, “immediately adjacent to the dwelling and contained not only vegetables, but also medicinal herbs and perhaps a few flowers (p.624).”
Though the settlers had to re-learn how to garden for survival, it seems that a majority of the newcomers possessed a basic understanding of growing produce for consumption. It seems that the colonists started gardens primarily to meet their daily consumption needs. De Wolf (1992) states that a farming background was not a necessity for a successful garden and that many of the gardens throughout the continent were made up of, “simple upscaling of the hand-powered vegetable gardening with which many were familiar (p. 2).” While many of the vegetables brought over from Europe grew nicely in their new surroundings (ironically, many of these vegetables had been borrowed 8 from the North American continent during earlier conquests), growing an adequate amount of food was a considerable challenge. De Wolf (1992) comments that many of the early settlements struggled to flourish because of a lack of food, with the ultimate disaster being the still-mysterious disappearance of all the settlers on Roanoke Island.
Those who were able to avoid demise did so by incorporating the now-famous gardening triad of corn, beans, and squash, which was first practiced by the Native Americans
(Becker 1984, De Wolf 1992).
Thus, the early settlement period was distinctive from other periods of United
States history in the motivations behind home gardening. Settlers survived or perished based on their ability to cultivate their own food. These early gardens provided much: nourishment through fruits, vegetables, and legumes; health through medicinal herbs; and home cleanliness through pleasant-smelling flowers. Home gardening during this time period was widespread and commonly a part of the day-to-day life of a majority of the people.
In the eighteenth century, as the population of the colonies exploded, home gardening began to change. Gardening became less a requirement for everyone as more occupational and residential specialization began to occur. Leighton (1976) suggests that gardening during this century is best described as functioning for use and for delight. For
“use” applies to the individuals who continued to employ the garden as a tool for self- provisioning, where for “delight” alludes to an emerging population who engaged in gardening as a hobby and for relaxation. Bullion (1992) notes that this burgeoning split is demonstrated by the increased popularity of horticultural almanacs, which farmers 9 made use of to optimize harvests, and gardeners of leisure read for the commentary and humorous stories contributed by other gardeners.
Leighton (1976) states that there was little innovation in the home gardens along the Atlantic seaboard and that production held steady, with the output being mostly
European staples and the newly incorporated Native American triad. One significant shift in the colonial home garden of this time period, though, was a shift in location.
Tucker (1993) notes that during this era, the home garden moved from its prominent position beside the house to somewhere out-of-sight from passersby and visitors.
Another change during this time was a substantial increase in the amount of food produced by gardens. Tucker (1993) states that during the course of the century, harvests became increasingly prominent in estate inventories and that nearly every gardener engaged in some sort of preservation technique (root cellar, straw insulation) to protect the harvest through the cold months.
Gardening for leisure also became quite popular during this time. Thomas
Jefferson was an avid gardener. Leighton (1976) notes that Jefferson was known to have grown nearly every vegetable available to him. Miller (1942) remarks that Jefferson’s interest in the home garden and agrarianism played a significant part in forming his economic and political philosophy. A basic tenet of “Jeffersonian Democracy” was that the United States’ success hinged on the success of the agrarian hand. Miller (1942) states that, “Jefferson was anxious to preserve a pattern of civilization which was essentially agricultural (p.66).” Jefferson's illusory yeoman farmer, a title which also
10 applied to the home gardener, exemplified civic virtue and was thought of as superior to those influenced by the city (Elkins and McKitrick 1995).
Looking at it in a different way, Bullion (1992) notes two interesting themes arising during the eighteenth century in relation to leisure home gardening. On the one hand, the act of gardening became, as noted above with Jefferson, increasingly woven into the ideals of a democratic society. On the other hand, gardening became a sport of avocation “viewed as a moral responsibility in a decidedly agrarian nation and as a duty of the enlightened wealthy landowner” (Bullion 1992: 32).
Interestingly, Becker (1984) suggests that there should also be a third category of people engaged in gardening. As the population on the sea coasts began to spill westward, the home garden was almost an afterthought for many of the burgeoning group of frontier women and men. Becker observes that,
“gardening was essentially neglected while a cabin and a cattle shed were erected and enough land was cleared to raise a crop of corn. Once these tasks were accomplished, there was time to plant a small garden, which had to be fenced to protect it from both wild and domesticated animals. Some turnips, a few cabbages, a row or 2 of beans, and a couple of hills of cucumbers probably comprised the average garden” (Becker 1984: 624).
Root and de Rochemont (1976) assert that in the view of this frontier population, vegetables were seen as essentially “fancy” food that was eaten by “ladies” and
“gentlemen,” and not by the average citizen. Becker (1984) suggests that during this time, most individuals survived off grain, meat, fish, and game. Coincidentally, many frontier people eventually embraced home gardening and came to comprise a significant portion of the home gardeners of the day; this early division marks the start of the socioeconomic stratification that we see in today’s food literature. For example, Horsfall 11 (1969) states that during this time, individuals of higher socioeconomic status prided themselves on their lavish gardens maintained by hired and slave labor, while individuals of lower socioeconomic status focused on keeping up their food supply.
Home gardening in the nineteenth century appears to have been heavily influenced by the societal forces associated with the time period. Leighton (1987) notes that during this time period, the home garden transitioned into a symbol of comfort and affluence. As will be demonstrated later, a large portion of the population was beginning to benefit from the broadening industrialization and urbanization in the United
States at that time. Therefore, the nineteenth century can be seen as marking the end of the home garden as a survival mechanism and the beginning of gardening for culture and hobby. Tice (1984) states that, “part of the appeal which gardens held for nineteenth- century Americans was this inherent quality of system and order which heralded progress and civilization for many (p.12).” Even though the garden was no longer functionally necessary for survival for an increasing proportion of the United States, it still symbolized a place of harmony and contentment. Further, Tice (1984) notes that the home garden during this time, “served as a microcosm of agriculture - agrarianism on the domestic scale - and thus became a method for preserving traditional values and teaching them to the young (p.19).”
Two dominant forces impacting the makeup of the home gardening populace during this time period were new technologies and increased urbanization. Though sustenance gardening waned during this time, Tice (1984) notes that the increasing simplicity of gardening and the potential to preserve the abundance from the home 12 garden through the winter attracted many to garden for leisure. One nascent participant of the new phenomenon of home gardening was the corporate business entity. Tucker
(1993) points out that during the nineteenth century, corporations spent considerable effort influencing the character and scale of traditional gardening methods to promote the food preservation products they had for sale. For example, Becker (1984) states that the
Mason jar, available commercially in 1858, was marketed widely, and was utilized extensively by both self-provisioning and leisure gardeners as a way to extend the usefulness of the garden into the non-producing months. Canning, though possible prior to the nineteenth century, spread throughout the United States and Europe during this time because of the availability of canning materials provided by corporations specializing in their production. Tucker (1993) notes that another business development of this time period was the sale of seeds. Before seed businesses existed, gardeners collected their own seeds, trading with friends and neighbors if necessary. The arrival of the seed company changed this. Seed companies headed by David Landreth, Grant
Thorburn, Joseph Breck, and Frank Comstock created catalogs that were filled with hundreds of new types of seeds (Tucker 1993). These companies provided a large spectrum of seeds for the home gardener to try, but their existence reduced the importance of saving seeds. Seed-saving transitioned from necessary to nonessential, even suggestive of economic inferiority. Purchasing new seeds each year was viewed as a sign of affluence.
On another front, Tice (1984) asserts that gardens enabled individuals to psychologically escape the hectic urban life for a few moments of each day. “A garden 13 adjoining a city home acted as an escape from the mental stress of urban life while providing opportunities for physical exercise (Tice 1984: 21).” As it does today, the garden provided an outlet for people to “get away” from the city and settle back into the idyllic memories of the countryside.
During this time, the kitchen garden also began to function as a status symbol in two distinct ways (Tice 1984). First, except during times of war (to be discussed later), the home garden served as a way to show off the excess leisure time the grower had. The types of food grown could also symbolically indicate the economic standing of the gardener. Tice (1984) indicates that a household could present a high economic standing by growing exotic and expensive varieties of crops. Second, and closely related, was the opportunity to utilize expensive methods of growing foods at home to indicate wealth.
Tice (1984) states that, “wealthy consumers were able to construct and heat elaborate glass houses - hothouses, greenhouses, and conservatories . . . (p.51).”
In spite of home gardening's burgeoning influence on the upper and middle class, urbanization of the population and the rise of the professional farmer worked in concert during this century to decrease the practice of home gardening. Becker (1984) notes that the continuing influx of people into urban areas brought about the rise of commercial farmers. Becker (1984) suggests that two types of professional farmers came into existence during this time. The first of these was the market farmer, whose farms were on the edge of major towns, and who, “rais[ed] high-value, perishable crops that were relatively expensive . . . (Becker, 1984: 626).” Market farmers grew produce that was hard to transport but could gain a significant price when sold, such as eggplant, radishes, 14 and spinach. The other type was the truck farmer, located farther from the city, who,
“grew crops that were less perishable . . . and consequently less valuable (Becker, 1984:
626).” Truck farmers generally grew one or two items, such as potatoes and onions, which could successfully travel great distances (Becker 1984).
The subtle rise of the market and truck farmer played into the new way a large portion of households began to secure food. As households were no longer solely responsible for the production of food, places of business that sold food began to increase in visibility during this time. Baker and Izard (1991) note that during this time, markets, trading posts, and incipient grocery stores began to function as the places to secure food items during this time period.
Tice (1984) suggests that the rise of the professional farmer was fueled by technological advances that benefited commercial farming. Cochrane (1993) notes that plows, harrows, planters, cultivators, reapers, and threshers, developed in the 1820s and
1830s, were commonplace by the 1850s. Becker (1984) and Cochrane (1993) posit that the urban population, especially working-class families, dwarfed by the efficiency of truck farmers and limited by time and access to space, gave up home gardening and began to rely on both commercial agriculture for their food and on expanded industrialization for employment to buy that food.
Though urban areas provided their largest market, Becker (1984) finds that commercial farmers found the inhabitants of the rural countryside to be another lucrative source of profitable business. This suggests that throughout the entire United States, the
15 nineteenth century marked a time when a number of factors amalgamated to lead self- provisioning to decline significantly in favor of the professional farmer.
As the United States entered the twentieth century, the practice of home gardening diminished further as technology and the forces of urbanization continued to advance. At the beginning of the century (between 1910 and 1920), the United States passed a demographic milestone as the urban population surpassed the size of the rural population.
As in the nineteenth century, the migrants to urban places found they had less time, space, and desire to maintain home gardens. For example, Lynd and Lynd (1929) found that during the course of one generational transition, home gardening declined 50 percent in the town of Muncie, Indiana. They found that a majority (80 percent) of older generation residents gardened, while only 40 percent of the next generation kept up with gardening.
Spurred by Norman Borlaug's invention of high yield seeds in the 1950s, the
Green Revolution dramatically altered the efficiency of the United States farmer. The
USDA (2008) calculates that at the start of the twentieth century, an average farmer could feed roughly 7 people; by the end of the century, that number had jumped 20-fold to 140.
Heralded by some and criticized by others (see Shiva 1992), the Green Revolution played a significant part in the shift from home gardening to commercial agriculture.
Though the twentieth century marked a significant decline in home gardening, there were two important events that prompted surges, albeit temporary ones, in gardening. Called war gardens during World War I and victory gardens during World
War II, the home garden reappeared with a vengeance during these times of crisis.
Slogans such as “Food will win the war” and “Can the Kaiser” epitomized the effort to 16 turn a potential food shortage into food abundance during these difficult times (Cole
1993). In addition, War/Victory gardens were planted as a symbol of support for the war effort in Europe and were seen by many as a household’s patriotic duty. Cole (1993) attests that between 1941 and 1945, the sheer volume of periodicals devoted to the topic of home gardening reflects the importance of these gardens during World War II.
The war/victory gardens were planted to promote independence from commercially produced food and thus allow the diversion of more resources to the war effort. Martin (1944), Cole (1993), and Miller (2004) all suggest that the war/victory garden phenomenon was embraced within the United States because of its effectiveness in saving metals (used during the canning process) and because it diverted roughly one- third of the food grown commercially in the U.S. towards the war effort. Home gardens were also a way to boost morale for households, as gardening could be viewed as a stateside way to actively contribute to winning the war. House and Garden (1943) suggests that during World War II, more than 20 million families planted a victory garden every spring. Bentley (1988) posits that these gardens functioned symbolically to demonstrate patriotism during the war, while also helping to build community structure where they were planted.
Interestingly, Miller (2004) reports that unlike any other time in the history of the
United States, governmental apparatus was involved extensively in the promotion of household gardening during the war periods. Cole (1993) suggests that one reason for active governmental involvement was the assumption that urban populations no longer knew how to grow fruits and vegetables. Literature produced by the Department of 17 Agriculture offers evidence that the government assumed a general lack of knowledge about home gardening. The department printed information that included “plans,
‘schemes,’ timetables, and guides to ordering seeds (Miller 2004: 396).” Cole (1993) also notes that the government offered numerous packets filled with advice on how to properly maintain soil, germinate seeds, compost, and preserve food. The federal government was not the only governing body in support of war/victory gardens: Miller
(2004) points out that during this time, municipalities throughout the country amended ordinances to allow for gardening in certain urban zones where it had previously been prohibited or limited. Cole (1993) remarks that home gardening during the World Wars functioned as a way to improve the nutritional intake of households in the United States; perhaps this was a motive behind governments' support of the gardens.
Although patriotic duty was a significant impetus for the war/victory gardening movement, both Tucker (1993) and Bentley (1998) argue that there were other societal factors that led to the reemergence of home gardening during these time periods. Bentley
(1998) argues that economic necessity played a significant part in the decision to have a home garden. Specifically, Bentley (1998) cites a survey during World War I which found that 54% of respondents gardened for economic reasons compared to 29% for patriotism. Tucker (1993) suggests that, in part, “war gardening of 1917 emerged from consumer fear of rising prices and actual food shortages (p.121).” In New York City, this anxiety about a lack of food influenced some Wall Street bankers to plow their large estates to plant potatoes, and the Park Commission to attempt to stimulate New Yorkers' interest by holding contests to judge the largest produce (Tucker, 1993: 122). Further, 18 Bentley (1998) suggests that while home gardening during the war was widely embraced out of patriotism, there were two populations that did so more for economic and nutritional survival. African Americans and residents of the rural south gardened largely because it, “was vital to economic survival and thus naturally continued during the war period, when there was even more need (Bently, 1998:120).”
While the exact amount of food grown in gardens during this time remains unclear, Cole (1993) suggests that 60 percent of the nation had some form of a war garden. The war/victory gardening movement marked a time when various political, cultural, and economic forces converged to prompt many households to engage in home gardening after a century of home gardening's declining importance. However, the notion of gardening as a national duty waned after each World War, as did participation in the past time. Further, and paradoxically, Miller (2004) suggests that the same promoters of victory gardens used the same channels of opportunity (propaganda, patriotism, and efficiency) to advocate the scientific and technological advancements in United States agriculture that led to the immense support for the Green Revolution.
Unfortunately, there has been relatively little academic literature focusing on the prevalence of home gardening (see Quandy et al. 1994, Beoku and Betts 2002, and
Teitelbaum and Beckley 2006) since the end of World War II. This limited interest suggests that once the explosion of patriotic gardening faded, home gardening reverted back to the individuals who engaged in the activity for cultural reasons or for leisure or hobby. However, this is not to say that home gardening, or more broadly the idea of self- provisioning, has been completely absent in the United States. Proponents such as Berry 19 (1977), Spurlock (2004), and Pollen (2006) have all promoted the merits of home gardening and home-grown foods as central tenets of their agrarian/environmental ideologies. Thus, the fascination of the popular contemporary media with food, and locally grown food in particular (Pollen, 2006, Kingsolver, 2007), suggests home gardening may be entering the consciousness of the United States public again. Or perhaps this is another fad period when home gardening appeals to a leisure class or is a way of constructing a particular identity or status in this postmodern era. This study is in many ways an attempt to unpack the social meanings and statuses associated with contemporary home gardening to understand the social basis of participation in this ancient activity.
2.2 Empirical and Theoretical Foundation
As noted in the introductory chapter and preceding section, there has been limited empirical research examining the social antecedents of home gardening. However, even though the literature does not directly address the question of who gardens and why, research does exist on related topics that might inform research on this topic. This section reviews relevant literature that offers some potential insight.
On the one hand, upon review of the historical record of home gardening, several themes emerge which merit consideration in the search for the identity of today's home gardener. First, geography and spatial location seem to influence who becomes a home gardener; for example, historically, the continued urbanization of the United States has led to a decline in gardening in urban areas and an increased reliance on the food market sector. Second, the historical review shows that at times in history, home gardening has 20 functioned as a way to demonstrate a particular lifestyle characteristic. For example, gardening denoted status during certain eras in American history, such as during the nineteenth century when it indicated affluence and socioeconomic well-being. The third theme which may be drawn from historical review is that specific historical factors can lead to increased or reduced levels of home gardening. For example, the harsh conditions of colonial times required colonists to practice home gardening; similarly, perceived scarcity and patriotism during World War I and II brought home gardening back to the household level en masse.
On the other hand, certain contemporary literary themes need to be addressed when considering the social antecedents of the home gardener. The first of these is the literature that has focused on pro-environment behaviors. Research has suggested that home gardening and activities similar to home gardening have amalgamated into a
“green” portfolio that pro-environment supporters embrace. The second set of contemporary literature which needs to be visited is the research on food and agriculture.
Though home gardening has not been looked at directly recently, much literature exists on similar activities , especially participation in alternative agriculture techniques, which may be helpful in finding out who today's home gardeners are.
Drawing collectively on the historical record of home gardening and the contemporary research on similar activities, five important themes surface which should be considered when theorizing about the home gardeners of today. These themes include: rural/urban difference, lifestyle presentation, environmental behaviors, economic hardship and self-provisioning, and agriculture/food. It is anticipated that by drawing on 21 work across these different areas of inquiry, several testable propositions can be advanced which can then be examined more closely regarding the phenomenon of home gardening.
Differences between Rural and Urban
This subsection discusses the literature that exists on the process of differentiating populations based on spatial location. Establishing and distinguishing rural and urban as two separate populations has garnered substantial attention from sociologists. Willits et al. (1995) states, “the rural-urban differences in attitudes and values have a long history of intuitive support and an empirical base (1995: 454).” Further, Lobao (2006) points out that events such as the 2000 and 2004 United States presidential elections have challenged the view that continuity exists between rural and urban populations' voting tendencies, in that voting patterns followed most significantly the pattern of voters' geographic location (i.e., rural vs. urban). In addition, the inclusion of spatial location has also occurred in attitudinal assessments of environmentalism (see Jones et al. 1998, and Jones et al. 2003) and animal welfare (see Kendall, Lobao, and Sharp 2006; and
Sharp and Tucker 2005). The results from these studies suggest that consideration of the differences between populations based on location within the rural to urban continuum has been worthwhile for many topics.
On the theoretical side, Falk (1996) discusses the importance for including rural communities as a distinct population of study when he studied issues related to income and ethnicity. Falk (1996) asserts that social scientists have inaccurately portrayed the poor and minorities as living exclusively in urban areas. This is troublesome because it 22 ignores the fact that large percentages of disadvantaged populations live in rural areas, such as the 15% of America's African American population living in the rural deep South
(see Snipp 1996), and the large populations of poor Caucasians living in Appalachia (see
Duncan 1996). Particularly, Falk (1996) states that the study of rural populations can be used as a catalyst to promote issues that might have been overlooked and can function as a bridge to understanding the entire population of the United States.
Creed and Ching (1997) also address the importance of recognizing the uniqueness of rural and urban populations from a theoretical stance. Evaluating what they see as an urban bias in the social sciences, Creed and Ching (1997) argue that there is a crucial need to maintain the visibility and vitality of the rustic and rural not only from a food production standpoint, but also to examine the overall life course of rural people.
Creed and Ching (1997) cite examples from around the world, such as the battles fought in Sarajevo, the Oklahoma City bombing, and the Communist Party’s reaction to protesting Chinese farmers, to demonstrate uncompromising rural/urban polarities that do not fit fully into the urban bias. Not giving attention to these distinct cases, according to
Creed and Ching (1997), creates a mask that ignores place identification.
It must be stated that there has been a growing recognition in this thread of the literature that spatial location is not as simple as rural versus urban. Researchers have come to focus on the areas, called the “fringe,” between highly urban and rural areas.
Audirac (1999) identifies the rural urban fringe as the geographical location where occupants are within reasonable commuting distances to urbanized areas, but still far enough away that they are not identifiable as solely urban. Sharp and Clark (2008) 23 researched the inhabitants of fringe areas and found them distinct from both urban and rural residents. They found that examination of certain occupational, socio-cultural, and ecological characteristics proved that the rural-urban fringe was composed of residents neither rural nor urban, but distinct. Specifically, Sharp and Clark (2008) found that in terms of demographic characteristics, the fringe occupies a middle position between rural and urban populations.
Recognizing the behavioral and attitudinal differences between populations based on spatial location is important when considering households that participate in home gardening. As noted in the historical context, moreover by Lobao and Meyer (2001), the practice of growing food has substantially shifted geographically into more rural areas as urbanization has progressed in the United States. Because of this, a difference could exist in terms of prevalence of household gardening along the rural to urban continuum. The
USDA (2009) reports that a substantial majority of the agricultural activity in the United
States has shifted into areas that are increasingly rural. While the obvious need for space to grow the food contributes to this shift, it also suggests that the knowledge of how to grow food may be moving with it. Put another way, due to the historical shifts in the population over the last century, a household's knowledge of how to grow food and its ability to do so could vary significantly based on its location along the rural to urban continuum.
Exploring this notion, Morton et al. (2008) investigated the ways in which two high-poverty rural areas and two low-income urban areas access food resources.
Drawing the distinction between redistributive and reciprocity economies, Morton et al. 24 (2008) found that there was a substantial difference between these two populations in how they feed themselves. Burga (2002) states that a redistributive economy is one in which the reallocation of resources is done within a collective social unit by formal governmental or charitable units, while a reciprocity economy is one in which the sharing of goods is done between individual members of a community. Morton et al. (2008) found that the two high-poverty rural areas were more likely to utilize a reciprocity economy and the two low-income urban areas were more likely to access food through a redistributive economy. The importance of this finding for this study derives from the fact that the reciprocity economy was found to be made up, in part, of the produce generated by home gardens. In fact, Morton et al. (2008) found that the rural areas studied had roughly three times as many household gardens as the urban areas, and these gardens served as a significant source of fruits and vegetables.
Taking into consideration the work done on the potential differences between households in rural and urban areas, the following hypothesis is made for this study:
1. Spatial location based upon the rural-urban continuum and geographic
settings will have an effect on the likelihood of a household garden,
namely:
a. More rural areas of the continuum have a greater likelihood of
having a garden compared to more urban areas of the continuum.
b. Houses located on tracts of larger residential lot space will be more
likely to have a household garden compared to those with less
space. 25 Environmental Literature
This subsection discusses the literature that details research on topics associated with the environment. Overall, the environment has been a major focus of research in the last couple of decades and a vast collection of work has amassed on the topic. The review here considers two themes in the literature: the social bases of environmentalism, and the characteristics of those who consider themselves pro-environment.
However, before discussing the two aspects of the environmental literature, it is important for the purposes of this study to develop a working definition of
“environmentalism,” one that is consistent with previous work, and to delve into the studies related to the environment and home gardening. A working definition of environmentalism is helpful in that it creates a way to define what it means to be “pro- environment,” which allows this study to focus on the differences that exist between households in terms of whether they are "pro-environment."
While there are many definitions of “environmentalism,” Mertig and Dunlap
(2001) present one of the social sciences' most useable definition. As a starting point, they differentiate between “conservationism” and “environmentalism.” Conservationism,
“has roots going back a century or more, [and] is often depicted as being primarily interested in the preservation of wildlife and aesthetic environments . . . and the conservation and efficient use of resources (Hayes 1987 cited in Mertig and Dunlap 2001:
115). Environmentalism, in opposition, is, “seen as encompassing the broader goal of environmental protection and entailing a more exacting critique of the status quo (Mertig and Dunlap, 2001: 115). Thus, the difference between conservationism and 26 environmentalism is the difference in the goals to be attained. Conservationism is primarily interested in protecting space so that it can remain unaltered, whereas environmentalism takes the same preservationist stance several steps further, educating people about environmentally destructive practices while also attempting to rehabilitate environmentally degraded areas.
This area of study has varied considerably over the years; however, there has always been a significant interest in identifying the social bases of concern for the environment. Identification of the social bases of environmental concern allows researchers to better understand the social characteristics of those who do and do not consider themselves to be “environmentalist.” Research has promoted several theories of the social base(s) of environmentalism. Jones and Dunlap (1992) discuss the environmental theories of broadening base and the economic contingency hypothesis.
Jones and Dunlap (1993), building on the work of Flinn and Buttal (1974) and
Grossman and Potter (1977), posit that the broadening base of environmentalism comes from the diffusion of concern for the environment over time. More explicitly, as time passes, the concern for environmental quality will eventually spread throughout all population subgroups. The pair notes, “the broadening base hypothesis suggests that environmental concern has [by today] diffused throughout all sectors of society (Jones and Dunlap, 1992: 32),” because of the passage of a sufficient amount of time. The implication of this theory is that demographic variables such as ethnicity, gender, age, and political affiliation will not always be steadfast predictors of determining
27 environmentalistic tendencies in a population. Instead, researchers would have to focus on other variables, such as behaviors, to understand who is pro-environment.
Though he did not identify it as such, the theory of economic contingency comes from the work of Buttel (1975). This theory states that as, “economic conditions worsen, or at least are perceived as worsening, those who are economically disadvantaged will be the first to withdraw their support for environmental protection (Jones and Dunlap, 1992:
33).” Jones and Dunlap (1992), rather than finding this to be in direct opposition to the broadening base theory, suggest that it is an important qualification to it. “The economic contingency hypothesis suggests that a broadening of the social bases of environmental concern is contingent upon economic conditions (Jones and Dunlap, 1992: 34).” This theory thus suggests that while there may be a permeation of concern for the environment in all populations over time, the onset of worsening economic conditions will cause populations more affected by the worsening conditions to put economic progress ahead of environmental well-being.
In a follow-up piece, Jones et al. (1999) revisit the literature and discuss two additional theories on the identity of the environmentalist. This piece focuses particularly on spatial location. The first of these two new theories was the theory of differential exposure. Using Bennett and McBeth (1998) as an example, Jones et al. (1999) propose that the differential exposure theory of environmentalism be used to explain the differences between urban and rural populations. This theory posits that urban residents are more likely to be environmentalists because they, “are more apt to be exposed to environmental degradation (Jones et al. 1999)” when compared to rural residents. 28 Support for this theory has been mixed: some research confirms the proposition and other research does not.
The second theory discussed by Jones et al. (1999) is extractive-commodity, which suggests that rural residents hold more use-based attitudes towards environmental resources than urban residents because of their proximate location to extractive activities.
Like the theory of differential exposure, extractive-commodity theory has received lukewarm support from research (see Bennett and McBeth 1998). Perhaps this is due to the fact that population shifts in the United States, as noted above, have significantly blurred the original margins separating “rural” from “urban.” Jones et al. (1999) note that pro-environmental shifts within the extractive industry, coupled with the large migration of urban households to rural areas, have made this theory ever-more imprecise.
In addition to understanding theoretical constructions of the social base of environmentalism, it is important to understand what the literature has found in its consideration of the behavioral characteristics of environmentalists. Research has shown a symbiotic relationship between the subscription to environmentalism and three behavioral characteristics. The first of these is support of alternative agriculture techniques. Raynolds (2000), studying the organic and free trade movements, found that they shared a goal of harmonizing the environment and food production. Raynolds
(2000) found that the creation of the organic and free trade movements was done, in part, to critique and offer alternatives to the conventional agricultural system, believed to devalue and degrade environmental resources. Raynolds (2000) asserts that proponents of the fair trade movement utilize the process of “re-embedding [agricultural items] . . . 29 [where they] develop a more stable and advantageous system of trade for . . . goods produced under favorable social and environmental conditions (emphasis added, p. 297).”
Further demonstrating the link between environmentalism and alternative agricultural practices, Wimberley et al. (2003), among others, conclude that pro-environment attitudes and alternative agriculture behaviors go hand-in-hand, as they found that 71% of individuals surveyed were willing to pay more for food if methods to protect the environment had been implemented in its production.
The link between environmentalism and alternative agriculture has also been noted in literature on the emergence of the local foods movement. Hinrichs (2003) states that the local foods movement is constructed on the premise of, “counteract[ing] trends of economic concentration, social disempowerment, and environmental degradation in the food and agricultural landscape . . . (p. 33).” Similarly, Alkon (2007) found, while studying two farmers’ markets in the San Francisco Bay area, that utilizing local foods systems was regularly seen by participants as a way to demonstrate pro-environment beliefs. While divided on the effectiveness of this tactic, the literature does demonstrate that those who participate in the local foods movement do so as a way to show preference for pro-environment beliefs.
The second behavioral characteristic found to be related to environmentalism is participation in outdoor leisure activities. One of the first studies to consider this link was conducted by Dunlap and Heffernan (1975). They hypothesized that there would be a positive correlation between involvement in outdoor activities and environmental concern. They indeed found a positive correlation, which they present in their results; 30 however, they suggest that the topic needs to be researched further. Numerous studies did take on this question, with mixed results (see Geisler et al. 1977, Van Liere and Noe
1981, and Jackson 1986). Much debate surrounds these studies, as it does the study of the social bases of environmentalism. The question is whether the studies' focus should be on environmental attitudes or behaviors. In general, environmental attitudes show weak or no association with outdoor activities, while environmental behaviors show a stronger association.
Noting this difficulty in measurement, Theordori et al. (1998) revisited this question more than a decade later and focused their study on examining the relationship between outdoor activities and pro-environment behaviors. Theordori et al. (1998) measured pro-environment behavior in several ways, including: contributing money or time to an environmental or wildlife conservation group, halting purchase of a product because it causes an environmental problem, attending a public hearing about the environment, and watching a television special about the environment. Their results showed a substantial association between outdoor recreational activities (such as picnicking, bird watching, backpacking, fishing, and hunting) and pro-environment behavior.
The third and final behavior noted here as being related to environmentalism is participation in activities such as recycling and composting. Dunlap et al. (1983) suggest that individuals who are concerned about the environment are much more likely to participate in recycling programs. Testing this proposition, Vining and Ebreo (1990),
31 Derkesen and Gartrell (1993), and Gamba and Oskamp, among others, have all found an association between pro-environment behaviors and participation in recycling programs.
Thus, upon review of the literature surrounding the social bases of environmentalism and the three behavior characteristics of environmentalists, it appears plausible that there is a positive link between households which are pro-environment and households which utilize home gardening. Home gardening may function for the environmentalist as another page in his or her “green” portfolio. At the same time, a review of the social bases of environmentalism reveals that the demographic characteristic of a household is no longer the sole predictor of its degree of environmentalism. This study therefore builds upon the suggestion of Jones and Dunlap
(1992) to measure a household's outward behaviors of environmentalism to determine whether it is likely to participate in home gardening. Rather than use demographic variables such as age, socioeconomic status, and political affiliation, this study will use variables that measure performed behaviors that are pro-environmental. This avoids the potential pitfalls of operationalizing a continually shifting pro-environment population based on demographics. In addition, focusing on pro-environment behaviors allows this study to measure the household rather than the individual as the unit of analysis. This is possible because the behaviors measured in this study apply to all the members of a household, while demographic characteristics could vary considerably through a single household. This section of the literature demonstrates that the follow hypothesis should be made in relation to this study:
32 2. Households in which the members demonstrate more pro-environment
behaviors will be more likely to have a household garden than households
in which the members demonstrate either no pro-environment or anti-
environment behaviors.
Economic Hardship and Self-Provisioning
This subsection discusses the literature on economic hardship and self- provisioning in relation to home gardening. Economic hardship has received much attention in the social sciences, particularly sociology. Interestingly, however, few works on economic hardship have considered the topic of household gardening as an adaptation to economic hardship. The research that has been done on home gardening, though, focuses on self-provisioning activities as a strategy to deal with economic hardship.
Because of this link, this section elaborates on economic hardship and self-provisioning collectively. This section first discusses the literature within the field of economic hardship research generally and then brings in the contributions from the work done on self-provisioning as a strategy for dealing with economic hardship.
Mirowsky and Ross (1999) state that economic hardship occurs when individuals or households have difficulty, “paying bills or buying things the household needs such as food, clothing, medicine, and medical care (p. 548).” Framing it in this way reveals that the state of economic hardship is present when households cannot provide the conditions necessary to live a basic lifestyle through financial means. The interest in and research of economic hardship has generally fallen into two categories (Mirowsky and Ross, 1999): the effect that economic hardship has on emotions, and finding a way to numerically 33 measure economic hardship. The first of these two categories is beyond the scope of this study; however, an examination may be made of the second. Orshansky (1965) is credited with developing an important measure of economic hardship. Orshanksy (1965) calculated the amount of money needed for one household's necessary food provisions plus the cost of other necessary living expenses (rent, utilities, and clothing). Those households in which the members did not make money above the calculated mark were considered to be experiencing economic hardship. This calculation, as reported by
Mirowsky and Ross (1999) and Saunders (2008), continues to be implemented as the way to measure economic hardship today.
Numerous works (for example see Citro and Michael 1995; Colasanto et al. 1984; and Hauser and Carr 1995) have taken issue with the effectiveness of this calculation in actually measuring economic hardship. Overall, the assertion of these works has been that one calculation cannot be trusted to consistently measure economic hardship.
Specifically, a report put forth by the Organization for Economic Development suggests that this measurement,
“d[oes] not provide a full picture of ‘command over resources’: [it] often neglects individuals’ ability to borrow, to draw from accumulate savings, and to benefit from help provided by family and friends, as well as consumption of public services such as education, health and housing (Boarini and d’Ercole, 2006: 10).”
Further, Saunders et al. (2008) note that it is not reliable to depend solely on a measure of income when capturing the living standards of those in lower socioeconomic levels.
Saunders et al. (2008) state that using income alone as a predictor of economic hardship fails to take into account the other material resources that households may have at their disposal. Saunders et al. (2008) mention wealth as an example; in terms of home 34 gardening, it seems appropriate to consider other material resources, such as land, and nonmaterial resources such as gardening knowledge, as potential instruments to circumvent economic hardship.
The debate surrounding the effectiveness of measuring economic hardship solely with Orshansky’s calculation has prompted suggestions of other ways to measure economic hardship. Ringen (1988) proposes that one alternative measurement is to consider the relative amount of deprivation that members of households confront in their day-to-day living. Saunders et al. (2008) states that measuring deprivation helps keep the idea of economic hardship rooted in the conditions faced by the people experiencing it, rather than assigning economic hardship with an abstract numerical measurement.
Another alternative method of measurement is to ask respondents directly what they perceive their level of financial solvency to be. This is the method used in this study. The purpose of this is two-fold: first, to avoid assigning an arbitrary external number to economic hardship; second, to assess if perceived levels of economic deprivation lead to a higher prevalence of home gardening.
While self-provision has received relatively little attention in economic hardship literature, the works that do exist discuss home gardening extensively. Self-provisioning refers to a collection of activities in which goods are produced for self-consumption or trade rather than sold on a market (Teitelbaum and Beckley 2006). The authors of self- provisioning literature have spent a considerable amount of time attempting to disentangle the motivations for participation in self-provisioning. In general, the debate
35 has focused on whether self-provisioning exists because of economic necessity or because of a desire for the preservation of culture or lifestyle.
The results of the study of the relationship between economic hardship and the existence of home gardening has been mixed. Campbell (1993) found that residents in the Missouri Ozarks participated in the informal trading of goods and services as a way to survive economically. In addition, Mingione (1991) found that low-income households used self-provisioning activities to solidify their economic standing. However, other work has found no relationship or a negative relationship between economic hardship and self-provisioning activities. Jenson et al. (1995) found no distinct relationship between income levels and self-provisioning activities when looking at households in rural
Pennsylvania. Brown et al. (1998) found that households with higher incomes were actually more likely to participate in self-provisioning than those in economic hardship.
Teitelbaum and Beckley (2006) came to a comparable conclusion when examining self-provisioning activities in rural Canada. Looking at the motivations for hunting, wild harvesting, and growing produce at home, Teitelbaum and Beckley (2006) found that low capital investments, like gardening and wild crafting, were still practiced widely, not solely because of economic necessity but because of a complex set of cultural motivations. Results from a survey found that, “economic factors are not the overriding factor in determining whether or not households participate in self-provisioning activities
(Teitelbaum and Beckley, 2006: 127).” In fact, Teitelbaum and Beckley (2006) found that lower socioeconomic households were the least likely to participate in self-provision after controlling for cultural motivations. 36 Similarly, Quandt et al. (1994) found that economic hardship was not a leading motivation for the participation in self-provisioning activities. Quandt (1994) was interested in examining the home gardening and food preservation practices of the elderly in rural Kentucky. Using the results from bivariate analysis, Quandt et al. (1994) found that residents with lower income levels were less likely to participate in home gardening compared to those with high income levels. Additionally, age, marital status, and living arrangements were found to be more predictive of the likelihood of a home garden than was economic hardship (Quandt et al. 1994).
Self-provisioning throughout North America has been found to more consistently represent cultural and lifestyle preservation. Hinrichs (1998) looked into the motivations of people who produce maple syrup in Vermont and Quebec. While Hinrichs (1998) surmised that the production of maple syrup could be an economically lucrative endeavor, she found that few individuals had this as their primary motivation for participation. Instead, Hinrichs (1998) found that individuals participated in production because of its ability to build a cultural economy that promoted preferred cultural identities and lifestyles. For example, Hinrichs found that, “participation in a resource production activity like sugar making allows people . . . to assert and consolidate a rural identity (p. 522).”
Reinforcing Hinrichs's finding, research during the 1980s farm crisis also suggests that some participants of agriculture engage in the activity not for economic reasons but rather cultural ones. Research during this time period was particularly interested in the persistence of family farming despite the difficult economic conditions in the farm sector. 37 Rationally speaking and from an economic standpoint, it would have made sense for family farming to disappear from the landscape. However, studies performed by Newby et al. (1981), Barlett (1986), Freidmann (1986), and Coughenour and Swanson (1988) found that this was not the case. Friedmann (1986) found that family farming subsisted in spite of continued loss of profit, and posited that this was because farming represented the preferred way of life for participants.. Similarly, Newby et al. (1981) found that value systems were a significant reason that farming persisted in the face of dwindling solvency. Additionally Coughenour and Swanson (1988) found that farmers gained a high level of satisfaction from their work, which potentially contributed to the persistence of the family farm. Drawing upon these studies, it seems plausible that people who participate in agricultural production take into consideration more than simply whether it is economically rational. Cultural values, perceived satisfaction, and lifestyle choice also seem to play an important part.
Keeping this in mind, Omohundro (1995) investigated the motivations for agricultural self-provisioning in Northern Canada. Omohundro (1995) found that in
Canada, as in the United States, there had historically been a clear shift from sustenance/ survival gardening towards gardening as hobby and display of household values.
Omohundro (1995) states,
“The adaptive strategy of northerners still includes a great deal of home production. Besides its practical utility, home production serves as a cultural trait of regional distinction, a palliative to rapid change, a recreation, and the public act of a hard-working and talented rural Newfoundlander (p. 123).”
38 Thus, like the other research noted, Omohundro's (1995) study suggests that while economic factors can play a part in the decision to self-provision, an important if not central impetus can derive from other factors.
Though research in North America has found no relationship or a negative relationship between economic hardship and self-provisioning, two contemporary studies outside of the United States have found a positive relationship between economic hardship and home gardening. Seeth et al. (1998) analyzed the ways that households responded to the economic stress of the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics (USSR) in the early 1990s. Seeth et al. (1998) was particularly interested in focusing on the ways in which households responded to the poverty conditions that suddenly arose. Seeth et al. (1998) found that the economic transition of Russia caused not only those of low socioeconomic status but, “the majority of the population [to] produc[e] its own food supply to a considerable extent (p. 1611).” von Bruan et al.
(1996) states that this was driven by the economic transition towards privatization in the agricultural sector, the creation of new food market risks, and the breakdown of the large scale crop and livestock sector. Echoing this, Seeth et al. (1998) found that continued market liberalization and declines in average real incomes caused a large portion of
Russian households to produce their own food as insurance against the economic conditions of the time; where, “entering [the economic] transformation with a well- managed, efficient garden plot certainly was an advantage in dealing with the new risks from exogenous shocks and market disruption (1618).” Household gardening was so prevalent during this time that Agra Europe (1996) estimates that by 1995, household 39 food production accounted for 42% of the meat, 44% of the milk, 82% of the potatoes, and 90% of the fruit and vegetables consumed in Russia.
Pallot and Nefedova (2003) found that the elapse of 12 years since the USSR's collapse had not lessened households' commitment to food production. However, rather than attributing household production solely to economic collapse, Pallot and Nefedova
(2003) suggest that a more nuanced explanation is needed. Citing the work of geographers and historians, Pallot and Nefedova (2003) promote the idea that economics, culture, landscape, and history all contributed to the onset and continuance of household gardening. Economic hardship may have been the tipping point in the massive increase of household gardening, but the culture, geography, and history of the USSR also offered unique contributions. Pallot and Nefedova's study emphasizes the importance of considering all societal factors when examining a society's motivations for home gardening. Like Pallot and Nefedova's study, this study will consider the multiple social factors that can increase the likelihood of home gardening.
The impact of the economic collapse of the USSR was not confined to Eastern
Europe. Cuba, among other countries, was affected because of its political and trade affiliations with the USSR. Cuba amassed a large part of its financial reserves exporting sugar to the USSR, and the money went towards keeping Cuba afloat. Nova (2002) states that even before the socialist revolution in the 1950s, Cuba's agricultural success was fueled by foreign capital/resources and the concentration of its land in large plantations. The shift in power and political structure after the revolution served to intensify this effect as Cuba focused much of its agricultural efforts on exporting 40 sugarcane to the USSR, and in turn came to rely solely on machinery and petroleum from the USSR to sustain its agricultural program. Nova (2002) states that the collapse of the
USSR caused serious problems for Cuba in that most of the agricultural tools and markets to which it was accustomed were no longer available.
The collapse of the USSR forced Cuba to essentially reinvent Cuban agriculture in a very short amount of time. Companioni et al. (2002) found that, in part, home gardening was embraced as a solution to the situation. Generally, the Cuban population, especially those Cubans living in urban spaces, used home gardening as a way to deal with the economic hardship from the collapse of the USSR, the low quality of vegetables at markets, the shortages of seasonings and spices, and the under-utilization of available space (Companioni et al. 2002). In fact, Companioni et al. (2002) report that self- provisioning was occurring on such a grand scale in Cuba after the collapse of the USSR, that factories, offices, and other types of businesses regularly maintained gardens to feed employees during working hours.
Though recent research has not demonstrated economic hardship to be a motivation for home gardening, the contemporary example of the collapse of the Soviet bloc does offer an interesting parallel to earlier times in the United States. As in the
USSR after its economic collapse, many households in the United States were motivated to create war gardens during World War I because of perceived extreme economic instability. A natural extrapolation of both of these examples is that members of households gain significant motivation to grow a portion of their own food when commercially grown food is expensive or unavailable, or when starting costs associated 41 with home gardening make it a cheaper alternative. Put simply, this research suggests that it might be useful to consider food costs when evaluating the likelihood of home gardening amongst a population.
This may explain why current research has not noted an increase in home gardening in spite of documented economic hardship. Though economic hardship has been pervasive throughout the United States, the price of food has remained relatively low since the end of World War II up until the last several years. As long as food prices remain low, the household experiencing economic hardship may gain little by investing in food self-provision. However, the literature (through the examples of the United
States during World War I, post-collapse USSR countries, and Cuba) puts forth a caveat: increased self-provisioning does occur if economic conditions for food prices deteriorate.
This caveat is important to consider when looking at the stability in food prices in the United States today. Though food prices have historically remained low, USDA Chief
Economist Joseph Glauber (2008) suggests that the landscape is shifting today. Glauber
(2008) notes that food prices increased between three and four percent in 2007 and are expected to continue increasing through 2010. This increase, being above the inflation rate, means that food costs will be more than they historically have been, after adjusting for inflation. One wonders if the United States has entered a time period when the economic rationale to engage in home gardening exists again.
Taken together, all of this literature suggests that home gardening can be and at times has been used as a response to economic hardship. However, the studies have differed in their findings about the importance economic hardship plays in leading an 42 individual to participate in home gardening. Numerous studies have shown that within the United States, economic hardship does not typically serve as a stand-alone condition to fuel home gardening, instead requiring other cultural and lifestyle factors. However, given the example of perceived economic hardship during World War I, and the contemporary examples of the USSR and Cuba, this study is interested in whether the significant shifts in economic conditions in the United States might lead households to home garden.
Taking into consideration the literature on economic hardship, the following hypothesis will be tested in this study:
3. There will be a positive relationship between the perceived level of
economic hardship and the likelihood of a household garden.
Literature on Agriculture and Food
This subsection of the literature review discusses the work that has been done within sociology in relation to agriculture and food. While the literature has not recently focused on household gardening, it has discussed other populations associated with agriculture and food - populations that are closely related to the ones participating in household gardening. As the amount of literature in this field is vast, the review presented here focuses on the work that can be informative of the characteristics of household home gardening today. To that end, this section is broken into three parts. The first section details the literature that has focused on the identifying characteristics of food production noted in the historical context of home gardening in the United States.
This section discusses the work that details the ways in which home gardening can be an 43 exercise in identity construction. The reason this body of literature is important is because the historical record of household gardening demonstrates that the activity has had a symbolic meaning of status. The second section draws in the literature regarding alternative agriculture production techniques. This section suggests that home gardening may function as a way for a household to disengage from the dominant conventional system. The last section elaborates on identity construction and alternative agriculture participation collectively.
To begin with, on the topic of identity construction, the literature suggests that food can function as a way for someone to demonstrate who he or she is . The works of
Levi-Strauss (1975) and Douglas (1997) point out that food objects can be constructed into a social language that has rich, symbolic significance. People do not treat food simply as an inanimate object, but rather as something that holds a particular sense of being for the participant. Framing this study in this sense suggests that food creation should have some sort of symbolic importance to the gardeners who produce it.
However, as the history of gardening demonstrates, the exact motivation can vary from a desire to adhere to cultural standards, to economic necessity, to interest in the activity as leisure, based on the factors presented to a household. Nonetheless, it seems appropriate to think that food grown in a garden will have some sort of significance because of the time and effort that goes into cultivating it. One of the overarching goals of this study is to identify some of the ways food has been symbolically important to populations close to food and agriculture, and then test to see if the same holds true for household gardeners.
44 Related to this, past literature has demonstrated that studying participants active in the agricultural system allows the researcher to understand the ways in which they construct their lifeworld (Manton 1999, Moss et al. 2007). Lifeworld, stemming from the work of Habermas, can be thought of as an idea, “referring to the world of the shared, ongoing flow of experience, from which we constitute objects and abstract concepts
(Marshall, 1998: p. 370 - 371).” Lifeworld, like Weber and Simmel’s Verstehen and
Bourdieu’s Habitus, is helpful in understanding the way in which individuals draw from the outside world to define situations, create social solidarity, and coordinate specific action (see Ho 2008 for a discussion of this). With this study, framing home gardening as a part of a household’s lifeworld opens up the ways in which it can be researched. As discussed earlier, home gardening may be a household’s reaction to perceived environmental degradation or economic hardship. For the topic of food and agriculture, household gardening may fit into a lifeworld as a way to participate in a form of alternative agriculture. Put another way, home gardening may be a natural extension of how the household participates in alternative forms of agriculture.
Moving onto the topic of alternative agriculture, the literature has discussed other agriculture production techniques that are similar to home gardening. Discussing this section of the literature is important to this study because it highlights the ways in which home gardening functions as a mechanism for households to disengage from the conventional agriculture system. After all, if home gardening falls under the auspices of alternative agriculture for some households, understanding what creates participation in this activity is important. Lyson (2007), using the concept of civic agriculture, has 45 identified several of the motivating factors behind an individual's choice to pursue alternative forms of agricultural production. “From a civic perspective, agriculture and food endeavors are seen as engines of local economic development and are integrally related to the social and cultural fabric of the community (Lyson, 2007: p.19),” where
“proponents . . . contend that sound agricultural development emerges from attention to social processes in communities rather than from [traditional] economics’ narrower focus on profit-maximization (Lyson, 2007: p. 24).”
Some of the most prominent examples of alternative agriculture are direct- marketing scenarios such as farmers' markets, buying from farmers directly, and community-supported agriculture. Overall, research in this area (see Gillespie et al.
2007, Ostrom et al. 2007, and Ostrom 2007) has found that participants of alternative agriculture get involved to oppose aspects of the conventional agricultural system. For example, proponents champion alternative agriculture as a way to shrink the scale of operation and coordinate connections that can offer benefits that the conventional agricultural system cannot.
Allen (2004) discusses three often-cited benefits of alternative agriculture. The first of these surrounds the perceived poor nutritional quality of food produced by the conventional system. Allen (2004) states that one of the goals of alternative agriculture is to provide a more diverse food palette than that available from the hegemonic systems, which focus on a few staple crops that are manipulated in numerous ways, to the extent that, “any nutritional content has been neutralized (p. 24).” The second benefit cited is that alternative agriculture increases the availability of food in local communities. Allen 46 (2004) suggests that supporters think that alternative food systems development can introduce fresh fruit and vegetables into communities that may not have such access in the conventional system. The last benefit promoted is alternative agriculture’s ability to avoid many of the negative environmental issues that arise in the conventional system, especially those that arise from the use of pesticides or result in water quality damage and/or resource depletion.
Overall, this line of theorizing suggests that participation in alternative agriculture is a consequence of the participants' adherence to specific types of beliefs. As noted above, Hinrichs (2003) states that the alternative foods movement is constructed on the premise of, “counteract[ing] trends of economic concentration, social disempowerment, and environmental degradation in the food and agricultural landscape . . . (p. 33).” This is important to note because for some households, home gardening may be a natural extension of the members' commitment to the alternative foods system. Thus, knowing what drives participants to participation in alternative food systems may be useful in understanding some of the motivations for home gardening.
Lastly, the literature has shown that there is an obvious overlap between identity construction and participation in alternative agriculture production techniques. Mead
(1964) and Moss et. al (2007) note that food objects can be used to comprehend the way in which someone acts. This suggests that home gardening, as an alternative production technique, can be a method for someone to display a specific identity. Falk et al. (1996) found that older individuals sought out food choices that would let them be a part of a community because that was the identity they wanted to portray. Moss et al. (2007) 47 found a similar tendency when interviewing older men in Philadelphia, who used their food consumption choices to demonstrate the masculine identity they wanted to present.
These studies show that associating food objects with the status to which society has assigned them can help researchers more fully understand the self-perceived identities of the people who partake of or utilize the food objects. For this study, the identities associated with food objects grown in a garden may allow the researcher to understand the ways in which gardeners conduct themselves in society.
In synthesizing this body of work, several premises were assumed. First, both the historical record and recent literature suggest that home gardening is utilized for identity construction. Food that is grown in a garden will have a meaning of significance for the gardener that should go beyond its being a mere product for consumption.
Because of the time and effort a garden requires, is seems reasonable to assume that households participating in the activity will have some sort of motivation in doing so. In addition, the literature suggests that gardening thus functions as a practice in which a participant acts within his or her lifeworld. While the exact impetus behind gardening can differ, the literature has documented that an impetus does in fact exist. Second, the literature suggests that gardening can be framed as a strategy for a household to disengage from the dominant conventional agricultural system. In particular, the literature promotes that household gardening can function as an extension of the alternative agriculture system.
Taking into account the research on food and agriculture, the following hypothesis will be including in this study: 48 4. An individual or household's level of participation in the alternative food
system will affect the likelihood that the individual or household tends a
household garden, where:
a. There will be a positive relationship between the degree of
engagement in local foods systems and the likelihood of a
household garden; and
b. There will be a positive relationship between the cost of buying
produce directly from a farmer and the likelihood of a household
garden.
2.3 Reviewing the Theoretical Predictions and Hypotheses
Though there is a dearth of research looking specifically at the prevalence of home gardening, this review of the literature demonstrates that there is in fact much information available about the home gardening phenomenon if one knows where to seek it. The goal of this section is to review the theoretical predictions and hypotheses put forth in the preceding literature review and make predictions about the expected relationships in this study. Figure 2.1 shows the conceptual model constructed from the review of the literature. The hypotheses presented for this study are as follows:
1. Spatial location based upon the rural-urban continuum and geographic
settings will have an effect on the likelihood of a household garden,
namely:
49 a. More rural areas of the continuum have a greater likelihood of
having a garden compared to more urban areas of the continuum.
b. Houses located on tracts of larger residential lot space will be more
likely to have a household garden compared to those with less
space.
2. Households in which the members demonstrate more pro-environment
behaviors will be more likely to have a household garden than households
in which the members demonstrate either no pro-environment or anti-
environment behaviors.
3. There will be a positive relationship between the perceived level of
economic hardship and the likelihood of a household garden.
4. An individual or household's level of participation in the alternative food
system will affect the likelihood that the individual or household tends a
household garden, where:
a. There will be a positive relationship between the degree of
engagement in local foods systems and the likelihood of a
household garden; and
b. There will be a positive relationship between the cost of buying
produce directly from a farmer and the likelihood of a household
garden.
50 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN
3.1 Source of Data
The data utilized for this thesis is from the 2008 Ohio Survey of Food, Agriculture and Environmental Issues, a statewide survey of rural and urban Ohio households. The biennial survey, first conducted in 2002, is done in cooperation with the Social
Responsibility Initiative (SRI) within the College of Food, Agriculture, and
Environmental Sciences of The Ohio State University. Additional seed funding for the survey was provided by Ohio State University Extension, the Ohio Agriculture Research and Development Center, and the Ohio State University College of Food, Agriculture, and Environmental Sciences. Data for this iteration of the survey was collected during the spring and summer of 2008. The purpose of the survey is to measure Ohioans’ attitudes, behaviors, and beliefs about a diverse spectrum of food, farming, and environmental topics.
3.2 Sampling Procedure
As one goal of the survey was to compare rural and urban populations, a disproportionate stratified sampling procedure was utilized to assure sizable rural and urban samples of respondents. Employing strata that correspond to the regional districts defined by The Ohio State University Extension, 1750 surveys were sent to respondents living in the 22 core metropolitan counties, while 1750 surveys were sent to respondents
51 residing in the 66 metropolitan and nonmetropolitan counties of Ohio. In total, the sample size of the survey was 3,500 randomly selected Ohio households, and they were surveyed between the months of March and June 2008. The sample list was acquired from a private list provider.
Dillman’s (2000) tailored design method guided the data collection process. A total of four mailings was sent out to the selected households during the spring and summer months. The mailings were composed of a pre-notification letter, a cover letter and survey instrument, a reminder postcard, and a replacement survey to be used if necessary. A financial incentive of $2 was included in the first survey instrument mailing to encourage respondents to complete and return the document. Overall, the rate of response to the survey was 48%, which is a respectable level of response for this type of mail survey but modestly lower than response rates in previous iterations of the Ohio
Survey of Food, Agriculture and Environmental Issues. To assuage the over-sampling of rural Ohioans occurring as a result of the disproportionate stratified sampling procedure, the data used for this study was weighted to appropriately represent the population characteristics of the state of Ohio.
3.3 Sample Limitations
Though many steps were taken to minimize potential biases and allow for replication during the construction, distribution, and analysis of the 2008 version of the
Ohio Survey of Food, Agriculture and Environmental Issues, there are nonetheless a few noteworthy limitations of the sample population. The survey was originally composed of a sample size of 3,500 which aptly reflected the socio-demographic characteristics 52 associated with the state of Ohio. However, as noted in the previous section, 52% of the sample population did not complete and return the survey instrument. Analysis of those who completed and returned the survey was conducted to assess their representativeness of adult Ohioans in general. Largely, respondents do compare favorably to the characteristics of Ohioans as reflected in the US Census Bureau 2007 American
Community Survey. There were a few disparities that should be noted. First, the sample population was composed of a larger percentage of women (57.4%) than exists in the state of Ohio (51.3%). The sample was both over-representative and under-representative of various races and ethnicities. Whites were over-represented (91.7%) compared to the state of Ohio (85.3%), while African Americans (4.3%), Asians (0.7%), and Hispanics (.
9%) were under-represented compared to the population of the state of Ohio, which is
11.9% African American, 1.5% Asian, and 2.4% Hispanic. The sample also included an especially high proportion of respondents from owner-occupied houses (84.9%) compared to the state average (70.0%). In addition, it included a larger proportion of married households (62.8%) compared to the state of Ohio (52.9%). Further, the sample population was slightly different than the state of Ohio (see table 3.1 for comparisons) in the age of the respondents. Moreover, the sample's respondents had moderately higher education attainment than the aggregate of the state of Ohio (see table 3.1 for details).
Lastly, the reported levels of gross household income were modestly higher in the sample population than in the population of the state of Ohio (see table 3.1 for description).
53 Characteristic Percent of Survey Percent of Ohio Respondents Gender* Female 57.4% 51.3% Male 42.6% 48.7% Race and Ethnicity* White 91.7% 85.3% African American 4.3% 11.9% Hispanic 0.9% 2.4% Asian 0.7% 1.5% Type of House Occupancy* Owner Occupied 84.9% 70.0% Renter Occupied 15.1% 30.0% Age** 18-29 years old 5.5% 21.1% 30-49 years old 33.9% 40.6% 50-64 years old 32.4% 20.5% 65 and over years old 28.2% 17.8% Educational Attainment* High School Graduate 93.1% 86.3% Bachelor's Degree or Higher 52.0% 23.3% Gross Household Income** Less than $9,999 5.3% 9.1% $10,000 to 19,999 11.3% 12.9% $20,000 to 34.999 15.9% 20.5% $35,000 to 49,999 16.0% 17.3% $50,000 to 74,999 21.9% 20.4% $75,000 to 99,999 13.7% 10.0% $100,000 or more 15.7% 9.8% *source: US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2007 **source: US Census Bureau, 2000 census
Table 3.1: Socio-demographic Characteristics of the Survey Sample and the state of Ohio.
54 3.4 Variable Measurements
In the following sections of this chapter, I outline the ways in which the various concepts were empirically measured. There are three sections detailing the concepts and measurements, including a section pertaining to the dependent variable (section 3.4.1), the independent variables (section 3.4.2), and the control variables (section 3.4.3).
3.4.1 Dependent Variable
The central dependent variable was created from the question, “Do you or does anyone in your household engage in the following gardening or food preservation activities: Maintain a fruit or vegetable garden.” Response options were either No (coded
0) or Yes (coded 1). The response frequency for this question is reported in table 3.2.
55 Response to Fruit or Vegetable Gardening Question # of Households % of Households Yes Garden 710 47.6% No Garden 783 52.4%
Table 3.2: Descriptive Statistics for the Dependent Variable
56 3.4.2 Independent Variables
In total, nine conceptually interesting independent variables were included in the model.
Location on the Rural Urban Continuum:
To test the hypothesis that the likelihood of a home garden is related to geographical location, a variable that measured a household’s position along the rural urban continuum was created. Drawing on insight from research on the rural-urban fringe (Audirac, 1999) and following the approach of Sharp and colleagues (Sharp and
Clark, 2008; Sharp and Adua, 2009) , a two-step classification process was utilized to characterize the location of respondents along a rural-urban continuum. First, all the land area of Ohio was categorized as either urban, suburban, exurban, or rural. City core was defined as the central city of each urbanized area, with neighboring incorporated places or townships within the urbanized areas labeled suburban. Exurban included the locales immediately adjacent to the urbanized area and extending out from this edge a particular distance, depending on the size of the urbanized areas' population. The exurban area extended 15 miles if the urban population was less than 500,000 people, 25 miles if the urban population was between 500,000 and 1 million, and 35 miles if the urbanized area had more than 1 million residents. The respondents residing in areas beyond the urban and exurban areas were coded as rural residents. Within the exurban and rural categories, respondents were further distinguished to reflect whether their residence was located within a city/village or within a township. The second step of the process was to label the respondents within these categories. To do so, ESRI’s ArcView geocoding (see Clark and 57 Sharp, 2005 for further explanation) was utilized to place respondents within their appropriate geographical location.
This classification scheme resulted in six relatively distinct classes. To cater to the purposes of this thesis, the categories were attenuated into six categories for analysis.
In summary, the categories were: city core, which is comprised of the respondents living within urbanized areas; suburbs, which encompasses those who live in incorporated places/townships of urbanized areas; exurban cities and villages, which contain those respondents living in incorporated areas located on the fringe of urban areas; exurban townships, which include the respondents who live in unincorporated areas on the fringe of urban areas; rural cities and villages, which covers the respondents who live in incorporated rural areas; and rural townships, in which are found those respondents who live in unincorporated rural areas. A categorical breakdown of respondents is in table 3.3.
58 Variable Label % of Variable Frequency Count City Core 12.0% 182 Suburbs 33.2% 504 Exurban City and Villages 15.0% 228 Exurban Townships 25.9% 394 Rural City and Villages 5.3% 81 Rural Townships 8.6% 130
Table 3.3: Descriptive Statistics for the Rural to Urban Continuum Variable.
59 Residential Location
To further probe the relationship of home gardens to geographical location, a residential location variable was included in this study. Households were asked in what kind of place they are currently located (1= City, 2=Suburb, 3=Small Town,
4=Countryside (but not a farm), and 5=Farm). As explained in the literature review, residential location can play a large part in how a household's members conduct themselves. This study posits that households located in the countryside and on a farm would be more likely to have a home garden than those in other locales. The descriptive statistics (table 3.4) are included to show the location of the sample population.
60 Variable Label % of Variable Frequency Count City 22.7% 344 Suburb 26.1% 396 Small Town 23.9% 363 Countryside 21.1% 319 Farm 6.4% 97
Table 3.4: Descriptive Statistics for the Residential Location Variable
61 Environmental Measurements
The survey included several questions seeking to measure respondents' views of the environment. To test the hypothesis that the presence of pro-environment behaviors correlates to the likelihood of a household having a home garden, several environmental behavior questions were utilized to measure these types of behavior. Respondents were asked to identify how often they participated in the following environmental activities, with response categories including never (coded as 1), seldom, occasionally, and frequently (coded as 4): using tote bags when shopping; recycling waste (paper, cans, glass, bottles, plastic, etc); reducing heat in unused rooms; and reducing the temperature on the home's hot water heater. Additionally, respondents were asked if they had participated in the following environmentally oriented activities (with No coded as 0 and
Yes coded as 1): stopped buying a product that is associated with an environmental problem, attended a public hearing on an environmental issue, contributed money to or volunteered for an environmental group, and watched a television special about the environment. Since the questions' responses were of two different forms, questions about the frequency of activities were recoded to approximate the response pattern of yes or no.
In this case, responses of never or seldom were coded 0 and responses of occasionally and frequently were coded as 1. Table 3.5 reports descriptive statistics for these variables.
The individual items were combined into a scale that was a count of how many
“yes” responses were provided by the respondents. Table 3.6 shows a histogram of the pattern of the count variable of environmental behaviors, which conforms to a normal 62 distribution. Most of the respondents reported engaging in 3 to 5 of the environmental behaviors, with more modest proportions of respondents engaging in either more or fewer activities. In addition, table 3.5 shows the mean and standard deviation of the behaviors.
63 Sample Statistic % Yes/Mean % No/Standard Deviation Use Your Own Tote Bag When Shopping 25.7% 74.3% Recycle Waste (Paper, Cans, Glass, Bottles, Plastic, 70.0% 30.0% Etc.) Reduce Heat in Unused Rooms 84.3% 15.7% Reduce Temperature on Hot Water Heater 46.6% 53.4% Stop Buying a Product Associated with 41.2% 58.8% Environmental Problem Attended a Public Hearing on an Environmental 7.1% 92.9% Issue Contributed Money/Volunteered for an 17.0% 83.0% Environmental Group Watched a Television Special about the Environment 73.7% 26.3% Environmental Behavior Variable 3.73 1.62 Table 3.5: Sample Statistic of Variables Making Up Environmental Behaviors
400
300
200
100
0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Table 3.6: Histogram of the Environmental Behavior Count Variable
64 Economic Hardship
One potential correlate of home gardening is whether the household is experiencing economic hardship. While the association of economic hardship and home gardening has been inconsistent and variable according to residential location and historical moment, it is important to both control for the effects of economic hardship as well as explore the incidence of gardening at this historical moment. With the reemergence of interest in self-provisioning and food production generally, this study posits there may currently be some association with economic hardship and self- provisioning activities such as home gardening. To assess household economic hardship, the survey respondents were asked several questions about household financial adjustments. Respondents were asked whether in the last year they or any other family members had made any of the following adjustments (with No coded as 0 and Yes coded
1): used savings to meet expenses, changed transportation patterns to save money, and eaten at home or changed the types of food eaten to save money.
Like the environmental behavior variables, these individual items were combined into a count scale totaling the number of “yes” responses provided. Table 3.7 shows a histogram of the pattern of the count variable of economic hardship behaviors. Many of the respondents reported engaging in 2 to 3 of the economic hardship behaviors with more modest proportions of respondents engaging in fewer activities.
65 700
525
350
175
0 0 1 2 3
Table 3.7: Histogram of the Economic Hardship Behavior Count Variable
66 Food Participation Variables
Another set of variables that is of interest was respondents' levels of participation in alternative/local food systems. The various measures of alternative food system participation encompassed three types of involvement: level of engagement in the local foods system, money spent on direct purchasing, and amount of food bought from local sources.
The level of engagement in the local foods system was an index combining responses to several individual questions. Respondents were asked their frequency of engaging in a number of local food system activities, with response categories ranging from Never (coded 1) to Frequently (coded 4). The activities included: buying foods that are locally grown or produced, visiting a pick-your-own fruit or vegetable farm, and purchasing food items at a farmers’ market or roadside stand. It was hypothesized that higher levels of participation in local foods systems would be associated with a greater likelihood of having a household garden. Factor analysis (see table 3.8) confirmed that the individual items were interrelated and that the reliability of combining these items into a scale was acceptable (alpha reliability= 0.71), resulting in the measure
“Engagement in Local Foods System.” The scale had a range of 3 to 12 with low scores reflecting households with little or no participation in local food systems and higher scores reflecting households that were actively participating in the local foods system.
67 Scale/Indicator A: Engagement in Local Foods System Factor Loading 1 Buy Foods that are Locally Grown or Produced 0.67 Visit a Pick-your-own Fruit or Vegetable Stand 0.54 Purchase Farm Produce From Farmers' Market or Roadside 0.72 Stand Eigenvalue 1.26
Table 3.8: Factor Analysis Results for Engagement in Local Foods
Sample Statistic (alpha reliability = .71) Mean Standard Deviation Buy Foods that are Locally Grown or Produced 3.02 0.74 Visit a Pick-your-own Fruit or Vegetable Stand 2.07 0.93 Purchase Farm Produce From Farmers' Market or Roadside Stand 2.85 0.83 *Scale Descriptives - 1: Never, 2: Seldom, 3: Occasionally, 4: Frequently
Table 3.9: Sample Statistic for the Variables Measuring Engagement in Local Foods
Table 3.10: Histogram of Money Spent on Buying Directly From a Farmer
The other measure of alternative food participation was the amount of money spent by respondents on food from direct sources. Respondents were asked, “About how much money would you estimate your household spent buying farm products or food items directly from a farmer in 2007?” The result is a continuous variable based on a self-reported estimate of the amount in US dollars of money spent on food bought directly from farmers. Table 3.10 shows a histogram of the breakdown of the respondents’ answers.
68 3.4.3 Control Variables
Though not addressed in the literature review, several control variables are included in the analysis. A particular relationship is not hypothesized because the variables are not the focus of the study. However, because it is possible that these factors will be related to engagement in gardening, they are controlled to better reveal the true relationship of the independent variables of theoretical interest.
Type of Housing
The type of housing, though not a particular focus of this study, was controlled for. Respondents were asked to describe their current domicile, choosing among the options of Free-standing Home, Multi-story Apartment Building, and Row House or
Building with 2-4 Housing Units. The responses of persons who reported residing in free-standing homes were coded 1, and apartment or row house residents' responses were coded as 0. Table 3.11 shows the descriptive statistics for the types of housing observed from the sample population.
Household Characteristics
Two household characteristic variables were controlled for during the analysis.
The first variable controlled for was the household size. Respondents were asked how many people lived in their household. The respondents’ answers were coded as follows:
1 = only self, 2 = self plus one other member, 3 = self plus two others, etc. Table 3.11 shows the respondents' answers.
The second household characteristic controlled for was gross household income.
To measure this, respondents were asked to approximate their gross household income in 69 2007. Respondents were given the options of: less than $9,999 (coded 1), $10,000 to
19,999; $20,000 to 34,999; $35,000 to 49,999; $50,000 to 74,999; $75,000 to 99,999; and
$100,000 or more (coded 7). Table 3.11 shows the breakdown of the variable in the population.
70 Variable Mean or Percent Standard Deviation Type of Housing Free Standing House (%) 88.9% Other (%) 11.1% Race and Ethnicity Caucasian (%) 91.6% Other (%) 8.4% Household Characteristics Household Size (# of people) 2.54 1.39 Household Income 4.40 1.71 Less than $9,999 (%) 5.0% $10,000 - 19,999 (%) 10.7% $20,000 - 34,999 (%) 15.5% $35,000 - 49,999 (%) 19.2% $50,000 - 74,999 (%) 21.9% $75,000 - 99,999 (%) 12.9% $100,000 or more (%) 14.8%
Table 3.11: Descriptive Statistics for the Control Variables
71 3.5 Type of Data Analyses
The data for this project was analyzed with the aid of STATA/IC 10.0 for
Macintosh, a statistical software package. To test the hypotheses generated from the review of the literature, two sets of analysis were conducted. The first phase was a bivariate analysis. During this step of the analysis, the variables described above were analyzed with the appropriate statistical technique (e.g. Chi-square tests, F-tests, sample mean t-score tests, correlation coefficients). The second phase of the analysis was a logistical regression model informed, in part, by the results of the bivariate analysis. The hypotheses are ultimately tested using theoretical inclinations found in the literature. The model-building and testing were done carefully, with consideration given to the issues inherently associated with regression modeling, such as multicollinearity and appropriate choice of regression technique.
3.6 Measurement Model
Figure 3.1 (see below) summarizes the measurement model tested for this project.
The measurement model takes into account the information gathered from the literature review and the construction/operationalization of the independent and dependent variables.
72 (+)/(-) - Mixed Relationship Expected (+) - Positive Relationship Expected Spatial Location (-) - Negative Relationship Expected
(+)/(-)
Environmental Behaviors (+)
Likelihood of Having a Household Garden
(+) Level of Economic Hardship
(+) (+)/(-)
Participation in the Food System
Demographic Variables
Figure 3.1: Measurement Model
73 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS
This chapter outlines the results of the data analysis. The chapter is broken into two parts. The first section discusses the results from the bivariate analysis, divided into two parts. The first part focuses on correlations and the second part examines the results of several bivariate tests of significance. The chapter’s second section outlines the results from the logistic regression analysis.
4.1 Results from Bivariate Analysis
The bivariate correlations between the dependent variable and the independent variables, and amongst the independent variables, are presented in table 4.1. The correlations reported are all Pearson’s correlations. Bivariate correlations were examined to provide a broad understanding of the relationships between the study variables, particularly to identify any strong correlations that could hamper further analysis. These tests are important, because if any strong correlations exist between the independent variables, it can hamper the analysis between these variables and the dependent variable.
A strong correlation between two independent variables can mask the relationships that actually exist between each independent variable and the dependent variable under study.
In addition, the existence of strong relationships between independent variables could cause problems in regression analyses. Strong correlations between independent
74 variables can effectively weaken and mask the strength that the variable would have singularly upon the dependent variable.
Along with examining correlations, two other types of bivariate analyses were conducted. These were performed in addition to correlation analysis because of the limitations of correlational analysis with dichotomous variables. The first type of analysis was conducting crosstabs with Chi-square tests. A Chi-square test is particularly useful for evaluating whether there is a relationship between two categorical variables.
The purpose of this test is to determine whether the observed frequencies differ markedly from the frequencies expected in random chance. Put another way: the Chi-square test is intended to test how likely it is that an observed distribution is due to chance. It is also called a "goodness of fit" statistic, because it measures how well the observed distribution of data fits with the distribution that would be expected if the variables were independent.
The second type of analysis used was the independent samples t-test. This test compares the mean scores of two groups on a given variable. The purpose of the independent samples t-test is to measure if the means of selecting independent variables for gardening and non-gardening households was statistically different.
Overall, the bivariate analysis results provide initial support to all the study hypotheses. However, as these bivariate results are preliminary, multivariate analysis was conducted to assess the existence of relationships while controlling for a number of factors. To further explore the relationships, regression analysis was conducted.
4.2 Bivariate Analysis Between Dependent and Independent Variables
Presence of a Household Garden and Rural Urban Continuum 75 As expected, the relationship between the presence of a garden and a home's location on the rural urban continuum was mixed depending on geographic location.
These results offer preliminary support for the hypotheses posed at the beginning of this study, where the Chi-square tests indicate that there are differences between the expected and observed frequencies of home-gardening households.
Table 4.1 presents the analysis of the Chi-square tests. Looking at the urban segments on the continuum, the bivariate analysis supports the hypothesis that a household garden would be less common in more urban settings. The more urban segments (city core, the suburbs, exurban city and villages, rural city and villages) of the continuum all showed lower frequencies of gardening, while the more rural segments
(urban townships and rural townships) all showed higher frequencies.
Overall, the Chi-square tests performed to evaluate the relationship between the presence of a garden and a home's location on the rural urban continuum suggest that location on the continuum is associated with the likelihood of a garden being present for a household. Specifically, areas likely to have more space (i.e. townships) have higher observed rates of household home gardens, while areas that typically contain less area per household (i.e. city core, suburbs, and city/villages) have lower observed rates.
Presence of a Household Garden and Residential Location
The hypothesis dealing with spatial location was further supported by the results of the corresponding Chi-square test. Both the countryside-dwellers and the farm- dwellers were found to garden at higher rates, while low rates of gardening were found in households identified as being located in the city, the suburbs, and small towns. These 76 tests suggests that households in closer proximity to agriculture are more likely to have a household garden.
Overall, coupled with the results from the rural urban continuum test, the results of the initial bivariate tests suggest that geographic location may be multidimensional in terms of the effect it has on the presence of a household garden. As demonstrated in previous research on the rural to urban continuum (see Nelson and Sanchez 1997), the primary dimension may be the overall distance of a continuum locale from a city core.
This is demonstrated by the low levels of gardening in the city core and the high levels of gardening observed in rural townships. On the other hand, distance does not explain everything. As noted by Sharp and Clark (2008), the population density of a residential location may also be a factor in the likelihood of a household garden. The bivariate results show high rates of gardening both in the countryside and on a farm and in areas with low population densities, and low rates of gardening in the city, the suburbs, and small towns, all of which have high population densities.
Presence of a Household Garden and Environmental Behaviors
Table 4.1 reports the results from the Chi-square test on environmental behaviors and household gardens. The test shows that the expected distribution of gardening and non-gardening households was much different than what was observed. Further, table 4.2 contains the results of the independent t-sample test. As in the previous tests, non- gardening and gardening households were found to differ at a statistically significant level when considering their mean score in terms of the environmental behavior variable.
Overall, both these results were expected and are consistent with what was hypothesized. 77 Presence of a Household Garden and Economic Hardships
Table 4.1 reports the results from the Chi-square test. The results show that the observed distribution of non-gardening and gardening households is different than what was expected. In addition, table 4.2 presents the results from the independent t-sample test. The results show that gardening households had a higher mean score on the economic hardship scale than non-gardening households. This relationship was found to be statistically significant. Overall, the relationships found from these tests support the hypotheses of this study.
Presence of a Household Garden and Food Participation Measurements
The results of the Chi-square tests (see table 4.1) between presence of a household garden and engagement in the local foods system show that the observed frequencies were much different than what would be expected. This offers initial support to the hypothesis under this subsection. The independent t-sample test, the results of which can be found in Table 4.2, offers further support. The difference between the mean scores of non-gardening and gardening households was found to be significant.
Another Chi-square test also produced unexpected results. The difference in the amount of money that gardening and non-gardening households spent on buying food directly from a farmer was found to be much different than expected (see Table 4.1). An independent t-sample test (Table 4.2) found a statistically significant difference between the mean amount of money spent by non-gardening and gardening households. Thus, this set of tests, like the local foods systems/gardening tests, provides initial support for the hypotheses presented in this study . 78 Presence of a Household Garden and the Demographic Variables
Though not the focus of the study, the demographic variables for this study were all analyzed with a Chi-square test (see table 4.1). A free-standing house was found to have a much different observed distribution than what would be expected by chance alone (see table 4.1). Both observed household size and income were found to differ from what would be expected. These results seem to support the practice of including these variables as controls for the proposed model.
79
Sample Statistic Independent Variable Observed Frequencies No - Yes - Chi2 Score P-Value n Household Household Garden Garden Rural Urban Continuum City Core 182 114 68 8.44 ** Suburbs 504 295 209 10.87 *** Exurban City and Village 228 139 89 7.64 ** Exurban Townships 394 156 238 35.73 *** Rural City and Villages 81 49 32 2.17 Rural Townships 130 45 85 18.31 *** Residential Location City 344 224 120 28.23 *** Suburbs 396 228 168 5.46 * Small Town 363 209 154 4.86 * Countryside 319 113 206 47.41 *** Farm 97 24 73 32.10 *** Environmental Measurement Environmental Behaviors 1519 30.59 *** Economic Hardship Measurement Economic Hardship Behaviors 1519 33.34 *** Food Participation Measurements Engagement in Local Foods 1519 113.12 *** System Money Spent on Buying Direct 1519 60.25 *** Demographics Free Standing House 1350 669 681 43.18 *** Household Size 1519 55.77 *** Household Income 1519 13.09 * p-value: *<.05, **<.01, ***<.001
Table 4.1 Chi2 test on Garden Present with Independent Variables
80 Independent Variable n # of Gardeners # of Non-Gardeners t-score P-Value Mean Mean Environmental Measurement Environmental Behaviors 1519 721 798 -5.36 *** 3.96 3.52 Economic Hardship Measurement Economic Hardship 1519 721 798 -5.05 *** Behaviors 2.23 1.97 Food Purchasing Behaviors Engagement in Local Foods 1519 721 798 -10.89 *** 8.50 7.42 Money Spent on Buy Direct 1519 721 798 -5.17 *** 232.18 134.68 p-value: *<.05, **<.01, ***<. 001
Table 4.2 Independent t-sample Tests between Dependent and Independent Variables
81 4.3 Logistic Regression Analysis
Logistical regression was conducted in an attempt to understand those variables most strongly related to the presence of a household garden, net the effects of the other variables. This section is broken into two parts. The first section discusses the diagnostic steps taken to preclude potential pitfalls during the regression process. As described below, several steps were taken to circumvent interpretative issues that can arise from multicollinearity. The second section reports the results of the logistic regression analysis. To aid interpretation of the results, table 4.4 provides the results in the form of log odds.
4.3.1 Logistic Regression Diagnostics
To aid the construction of an effective and reliable logistic regression model, testing was done to determine the presence of multicollinearity. A test was performed on the correlation coefficients between the independent variables. Results from the correlations are presented in table 4.3. Generally, the correlations between the independent variables were low (< 0.3); however, there was one exception in the matrix.
This exception occurred between the variables representing engagement in the local foods system and money spent on buying directly from a farmer. These variables were moderately correlated at 0.33. Though these variables demonstrate a slightly stronger- than-ideal correlation for regression analysis, both were left in the model. The justification for this comes from Cohen’s (1988) discussion of the difficultly in establishing concrete cutoff points for correlations in the social sciences.
82 Ultimately, a correlation slightly stronger than 0.3 but less than 0.5, though not perfect, is satisfactory considering that the variables measure similar categories within the same grand theme. Other than the correlation between the local foods systems and farmer-direct buying, the results suggest that multicollinearity is absent from the model.
83 1 2 3 4 5 6
Environmental 1.00 Behavior (1)
Economic Hardship (2)0.18 1.00
Engagement in Local 0.29 0.15 1.00 Foods (3)
Money on Direct (4) 0.18 0.07 0.33 1.00
Household Size (5) 0.01 0.09 0.03 0.12 1.00
Household Income (6) 0.07 -0.17 0.07 0.14 0.30 1.00
Table 4.3: Correlation Coefficients of the Independent Variables
84 4.3.2 Logistic Regression
The results from the logistic regression are presented in table 4.4. As previously mentioned, the results from the logistic regression are presented in log odds to aid interpretation. Overall, the results are consistent with the predicted outcomes of the hypotheses, with a few exceptions. As table 4.3 shows, many of the included variables have statistically significant relationships to the presence of a garden in the household.
Analysis of location along the rural urban continuum yielded mixed results in terms of its relationship to the presence of a garden. As Table 4.4 shows, none of the subsections of the rural urban continuum were found to be statistically significant.
Overall, only three subsections (suburbs, exurban townships, and rural townships) were found to have any increase in the log odds when considering a household garden.
Specifically, a household in the suburbs was found to have a 1.02 increase in the log odds of having a garden; whereas households in the exurban townships were found to have a
1.05 increase and households in rural areas a 1.06 increase. The rural and urban city and village variables were each found to decrease in the log odds of having a household garden. Households in the rural city and village categories were found to have a decrease of 0.12 in the log odds, while households in the urban city and village categories were found to have a decrease of 0.06. While not statistically significant, these results lend support for the geography hypotheses of the study, particularly that of the two-tiered effect of geographic location.
Residential location was found to be strongly associated with presence of a garden in the model. Both variables were found to be statistically significant. In addition, both 85 variables were found to increase the log odds of the presence of a household garden.
Presence of a household in the countryside increased the log odds of its having a garden by 2.35, and presence of a household on a farm increased the log odds by 3.68. These reported relationships offer support for the hypotheses because their large log odd coefficients are statistically significant.
The analysis finds that a greater number of environmental behaviors is associated with a greater likelihood of a garden in a given household. The results (table 4.4) show that each environmental behavior manifested by a household increases the log odds of the likelihood of a household garden by 1.11. The positive relationship of environmental behaviors is consistent with the previously stated hypotheses of the study.
One of the more intriguing results of the model comes from the economic hardship variable (see table 4.4). The model predicts a positive relationship between economic hardship and the likelihood of a household garden. Specifically, the model proposes that each unit increase in economic hardship increases the log odds of a household garden by 1.13. This offers support for the proposed hypotheses of the study.
Further discussion of this can be found later in this section and in the concluding chapter.
The results of testing the relationship between alternative food participation measures and the existence of a home garden were mixed (see table 4.5). Engagement in local food systems was positively related to the likelihood of a household garden. Each unit increase in the engagement of local foods systems was associated with a 1.28 increase in the log odds of a garden being present at a household. Amount of money spent on buying direct was not strongly associated, with a log odds ratio of 1 (see table 86 4.4). Overall, the food participation measurements offer some support for the hypotheses of the study, as 1 of the 2 measurements were positively associated with the likelihood of gardening and were statistically significant.
Though not a focus of the study, the model finds that the demographic (“control”) variables of the study are strongly associated with the presence of a household garden.
Of all the demographic variables, a household's being located in a free-standing house has the strongest association to the likelihood of a garden. The model (see table 4.4) reports that households located in free-standing houses experience a 2.24 increase in the log odds of having a garden compared to all other types of housing. In addition, increasing household size was found to be associated with increasing likelihood of a household garden at a statistically significant level. Each increase of household size was associated with a 1.20 increase in the log odds of a household garden. In contrast, increasing gross household income was associated with decreasing likelihood of a household garden. Each unit increase in household income was associated with a decrease in the log odds of a household garden by 0.06. This relationship was found to be statistically significant.
The last step taken to evaluate the model was to test the goodness of fit. The goodness of fit test utilized was the Homer and Lemeshow/Pearson Chi-square calculation. Drawing upon Garson (2009), the Homer and Lemeshow/Pearson Chi- square test was used during logistic regression to obtain the observed number of gardeners from the sample versus the predicted number of gardeners from the constructed model. Unlike the convention of other tests of statistical significance, this goodness of fit 87 test proves to be worthwhile when the p-value is more than 0.05. A p-value of more than
0.05 denotes that the constructed model does not vary statistically from the observed sample population. Table 4.5 shows that the Chi-square p-value of the proposed model is
0.34, which suggests that it accurately fits the sample population.
88 Model 1 Odds Ration Independent Variable Location of the Rural Urban Continuum# Suburbs 1.02 Exurban City and Village 0.88 Exurban Townships 1.05 Rural City and Villages 0.94 Rural Townships 1.06 Residential Location& Countryside 2.35*** Farm 3.68*** Environmental Measurement Environmental Behaviors 1.11** Economic Hardship Measurement Economic Hardship Behaviors 1.13* Food Participation Measurements Engagement in Local Foods System 1.28*** Money Spent on Buying Direct 1 Demographics (Control Measures) Free Standing House 2.24*** Household Size 1.20*** Household Income 0.94 Model Statistics Wald Chi-Squared Score (d.f. = 14) 256.84 N 1519 p-value: *<0.5, **<.01, ***<.001; #:reference category is City Core; &:reference category is city residence
Table 4.4: Logistic Regression Model for the Likelihood of Household Gardening
Hosmer and Lemeshow/Pearson Chi-Squared Score P-Value Proposed Model 1498.09 0.47
Table 4.5: Goodness of Fit Test Results
89 4.4 Putting the Results Together
This section sums up the results of the model in a general sense.
The results of the model were mixed in terms of spatial dimensions. First, the model suggests that a household's location on the rural urban continuum is not strongly associated with the likelihood of a garden. This result does not line up with the hypotheses under study. However, as the results in table 4.4 show, spatial location is not simply a measure of increased distance from the city core. When space is measured through residential location, the model does show a strong association at a statistically significant level. Both placement in the countryside and placement on a farm were shown to be significantly associated with a household's likelihood of having a garden.
The relationship exhibited by the model is in line with the literature review and with some of the predictions for the study. Overall, this result clouds analysis of the hypothesis offered at the beginning of the study. Put briefly, the impact of geography appears to be multi-tiered instead of being based simply on distance from city core. The model appears to suggest an association between lot size and the likelihood of home gardening.
The results from the model's assessment of the data imply that participation of a household's members in various activities is strongly associated with the likelihood of a household garden. Increasing engagement in the local foods system was found to be greatly associated with an increase in likelihood of a household garden. This finding is consistent with past literature and with the results predicted for this study.
90 The presence in a household of behaviors that are labeled as pro-environment was shown by the model to increase the likelihood of a garden at a statistically significant level. These results offer further support to the findings of previous research and validate the hypotheses of this study in particular. Contrary to this, the study of economic hardship behaviors' relationship to household gardens produced unexpected results, considering previous literature and the current study. The model indicates that higher levels of economic hardship behaviors are associated with a greater likelihood of the presence of a home garden. As posited in the hypotheses of the study, this may be a function of differing economic, political, and cultural climates. This is discussed further in the concluding chapter.
To conclude, this analysis shows which types of behaviors, activities, and beliefs are strongly associated with the likelihood of household gardens. Table 4.6 summarizes the findings of the entire study from the literature review, to the study predictions, and finally to the model relationships. As noted above, several demographic features of a household are strongly associated with presence of a household garden. Though not the focus of the study, whether a house is freestanding and whether its member count is large are both associated with an increased likelihood that it will have a garden. The variables of interest that were highly associative with the likelihood of a garden in a household were residential location, environmental behaviors of its members, and engagement of its members in the local food system. In summary, nearly all relationships of interest behaved as predicted from the literature review and predictions for the study, with the exception of the above-mentioned geographical considerations. 91
Dependent Variable Household Garden Literature Independent Variables Review Study Predictions Model Relationship Rural Urban Continuum City Core (-) (-) (-) Suburbs (-) (-) (-) Exurban City and Village (-) (+) (-) Exurban Townships (+) (+) (+) Rural City and Villages (+) (+) (-) Rural Townships (+) (+) (+) Residential Location Countryside (+) (+) (+)* Farm (+) (+) (+)* Environmental Measurement Environmental Behaviors (+) (+) (+)* Economic Hardship Measurement Economic Hardship Behaviors (-) (+) (+)* Food Participation Measurements Engagement in Local Foods System (+) (+) (+)* Money Spent on Buying Direct (+) (+) (+) Demographics Free Standing House (+) (+) (+)* Household Size (-) (-) (+)* Household Income (-) (+) (-) (+): Postive Relationship, (-): Negative Relationship, *: Statistically Significant Relationship
Table 4.6: Direction of Predicted Relationship Between Independent and Dependent Variables from the Literature Review, Study Predictions, and Model Results.
92 Fig 4.1 Revisiting the Measurement Model 93 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION
Since the end of World War II, attempts to discern the prevalence of home gardening in the United States have been absent from the literature. However, given the recent shifts in the social, cultural, and economic conditions within the United States, it may be time to reexamine the topic. The emergence of concern for conventional agriculture’s ecological footprint, of economic conditions not seen in decades, and of increases in the participation in alternative food systems all naturally lead to the question of where the household garden fits. Consequently, this study was generated to theorize about and analyze prospective behavioral and attitudinal household characteristics that could be associated with the presence of a household garden.
94 5.1 Summary and Discussion of the Overall Study Findings
The results from the analysis of this study show that several behavioral and/or attitudinal variables are important when looking into household home gardening. Five of these variables of interest were shown to have statistically significant relationships; in addition, two of the demographic control variables were shown to have statistically significant relationships. The results suggest, in concert with the review of the literature, that the causes of home gardening are multifaceted: the activity does not result from the presence of one specific variable. Most of the variables' relationships to home gardening adhered to the hypothesized direction of this study, but some did not.
The analysis demonstrates that location along the rural urban continuum does not have a significant association to the existence of a household garden. It had been hypothesized that significant differences would exist between the likelihood of home gardening in the city core and in the rural locations; however, this was not so.
Specifically, while more rural areas were found to have an increased likelihood of having a home garden, none of the relationships was found to be significant. This result was surprising considering the large diversity that exists between these areas. However, this finding is consistent with previous literature considering the variety of household types existing within each category (see Bennett and McBeth 1998, Jones et al. 1999, Sharp and Adua 2008). It may be posited that the continued migration of people and shifts in social structures between the categories has made it difficult to detect significant differences along the continuum.
95 While examination of the rural urban continuum did not uncover any significant differences amongst continuum locations, the residential location of a household was found to be highly significant. Residential location was included as a measurement of spatial location for this study because of its merit in evaluating the amount of space available to households within each segment of the rural urban continuum. As demonstrated by the results of this study, and by Sharp and Clark (2008), the amount of space available to households inside each segment of the rural urban continuum can be notably different. As a consequence of this consideration, a significant level of positive association was found between the likelihood of the presence of a household garden and two of the possible household locations: in the countryside and on a farm. This relationship, which was hypothesized to exist prior to this study, suggests that the amount of space that a household has access to is a strongly associated with the existence of a household garden.
Environmental behaviors were found to have a significant positive relationship with household gardening. The link between environmentalism and participation in alternative food systems has been demonstrated before (Raynolds 2000, Wimberley et al.
2003, and Hinrichs 2003). Thus, this relationship was hypothesized and expected during this analysis. While this finding does not suggest a causal relationship between the two, it does insinuate that pro-environmental actions and home gardening are each natural extensions of the other.
The relationship between economic hardship and the existence of home gardening was one of the most intriguing findings of this study. This variable represented the one 96 segment of the study for which the literature has suggested different findings over time.
Recent research has found that there was no or a negative relationship (see Jensen et al.
1995 and Brown et al. 1998) between household gardening and economic hardship.
However, the literature review also demonstrated several historical examples (e.g. war and victory gardens, economic collapse of Russia and Cuba) that offered numerous parallels to today's economic landscape of the United States. This led to the hypothesis that, due to the negative shift in economic conditions in the United States over the last several years, a positive relationship would be observed between perceived economic hardship and home gardening. The results demonstrate that there is a positive association at a significant level. This result suggests that home gardening does have the potential to emerge as a coping strategy for households in which the members perceive themselves to be in economic hardship.
The results of the food participation measurement were mixed. The hypothesis dealing with this set of variables predicted that increasing levels of participation in local food systems would result in a higher likelihood of household home gardening. On the one hand, engagement in the local food system confirmed this expectation and was found to have a positive association at a significant level. This result suggests that home gardening may be a part of the growing portfolio of activities embraced by individuals who participate in alternative agriculture techniques. On the other hand, the amount of money spent on buying directly from a farmer was found to have a non-effect in relation to home gardening. This result was not expected and ran counter to pre-study hypotheses. However, due to the non-effect of this variable, and the fact that the variable 97 measuring engagement in the local foods system is positively related to home gardening, the results of the study of food participation do lend support for the hypothesis dealing with alternative food participation.
The demographic control variables, though not a focus of this study, were found to have mixed relationships to household gardening. A statistically significant positive association was found between household size and the house type designated "free- standing." In terms of free-standing houses, the relationship is not surprising: free- standing houses have access to more space than townhouses and apartments. It is intriguing, however, that size of a household should have a bearing on the prevalence of home gardening. Lastly, increasing levels of household income were found to have a negative relationship with home gardening. Though not reviewed in the literature, this result intuitively makes sense in that it parallels the findings on economic hardship found in the literature review and study results.
5.2 Reviewing the Research Question
Since home gardening has not been the focus of research in recent history, the overarching goal of this study was to identify and examine several characteristics of households and access their association and directional relationships in relation to home gardening. In synthesizing the information gathered in the literature review, this study posited that many of the examined variables would have positive relationships with household home gardening. The first area of interest was the consideration of space. A positive relationship was found between home gardening and households in more rural areas on the rural urban continuum and those located in the countryside and on farms. 98 Both exurban and rural townships, places considered more rural on the continuum, were found to be positively related to home gardening; whereas exurban and rural cities and villages, places more urban on the continuum, were negatively associated. None of these was found to be associated at a significant level, though. Residential location (i.e. living in the countryside and on a farm), however, was found to be significant.
The second set of variables looked at several behavioral characteristics of households' members. The results of the analysis show that households in which the members participate in pro-environment/environmentalist behaviors have a significantly higher instance of home gardening. In addition, the analysis demonstrates that the perception of economic hardship is positively associated with home gardening at a significant level. Lastly, the analysis showed that increasing participation in the local food system is positively associated with household home gardening at a significant level. However, the amount of money spent on buying directly from a farmer was found to have a non-effect in relation to home gardening.
The last set of variables included was a set of control variables. Though not a part of the theoretical predictions, houses that are free-standing and houses with larger household sizes were found to be positively associated to home gardening at a significant level; whereas increasing levels of household income were found to have a negative association, but not at a significant level.
5.3 Study Limitations
Though this study attempted to measure household home gardening in the best manner possible, there are several limitations of the study that need to be mentioned. 99 First, this study was not able to effectively operationalize cultural motivations within the context of home gardening. The study considered physical spatial location (through the rural urban continuum and current geographic location), social relevance (through environmental and food participation behaviors), and economic relevance (through economic hardship behaviors), but did not directly address any of the potential cultural motivations for home gardening. Cultural motivations, such as preservation of ancestral heritage, may help further explain who the household home gardener is.
The second limitation of this study surrounds the choice of the dependent variable. As noted in the preceding chapters, even the smallest garden requires both time and effort in earnest amounts. Because of this, the dependent variable was selected to focus solely on the presence of a household garden and not its size. This was selected as the dependent variable because it accurately reported the number of households participating and not participating in home gardening. Thus, while it effectively measures if a household has a garden or not, it does not address several key issues: scale and the amount of food secured through gardening. This makes any claims about the actual amount of space tended and food being produced by households difficult under its current construction. This limits the study because analyzing the variation of scale and food items produced by a household operation can elicit important suggestions about who gardeners are - issues that cannot be addressed here.
A third limitation of this study surrounds the operationalization of economic hardship. As noted in the literature review, economic hardship has invariably been a difficult phenomenon to measure in a manner agreeable to all. Following the example 100 from the current literature, this study focused on measuring economic hardship by the perception of the household. Framing economic hardship in this way avoided the concerns raised by Ringen (1988) and Saunders et al. (2008) over numerical definitions being an arbitrary construct of the researcher. However, this study may have been more effective had it measured economic hardship in both ways. Combining perceptions of households with a numerically defined line of economic hardship would allow for a more precise understanding of who the gardening household is. For example, the combination of perception and definition of economic hardship would have allowed this study to detect whether there are significant differences between the two.
Lastly, a limitation of this study comes from the sample populations from which the results are drawn. The sample population comes from the 2008 Ohio Survey of Food,
Agriculture and Environmental Issues, which draws upon a representation of residents within the state of Ohio. Because of this, the results of this study apply strongly to Ohio, generally to the Midwest, and only abstractly to the United States.
101 5.4 Implications for Theory and Future Research
The object of this study was to reexamine the prevalence of home gardening at the household level. The results of the analysis of this study suggest that there are several implications for theory and academic research.
The first implication surrounds the measurement of populations based on spatial location. This study’s findings have important implications in the conversation about rural and urban similarities and differences. First, the results call into question the utility of the rural urban continuum in the way it has traditionally been employed. This study does not imply that there are not significant differences between rural and urban populations (see Falk 1996, Ching and Creed 1997, and Lobao 2006), but instead continues the recent trend of downplaying the utility of the current construction of the rural urban continuum. Like Sharp and Clark (2008) and Sharp and Adua (2009), this study suggests that there is much diversity within each segment that has not been accounted for theoretically or empirically in the rural urban continuum. Both the rapid diffusion of technology and the shift of cultural diversity along the continuum promote the need for new measurements to be taken of rurality and urbanity, and for these measurements to be articulated in new ways that do not rely on linearity from the city center to rural townships. Thus, this study suggests a need for a more nuanced approach of measurement within each of the categories of the rural urban continuum.
Second, this study suggests that further work is needed to understand the link between the countryside/farms and home gardening. The current study demonstrates that 106 countryside and farm households make up a significant portion of the home gardening population. While this result was hypothesized to exist in spite of the relative dearth of research on the prevalence of home gardening, it does elicit a few questions.
In terms of social structure, this study suggests that agricultural production, even on the small, self-provisioning scale, still occurs predominantly in more rural areas. This suggests that access to space probably is a weighty factor in the likelihood of a home garden. On the theoretical side, this study suggests that a stronger base of gardening knowledge lies within households in these areas. Thus, assuming a continued nationwide desire for more home gardening and more localized agriculture generally, these rural populations should be studied.
Overall, this study demonstrates that household gardening appears to occur for a myriad of reasons. Because of the choice of this study's dependent variable, the results are helpful in starting the conversation about where gardens are located. Further research could help in delineating which motivations are more important than others. Specifically, research is needed to disentangle the overall contribution of each of these variables to home gardening. Ideally, doing so would also help predict the scale of and amount of food produced within the garden. In addition, these studies could help to start a discussion on what variables are associated with gardening being used as a hobby/leisure activity or as something counted on for sustenance. This would be helpful in discerning if there are certain variables generally associated with households that garden for cultural/ social significance, structural reasons (such as access to space, possession of knowledge), or economic necessity, and how much weight each motivation contributes. 107 Lastly, and most importantly, this study demonstrates that home gardening should be examined in a broader context. The results show that home gardening is occurring widely within the state of Ohio. Further studies would be helpful in determining if this is a unique circumstance or if this represents a growing trend throughout the United States.
5.5 Implication for Policy
Given that this study was an attempt to reexamine the social bases of home gardening, it is somewhat difficult to make specific policy recommendations based on the results. However, this study can be of some utility in a broad sense when dealing with existing issues in the contemporary United States. First of all, these results may contribute to the current discussions surrounding sustainability within the agricultural system. With the recent push to promote a more localized food system, this study can highlight some of the strengths and constraints of using home gardening as a tactic to reach this goal. If proponents of the local foods movement want to effectively bring home gardening to the sustainability table, this study could help to point out places where the activity is happening more often. For example, an effective policy would have to recognize why households in the countryside and on farms are more likely to garden compared to those in more urban areas.
Secondly, this study may be able to contribute to the on-going issue of economic hardship. While further research is needed to parse out the exact meaning of the positive association noted between home gardening and economic hardship, this relationship demonstrates that economically disadvantaged populations may be considering self- provisioning as a tactic to procure food items. Hence, this study might be of use to 108 organizations that help households facing economic hardship. While home gardening would certainly not function as the ultimate catch-all solution for economic hardship, it could be another tactic to help dissipate its effects in affected populations.
109 REFERENCES
Agra Europe, 1996. Lindeberichte: Sttitzung jetzt auch ftir landwirtschaftliche Kleinproduzenten (Subsidies now for small-holder farms, too). June 24.
Allen, Patricia. 2004. Together at the Table. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania State Press.
Alkon, Alison. “Paradise or Pavement? The Social Construction of the Environment in Two Urban Farmers Markets.” Paper Presented During the 2007 ASA Meetings: New York City, NY.
Audirac, I. 1999. “Unsettled Views about the Fringe: Rural-Urban or Urban-Rural Frontiers.” pp. 7 - 32 in Contested Countryside: The Rural Urban Fringe in North America, edited by O.J. Furuseth and M.B. Lapping. Brookfield, VT: Ashgate.
Baker, Andrew H. and Holly V. Izard. 1991. “New England Farmers and the Marketplace, 1750 - 1865: A Case Study.” Agricultural History. 65: (3), p. 29-52.
Barlett, Peggy F. 1986. “Part-time Farming: Saving the Farm or Saving the Life-style?” Rural Sociology. 51: (3), p. 289 - 313.
Becker, R. F. (1984). Vegetable Gardening in the United States: A History, 1565 - 1900. HortScience, 19: (5), 624-629.
Bennet, Keith and Mark K. McBeth. 1998. “Contemporary Western Rural USA Economic Composition: Potential Implications for Environmental Policy and Research. Environmental Management. 22: p. 371 - 381.
Bently, Amy. 1988. Eating For Victory. United States: University of Illinois Press.
110 Bernstein, Mary. 2005. “Identity Politics.” Annual Review of Sociology. 31: p. 47 - 74.
Berry, Wendell. 1997 The Unsettling of America: Culture and Agriculture. San Francisco: Sierra Club.
Beus and Dunlap. 1990. “Conventional Versus Alternative Agriculture: The Paradigmatic Roots of the Debate.” Rural Sociology. 55: (4), 590-616.
Boarini, R. and M. M. d’Ercole. 2006. “Measures of Material Deprivation in OECD Countries.” Working Paper No. 37. Directorate for Employment Labour and Social Affairs, OECD, Paris.
Brown, R. B., X. Xu and J. F. Toth. 1998. “Lifestyle Options and Economic Strategies: Subsistence Activities in the Mississippi Delta. Rural Sociology. 63: p. 599 - 623.
Bullion, Brenda. 1992. “Early American Farming and Gardening Literature: ‘Adapated to the Climates and Seasons of the United States.’” Journal of Gardening History. 12: (1), 29 - 51.
Buttel, Frederick H. 1975. “The Environmental Movement: Consensus, Conflict, and Change.” Journal of Environmental Education. 53: (7), p. 53 - 63.
Campbell, R. R., J. C. Spence, and R. G. Amonker. 1993. “The Reported and Unreported Missouri Ozarks: Adaptive Strategies of the People Left Behind. In Forgotten Places: Uneven Development in Rural America. Tom Lyson and William Falk (eds.). Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, p. 30 - 52.
Clark, Jill and Jeff Sharp. 2005. “Delineating and Describing Exurbia: Focus on Land Use Policy and Attitudes about Agriculture.” A paper presented at the 68th General Meeting of the Rural Sociological Society, Tampa, Florida, August 8 - 12, 2005.
Clayton, Susan. 2007. “Domesticated Nature: Motivations for Gardening and Perceptions of Environmental Impact.” Journal of Environmental Psychology. 27: p. 215 - 224.
Cole, Garold. “Gardening for Victory; Victory Gardens in American Popular Periodicals During World War II.” The North Dakota Quarterly. 61” (3), p. 163 - 176.
Cochrane, Willard W. 1993. The Development of American Agriculture. United States: University of Minnesota Press. 111 Companioni N., Y. O. Hernández & E. Páiz 2002. “The Growth of Urban Agriculture.” In Funes F., L. García, M. Bourque, N. Pérez & P. Rosset (eds.). Sustainable Agriculture and Resistance: Transforming Food Production in Cuba. Food First Books, Oakland, California. P. 220-236.
Coughenour, C Milton, and Louis E Swanson. 1988. “Rewards, Values, and Satisfaction with Farm Work.” Rural Sociology. 55: (4), p. 442 - 459.
Creed and Ching. 1997. “Recognizing Rusticity: Identity and the Power of Place” p. 1 - 38 in Knowing Your Place: Rural Identity and Cultural Hierarchy. New York, Routledge. pp. 1-38.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.)
Dillman, Don. 2000. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
De Wolf, Gordon in Punch, W. T. (Ed.). (1992). Keeping eden: A History of Gardening in America. Boston: A Bulfinch Press Book.
Derkesen, L.; Gartrell, J. 1993. “The Social Context of Recycling.” American Sociological Review. 58: p. 434–442.
Duncan, C. M. 1996. “Understanding Persistent Poverty: Social Class Context in Rural Communities.” Rural Sociology. 61: 1. pp. 103 - 124.
Dunlap, Riley, J. K. Grieneeks, and M Rokeach. 1983. “Human Values and Pro- Environment Behavior.” p. 145 - 168 in Energy and Material Resources: Attitudes, Values and Public Policy.. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
Douglass, M. 1999. “Decipher a Meal.” pp. 231 - 251 in Implicit Meanings: Selected Essays in Anthropology, Second Edition. USA: Routledge.
Dunlap, Riley E. and Robert Bruce Heffernan. 1975. “Outdoor Recreation and Environmental Concern: An Empirical Examination.” Rural Sociology. 14: 1, p. 18 - 30.
Elkins and McKitrick. 1995. The Age of Federalism. New York: Oxford University Press.
112 Falk, William. 1996. “The assertion of Identity in Rural Sociology.” Rural Sociology. 1: pp. 159-174.
Falk, Laura, Carole Bisogni, and Jeffery Sobal. 1996. “Food Choice Processes of Older Adults: A Qualitative Investigation.” Journal of Nutrition Education. Volume 28: pp. 257 - 265.
Flinn, William L. and Frederick H. Buttel. 1974. “The Structure of Suppoer for the Environmental Movement, 1968 - 1970.” Rural Sociology. 39: (1), p. 53 - 63.
Friedmann, Harriet. 1986. “Patriarchy and Property.” Sociologia Ruralis. 26: (2), p. 186 - 193.
Fromartz, Samuel. 2006. Organic, Inc.: Natural Foods and How They Grew. United States: Harcourt Books.
Gamba, Raymond and Stuart Oskamp. 1994. “Factors Influencing Community Residents’ Participation in Commingled Curbside Recycling Programs.” Environment and Behavior. 26: (5), p. 587 - 612.
Garson, David. “Hosmer and Lemeshow Chi-Squared Goodness of Fit.” Accessed June 4, 2009: http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/PA765/logistic.htm.
Gillespie, Gilbert, Duncan L. Hilchey, C. Clare Hinrichs, and Gail Feenstra. 2007. “Farmers’ Markets as Keystones in Rebuilding Local and Regional Food Systems.” p. 65 - 83 in Remaking the North American Food System: Strategies for Sustainability. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Glauber, Joseph. 2008. “U.S. Agricultural Sector Aggregate Indicators: Farm Income, U.S. Trade Value, Food Prices, and Food Expenditures.” United States Department of Agriculture: Online. July 27th, 2009. http://www.ers.usda.gov/ Briefing/baseline/agsector.htm
Govindasamy, Zurbriggen, Italia, Adalaja, Nitzche, and VanVraken. 1998. “Farmers Markets: Consumer Trends, Preferences, and Characteristics.” The University of Rutgers Cooperative Extension. Available at: http://njveg.rutgers.edu/assets/pdfs/ mktg/fm_consumer_trends_june1998.pdf
Grossman, Gary M. and Harry R. Potter. 1977. “A Trend Analysis of Competing Models of Environmental Attitudes.” Working Paper No. 127. West Lafayette, IN: Department of Sociology and Anthropology. Purdue University.
113 Hannigan, John. 1995. Environmental Sociology. United States: Routledge.
Hinrichs, C. Clare. 1998. “Sideline and Lifeline: The Cultural Economy of Maple Syrup Production.” Rural Sociology. 63: (4), p. 507 - 532.
Hinrichs, C. Clare. 2003. “The Practice and Politics of Food System Relocationization.” Journal of Rural Studies. 19: (1), p. 33 - 45.
Ho, Wing-Chung. 2008. “The Transcendence and Non-Discursivity of the Lifeword. Human Studies. Volume 31: pp. 323 - 342.
Holland, Fox and Daro. 2008. “Social Movement and Collective Identity: A Decentered Dialogic View.” Anthropology Quarterly. Winter edition: pp. 95 - 126.
Home and Gardening. 1943. “How Many Gardens?” June: p. 43.
Horsfall Jr., Frank. 1969. “Horticulture in Eighteenth-Century America.” Agricultural History. Volume 43: (1). p. 159 - 168.
Howard, Judith. 2000. “Social Psychology of Identities.” Annual Review of Sociology. Volume 26: p. 367 - 393.
Jensen, Leif and T. C. Gretchen. 1995. “Informal Work in Nonmetropolitan Pennsylvania.” Rural Sociology. 63: (4), p. 507 - 532.
Jones, Robert Emmet and J. Mark Fly, and H. Ken Cordell. 1999. “How Green is My Valley? Tracking Rural and Urban Environmentalism in the Southern Appalachian Ecoregion.” Rural Sociology. 64: (2), p. 482-499.
Krugman, Paul. 2008. “Grains Gone Wild.” New York Times: Online. April 7th, 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/07/opinion/07krugman.html? _r=1&scp=2&sq=food%20crisis&st=cse&oref=slogin
Jones, Robert Emmet and Riley E. Dunlap. 1992. “The Social Bases of Environmental Concern: Have They Changed Over Time?” Rural Sociology. 57: (1), p. 28 - 47.
Jones, Fly, and Cordell. 1999. “How Green is My Valley? Tracking Rural and Urban Environmentalism in the Southern Appalachian Ecoregion.” Rural Sociology. 64: (2), p. 482 - 499.
114 Jones, Fly, Talley, and Cordell. 2003. “Green Migration into Rural American: The New Frontier of Environmentalism?” Society and Natural Resources: An International Journal. 16: (3), p. 221-238.
Kingsolver, Barbara. 2007. Animal, Vegetable, Miracle. United States: Harper Collins.
Kendall, Lobao, and Sharp. 2006. “Public Concern with Animal Well-Being: Place, Social Structural Location, and Individual Experience.” Rural Sociology. 71: (3), p. 399 - 428.
Levi-Strauss, C. The Raw and the Cooked. New York: Harper and Row.
Lobao, Linda. 1996. “The Sociology of the Periphery Versus a Periphery Sociology: Rural Sociology and the Dimension of Space.” Rural Sociology. pp.72-102.
Lobao, Linda and Katherine Meyer. 2001. “The Great Agricultural Transition: Crisis, Change, and Social Consequences of Twentieth Century US Farming.” Annual Review of Sociology. 27: (1), p. 103 - 124.
Lobao, Linda. 2006. “Renewed Significance of Space in Social Research: Implications for Labor Market Studies.” Labor Market Areas. Westview Press: Boulder, CO. p.11 - 31.
Lea and Worsley. 2005. “Australians’ organic food beliefs, demographics, and values.” British Food Journal. 107: (11), p. 855-869.
Leighton, Ann. 1976. American Gardens in the Eighteenth Century. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Lynd, Robert S. and Helen M. Lynd. 1929. Middletown: A Study in Contemporary American Culture. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Lyson, Thomas. 2007. “Civic Agriculture and the North American Food System.” pp. 19-32 in Remaking the North American Food System: Strategies for Sustainability. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Makatouni, Aikaterini. 2002. “What motivates consumers to buy organic foods in the UK?” British Food Journal. 104: (3/4/5), pp. 345-352.
Marshall, Gordon. A Dictionary of Sociology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
115 Martin, Edward. 1944. Foreword in: Victory Gardens: Handbook of the Victory Garden Committee. Pennsylvania State Council of Defense.
Manton, C. 1999. Fed Up: Woman and Food in America. Connecticut: Burgin and Garvey.
McEachern and Warnaby. 2006. “Food Shopping Behavior in Scotland: the Influence of Relative Rurality.” International Journal of Consumer Studies. 2: p. 189 - 201.
Mertig, Angela G. and Riley E. Dunlap. 2001. “Environmentalism, New Social Movements, and the New Class: A Cross-National Investigation.” Rural Sociology. 66: (1), p. 113 - 136.
Miller, Chad. 2004. “In the Sweat of our Brow: Citizenship in American Domestic Practice During WWII - Victory Gardens.” The Journal of American Culture. 26: (2), p. 395 - 409
Miller Jr., August C. 1942. “Jefferson as an Agriculturist.” Agricultural History. 12: (2), p. 65 - 78.
Mingione, E. 1991. Fragmented Societies: A Sociology of Economic Life Beyond the Market Paradigm. Oxford, United Kingdom: Basil Blackwell Ltd.
Mirowsky, John and Catherine E. Ross. 1999. “Economic Hardship Across the Life Course.” American Sociological Review. 64: p. 548 - 569.
Morton, Louis Wright and Ella Annette Bitto, Mary Jane Oakland, and Mary Sand. 2008. “Accessing Food Resources: Rural and Urban Patterns of Giving and Getting Food.” Agriculture and Human Values. 25: p. 107 - 119.
Moss, Moss, Kilbride, Rubinstein. 2007. “Frail Men’s Perspectives on Food and Eating.” Journal of Aging Studies. Volume 21: pp. 314 - 324.
Nelson, A. C., and Sanchez, T. W. 1997. “Exurban and Suburban Households: A Departure from Traditional Location Theory?” Journal of Housing Research. 8: (2), p. 249–276.
Newby, Howard, D Rose, P Saunders, and C Bell. 1981. “Farming for Survival: The Small Farmer in the Contemporary Rural Class Structure.” Bechhofer, Frank and Brain Elliott (eds.). The Petite Bourgeoisie: Comparative Studies of the Uneasy Stratum. New York: St. Martin Press.
116 Nova A. 2002. “Cuban Agriculture Before 1990.” Funes F., L. Garcia, M. Bourque, N. Pérez & P. Rosset (eds.). Sustainable Agriculture and Resistance: Transforming Food Production in Cuba. Food First Books, California: 27-39.
Omohundro, John T. 1995. “Living off the Land.” In Living on the Edge: The Great Northern Peninsula of Newfoundland. L. W. Felt and P. R. Sinclair (eds.). St. John’s, Newfoundland Institute of Social and Economic Research, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
Organic Monitor. 2006. “#7002-40 The Global Market for Organic Food and Drink: Business Opportunities and Future Outlook.” Link accessed April 7 2009 at: http://www.organicmonitor.com/700240.htm
Orshanky, Mollie. 1965. “Counting the Poor: Another Look at the Poverty Profile.” Social Security Bulletin. 28: p. 3 - 29.
Ostrom, Marcia Ruth and Raymond A. Jussaume, Jr. 2007. “Assessing the Significance of Direct Farmer-Consumer Linkages as a Change Strategy in Washington State: Civic or Opportunistic.” Pp. 235-259 in Remaking the North American Food System: Strategies for Sustainability. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Ostrom, Marcia Ruth. 2007. “Community Supported as an Agent of Change: Is it Working?” Pp. 99-120 in in Remaking the North American Food System: Strategies for Sustainability. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Pallot, Judith, and Tatyana Nefedova. 2003. “Tracjectories in People’s Farming in Moscow Oblast During the Post-Socialist Transformation.” Journal of Rural Studies. 19: p. 345 - 362.
Pollen, Michael. 2006. The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals. United States: Penguin Press.
Quandt et al. 1994. “Home Gardening and Food Preservation Practices of the Elderly in Rural Kentucky.” Ecology of Food and Nutrition. 31: p. 183 - 199.
Raynolds, Laura. 2000. “Re-embedding Global Agriculture: The International Organic and Fair Trade Movements.” Agriculture and Human Values. 17: (3), p. 297 - 309.
Ringen, S. 1988. “Direct and Indirect Measures of Poverty. Journal of Social Policy. 17: (2), p. 351 - 365. 117 Root, W. and R. de Rochemont. 1976. Eating in America. New York: William Morrow and Company.
Scholosser, Eric. 2001. Fast Food Nation. United States: Houghton Mifflin.
Seaton, Beverly. 1981. “Idylls of Agriculture: Or, Nineteenth-Century Success Stories of Farming and Gardening.” Agricultural History. 55: (1), pp. 21 - 30.
Seeth, Harm Tho, Sergei Chachnov, Alexander Surinov, and Joachim von Braun. 1998. “Russian Poverty: Muddling Through Economic Transition with Garden Plots.” World Development. 26: (9), p. 1611 - 1623.
Senn, T. L. 1969. “Farm and Garden: Landscaped and Horticulture in Eighteenth- Century America.” Agricultural History. 43: (1), pp. 149 - 158.
Sen, Amartya. 2008. “The Rich Get Hungrier.” The New York Times: Online. May 28th, 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/28/opinion/28sen.html? scp=9&sq=food%20crisis&st=cse
Sharp, Jeff and Mark Tucker. 2005. “Awareness and Concern about Large-Scale Livestock and Poultry: Results from a Statewide Survey of Ohioans.” Rural Sociology. 70: (2), p. 208 - 228.
Sharp, Jeff and Jill Clark. 2008. “Between the Country and the Concrete: Rediscovering the Rural-Urban Fringe.” City and Community. 7: (1), p. 61 - 77.
Sharp, Jeff and Lazarus Adua. 2009. “The Social Basis of Agro-Environmental Concern: Physical versus Social Proximity.” Rural Sociology. 74: (1), p. 56 - 85.
Sharp, Jeff and Jill Clark. 2008. “Between the Country and the Concrete: Rediscovering the Rural-Urban Fringe.” City and Community. Volume 7: (1). pp. 61 - 79.
Shiva, Vandana. 1992. The Violence of the Green Revolution. London: Zed Books.
Saunders, Peter, Yuvisthi Naidoo and Megan Griffiths. 2008. “Towards New Indicators of Disadvantage: Deprivation and Social Exclusion in Australia.” Australian Journal of Social Issues. 43: (2), p. 175 - 194.
Super size me. Spurlock, M. (Director). (2004).[Video/DVD]
118 Teitelbaum, Sara and Thomas Beckley. 2006. “Harvested, Hunted and Home Grown: The Prevalence of Self-Provisioning in Rural Canada.” Journal of Rural Community and Development. 1: (2), p. 114 - 130.
Theodori, Gene, A.E. Luloff, and Fern K. Willits. 1998. “The Association of Outdoor Recreation and Environmental Concern: Reexamining the Dunlap-Heffernan Thesis. Rural Sociology. 63: (1), p. 94 - 108.
Tice, Patricia M. 1984. Gardening in America, 1830 - 1910. Rochester, New York: Strong Museum.
Tovey, Hilary. 1997. “Food, Environmentalism and Rural Sociology: On the Organic Farming Movement in Ireland.” Sociologia Ruralis. 37: (1), pp. 21-37.
Trautmann NM, Porter KS and Wagenet RJ. Groundwater Fact Sheet: Modern Agriculture: Its Effects on the Environment. Cornell Cooperative Extension, April, 1989.
Tucker, David M. 1993. Kitchen Gardening in America: A History. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.
USDA. 2008. “USDA Invites Celebration of National Ag Day.” Link accessed June 22 2009 at:
USDA. 2009. “Organic Production.” Link accessed April 7 2009 at: http:// www.ers.usda.gov/Data/Organic/ von Braun, J., E. Serova, Harm Tho Seeth, and O. Melyukhina. 1996. “Russia’s Food Economy in Transition: Current Policy Issues and Long-Term Perspectives.” Discussion Paper at the International Food Policy Research Institute, 2020 - Vision Initiative on Food, Agriculture and the Environment. Washington, D.C.
Willits, Fern K. and A.E. Luluff. 1995. “Urban Residents Views of Rurality and Contacts with Rural Places.” Rural Sociology. 60: (3), p. 454 - 466.
Wimberley et al. 2003. “Food from our Changing World: The Globalization of Food and How Americans Feel About it.” Link accessed June 26 2009 at: http:// sasw.chass.ncsu.edu/global-food/foodglobal.html
119 APPENDIX: SURVEY INSTRUMENT
120 Ohio Survey of Food, Agriculture, and Environmental Issues
The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio May 2008
121 Ohio Survey of Food, Agriculture, and Environmental Issues
I. Your Place of Residence & Community
A. Please describe the kind of place in which you currently live. (Circle your answer) 1. City 2. Suburb 3. Small Town 4. Countryside (but not on a farm) 5. Farm
B. How long have you lived in your current community? ______years (enter 1 if less than one year)
C. In what kind of place did you spend most of your childhood? (Circle your answer) 1. City 2. Suburb 3. Small Town 4. Countryside (but not on a farm) 5. Farm
D. Please indicate your level of agreement with the following questions related to life, leadership, and opportunities in your community by circling the appropriate numbered response.
Strongly Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree a. .. The leaders of my community have a good vision and sense of direction for the 1 2 3 4 5 future ...... b. . Local officials in my community understand how to develop the area’s 1 2 3 4 5 economy ...... c. .. My local community is actively involved in local community improvement/ 1 2 3 4 5 economic development efforts...... d. . Local officials are doing the best they can with the resources they 1 2 3 4 5 have ...... e. .. When something needs to be done in my community, the whole community usually 1 2 3 4 5 gets behind it ...... f. .. When important community issues arise most people in my community are willing 1 2 3 4 5 to express their opinions publicly ......
122 g. . The involvement of youth in community 1 projects is encouraged in my 2 3 4 5 community ...... h. . Clubs and organizations in my community 1 are interested in what is best for all 2 3 4 5 residents...... i. ... Residents in my community are receptive 1 to new residents taking leadership 2 3 4 5 positions...... j. ... People in my community trust their local 1 2 3 4 5 officials ...... k. . Overall, Ohio is a good state in which to 1 2 3 4 5 work and live...... E. How satisfied are you with the following aspects of your life or community? Please indicate not applicable where appropriate (for instance, job security might not be applicable if you are retired). Very Very Not dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied applicable a. ... Your 1 2 3 4 5 6 housing ...... b. .. Your 1 2 3 4 5 6 education ...... c. ... Your 1 2 3 4 5 6 job ...... d. .. Your job 1 2 3 4 5 6 security ...... e. ... Your job 1 2 3 4 5 6 opportunities ...... f. ... Your 1 2 3 4 5 6 community ...... g. .. Your current income 1 2 3 4 5 6 level ...... h. .. Your current financial 1 2 3 4 5 6 security ...... i. ... Your anticipated financial 1 2 3 4 5 6 security during retirement ......
123 II. Farming and Food Behaviors
A. How often do you engage in the following activities associated with food, agriculture, or the environment? Occasiona Frequentl Never Seldom lly y a. ... Buy foods that are locally grown or 1 2 3 4 produced? ...... b. ... Take a recreational drive through the 1 2 3 4 countryside? ...... c. ... Visit a pick-your-own fruit or vegetable 1 2 3 4 farm? ...... d. ... Tour or visit a working 1 2 3 4 farm? ...... e. ... Purchase farm produce or other food items at a farmer’s market or roadside 1 2 3 4 stand? ...... f. .... Use your own tote bags when 1 2 3 4 shopping? ...... g. ... Recycle waste (paper, cans, glass, bottles, plastic, 1 2 3 4 etc.)? ...... h. ... Buy foods labeled as certified 1 2 3 4 organic? ......
B. About how much would you estimate your household spent buying farm products or food items directly from a farmer in 2007? (For example, at a farmers’ market, roadside stand, CSA, etc.) (Please write“0” if you bought nothing directly from a farmer in 2007)
$______
C. How much of the food that you eat is processed, packaged and not locally grown (from more than 200 miles away)? 1. Most of the food I eat is processed, packaged and from far away 2. Three quarters 3. Half 4. One quarter 5. Very little. Most of the food I eat is unprocessed, unpackaged and locally grown
124 D. There is growing interest in creating more opportunities for Ohioans to purchase foods that have been grown or processed closer to where they live. How important do you think it is that state and local governments work to develop stronger local food systems throughout the state?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all Somewhat Very Important Important Important
E. How often do you eat animal based products? (beef, pork, chicken, fish, eggs or dairy products)? 1. Almost always (meat and eggs/dairy in almost every meal) 2. Very often (meat daily) 3. Often (meat once or twice a week) 4. Occasionally (no meat or occasional meat, but eggs/dairy almost daily) 5. Infrequently (no meat, and eggs/dairy a few times a week; strict vegetarian) 6. Never (vegan)
F. Do you or does anyone in your household engage in the following gardening or food preservation activities? Yes No a. ... Maintain a fruit or vegetable 1 2 garden? ...... b. ... Canned or froze fresh vegetables or fruit that you grew or 1 2 purchased? ...... c. ... Compost yard, garden, or kitchen 1 2 waste? ......
G. If you or someone in your household grew fruits and vegetables for home consumption last year, how much would you estimate its value was if you had bought the same food at a grocery store or farmer’s market? (Please write“0” if no fruits or vegetables were grown)
$______
125 H. There are several possible obstacles to getting started in fruit and vegetable gardening. Which of the following are obstacles for your household? If someone in your household already grows fruits and vegetables, which are obstacles for increasing the amount of fruits or vegetables grown? Yes No a. ... No interest in fruit or vegetable 1 2 gardening ...... b. ... Not enough time to 1 2 garden ...... c. ... Don’t have the space or access to a place to grow fruits or vegetables 1 2 d. ... Don’t know how to grow fruits or 1 2 vegetables ...... e. ... Mobility or physical impairments limit ability to 1 2 garden ...... f. .... It costs too much to get started growing fruits or 1 2 vegetables ......
I. Recently, public television stations around the state have been airing a television show about Ohio food and agriculture titled “Our Ohio.” This show is sponsored by the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation. Have you seen this show, and if so, what is your opinion of it? 1. I have never seen the show 2. Yes, I have seen the show and enjoyed it 3. Yes, I have seen the show, but did not like it
III. Food, Agriculture and Environmental Views A. Several issues, including many related to food, agriculture or the environment have been in the news in the past year. We would like to know how concerned you are about the following issues: Not Somewhat Very Concerne Concerned Concerne d d a. . Global warming or the “greenhouse 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 effect” ...... b. .Pollution of Ohio’s rivers, streams or 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 groundwater ...... c. .The rising cost of gasoline and heating 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 fuel ...... d. .Loss of farmland as a result of urban 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 growth ...... e. .The high debt levels of some 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Americans...... f. . Development of large-scale poultry and livestock production facilities in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ohio ...... g. .The loss of family 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 farmers ...... h. .The rising cost of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 food ......
126 i. .. Rising obesity among 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Americans ...... j. .. Air pollution in Ohio cities, villages and towns 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ...... k. .The great distance many foods travel to get to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ohio ...... l. .. Loss of Ohio jobs due to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 “globalization” ...... m. The amount of taxes Ohioans must currently 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 pay ...... n. .The declining value of the U.S. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 dollar ......
B. Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements related to food, agriculture or the environment by circling the appropriate numbered responses. Strongl Strongl y Disagre Undecid Agree y Disagr e ed Agree ee a. ... Ohio’s economy will suffer if the state continues to lose 1 2 3 4 5 farmers ...... b. ... I trust Ohio farmers to protect the 1 2 3 4 5 environment ...... c. ... Environmental protection laws regulating farming practices are too 1 2 3 4 5 strict ...... d. ... Overall, farming positively contributes to the quality of life in 1 2 3 4 5 Ohio ...... f. .... Food is not as safe as it was 10 years 1 2 3 4 5 ago ...... g. ... In general, increased regulation of the treatment of animals in farming is 1 2 3 4 5 needed ...... h. ... In a couple years, the cost of gasoline will probably be about the same or even less than 1 2 3 4 5 it is today ...... i. .... More should be done to encourage energy 1 2 3 4 5 conservation ......
IV. Home Energy and Conservation A. Which housing type describes your home? 1. Free standing house 2. Multi-story apartment building 3. Row house or building with 2-4 housing units
127 B. Does your home or apartment have any significant green design elements built into it that improve its energy efficiency, heating or cooling performance? 1. Yes 2. No
C. What is the size of your home or apartment (in square feet)? ______square feet
D. Do you use energy conservation or efficiency measures throughout your home? 1. Yes 2. No
E. Do you use high efficiency light bulbs in your home? 1. Yes 2. No
F. Do you own or rent your current residence? 1. Own 2. Rent (Skip to item I below) 3. Have some other arrangement (Skip to question I below)
G. If you own your current residence, what is its current estimated market value? 1. Less than $49,999 4. $150,000 to 199,999 2. $50,000 to 99,999 5. $200,000 to 299,999 3. $100,000 to 149,999 6. $300,000 or more
H. If you own your current residence, have you done the following in the last two years to improve energy efficiency or reduce energy costs? In the last two years, have you… Yes No a. ... Replaced existing windows with more energy efficient 1 2 windows? ...... b. ... Added or increased insulation in the walls or attic of your 1 2 house? ...... c. ... Sealed your house’s windows, doors, or ductwork to reduce air 1 2 leaks ...... d. ... Claimed a Home Energy Efficiency Improvement Tax Credit on your Federal Tax 1 2 Return ......
I. How often do you engage in the following energy saving behaviors? (Circle your answer) Never Seldom Occasionally Frequently a. ... Reduce heat in unused 1 2 3 4 rooms? ...... b. ... Reduce temperature on hot water 1 2 3 4 heater? ...... c. ... Keep heating low to save 1 2 3 4 energy? ...... d. ... Wear more clothes instead of increase the 1 2 3 4 heat? ...... e. ... Turn lights off in unused 1 2 3 4 rooms? ...... 128 V. Energy and Transportation
A. How much electricity, natural gas or liquid heating fuel has your household consumed in the last year? Also, which companies serve your energy needs? Information concerning your annual usage is printed on your monthly bill. If you do not know, are unable to locate the information, or the cost of a particular utility is bundled in your rent or other similar payment, please check the “don’t know” box.
Energy Type Utility Company Usage a. Electricity ______KwH □Don’t Know Please check and answer for the heating fuel source for your household, if heat is not generated from natural gas or a liquid heating fuel, please write N/A to the left of the table and move on to Question B. □ Natural Gas ______CCF □Don’t Know □ Liquid Heating Fuel ______Gallons □Don’t Know
B. How knowledgeable are you with emerging renewable energy sources, such as the sun, wind, water, or plants? Please indicate on a scale of 1 to 7, your level of knowledge. (Circle the number that comes closest to your level of knowledge)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all Somewhat Very Knowledgeable Knowledgeable Knowledgeable
C. Does your electricity provider permit you the option to purchase renewable energy? Yes No Don’t Know
D. There are a number of reasons why someone might purchase electricity from renewable sources. Please rank the top three reasons why you would purchase electricity produced from renewable sources. Indicate 1 for the top reason, “2” for the second most important reason and “3” for the third most important reason. If you have no interest in purchasing energy from renewable sources, please indicate this by checking the “no interest” box.
I have no interest in purchasing energy from renewable sources ____ To reduce greenhouse gas ____ To improve water quality emissions ____ To reduce acid rain ____ To reduce coal mining ____ To improve air quality ____ To reduce dependence on ____ To support Ohio farmers foreign oil ____ To benefit Ohio’s economy
129 Please read the following paragraph before continuing. Anaerobic digesters are processors in which materials such as livestock manure, municipal sludge, and food processing waste are broken down by bacteria in a sealed environment. The resulting products are compost and biogas; the biogas contains methane, and can be burned to produce electricity, or refined into natural gas.
E. How much more per month would you be willing to pay for electricity generated from renewable anaerobic digesters? (Check one please)
$0 $15 $50 $5 $25 more than $50 $10 $35
F. How much more per month would you be willing to pay for natural gas generated from renewable anaerobic digesters? (Check one please) $0 $15 $50 $5 $25 more than $50 $10 $35
G. Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements related to different renewable energy generation methods by circling the appropriate numbered response. Strongly Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree a. ... I would be comfortable with an anaerobic digester being 1 2 3 4 5 constructed near my home ...... b. ... An anaerobic digester would be a welcome addition to my local municipality’s waste 1 2 3 4 5 treatment system ...... c. ... Potential problems, such as odor or accidental leakages, outweigh the benefits of an 1 2 3 4 5 anaerobic digester...... d. ... An anaerobic digester can be an important tool in managing the waste from 1 2 3 4 5 large livestock operations ......
130 H. Below are some renewable sources of electricity. Please indicate your support for each as a source of electricity. Strongly Strongly Oppose Neutral Support a...... Wind ...... 1 2 3 4 5 b...... Solar ...... 1 2 3 4 5 c...... Hydroelectric ...... 1 2 3 4 5 d...... Nuclear ...... 1 2 3 4 5 e. ... Anaerobic digestion ...... 1 2 3 4 5 f...... Geothermal ...... 1 2 3 4 5
I. Odor can be a nuisance and a potential health risk for individuals living in close proximity to animal feeding operations. Anaerobic digestion can eliminate this odor almost entirely when used to generate power and manage manure. How much would you be willing to pay each year, as an amount added to your electricity or gas bill, for energy produced from anaerobic digestion which effectively eliminates odor? (Check one please)
$0 $50 - $500 - $1000 $1 - $25 $100 more than $1000 $25 - $50 $100 - $250 $250 - $500
J. How much would you be willing to pay each year to help make the United States independent of foreign oil by the year 2020? (Check one please) $0 $50 - $100 $500 - $1000 $1 - $25 $100 - $250 more than $1000 $25 - $50 $250 - $500
131 K. Have you engaged in any of the following environmental activities in the last year? In the last year, have you… Yes No a. ... Stopped buying a product that is associated with an environmental 1 2 problem? ...... b. ... Attended a public hearing on an environmental 1 2 issue? ...... c. ... Contributed money to or volunteered for an environmental 1 2 group? ...... d. ... Watched a television special about the 1 2 environment? ...... e. ... Purchased an energy star rated appliance (such as a dishwasher, TV, 1 2 etc.) ......
L. If the cost of gasoline continues to steadily increase, how likely are you to take the following actions to reduce your transportation costs? Very Somewhat Somewhat Very unlikely unlikely likely likely a. Use mass transit (like the bus) more often to get where you need to 1 2 3 4 go ...... b. . Walk or bicycle more often to get where you need to 1 2 3 4 go ...... c. .. Carpool or share rides more often to get where you need to 1 2 3 4 go ...... d. Buy a more energy efficient 1 2 3 4 car ...... e. Change jobs to work closer to your 1 2 3 4 home ...... f. . Move to a new house or apartment to be closer to the places you or others in your household need 1 2 3 4 to travel to ...... g. . Work from home more 1 2 3 4 often ......
132 M. Which of the following are obstacles to your more frequent use of alternative transportation to get where you need to go? Yes No a. ... I have no access to mass transit, such as the bus (if yes, skip the next 1 2 question) ...... b. ... Mass transit is too 1 2 expensive ...... c. ... The places I need to go are too far away to walk or bike 1 2 to ...... d. ... I have health/physical impairments that prevent me walking, biking or using 1 2 mass transit ...... e. ... Carpooling or sharing rides is not 1 2 possible ......
f. .... It is generally inconvenient to use alternative transportation such as the bus 1 2 or walking ......
VI. Current well-being
A. Some Ohio families have recently needed to make financial adjustments to family living. In the past year, have you or any family members made the following adjustments? (Circle your answer) Yes No a. ... Used savings to meet 1 2 expenses? ...... b. .. Changed transportation patterns to save 1 2 money? ...... c. ... Eaten at home more or changed the types of food eaten to save 1 2 money? d. .. Postponed obtaining prescription drugs in order to save 1 2 money? ...... e. ... Used public/charitable assistance (such as food banks) to meet 1 2 needs? ......
B. All things considered, do you think you are better or worse off than you were two years ago? 1. Worse Off 2. About the Same 3. Better Off
133 C. Overall, have increased gasoline, home heating or food costs been a financial hardship for your household during the last six months? (Circle your answer) Not a Modest Financial Serious Financial Hardship Financial Hardship Hardship a. . Increased gasoline 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 costs ...... b. .Increased home heating 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 costs ...... c. . Increased food 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 costs ......
D. There is increasing concern about the amount of debt Ohioans currently have. How much stress does the total debt you (and your spouse/partner) currently have cause you? 1. I (and my spouse/partner) have no debt (skip to Section VII, Question A below) 2. No stress at all 3. Not very much stress 4. Quite a bit of stress 5. A great deal of stress
E. How concerned are you that you will never be able to pay off your debts?
1. Not at all concerned 3. Quite Concerned 2. Somewhat concerned 4. Very Concerned
VII. Background Questions
A. What is your age (as of your last birthday)? ______years
B. Your sex? 1. Male 2. Female
C. How many years of education have you completed? ______years (for example, high school diploma or GED is equivalent to 12 years)
D. What is your current marital status?
1. Now married 4. Divorced/Separated 2. Living together 5. Widowed/Widower 3. Never married
E. Which best describes you?
1. African American 4. Native American/American Indian 2. Asian 5. White 3. Hispanic/Latino 6. Other: (please specify)______
134 F. How many people live in your household? ______people
G. How many persons in your household are the a. Under 5 years of age ______following ages (including yourself): b. 5 to 18 years of age ______c. 19 years of age or older ______
H. How would you generally describe your political views on a scale of 1 to 7 (1=extremely liberal, 7=extremely conservative)? (Circle your answer)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremely Liberal Middle of Extremely the Road Conservative
I. What is your present employment status? (Circle one answer)
1. Employed on a full-time basis 5. Retired 2. Employed on a part-time basis 6. Full-time homemaker 3. Self-employed on full-time basis 7. Student 4. Self-employed on a part-time 8. Unemployed basis
J. If you are employed in paid work, what is your major occupation in which you work most of the time? 1. Professional or technical (teacher, engineer, etc.) 2. Manager/administrator 7. Farm operator or manager 3. Sales, office support 8. Non-farm, self employed 4. Production, transportation 9. Other—please 5. Construction, mining, repair specify:______6. General service work K. If you are employed or self-employed on a full or part-time basis, how many miles do you travel, one way, to work from home? ______miles
L. On average, how far do you travel on public transportation each week? Please indicate “0” if you do not use public transportation. ______miles
M. On average, how far do you travel by car each week (as driver or passenger). Please indicate “0” if you do never travel by car. ______miles
135 N. How often do you drive a car with someone else, rather than alone? 1. Almost never 2. Occasionally (about 25% of the time) 3. Often (about 50% of the time) 4. Very often (about 75% of the time) 5. Almost always
O. How many miles per gallon does the car you drive or most frequently ride in get? ______miles per gallon
P. Approximately how many hours do you spend flying each year, that is hours the plane is in the air? ______Hours/year
Q. What was your approximate gross household income from all sources, before taxes, for 2007? 1. Less than $9,999 5. $50,000 to 74,999 2. $10,000 to 19,999 6. $75,000 to 99,999 3. $20,000 to 34,999 7. $100,000 or more 4. $35,000 to 49,999 Thank you for your cooperation!!! If you have additional comments, please provide them on the back cover.
136