THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COMMUNITY GARDENING AND
EMPOWERMENT: A STUDY OF LOS ANGELES GARDENS
A Thesis
Presented to the
Faculty of
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
In Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Landscape Architecture
By
Edna A. Robidas
2017 SIGNATURE PAGE
THESIS: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COMMUNITY GARDENING AND EMPOWERMENT: A STUDY OF LOS ANGELES GARDENS
AUTHOR: Edna A. Robidas
DATE SUBMITTED: Winter 2017
Landscape Architecture Department
Dr. Kyle D. Brown Thesis Committee Chair Landscape Architecture
Dr. Lee-Anne S. Milburn Landscape Architecture
Viviana Franco, MURP Exec. Dir., From Lot to Spot
ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
With this I would like to thank first and foremost those who welcomed me into their gardens and lent their time and voices to this study. I have learned tremendously from you, and am infinitely appreciative.
Further thanks goes to my committee members, Dr. Kyle Brown, Dr. Lee-Anne
Milburn, and Viviana Franco, for their invaluable input and direction. Your thoughtful comments challenged me to dig deeper and build a stronger study. Additional thanks to
Cal Poly Pomona faculty members who have provided support along the way, including
Dr. Susan Mulley for her guidance in the initial stages of this thesis.
Finally, all of the love and gratitude in the world to my family, my constant cheerleaders, and friends for your never-ending encouragement, counsel, and care. You gladden my heart.
iii ABSTRACT
Urban cities around the country, including Los Angeles, are faced with a lack of public open space in many high-density urban communities, as well as vacant land attracting blight. Community gardens have historically been implemented as tools to address multiple societal needs, and could be a tailor-made solution to a number of issues facing the city.
This study used Laverack’s organizational domains (2001) as a community empowerment evaluation framework to analyze semi-structured interviews with eleven gardeners from four community gardens in the greater Los Angeles area. The interviews were processed through iterations of ‘monster-dog’ matrices to identify respondent themes, and then compare those themes to Laverack’s domains.
This study found a strong connection between community gardener responses and
Laverack’s organizational domains, in particular the domain Builds empowering organizational structures, which not only encompassed community structures within the garden, but the social cohesion between gardeners, which was a strong element in responses. In particular, this study found that the act of teaching and learning, or exchanging knowledge and skills between gardeners, was a powerfully empowering process. The study also found two domains only tangentially linked to gardener responses. These domains related to the power of outside organizations on program implementation; no responses reflected the presence of an outside organization, however this study determined the absence of an identified outside organization was an indication in itself of an empowered garden.
iv The results show a clear relationship between community gardens and community empowerment, however this study was not able to determine causality, in other words, whether the gardens created empowerment, or those involved in community gardens were inherently more likely to be empowered already. To maximize the impact a garden has on empowerment, landscape architects and community garden practitioners should make space for those activities found to contribute highly to empowerment, such as knowledge sharing, through program organization and support. They should also strive to ensure participatory processes around designing such spaces truly locate decision-making power and control within the community.
v TABLE OF CONTENTS
Signature Page ...... ii
Acknowledgements ...... iii
Abstract ...... iv
List of Tables ...... viii
List of Figures ...... ix
Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1
Background ...... 2
Thesis goals and objectives ...... 6
Chapter 2: Literature Review ...... 8
Community gardens ...... 8
Community empowerment...... 24
Intersection: Community gardens and community empowerment ...... 35
Chapter 3: Methods...... 38
Research question and role of the researcher ...... 38
Laverack’s organizational domains ...... 39
Interviews ...... 39
Research process ...... 41
Limitations of the study ...... 47
Demographics and garden structure...... 48
Analysis...... 52
Chapter 4: Results...... 57
vi Connection to Laverack’s organizational domains ...... 57
Chapter 5: Discussion ...... 83
Future research ...... 86
Application to landscape architecture ...... 90
Conclusion ...... 92
References ...... 96
Appendix A: Semi-structured interview questions ...... 111
Appendix B: Institutional Review Board approval ...... 115
Appendix C: Informed consent form ...... 116
vii LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Community empowerment evaluation frameworks by researcher ...... 28
Table 2 Summary of garden structural organization ...... 51
viii LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 World War I war garden propaganda poster ...... 11
Figure 2 Community gardens in the Los Angeles region ...... 14
Figure 3 Example of a garden with individual plots ...... 17
Figure 4 Example of a communally managed garden ...... 18
Figure 5 Arnstein’s ladder of participation ...... 30
Figure 6 Relationship between interview questions and Laverack’s community empowerment organizational domains ...... 40
Figure 7 Community gardens studied ...... 44
Figure 8 Connection between gardener response themes and Laverack’s community empowerment organizational domains ...... 58
ix CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
“Gardens, scholars say, are the first sign of commitment to a community. When people plant corn they are saying, let's stay here. And by their connection to the land, they are connected to one another” (Raver, 1992).
Landscape Architecture as a field is often charged with solving social inequities through land use and planning, particularly in urban settings. At times, designers and planners step up to the challenge, however, more often it is clear many are unsure of where to start and how to effectively engage communities of all colors and backgrounds in a transparent, authentic manner that is not self-serving or just ‘checking a box’ (Hester,
2005; Juarez & Brown, 2008).
This thesis proposes that land use planners and designers should aspire to not simply increase public participation, but also empower communities through the built environment. One strategy commonly recommended for this goal is the community garden (Lawson, 2004; Milburn & Vail, 2010). Seen as a holistic and low-cost way to provide participants with occupation and food resources, as well as social ties and support
(Armstrong, 2000, Hynes & Howe, 2004), community gardens are often given the task of solving many problems at once, but their successes, particularly the social ones, are hard to evaluate (Iles, 2005/2012; Lawson, 2005). This study hopes to contribute to the body of knowledge informing such pursuits and assessments.
1 Background
The urban fabric of streetscapes and green spaces has a profound impact on the people who interact with it from day to day. It has the potential to welcome or rebuff, to engage or separate, to be a resource or a deficit. When aligned, landscapes are able to make our cities safer, healthier places to live, uplifting communities, equalizing, and providing opportunities for connection. Landscape architects and planners, as designers of these spaces, have the responsibility to ensure cities work for everyone.
Frederick Law Olmsted, considered the ‘father’ of the landscape architecture profession, and one of the principle designers of New York City’s Central Park, advocated for the importance of open space for all, in an age when cities were becoming rapidly dense and industrialized, with gardens and green space a commodity very few were able to enjoy (Eisenman, 2013). On the importance of establishing such public resources he wrote,
It is one great purpose of the Park to supply to the hundreds of thousands of tired
workers, who have no opportunity to spend their summers in the country, a
specimen of God’s handiwork that shall be to them, inexpensively, what a month
of two in the White Mountains or the Adirondacks is, at great cost, to those in
easier circumstances. (Olmsted, 1973, p. 46)
While formally elevating the profession past that of gardener to that of landscape artist or architect, Olmsted also laid a foundation of equity and access, particularly for those with the fewest resources.
2 Inequitable Distribution
In more recent terms, studies have shown that access to green, open space improves health (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2011), reduces crime (Kuo & Sullivan 2001), and creates stronger, healthier communities and cities
(Westphal, 2003). Something as simple as viewing green, living plants can reduce surgery recovery times (Ulrich, 1984), and creates a more favorable view of self – what you see around you, in your neighborhood, informs how you perceive yourself, so when what is around you is living and beautiful, so you see yourself (Lewis, 1992).
Despite these benefits, many urban cities are woefully and inequitably under- greened. For example, Los Angeles County averages 3.3 acres of recreational open space per one thousand people, however while the most park-rich communities have an average of 52.0 park acres per one thousand people, the most park-poor communities have an average of 0.7 park acres per one thousand people (Los Angeles County Department of
Parks and Recreation, 2016). In the case of Los Angeles County, park-rich communities are generally located in the wealthier fringes of the county, while park-poor communities are predominately located around Downtown Los Angeles, particularly south and east of the city core, in historically low-income and minority neighborhoods.
At the same time, many of these highly urban communities are facing issues of cyclical blight, where vacant lots attract vandalism, illegal dumping, and criminal activity
(Garvin, Branas, Keddem, Sellman, & Cannuscio, 2012). These two issues, a lack of open space and predominance of blighted vacant lots, seem interrelated, the one offering a solution to the other. Simple interventions such as beautification, plantings, parks, or
3 community gardens can be fairly affordably implemented to convert vacant spaces from a burden to an amenity for the community.
Community Garden as Intervention
Community gardens have been a popular historic approach to provide both urban greening and equity solutions for inner cities and disadvantaged communities (Lawson,
2005). They are viewed as low-cost ways to create urban beautification and open space benefits, as well as supply healthy food and boost community capacity – a one-stop-shop solution (Armstrong, 2000; Hynes & Howe, 2004).
One of the unique benefits of community gardens is they have the capacity to bring communities together in a greater sense than planting street trees or other urban greening interventions may provide. They create spaces where neighbors can meet and talk, finding solutions to their community’s issues (Armstrong, 2000). They can also be attractive programs for cities, offering a low-investment solution to multiple issues, with the community and gardeners taking on the space’s maintenance and generally requiring limited oversight and resources from municipalities (Ackerman, 2012).
Many benefits provided by community gardens however, have been historically hard to study and prove, particularly social benefits that are more often best communicated anecdotally (Iles, 2005/2012; Lawson, 2005). This thesis is approached with the assumption that community gardens provide multiple social and economic benefits, and seeks to contribute to the body of knowledge surrounding community gardens and their documentable social benefits, specifically empowerment, and to
4 provide one more screw in the toolbox of resources community gardens and their supporters can pull from to support their programs.
Study Region: Los Angeles
This thesis focuses on community gardens in and around the city of Los Angeles,
California. Community gardening has seen an increase in popularity in the region, as evidenced by recent studies such as the Cultivate LA urban agriculture mapping tool and assessment report undertaken by the University of California, Los Angeles (Jackson, et al., 2013; University of California, Los Angeles [UCLA], 2017).
The region’s mild temperatures and year-round growing season (Western
Regional Climate Center, 2016) supports a variety of agricultural pursuits, including community gardens. The area also faces many challenges that community gardens can potentially address, such as wide and severe income inequality (Lopez, 2015), poor access in many areas to healthy food options (Azuma, Gilliland, Vallianatos, Gottlieb,
2010) and spaces to recreate outdoors (Los Angeles County Department of Parks and
Recreation, 2016), and associated high levels of obesity and chronic diseases (Los
Angeles County Department of Public Health, 2011; Los Angeles County Department of
Public Health, 2015).
At the same time, community gardens across the nation as well as in Los Angeles face increasing pressures, including rising land values with competing land use interests
(Voicu & Been, 2008), drought and restricted water use mandates, and rising water rates
(in 2016 the Los Angeles City Council approved a Los Angeles Department of Water and
Power rate increase that raises rates for community garden irrigation water from $1.41 to
5 $5.48 per hundred cubic feet over five years, amounting to a 289% increase; Los Angeles
Department of Water and Power, 2015).
An ethnic melting pot, many diverse communities lend to Los Angeles’ unique cultural richness, however many of these communities can be susceptible to marginalization, especially in neighborhoods and households more linguistically isolated
(Nawyn, Gjokaj, Agbényiga, & Grace, 2012). Community gardens offer places for these cultures to connect and thrive, particularly through the growing and sharing of fruits, vegetables, herbs, and culinary traditions unique to various homelands, offering an attractive space for those who may be marginalized to frequent, become involved in, and connect with resources (Lawson, 2005).
Further, Los Angeles is an influencer city. Renowned for its culture, creativity, and entrepreneurship, the city occupies an essential place in shaping both the country and the world. Artist Barbara Kruger stated, “If most American cities are about the consumption of culture, Los Angeles and New York are about the production of culture – not only national culture but global culture” (as cited by Sample, 2008). As Los Angeles gets things right, it can provide valuable tools for other communities to utilize.
Thesis Goals and Objectives
The goal of this thesis was to examine the relationship between community gardens and community empowerment using a metrics system defined by Laverack
(2001). In-person semi-structured interviews, using the Laverack framework as a guide to shape the discussion and prompts, allowed for the assessment of community empowerment in each garden studied. Also sought was to identify through responses
6 conditions at each garden that most contribute to empowerment, to inform community leaders and urban designers how best to implement community gardens and other green interventions with the purpose of empowering communities.
Community empowerment research is a multi-disciplinary field, with much of the fieldwork evaluation research occurring in the public health sector (Laverack, 2001;
Labonte & Laverack, 2001). This study is meant to contribute to the body of knowledge in the field of landscape architecture, and those fields related, to further define how to recognize, evaluate, and increase community empowerment as it relates to community gardens.
The field of landscape architecture is evolving, with the edges becoming increasingly blurred and blended into related disciplines. As a field that not only deals with land and the arrangement of it, but also with the people who will use it, incorporating social justice into the practice of landscape architecture is essential. This becomes particularly important when taking into account current and historic injustices impacting many communities that landscape architects work in (Gould & Lewis, 2012).
More and more, landscape architects and planners are tasked with including the public in planning and design decisions for public spaces, which they do with varying degrees of success (Juarez & Brown, 2008). As the urban planner Jane Jacobs wrote in her seminal work, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, “Cities have the capability of providing something for everybody, only because, and only when, they are created by everybody” (1961, p. 238). A final goal of this thesis was to inform authentic engagement practices through its findings.
7 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
To inform the constructs of this study, literature in the fields of community gardens and community empowerment were researched, and are presented in summary in this chapter.
Community Gardens
In the simplest definition, community gardens are spaces where community members can gather to grow food. The American Community Garden Association
(ACGA) defines community gardens as “any piece of land gardened by a group of people” (as cited in Milburn & Vail, 2010), while Lawson (2005) adds structural components describing them as “[a] neighborhood garden in which individuals have their own plots, yet share in the garden’s overall management” (p. 3). Glover (2003) focuses on community aspects with the definition “an organized, grassroots initiative whereby a section of land is used to produce food or flowers or both in an urban environment for the personal use or collective benefit of its members” (p. 265). These definitions highlight the commonalities along with the varied influences and goals held by wide-ranging community gardens.
History of Community Gardening
As Laura Lawson lays out in her comprehensive history of community gardens in the United States:
The reasons given to justify urban gardens have remained surprisingly consistent
over the past one hundred years. When faced with economic depression,
8 inflation, or disenfranchised communities, urban garden programs have been
opportunities to subsidize household food expenses, provide job training, and help
enterprising individuals earn income. In times of civil unrest, the garden has been
a nucleus for building morale, developing relationships with neighbors, and
restoring the soul. Faced with environmental degradation, gardens brighten up
declining neighborhoods, instill a sense of pride, and encourage other kinds of
community improvements. If one primary concern instigated the campaign, other
benefits were quickly listed as further justifications. (2005, p. 288)
Community gardens as they are known today began in the United States in
Detroit, Michigan as ‘Potato Patches’ meant to provide employment and subsistence for laborers and families without jobs during an economic recession in the late 1800s
(Bassett, 1981; Lawson, 2005). Started by the city’s mayor, and met with much scoffing, the endeavor turned out to be a success, and was replicated in other cities across the country (Lawson, 2005). In particular, the benefits related to return on investment and social betterment for those participating were most touted and sought when implementing similar programs (Bassett, 1981; Lawson, 2005).
As cities urbanized and densified around the turn of the century, community gardens were seen as ways to introduce productive open space for public health and air quality purposes, with a particular focus of transforming blighted vacant lots into green space assets (Lawson, 2005). As gardening activities caught on throughout the country, school garden programs were begun with “multiple objectives…: moral development of the child, Americanization of the immigrant, improvement of the health and environment of the slum, and vocational training through the appreciation of the value of hard work”
9 (Trelstad, 1997, p. 170). These programs were most popular throughout 1890 to 1920, at which time advocacy diminished as restructuring post World War I shifted national priorities (Lawson, 2005; Trelstad, 1997).
Three significant events in the 20th century, World War I, the Great Depression,
and World War II, resulted in national gardening movements as a response to each crisis.
World War I saw the implementation of war gardens, intended to supplement the domestic food supply as well as boost national morale and a feeling of participation for those not abroad fighting, a crucial piece of the war support campaign (Lawson, 2005).
Charles Lathrop Pack, a well-known forester and instrumental member of the war garden campaign (Pack, 1919) spoke of the importance of gardening to the war efforts:
Probably no other appeal to the patriotism of the American people ever met with
more widespread and generous response than "war gardening.” It set the great
heart of America beating from coast to coast. Inspired by the excellent showing
made last year and spurred on by the knowledge that “food will win the war”
men, women, and children all over the United States took up war gardening this
year. Both as individuals and as members of various organizations they have
gone about this as true soldiers of the soil, in the same spirit with which their
husbands, fathers, brothers, and friends went into the army and the navy. (Pack,
1918, p. 183)
10 Figure 1. World War I war garden propaganda poster (A. Hoen & Co., 1917).
In 1929, when stock markets crashed and sent the country reeling, gardens cropped up across the nation to provide subsistence as well as activity for the unemployed, supported by governments, philanthropic organizations, and companies looking to provide compensation for reduced hours, wage cuts, and layoffs (Bassett,
1981; Lawson, 2005). World War II saw the return of war gardens, dubbed ‘victory gardens’, which while again implemented to boost morale and public participation in war efforts, were also used to supplement food rationing employed to ease pressures on the domestic food supply (Lawson, 2005).
With the end of World War II, so ended the national interest and support for gardens, however the legacy of home gardens as a hobby and recreational outlet remained
11 (Lawson, 2005). Community gardens in their more modern recognizable sense started sprouting up in the 1970s in response to the energy crisis, rising food prices, and growing environmental awareness – these gardens put an emphasis on community organizing and the social aspects of a garden, with a shift from more top-down organizational approaches that were common in past gardening movements (where gardens were typically set up by government agencies or charitable organizations), to a bottom-up grassroots approach
(Bassett, 1981; Hynes & Howe, 2004; Lawson, 2005). They were also implemented as an activist response to the rise of suburbia and resulting decline of urban populations, discriminatory housing and urban planning policies, racial tension, de-industrialization resulting in abandoned properties, and other timely urban issues (Hannah & Oh, 2000;
Hynes & Howe, 2004; Lawson, 2005; Saldivar-Tanaka & Krasny, 2004).
Today, community gardens are predominantly neighborhood gardens, set up with individual plots and assorted communal areas (Denver Urban Gardens [DUG], 2012;
Lawson, 2005). While many serve low-income communities, they are also commonly found in middle-class and gentrifying communities (Hess & Winner, 2007; Lawson,
2005). For many users, community gardens serve as open space resources, a place to recreate and relax, and have shown to be less expensive to implement and maintain than traditional parks, while getting far more use (Francis, 1987; Lawson, 2005).
Additionally, community gardens have seen a recent rise in popularity in the aftermath of the Great Recession of 2007-2008, as a response to the resulting economic instability and unemployment (Draper & Freedman, 2010). This popularity has been helped along by high-profile gardening efforts such as First Lady Michelle Obama’s
12 White House Kitchen Garden, which recently underwent steps to improve and preserve the space (The White House, Office of the First Lady, 2016).
Community Gardens in Los Angeles, California
The first instance of communal gardening in Los Angeles, California was likely the gardens of the Spanish mission, Mission San Gabriel Arcángel, established in 1771
(Geiger, 1968). Previous to the area’s missionization, the native Tongva people were primarily a “semi-nomadic coastal hunter-gatherer tribe” (Welch, 2006, p. 4) who likely would not have cultivated crops.
In somewhat more recent terms, Los Angeles saw a robust school garden program beginning in 1898 with sporadic programs, and then picking up in earnest in 1910 when the Los Angeles School District established a district-wide gardening program (Gray,
1913; Lawson, 2005). These school garden programs received reinvigorated interest during the two World Wars, in particular during the victory garden efforts of World War
II (Lawson, 2005). Unique to Los Angeles, participation promotion included presenting victory gardens as opportunities to potentially hobnob with local celebrities or movie stars (Lawson, 2005).
In 1972, Mayor Tom Bradley’s office created the Los Angeles Neighborhood
Gardens and Farms program, which went on to start over 20 gardens in the area, serving approximately 10,000 people and producing an estimated $3 million in produce (Bhai,
2011). Additionally, a program called Los Angeles Common Ground, funded by the
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), operated between 1977 and 1992 in
13 low-income communities providing resources and organizational facilitation and helping to start over 100 community gardens (Lawson, 2005).
Today, while no formal government department directly supports community gardeners in Los Angeles, non-profit organizations such as the Los Angeles Community
Garden Council (LACGC), which provides advice and resources to more than 125 gardens and has opened almost 40 new gardens in Los Angeles County since beginning operations in 1998, work closely with community members and land management agencies such as the Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks to help gardens thrive (LACGC, 2015b).
Figure 2. Community gardens in the Los Angeles region (UCLA, 2017).
14 A total of 168 known community gardens are spread across Los Angeles County, with a concentration located around the city of Los Angeles and its suburbs (Figure 2;
UCLA, 2017). In general there is otherwise limited information available regarding the characteristics of community gardens in Los Angeles, highlighting a gap in the literature as well as an opportunity for future research to paint a clearer picture of the local field.
Community Garden Implementation
Current community gardens tend to be grassroots led efforts that often rely on the support and coordination of different governmental, non-profit, and advocacy organizations (Hynes & Howe, 2004). A community garden can spring from various and specific needs of a community, however most are in response to poor access to healthy and nutritious food, or a desire to improve a community through conversion of vacant, blighted space (Corrigan, 2011; Hynes & Howe, 2004). They can also be intended to address a lack of safe open and green spaces, or serve a specific population and their needs, such as seniors, youth, those formerly incarcerated, or ethnic groups such as refugees (DUG, 2012; Hynes & Howe, 2004).
Community gardens are often implemented on vacant, publicly owned land, however they sometimes operate in conjunction with other community-based land uses, such as schools, public housing, prisons, community centers, parks, or hospitals (DUG,
2012; Milburn & Vail, 2010; Pudup, 2008). While community gardens can exist on private land, it is not recommended by garden practitioners due to the primary threat to the sustainability of community gardens: secure land tenure (DUG, 2012; Milburn &
Vail, 2010).
15 In dense urban communities the value of open and green space is not always recognized in the face of development pressures, affecting community gardens on both public and private land (Voicu & Been, 2008). While some protections may be built in to gardens on public land ensuring their use for designated timeframes, these often do not exist for gardens on private land, and land owners who may initially enjoy the idea of allowing a community garden to set up will invariably end up selling or developing the land for a more profitable land use (DUG, 2012).
Regarding infrastructure needs, most gardens require at a minimum: a reliable connection to a water source; irrigation plumbing, the scale of which will vary greatly from garden to garden; perimeter fencing; paths; plot construction materials, including lumber for raised beds, edging material, and soil or soil amendments; tools; and tool storage (DUG, 2012; Milburn & Vail, 2010). Depending on the garden location, it is also highly recommended by practitioners that gardeners investigate the site history and invest in soil testing before digging in, to ensure the safety and health of gardeners (Center for a
Livable Future [CLF], 2014; Kessler, 2013; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
[EPA], 2011).
Most community gardens today are divided into individually maintained plots
(see Figure 3), usually around five to ten feet by ten to fifteen feet, with communally maintained and enjoyed areas such as seating areas or orchards (Armstrong, 2000; DUG,
2012). They generally are operated by a steering committee of garden volunteers, with organizational and/or financial management support from advocacy organizations (DUG,
2012; Hynes & Howe, 2004). Garden members can be required to contribute to communal area upkeep, sometimes during regularly-held work days, and typically pay a
16 fee to lease their plot, which goes toward various items such as water costs, an umbrella lease or land use fee for the garden space, or communal tools and supplies (DUG, 2012;
Eizenberg, 2011).
Figure 3. Example of a garden with individual plots (photograph by author).
Alternatively gardens can be managed in a communal style, with no individual
plots and all gardeners sharing in the upkeep and harvesting of the garden (see Figure 4);
these gardens tend to have close ties to community service organizations with dedicated
staff and resources to manage the garden and gardeners (DUG, 2012; Armstrong, 2000).
17 Figure 4. Example of a communally managed garden (photograph by author).
Most community gardens will have a garden-wide self-created agreement set
between all gardeners, with rules and regulations laid out – these can include restrictions on vertical structures to avoid shading a neighbor’s plot, organic vs. non-organic
practices, sale of produce, and typically lay out a pathway to addressing conflicts or
evection should a gardener not abide by the agreement (Stevens, 2014). Each garden also
typically has a use agreement with the property owner, such as a city agency leasing the
land for community garden use, describing the terms and regulatory items the garden
must abide by (DUG, 2012; Eizenberg, 2011).
18 Once established, gardens and the organizations supporting them frequently offer programming through the garden such as horticultural workshops, leadership training, and other technical support for gardeners and the community, both supporting the success of the gardeners as well as developing ties to the community (Iles, 2005/2012).
Benefits of Community Gardens
Even though hard data on neighborhood gardens are difficult to obtain, the
literature is full of anecdotal evidence from the gardeners describing the personal
benefits gardening has brought them. Such stories highlight the experiences of
individuals who reconnect with their rural background, first-time gardeners who
are thrilled with their newfound connection to natural processes, and others who,
in the process of building their garden, were empowered to take on other
community problems. Some people are growing food to save money, while others
grow gourmet varieties or ethnic vegetables not readily available in stores.
(Lawson, 2005, p. 266)
As Lawson states, it is difficult to come by solid numbers that quantify the benefits of community gardens, but ask any gardener and they are brimming with stories of the impact community gardening has had for them.
Food security. Low-income and minority communities often lay within what is known as a ‘food desert,’ a neighborhood with limited to no access to grocery stores or markets selling fresh produce (Morland, Wing, Roux, & Poole, 2002). Community gardens are able to provide fresh, usually organically grown, healthy, and local produce for those with otherwise limited to no access to similar market-available items
19 (Ackerman, 2012). While there are many historic prejudices that create food-deserts, and the more equitable solution would be to bring conventional supermarkets into these communities through new policies or incentives (Guthman, 2008), community gardens have the potential to bolster interim solutions.
Community gardens are capable of producing intense volumes of fruits and vegetables, often at higher yields than traditional agriculture, providing a significant food source for participants (Ackerman, 2012; Gittleman, Jordan, & Brelsford, 2012).
Additionally, community gardeners, particularly those in low-income communities, have been found to donate or distribute portions of their harvest to others who are hungry or in need, such as neighbors, churches, and food pantries, increasing the impact of the garden beyond just the gardener, and into the community at large (Corrigan, 2011; Vitiello &
Nairn, 2009).
Economic impacts. Healthy, fresh produce when it is available can be expensive and out of reach for those with limited or fixed incomes, such as seniors, an issue that can be compounded in urban areas experiencing high and increasing rent, combined with decreasing wages, leaving many families paying more than thirty percent of their income on housing costs, a condition considered ‘burdensome’ by federal standards (Coleman-
Jensen, Rabbitt, Gregory, & Singh, 2016; Henderson, 2014).
Community gardeners have been shown to save approximately $400-700 a season due to offsets provided by their garden, and reduced grocery bills (Algert, Baameur, &
Renvall, 2014; Saldivar-Tanaka & Krasny, 2004). For low- to very low-income community gardeners, this makes a huge impact, and the quality of produce, being fresh,
20 local, and often organically grown, is such that would likely be out of one’s grasp on a limited income.
Additionally, gardens can be a source of supplemental income and workforce integration, creating resources and social capital for those involved (Vitiello & Wolf-
Powers, 2014; Kaufman & Bailkey, 2000). While not a widespread practice (in some cases due to land use agreement restrictions) the sale of produce can be used to support a garden as a whole, or on an individual basis to supplement a gardener’s income
(Armstrong, 2000; Saldivar-Tanaka & Krasny, 2004). Gardens can additionally provide employment to individuals in certain instances, however due to multiple goals often held by gardens, many struggle to become economically self-sustaining while also providing commonly sought social benefits, and often have trouble providing a living wage
(Daftary-Steel, Herrera, & Porter, 2015; Vitiello & Wolf-Powers, 2014).
Community gardens also positively impact the value of homes within one thousand feet, creating financial benefits for those living in proximity to community gardens, regardless of their participation in the garden, as well as tax revenue benefits for municipalities and those they serve (Voicu & Been, 2008). These impacts are associated with the type of neighborhood and quality of garden, with the biggest impacts seen in disadvantaged communities and from higher quality gardens (Voicu & Been, 2008).
This does raise concerns that community gardens, in addition to similar open space improvements, may unintentionally contribute to gentrification and displacement in low-income or transitioning neighborhoods, presenting a conundrum for those attempting to increase quality of life in historically disadvantaged and marginalized communities
21 (Linn, 1999; Quastel, 2009; Wolch, Byrne, & Newell, 2014). There is some research to suggest that displacement can potentially be reduced or avoided through planning and design decisions genuinely driven by the community, ensuring the space built is created to serve those currently in the neighborhood, as well as through coordination with city agencies and planners to support affordable housing policies in these communities
(Curran & Hamilton, 2012, Wolch, Byrne, & Newell, 2014). However, solutions continue to be explored and discussed, with no widely agreed upon answer to this complicated paradox as of yet.
Nutrition and physical health. One study has found that community gardeners are more likely than home- and non-gardeners to eat more fruits and vegetables, to an amount of approximately one additional serving a day (Litt et al., 2011). In addition, some gardeners on limited incomes who otherwise would potentially not be able to access fresh produce on a regular basis, particularly of the quality gardeners produce, have increased access to a nutritious, fresh food source (Hynes & Howe, 2004).
Further, gardening provides a valuable form of exercise, that while beneficial for all, is particularly significant for seniors as a low-impact activity (Armstrong, 2000;
Hynes & Howe, 2004). One possible negative health impact however is the potential to come into contact with contaminants in the soil in urban, previously industrialized areas
(Kessler, 2013; EPA, 2011).
Green infrastructure. Community gardens have the potential to function as green infrastructure in dense urban environments. As summed up by Ackerman (2012),
22 There is significant potential for urban agriculture to provide critical
environmental services to the city through stormwater runoff mitigation, soil
remediation, and energy use reduction. At a time when municipalities are
straining to address complex infrastructural challenges with limited budgets,
productive urban green spaces will be increasingly important in their capacity to
function as a cost-effective form of small scale, distributed green infrastructure.
(p. 2)
Social spaces and neighborhood improvements. Community gardens offer a space for community members to gather and socialize, creating bonds that build a sense of community (Armstrong, 2000; Hynes & Howe, 2004). This gathering space provides informal surveillance, lowering crime rates in the area (Hynes & Howe, 2004).
Additionally, community gardens foster a sense of pride in a neighborhood, and can provide a catalyst effect for further community beautification projects, an effect that is more likely to occur when the garden is located in a low-income community (Armstrong,
2000). Armstrong (2000) remarked, “the ability of the gardens to serve as a catalyst for residents to begin to address some issues collectively may represent an important public health strategy to facilitate community organizing and empowerment” (p. 325).
A word of caution. While this section of the literature review has provided many positive aspects to community gardening, it is important to note that they may not be the most appropriate answer for all communities. In the contemporary agricultural movement sweeping the country, as seen most acutely in urban cities experiencing vast vacancy rates such as Detroit, Michigan, it should not be assumed that these are be-all and end-all solutions, or that they are necessarily undeniably desired by all resource-poor
23 communities (Guthman, 2008). Urban agriculture and community garden supporters should practice the utmost care in implementing programs such as these, ensuring first that they are wanted, culturally appropriate, and sensitive to the true needs of the community being served (Guthman, 2008).
Community Empowerment
At the outset of this section of the literature review, it should be noted that much of the research, conversation, and literature on empowerment theory occurred in the late
1980s and 1990s, necessitating the reliance on many older, highly regarded studies.
Additionally, a good deal of community empowerment research comes from the public health sector, and has been found relevant for this study despite the difference in field.
Empowerment theory crosses multiple disciplines, resulting in many varied definitions (Roy, 2010; Tengland, 2008; Westphal, 2003). One of the few studies found with direct relevancy to community gardens (examining potential empowerment outcomes, or benefits, of urban greening) cites this variety and summarizes empowerment as such: “while definitions of empowerment vary, they all have at their root the ability for an individual, organization, or community to effect positive change” with “common themes to empowerment indicators including increased mastery and control, increased skills, access to resources, and ties within and outside community”
(Westphal, 2003, p. 139).
Another definition frequently cited in the literature comes from the community psychology field:
24 Empowerment…suggests both individual determination over one's own life and
democratic participation in the life of one's community…Empowerment conveys
both a psychological sense of personal control or influence and a concern with
actual social influence, political power, and legal rights. It is a multilevel
construct applicable to individual citizens as well as to organizations and
neighborhoods; it suggests the study of people in context (Rappaport, 1987, p.
121).
This definition introduces a concept found in the research that the locus of empowerment comes from within either the individual or community. Another researcher goes on to recognize the importance of social contexts impacting empowerment, and the difference between being empowered and the act of empowering (Zimmerman, 1995). While organizations or individuals can create empowering situations to facilitate the process, being empowered comes from and is held by the individual, organization, or community undergoing transformation (Zimmerman, 1995; Kieffer, 1983).
Found in both definitions is the recognition of multiple scales empowerment can be observed at: the individual, the organization, and the community. Westphal goes on to emphasize, “community benefits are those that accrue to people whether or not they were involved in a program or project” (2003, p. 138). Another study clarifies the distinction between the layers further:
at the community level, empowerment refers to collective action to improve the
quality of life in a community and to the connections among community
organizations. Organizational and community empowerment, however, are not
25 simply a collection of empowered individuals. (Perkins & Zimmerman, 1995, p.
571)
It is important to note that the definition of community does not need to be geographic or neighborhood based, but can also be delineated by social characteristics; one study defines community as “a group of people with diverse characteristics who are linked by social ties, share common perspectives, and engage in joint action in geographical locations or settings” (MacQueen et al., 2001).
Some researchers or organizations have viewed empowerment as an outcome, with an end-product benefit, such as successful policy changes, however it has more commonly been accepted as a continuous and dynamic process (Laverack & Wallerstein,
2001; Ljunggren, Huang, Wang, & Johansson, 2010; Perkins & Zimmerman, 1995; Roy,
2010). This allows for a more nuanced assessment that is better able to incorporate the complexities of community empowerment, as well as account for the long time frame involved with empowerment programs (Laverack & Wallerstein, 2001).
Additionally, community empowerment can be intentionally accomplished by programs instituted either by an organization or government agency, or established through a grassroots movement (Laverack & Labonte, 2000). Often, those that are initiated by groups outside the community (‘top-down’) are easier to initially set-up, as they often come with associated resources, but difficult to sustain if they are not maintained or taken up by the community (Laverack & Labonte, 2000). Those that are initiated by the community (‘bottom-up’) are more difficult to achieve in practice as they depend solely upon community members who may not have ready access to necessary
26 support and resources, but have more far-reaching and long-lasting effects and benefits to the community (Laverack & Labonte, 2000). Some researchers and practitioners advocate for a compromise between the two processes to ensure a program that is effective yet also sustainable in practice, known as a ‘parallel track’ in which top-down processes enhance, initiate, and supplement bottom-up action (Laverack & Labonte,
2000).
Evaluating Community Empowerment
Due to the complex nature of community empowerment, evaluating its presence can be elusive, however researchers have identified a number of indicators, such as community capacity, participation, and access to resources, that are useful in assessing the existence and level of empowerment present in a community (Bopp, GermAnn, Bopp,
Littlejohns, & Smith, 2000; Gibbon, Labonte, & Laverack, 2002; Laverack, 2001; Smith,
Littlejohns, & Roy, 2003). Researchers have used these indicators to develop diverse evaluation frameworks, a summary of which can be seen in Table 1.
27 Table 1
Community empowerment evaluation frameworks by researcher (adapted from Kasmel & Andersen, 2011, p. 803)
Researcher / Framework
Laverack (2001) Smith et al. (2003) Bopp et al. (2000) Gibbon et al. (2002)
Indicators
Participation Participation Sense of community Representation
Leadership Knowledge Participation Leadership
Problem assessment Skills Resources Organization
Organizational Resources Skills and knowledge Needs assessment structures Shared vision Leadership Resource availability Resource mobilization Sense of community Communication Implementation Links to others Communication Ongoing learning Linkages ‘Asking why’ Management Program management
Role of outside agents
Most of these researchers emphasize that community empowerment is an on going process, and that to look only at the outcomes rather than the big picture of what is happening within a community can be misleading and create an incomplete assessment
(Kasmel & Andersen, 2011; Laverack & Wallerstein, 2001; Roy, 2010). The framework developed by Laverack (2001) was determined to be the most complete and comprehensive for the context of this study, particularly because of the inclusion of a critical awareness indicator, and as such, was chosen for further research. In addition,
Laverack’s framework has been well cited in the literature, making it both a respected
28 evaluation tool, as well as providing ample material for research (Kasmel & Andersen,
2011; Laverack & Wallerstein, 2001; Sardu, Mereu, Sotgiu, & Contu, 2012).
Laverack’s Organizational Domains
Laverack (2001) identified nine comprehensive indicators, or organizational domains with which to evaluate community empowerment. These domains are:
x Improves participation
x Develops local leadership
x Builds empowering organizational structures
x Increases problem assessment capabilities
x Enhances the ability to ask ‘why’ (critical awareness)
x Improves resource mobilization
x Strengthens links to other organizations and people
x Creates an equitable relationship with outside agents
x Increases control over program management
These domains have been well accepted within social research as a comprehensive framework for community empowerment assessment, being incorporated into a number of studies and community empowerment evaluation discussions (Kasmel & Andersen,
2011; Sardu, Mereu, Sotgiu, & Contu, 2012)
The following section outlines each organizational domain, as well as how they are observable within the community empowerment process.
29 Improves participation. Laverack defines participation within the context of community empowerment as “the involvement of individual community members in small groups and in larger organizations” (2001, p. 138), as well as practices that increase community members’ involvement, such as offering support for sensitive populations, or ensuring events are planned appropriately with the community’s needs in mind
(Laverack, 2006). When the agenda for this process is socio-political engagement, participation has the potential to provide community members with a larger voice and say in what happens to them, and can shift power from others outside the community to those inside (Roy, 2010).
Figure 5. Arnstein’s ladder of participation (Arnstein, 1969, p. 217).
30 A widely regarded study by Arnstein broke the process of participation into ladder rungs (Figure 5), demonstrating there are widely varying levels of public participation, from manipulation at the bottom rung, where communities are used for an official’s own power goals to placation, where some honest participation is promoted but only to appease people and the necessary requirements, to true local control, where community members have a greater voice than politicians or experts (Arnstein, 1969). Similar frameworks have been developed by other researchers, including White, who articulated distinct types of participation, from nominal, which serves to legitimize the implementer, to transformative, which achieves empowerment for those involved (White, 1996).
White cautions, “while participation has the potential to challenge patterns of dominance, it may also be the means through which existing power relations are entrenched and reproduced” (p. 6).
This domain is particularly relevant to landscape architects and planners, who are often tasked with ensuring designs are community driven through input gathering processes. Often this process becomes a box to check off, and is handled poorly and ineffectively, with community members not feeling their feedback has been heard or has made an impact (Halprin, Hester, & Mullen, 1999; Hester, 2005). This can leave communities worse off than they were before, as it creates a level of distrust and lack of buy in for a project before it is even built (Halprin, Hester, & Mullen, 1999). Attempts to evaluate this public participation process have included counting the number of community members involved, however this does very little to demonstrate the quality of the engagement or impact on empowerment.
31 Given the intricacies of this domain, and that not all participation is equal (so would be difficult to assess), research shows it is more effective and informative to evaluate the actions taken to include community members in the process, through communication techniques, transparency of operations, and careful planning of events and processes where community members are involved (Laverack, 2006).
Develops local leadership. Leadership is linked to participation in that a community needs an active group of participants in order for local leadership to form, and in reverse, solid direction from leaders in order to promote participation (Goodman et al., 1998; Laverack, 2001). In top-down approaches to developing community empowerment, these leaders are often imposed experts from organizations or agencies with management skills, while in bottom-up empowerment processes, these leaders come from the community itself, and have knowledge of local issues, as well as authenticity and respect from the community itself (Laverack & Labonte, 2000; Rifkin, 1990).
Successful community empowerment programs combine these two approaches by training community members in management and leadership skills, creating a local leadership base (Laverack, 2001).
Builds empowering organizational structures. In order to build or create organizational structures, a common interest or need must first be shared, and a sense of cohesion felt (Goodman et al. 1998; Laverack, 2001). This leads to the formation of small groups within a community that, united through this sense of connection, and a common interest in community issues, creates empowerment, organizing and mobilizing community members (Laverack, 2001).
32 Increases problem assessment capabilities. Problem assessment involves at its foundation local participation in decision-making (Laverack, 2001). When community members are involved in the decision-making processes of planning or program building, they are able to provide input on what works for their community and what does not, leading to a greater investment in the project, and a more authentic community initiative
(Laverack, 2001). Through understanding and identifying problems, their solutions, and actions to be taken, communities empower themselves through their involvement, as well as create a stronger project or program for their community.
Enhances the ability to ask ‘why’ (critical awareness). Laverack (2001) explains this domain as “the ability of the community to be able to critically assess the social, political, economic, and other contextual causes that contribute to their level of disempowerment” (p. 140). In other words, the ability to look past the surface of a situation, to ‘ask why,’ and to understand the root cause of the problem. Critical awareness is closely linked to empowerment education, a concept championed by Paolo
Freire (1970/2000), which describes “emancipation through learning,” where “people become the subjects of their own learning through a process of critical reflection and analysis of the circumstances in their lives” (Laverack, 2001, p. 140). By learning, exploring, and questioning, a community member begins to realize and understand the greater influences behind the situations in their lives.
Improves resource mobilization. A community’s ability to leverage social capital and relationships to share within itself, as well as draw in from the outside, information, skills, materials, and other resources, is important to facilitating empowerment (Roy, 2010). The extent to which a group can access resources indicates
33 their ability to organize, create change, work efficiently, and increase their voice and influence on fundamental processes (Elwood, 2002, Goodman et al., 1998). Laverack
(2001) emphasizes the additional need for there to be a capacity to utilize the resources mobilized, as well as have an identified purpose to employ them for.
Strengthens links to other organizations and people. Creating relationships with outside organizations and people contributes to empowerment by providing
“catalysts for community empowerment” (Laverack, 2001, p. 140). These partnerships give community members the opportunity to become more involved in the processes affecting their lives, especially when these relationships are formed with decision-making and power-holding groups (Fawcett et al., 1995). Other relationships are able to give a community a greater voice through increased advocacy, strength in numbers, as well as being a resource for information and assistance.
Creates an equitable relationship with outside agents. Many community empowerment programs and efforts involve someone, either an organization or an individual, in a facilitation role, unless the empowerment process is an entirely grassroots effort. It is essential for authentic empowerment to occur in order for the facilitators to remain just that, and not over-step or impose their own agenda on the community
(Laverack, 2006). It is also crucial that the facilitator foster growth from within the community itself, rather than try to steer and direct things for them. Laverack (2001) describes this as providing space for the community “to use their control over decisions and resources to allow others to discover their ability and competencies to manage their own lives” (p. 141).
34 Increases control over program management. Similarly, the community itself must have control over the program meant to facilitate community empowerment. If the outside agent has too great a role, and never hands over the reins to the community, any empowerment will have been imposed rather than truly gained by the community (Rifkin,
1990). Control over decisions, as well as access to resources (including networks, information, and material resources), must belong in the hands of the community for community empowerment to be lasting (Laverack, 2001).
Intersection: Community Gardens and Community Empowerment
Few studies found in the review of the literature directly linked community gardens to community empowerment. One study tenuously identified community gardens as potential spaces for ‘democratic citizenship’ (Ghose & Pettygrove, 2014), while another connected the related field of urban greening to individual and community empowerment (Westphal, 2003). Many studies however provided evidence for the individual and social benefits community gardening provides, as demonstrated previously in the literature review (Armstrong, 2000; Hynes & Howe, 2004; Saldivar-Tanaka &
Krasny, 2004).
Despite the lack of direct literature, community gardening can be examined through the lens of Laverack’s community empowerment domains, or indicators, by linking individual indicators to benefits or structures found within community gardens.
One linkage, to the domain Develops local leadership, can be seen in the steering committees often developed by community gardens, comprised of community garden
35 members responsible for the operations, maintenance, and social cohesion of their garden
(DUG, 2012).
Another connection, to the Builds empowering organizational structures domain can be evidenced in that most community gardens, particularly ones formed as grass roots ventures, exhibit a community that has already organized around an issue, with the garden as the product of that organization. Additional organizational or community structures can appear within the garden such as specialized committees. Community gardens also promote a sense of shared space and community values, building on the social cohesion aspect found in this domain (DUG, 2012).
A connection between community gardens and the Improves resource mobilization domain is essential to a community garden’s success in that it affects their ability to get on their feet, recruit participants, and continue to thrive. By leveraging close, weak, and internal social ties to ask for help, persuade community members to become involved, access tools and materials, and learn new skills, community gardens are able to connect with essential resources they would not have the ability to procure on their own (Glover, Parry, & Shinew, 2005).
Many gardens collaborate with local groups, such as schools or school districts, community centers, neighbors, businesses, and local government, demonstrating a connection to the Strengthens links to other organizations and people domain. One community garden organization has called this step vital for a garden’s sustainability in the long term (DUG, 2012).
36 One more linkage can be made between community gardens and the Creates an equitable relationship with outside agents domain. Many gardens in cities around the country rely on the assistance of local organizations or municipalities in some form, for resources and/or support (DUG, 2012). While this support is often essential, especially when a garden is getting off the ground, it is important that the organization or municipality promote genuine grassroots social involvement, rather than a ‘top-down’ management style (Iles, 2005/2012).
These domains are the foundation of this study, and were used to create a set of semi-structured interview questions (Appendix A) that guided interview conversations with gardeners from community gardens across greater Los Angeles, with the intent of evaluating the link between community gardens and community empowerment. This is discussed further in Chapter 3: Methods.
37 CHAPTER 3: METHODS
Research Question and Role of the Researcher
Upon beginning the study, the primary research question was to determine the relationship between community gardens and the community empowerment process. For the purpose of this study, the community was defined as the community garden body rather than the broader geographic neighborhood. It became clear fairly quickly that to truly examine this, an evaluation tool to assess community empowerment needed to be utilized as a framework (Laverack’s community empowerment domains; Laverack,
2001), and the study needed to be confined to a geographic region (greater Los Angeles, or in other words, the city of Los Angeles and its suburbs).
Once refined to these criteria, the primary research question became this:
What is the relationship between community gardens and community empowerment in greater Los Angeles, and how can that be determined using the organizational domains developed by Laverack (2001) as an evaluation tool?
When first undertaking this study, the researcher had presumptions that community gardens were a catalyst for empowerment, both on an individual and community basis. These theories should be made explicit so as to fully explore any bias the researcher may have brought into the study, in the effort of transparency and researcher reflexivity (Creswell & Miller, 2000).
38 Laverack’s Organizational Domains
Research by Laverack (2001, 2006) identified nine organizational domains with which to evaluate community empowerment. These domains have been well accepted within social research as a comprehensive framework for community empowerment assessment, being incorporated into a number of studies and community empowerment evaluation discussions (Kasmel & Andersen, 2011; Sardu, Mereu, Sotgiu, & Contu,
2012). They were used in this study to develop interview questions aimed at eliciting information related to each domain, as well as to analyze responses.
While these domains were developed within the public health field with the goal of evaluating empowerment of health promotion programs in developing countries, they are applicable to this study due to their comprehensive nature and practicality, making them useful in many varied social research settings.
Interviews
Interviews can be conducted through unstructured, semi-structured, or strictly structured methods, and are generally audio recorded and subsequently transcribed for content analysis. They are able to elicit in-depth insight into a participant’s views and feelings on a topic or issue, but can be time consuming both to conduct as well as to transcribe (Aldag & Tinsley, 1994; DiCiccio-Bloom & Crabtree, 2006).
This research utilized semi-structured interviews, which allow for the flow of natural conversation, while providing a roadmap to explore the research topic (DiCiccio-
Bloom & Crabtree, 2006). Semi-structured interviews were determined to be the best
39 method for this study due to their capacity for eliciting rich data from gardeners through open-ended questions, while ensuring important aspects of community empowerment were discussed. This was done by pre-developing questions and follow-up prompts that were used to guide the conversation (for a full list of questions and follow-up prompts see
Appendix A; for primary questions see Figure 6). These questions were crafted to elicit conversation relating to each of Laverack’s community empowerment organizational domains (2001), to provide the researcher with a better understanding of how community empowerment might interact with community gardens.
Figure 6. Relationship between interview questions and Laverack’s community empowerment organizational domains.
40 Figure 6 depicts the connections between Laverack’s domains and the developed interview questions. Notably, many of the questions were built to potentially elicit responses from multiple domains, ensuring a wide variety of opportunities within the interview for thoughts or ideas to be discussed and shared that would pertain to the issue of community empowerment.
Research Process
Sample Selection
Ten to fifteen gardens were identified as good candidates for the study based on the level of organization and engagement in the garden, as well as observable aspects of empowerment present (as evidenced by recommendations from practitioners or news articles noting activism undertaken by the community garden in response to issues affecting them and their community). These characteristics were deemed important qualifiers as they are indicative of an empowered community, and community gardens
displaying organization and activism would yield more valuable data for this study than
groups with no observable empowerment characteristics.
This initial list of potential gardens was compiled using online sources such as the
website run by the Los Angeles Community Garden Council, news articles, blogs, as well
as word of mouth recommendations from community garden practitioners and organizers
in the greater Los Angeles region.
After this initial list was assembled, the researcher began reaching out to garden
organizers to establish interest in study participation. Not only did the researcher feel it
41 was important to make the garden organizer aware of the study, but the researcher also wanted to be sure to get permission from whatever person or organization was in charge of the garden before approaching any gardeners. If a garden organizer indicated interest and granted permission, the researcher moved on to the next step of recruiting participants within a garden. Because interviews were to be conducted with gardeners, or human subjects, an application to the University Institutional Review Board (IRB) was submitted and approved (IRB Protocol #14-0059; Appendix B) before any contact with gardens was made.
Selection of garden member participants was conducted using a combination of snowball sampling and convenience sampling. Snowball sampling utilizes word of mouth recommendations to identify study participants, while convenience sampling identifies study participants based on those present in the study area who are willing to participate in the study when approached by the researcher (Bryman 2012; Creswell,
2014).
Both sampling methods (snowball and convenience sampling) have similar drawbacks, primarily that their implementation can be loosely defined and inexactly implemented, and that they may not provide a representative or random sample of the group under study (Biernacki & Waldorf, 1981; Bryman 2012; Creswell, 2014). As the goal of participant selection in this study was not necessarily to have a statistically representative sample of gardeners, but rather to gather a range of gardener perceptions, this was not determined to be a prohibitive drawback.
42 Both sampling methods also have similar advantages, being simple to implement, cost effective, and allow for the research of otherwise difficult to access groups
(Biernacki & Waldorf, 1981; Bryman 2012; Creswell, 2014). Most gardens have no obvious means for an outside individual to contact the general body. This led the researcher to rely on recommendations from a garden manager or organizer for potential study participants to contact (snowball sampling), or simply approaching gardeners who were present in the garden when the researcher visited to conduct interviews
(convenience sampling).
Sample size, both as a whole and at each garden, was determined by the richness of interview responses and the range of respondent experiences, rather than setting a target number for either. This included ensuring a broad range of gardener experiences and roles were represented, to better understand processes at work in each community.
Once a detailed understanding of each garden had been captured, the researcher concluded at one garden and sought out the next. This same approach applied to the overall sample of gardens. Once a vibrant picture of community gardening in the greater
Los Angeles region had been painted through responses as well as characteristic and geographic variety, the researcher concluded data collection. This resulted in a sample size of eleven gardeners across four gardens.
These gardens were: Milagro Allegro Community Garden in the Highland Park neighborhood of Los Angeles, Wattles Farm in the Hollywood neighborhood of Los
Angeles, Altadena Community Garden in Altadena, and Stanford Avalon Community
Garden in South Los Angeles (Figure 7). As all interviews were given under the
43 condition of anonymity, gardeners are not identified in this study further than to link
responses to a community garden when necessary to demonstrate important connections.
Figure 7. Community gardens studied (adapted from UCLA, 2017).
Interview Process
The interviews ran from 20 to 45 minutes and consisted of a series of questions
drafted by the researcher that provided insight to the community garden and the presence
of any of Laverack’s community empowerment domains (Figure 6). The framework of
these interview questions evolved from simple, general questions to build rapport and set
the gardener at ease (how long have you been involved with this garden? what do you
like most about this garden?), to more specific questions related to Laverack’s domains.
Demographic questions that might have felt uncomfortable coming from a stranger, such
44 as the year the subject was born and how close they live to the garden, came at the end of the interview.
Interviews were audio recorded and took place at the community garden the interview subject was involved with. In order to facilitate the interview and respect the gardener’s valuable time, some were conducted while the participant worked in their garden plot or communal garden areas.
One garden, Stanford Avalon, that was determined to have high value for this study based on its location and history (many gardeners relocated to Stanford Avalon after being displaced by the demolition of the South Central Farm, a large, well established, and culturally treasured garden in South Los Angeles) was comprised primarily of Spanish-only speakers. The researcher not being a Spanish speaker, a professional translator was hired to assist in conducting interviews at this garden, whose capabilities limited any loss of detail. This translator had no ties to the garden, and so was able to be seen as a neutral figure, similar to the researcher, and assisted in collecting two interviews. While all care was taken to ensure quality of interviews despite the language barrier, it is possible some nuances the researcher was able to detect and respond to during English language interviews were missed during Spanish language interviews.
Each participant was provided and signed an informed consent form (as per IRB
Protocol #14-0059; Appendix B), translated into Spanish for Spanish speaking gardeners, which obtained consent from the participant to be a part of the study, and highlighted the use of the audio recorder during the course of the interview (Appendix C). The
45 researcher took notes when able throughout the interview to provide clarity during subsequent transcription and analysis. The interview recordings were transcribed by the researcher personally and not a transcription service to deepen familiarity with the data and facilitate the analysis process. For the interviews conducted through a translator, the words of the translator were transcribed rather than those of the interview subject.
Quotes from participants that appear in this document have been edited for continuity by taking out false starts and unnecessary fillers such as “um”s and “er”s.
While such fillers facilitate conversation and provide space for deep thinking while speaking, they create a jarring and distracting effect when read in written form. All effort was made to ensure each quote remained as given otherwise. All quotes used in this document were confirmed with their giver for inclusion in this study. This was done through follow-up conversations by email or phone. Within quotes, researcher notes for clarification or redactions have been added in brackets. Quotes from Spanish language interviews are the words of the translator; these quotes are not distinguished or separated as such to protect gardener anonymity.
The methods used in this study provided rich insight into the relationship between community gardening and the community empowerment process. By engaging participants in semi-structured interviews, guided to elicit aspects of Laverack’s organizational domains, but left unstructured enough for people to tell their stories and share the aspects of community gardening most important to them, the process remained engaging for both the interviewee as well as the interviewer, and valuable insight was gained.
46 Limitations of the Study
A few limitations should be addressed regarding how this study was shaped.
First, only one evaluation framework was used to assess community empowerment in multiple community groups that may be quite dissimilar, leading to varied interpretations of the framework and questions based off it. A stronger approach may have been to work with communities to establish unique, adapted frameworks to assess each community individually. This level of complexity however would have been outside the scope of a master’s thesis study.
Second, Laverack’s domains are in some instances geared more toward implemented programs, with the evaluation conducted by an outside agent in order to guide a program to be successfully empowering, than to evaluate an existing program.
This could be due to Laverack’s capacity within the public health empowerment field, where predominantly medical experts are establishing health programs in developing countries or resource poor communities, making this type of framework the most applicable to his work and research. This researcher felt that the domains are also well suited for evaluating existing programs, however few similar studies, and no directly related studies, were found that could be used as a reference. Building this study without a guiding direct sample leaves open the possibility that this researcher made misinterpretations or errors, however all effort has been taken to avoid such a situation.
Additionally, in some cases gardens or gardeners that would have added a unique voice to the study were unable to be included due to unwillingness to participate, inability to access garden organizers or members, or schedule conflicts. While these gardens and
47 gardeners may have contributed valuable insight to this study, these factors were out of the researcher’s control. Responses able to be gathered paint a vibrant picture of community empowerment in Los Angeles area community gardens, however it might have been a different picture, or a different color palette, had other gardens or gardeners been accessible.
Further, it is important to note that while this study was thorough in its limited scope, it was ultimately a qualitative study of a small sample of gardeners at just four out of a large number of gardens in the Los Angeles area. The study does not attempt to make any conclusive statements, but rather to reveal stories of how empowerment plays out on the ground in community gardens. Some issues facing these gardens are specific to Los
Angeles, or other highly urban areas, however many are not, and could apply to gardens throughout the country.
Demographics and Garden Structure
Respondents ranged in terms of length of involvement in their respective garden: two were involved for less than a year, four from one to five years, three close to ten or eleven years, one around twenty years, and one for thirty years. Of interesting note, three of the gardens had no term limits to their plots (meaning gardeners could maintain a plot indefinitely), while one garden, Milagro Allegro, did have term limits, however no data was collected as to the length of those term limits. Of the respondents from the garden with term limits, all gardeners had been participants for 1.5 years of fewer. Of the respondents from gardens with no term limits, two had been participants for between
48 three to five years, and the other five had all been participants in their garden for ten years or longer.
Respondents were evenly split along gender lines, with five female respondents and six male. Respondents came from a variety of cultural backgrounds, with six different ethnicities self-identified: African American, Native American, Mexican,
Hispanic, Latino/White Latino, and Caucasian. Additionally, one respondent gave
“Human Being,” and another “United Nations,” as their ethnicity, responses interpreted by the researcher as highlighting their respect and connection to others, as well as the respondents’ value placed on multi-cultural identities.
Respondents ranged from twenty-two to sixty-five years old, with most having attained some level of college experience or greater, with two reporting a less than high school education. Most lived within two miles of their garden (three within a mile and five within one to two miles), while one lived between three and five miles away, and two lived over five miles away.
Three of the four gardens had a formal leadership and management structure, while one, Milagro Allegro, had a garden manager, but otherwise informal organizational system. Responses from gardeners in leadership positions (two of the elven respondents), or who were more involved in the management structure, tended to reflect a more democratic process or faith in the representativeness of the processes in place. Responses from general membership gardeners were sometimes less favorable in regards to the management, with specific concerns of transparency, effectiveness, and responsiveness to input.
49 At the informally managed garden, those gardeners who were present more often and who chose to be more social were indirectly involved in management conversations with the garden manager, but held no formal role. These gardeners heavily represented the sample of respondents from this garden, as they were either recommended as interview subjects by the garden manager, or they were physically in the garden when the researcher was conducting interviews, and consented to being interviewed when asked.
Because of this, the gardeners interviewed at this garden were inherently more involved, albeit informally, in the management process than the average gardener, and fall into the category of those who had a more favorable view of the organizational processes in place.
More detailed organizational components of each garden are expressed in Table 2.
The characteristics represented in the table are a conglomeration of all responses from each garden, and were often confirmed by multiple respondents. Contradictory or unclear information was excluded from the summary table. It should be made clear these characteristics are (except where noted) based entirely upon gardener perceptions as reflected by responses, and may not be an accurate representation of processes in place in each garden.
50 Table 2
Summary of garden structural organization (continued)
Milagro Allegro Wattles Farm Altadena Stanford Avalon
Yrs. in 5 (est. 2009)b 35+ (est. 1975)c 35+ (est. 1970)d 10 (est. 2006)e operationa
Size Acres: 0.23b Acres: 4.2c Acres: 2.5d Acres: ~9ef # of plots: 32b # of plots: 172c # of plots: ~64d # of plots: 180e
Median $37,685g $47,051g $68,120g $31,715g household income (within ½-mile radius)g
Plot term limits YesN oN oN o
Leadership Garden Manager, Garden Masters Board of President for each more informal (day-to-day Directors and section of the management, no issues), Board of committees with garden (garden is extensive Directors special focus; very large- made oversight or (administration), bylaws, articles of up of a restrictions sometimes loose incorporation conglomeration of distinction garden sections) between the two groups, gardeners holding overlapping positions; committees with special focus
Elections Not mentioned by Not mentioned by Held once a year; Held every year respondent respondent no term limits or so
Meetings No apparent Regular meetings Regular meetings; Regular meetings regular meetings- summary of within each informal minutes posted garden section discussions with afterward gardeners present in the garden
51 Table 2
Summary of garden structural organization (continued)
Milagro Allegro Wattles Farm Altadena Stanford Avalon
Rule Making No formal rules Willing to work Bylaws are Not mentioned by detected; outside with garden editable respondent restrictions (e.g., members to adapt water existing rules conservation measures) posted
General Would need to be Can attend Can apply for Can bring issues Members more social to be general leadership up in the monthly involved in the membership positions; can meeting informal meetings; attend general leadership unaware of what membership structure happens at board meetings to meetings until provide input presented at general membership meetings
Communication Notices posted on Responses did not Primarily by Communicate by bulletin board clarify a formal email and letters telephone; the notification for those who do communication is method, but did not use email good because identify the gardeners respect presence of each other central bulletin boards
Note. Characteristics based upon gardener perceptions as reflected by responses, except where noted, and may not be an accurate representation of garden processes. aAt time of interview. b(Spurrier, 2010). c(Wattles Farm, 2015). d(Altadena Community Garden, n.d.). e(Los Angeles Community Garden Council, 2015a). fAs measured through Google Maps Area Calculator Tool (https://www.daftlogic.com/projects-google-maps-area-calculator-tool.htm). gAs determined through California State Parks Community Fact Finder (http://www.mapsportal.org/factfinder2011/grantee).
Analysis
Interviews were analyzed using a type of meta-matrix termed ‘monster-dog’ matrix by the researchers Miles and Huberman (Miles & Huberman, 1994), which allows
52 for the display of descriptive data from multiple cases in a standardized format. It generally consists of creating a table, or matrix, with respondents separated out by row in the far left column, and coding themes in each subsequent column. Responses that fall under each theme are then paraphrased in the appropriate matrix slot, with some slots remaining blank at the end if not brought up or addressed by the respondent. From here, the information can be visually analyzed, sifted through, and clumped together or refined further.
Monster-dog matrices are an important tool in comparing and contrasting data across multiple cases in a standard format (Yip, 2014). This can be especially useful in a study utilizing interviews, where responses can vary greatly based on the interview subject, despite having a central framework of questions. Monster-dog matrices also allow the researcher to visually clump and reorganize data to determine trends and themes and produce a more refined analysis (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Clementson,
1995). Some drawbacks to this method however may include ending up with an unmanageably large matrix, or potentially some interactions studied may be too complex to analyze through matrix coding (Yip, 2014).
Monster-dog matrices were determined to be the most appropriate method of analysis for this study due to their ability to consolidate large amounts of descriptive data from interview responses into a manageable format, as well as to refine that data to uncover trends throughout and across interviews.
53 Primary and Secondary Analysis
For the purposes of this study, the monster-dog matrix analysis was conducted in three stages: primary, secondary, and tertiary. The primary stage analysis began after the first three interviews were transcribed and reviewed multiple times, and continued as an ongoing effort after each subsequent interview was completed. Starting analysis at this point ensured enough data to get the process started, and allowed the researcher to assess the effectiveness of interview questions based on the quality of responses, facilitating adjustments if needed. The primary stage analysis matrix was constructed with each interview subject listed in the far left column, separated out into rows. A column was then created for each interview question. After reviewing each interview, the researcher summarized and paraphrased the interview subject’s response to each question, entering this into the corresponding matrix space. The result was a compilation of all interview subjects’ responses to each interview question, laid on in an easily comprehensible and comparable format.
Secondary analysis was begun after all interviews and primary analysis were complete. The secondary analysis process continued to utilize the monster-dog matrix method, refining the results compiled from the primary analysis stage. Results from the initial matrix were condensed down by the researcher into major themes appearing across multiple interviews, as well as multiple times within each interview. This was done by first identifying a large number of themes reflected in responses, and then combining related themes into broader umbrella themes, or dismissing themes with few responses.
This resulted in the following final response themes determined to be important to respondents and unique enough to not be consolidated further: Restorative experience;
54 Gardens connect; Value of respect; Learning in the garden; Pulling in resources; Garden leadership structure; Identifying room for improvement; Significance of self- accomplishment; Garden as catalyst; and Pragmatic observations. These are discussed further in Chapter 4: Results.
The themes were listed as columns in the matrix, with interview subjects separated in the far left hand column by rows. Interview subject responses for each identified theme were entered into the corresponding matrix space.
Tertiary Analysis
A final stage of analysis was performed to reconnect the responses from gardeners back to Laverack’s community empowerment organizational domains (2001). This was done through a third monster-dog matrix, with domains listed as columns in the matrix, and themes by rows. Responses from each respondent were then entered into the appropriate cell in the matrix. Results from this analysis are presented in Chapter 4:
Results.
While each interview question was carefully designed to elicit responses related to multiple domains (Figure 6), the responses from each gardener reflected what was most important to them, as well as their interpretation of the question, both of which varied greatly. Because of this, not all responses match up to an organizational domain.
This is discussed further in Chapter 4: Results.
55 Analysis of responses was set up to first identify themes from gardener responses and then link those themes to Laverack’s domains in order to represent what the gardeners self-identified as important in a complete and authentic manner.
56 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS
To understand how community gardens might contribute to community empowerment in the gardens studied, gardener response themes were compared and connected to Laverack’s community empowerment organizational domains. The following section delves into this and the findings. Most of the discussion refers to the studied gardens in the abstract or by qualifying characteristics rather than by name to ensure important connections are made, however specific garden names are called out when it enhances the value of the discussion.
Connection to Laverack’s Organizational Domains
Final stage analysis by the researcher revealed a strong connection between four themes (the ten identified themes were: Restorative experience; Gardens connect; Value of respect; Learning in the garden; Pulling in resources; Garden leadership structure;
Identifying room for improvement; Significance of self-accomplishment; Garden as catalyst; and Pragmatic observations). Each of these strongly connected themes had three or more connections to one of Laverack’s domains. One theme was connected to three domains, however one of these connections was a negative relationship. Three other themes had a moderate connection with Laverack’s domains, with connections to two domains each, and two themes had no apparent connection to a domain. These themes, Restorative experience and Pragmatic observations, were important themes to gardeners, as shown by interview responses, but were not found to contribute to community empowerment. These are discussed further in the Future research section of
Chapter 5: Discussion.
57 Figure 8 visually demonstrates the connection between each gardener response theme and Laverack’s organizational domains of community empowerment. The dotted lines connecting the theme Garden leadership structure to the domains Creates an equitable relationship with outside agents and Increases control over program management denotes a weak or tangential link found. The zigzag line connecting
Significance of self-accomplishment to the domain Strengthens links to other organizations and people denotes a negative link. These relationships are discussed further in the following sections.
Figure 8. Connection between gardener response themes and Laverack’s community empowerment organizational domains.
58 Improves Participation
Connects to themes: Garden leadership structure and Garden as catalyst
Garden leadership structure. Responses categorized under the Garden leadership structure theme dealt with not just the internal systems of governance, but also dispute resolution and general garden organization. In the context of this domain, the way in which a community garden was set up and led was determined, based on responses, to contribute to or detract from participation within the garden. At the very base of the concept of participation is the need to be properly informed, both of the program as well as ways to become involved and increase participation. The more transparent and available this process is, the greater gardeners are going to feel they can participate.
Each garden had their own communication system, one by notification board as well as email or letters for those who did not email, one simply through a notification board system, and another through phone calls. This garden, Stanford Avalon, was spread out with no main entry point, making a notification board system ineffective, and was located in a very low-income community where email access was likely unreliable, making phone calls the most appropriate communication method. For one garden this subject did not come up or was not answered directly by the respondents, however one gardener from this garden indirectly mentioned a bulletin board (although it could not be concluded from this that other methods were not used in addition).
One gardener specifically mentioned posting and mailing or emailing a summary of meeting minutes, including actionable items, out to gardeners in a newsletter. This
59 was significant as a gardener from a different garden specifically mentioned a lack of and need for this information: “after the board of directors meeting, they should be putting the minutes, but we don’t have that. I don’t know why, but they don’t do it.”
The self-governance structure indicated by all gardeners, as well as involvement in committees, general meetings, and other garden activities, were also important responses tying to the participation domain. These structures are summarized in Table 2, and are reflected in a few responses including these two from the same gardener that indicate a more formal structure and how gardeners can involve themselves in it: “there’s all the formal bylaws and all that kind of stuff, and we have the elections and the meetings and things, I suppose that’s with any organization,” and “every December there’s always a general meeting, and one of the things at that meeting is election for the next year.”
Garden as catalyst. The Garden as catalyst theme covered a wide range of powerful responses that centered around the garden leading to a greater change or awareness by the respondent. A few responses indicated the power of a community garden to become a tool for getting gardeners involved in not only the process of the garden, but other processes that affect and connect their life. According to one gardener at Wattles farm, when the garden’s land tenure was threatened by potential development, the gardeners took a stand and worked to protect it: “the neighbors they were [in an] uproar, they said, ‘no, there, there’s no way it’s gonna happen’, whatever, ‘we gonna fight for it’, and so we did!” The same gardener indicated the land is now a protected site due to its importance in early Los Angeles history and original avocado grove.
60 Another gardener remarked on the ability for ordinary people to start their own community garden to improve their neighborhood:
I say, ‘Well, empower yourself,’ cause all that the garden could do is, well it’s
basically a self-help type of thing, you know...you go there, petition for it, get
signatures, and then give it to the local politician, and once you, if you acquire it,
then figure it out.
Summary. In summary, the empowerment domain Improves participation was found to connect to two gardener response themes: Garden leadership structure through open, inclusive, and transparent organizational systems, and Garden as catalyst through galvanizing gardeners around an issue facing the garden or their neighborhood.
Develops Local Leadership
Connects to themes: Garden leadership structure and Learning in the garden
Garden leadership structure. All gardens interviewed identified an internal leadership structure with varying degrees of formality, as opposed to leadership held by an external organization or someone from outside the garden. A few respondents spoke about the leadership roles they themselves held within their garden. For example, one gardener discussed being both a garden member and a part of the board of directors as the secretary, responsible for taking meeting minutes, and another gardener who held multiple roles and said, “well, I’m a gardener, first of all. I also function as an assistant garden master, and I’m on the board of directors as second vice president and also as secretary.” These positions were generally elected or volunteered for.
61 Holding a leadership role was not always necessary for gardeners to feel a sense of duty to the garden. Two gardeners from the same garden independently remarked on the responsibility they felt as a gardener to their plot and the garden, even when no official leadership position was held saying, “when I started, we signed a contract, and you know, the responsibility to pay the bills on time,” and, “my role is just, owning a piece of land, being able to pay for that land so I can plant my veggies.”
Learning in the Garden. This connection primarily came from responses related to bringing school groups into the garden, building a gardener’s leadership capacity through taking on that responsibility. One gardener spoke about the frequency at which the garden president brought in school field trips, as well as noting, “the woman in this garden here, she’s the public outreach person, so she’s got a classroom coming in next week I think.” Another gardener spoke about her love of sharing the garden with students saying, “I bring sometimes kids from the high school, I bring kids from the elementary school. They come here once a year. Or twice a year. So I give them a tour,
I give them a taste for the fruits.”
Summary. The community empowerment domain Develops local leadership connects to gardener response themes Garden leadership structure by building internal leaders through positions of responsibility, and Learning in the garden when gardeners took the initiative to bring in outside groups such as school groups to use the garden as an education tool.
62 Increases Problem Assessment Capacities
Connects to themes: Garden leadership structure and Identifying room for improvement
Garden leadership structure. Most gardeners responded that issue-solving in their garden was handled by local leadership, with solutions developed internally by gardeners and garden leaders. For example, one gardener responded that issues were addressed through the garden president and board members, who then made decisions as to the final outcome.
Other gardeners across multiple gardens responded that issues were discussed during general meetings, with one gardener saying, “when there’s conflict, we talk about it in a meeting, but there hasn’t been a conflict among the gardeners in this garden here,” and another, “we’ll call a meeting so we can talk about the issue that we have,” and yet another, “they’ll bring certain issues up at the meetings, and then they’ll have a discussion, and then people vote on it.”
One gardener, from the garden that had a limited structural organization, responded that issues were worked out informally saying, “everything kind of spreads naturally through just, you know, casual conversation. Usually never have to be, you know, ‘Oh, it’s a big issue, and they’re not dealing with their plot,’ it’s usually pretty smooth.”
Another gardener from a different garden described a very formal grievance addressment system saying,
63 if there’s a conflict, it might be presented without the participants at a meeting
first possibly, depending, or the participants might be asked to come to the table.
Either the garden master or the board. Of course, if it’s handled at the garden
master meeting, they can always then appeal to the board, and then the board
decision is, you know, is final.
This gardener at the same time admitted to a weakness to this system adding, “often times the board members and the garden masters are you know, very, kind of a loose distinction between the two.”
Identifying room for improvement. The issue of overlap between governing bodies also came up with another gardener from the same garden who had greater complaint with the existing system saying,
the board of directors should be a board of directors, not a garden master. The
garden masters should be a garden master not a board of directors. They’re using
two hats. So, when when somebody complains, they go, the garden masters are
listening, there’s, six of them are [board members]. Ok. Then you go to the
board of directors because you are appealing to the board of directors, you’ve
seen the six of them already, and the negative side, so what’s the sense?
This highlights the potential for a negative impact on community empowerment, if the opportunity for transparent discussion and platform for responsive debate is either not, or perceived to not be there. Another gardener had the following response that summed this issue up well:
64 but sometimes it’s as if no-one, you know, they listen to you politely and stuff,
and then nothing happens, you know, or they disagree and you kind of get the
sense they disagree, and anything you say isn’t really going to make a difference,
and it doesn’t, um, but as long as I get to keep gardening it’s not a big deal to me.
These responses show that not only must there be an avenue for feedback, but that feedback must be valued and addressed by those in leadership positions to fully involve all garden members, and ensure continued investment.
Summary. The Increases problem assessment capacities community empowerment domain was connected to gardener response themes of Garden leadership structure through the organizational structures in which problems were voiced and addressed within a garden, and Identifying room for improvement through the ability of gardeners to identify problems and potential solutions during the interview.
Enhances the Ability to Ask ‘Why’ (Critical Awareness)
Connects to themes: Learning in the garden, Identifying room for improvement, and Garden as catalyst
One of the more difficult domains to evaluate (it was particularly difficult to craft interview questions that would elicit critical awareness responses), Critical awareness cropped up through three different gardener response themes.
Learning in the garden. Responses linked to this theme were primarily those that related to children or adult gardeners learning in the garden, getting their hands in the dirt, exploring, and learning about greater connections in the world. One gardener
65 remarked on this interaction, “it’s the kids ah craziness, and wanting to help to dig holes and plant stuff, and ‘why isn’t it growing?!’”
Other responses reflected how the garden was able to build connections for people between what they purchase in the supermarket as an end product, and where it originated, with one gardener saying, “some kids, I used to have a cotton bush, and they,
I said, ‘and this is cotton’, and one of the kids scream and say, ‘oh, I thought cotton comes from the box,’” and another remarking,
we have people who come who maybe are not gardeners, and they’re not exposed
to this sort of thing, and, you know, maybe they’ve never even seen how broccoli
grows, or coffee bean, you know, tea plants, curry bush, and you know, all of
these different things, and it’s very exciting! And it is what you know, we’re part
of, but you don’t get that so much when you’re in a city, and everything’s
concrete, and everything’s man made, and everything’s designed, and
everything’s processed.
Identifying room for improvement. Other gardeners demonstrated critical awareness when discussing the structures of their garden and how they could be improved. This intersection of the Identifying room for improvement theme and Critical awareness domain had the potential to come across as simply complaint, however some strong issues were brought up in these responses regarding transparency and perceived inefficiencies in political structures of the garden. This was apparent in one gardener’s response relating to the garden’s leadership position elections, where the same people ran
66 for leadership positions every year, without a platform or statement of proposed actions, leaving no way for gardeners to hold them accountable once they assumed office.
Garden as catalyst. Responses linking the garden experience most strongly with the Critical awareness domain were those that showed the ability of the garden to act as a catalyst. One gardener spoke about the greater awareness of linkages throughout life that were gained through garden participation:
I think it changes, it, sort of awakens you, it makes you more aware of things, and
for me, I’m much more aware of, well, for example, everything that we use every
day, you know, in the time that I’ve been here I’m much more aware of the fact
that, like, I’m eating a banana, and there’s a skin here, and maybe before I was at
the garden, I would say probably so, I wasn’t even really thinking about
composting, you know, now everything that can be composted, I’ve got a bag up
there that I’m going to be putting into my compost bin. And also this idea, it sort
of makes you much more aware of the cycles of life, so the idea of things that die,
there’s no such thing really as death, it’s all interconnected, it’s all part of the
same thing, so it’s just, different forms of the same thing, so what appears to be
dead becomes the food that gives life to the new plant, you know, and so, I think
that more than anything, making me very aware and tuned in to the way things
are.
Another gardener responded that he was able to educate other gardeners and the community about the importance of civic engagement, through art and discussion in the garden:
67 right across the alley we’re at right now, is this graffiti wall, a tagged mural wall,
and on there I’ve…put this white band that reads from left to right…government
teachings 101! I’ve actually put the Oath to the Constitution, ‘I do solemnly
swear that I will support and defend the constitution,’ and it runs through there.
One response from Milagro Allegro, a garden located in a community facing intensifying gentrification and re-development pressures highlighted the gardener’s awareness of greater neighborhood changes with the potential to affect the garden, as well as what his reaction would be should the garden’s land tenure come under threat:
Man, I don’t really know because I’m a part of the group, and I know that I would
really, I would fight hard, but at the same time I’m a realist, and I know there’s a
lot of money coming into the community…you know, it’s really
changing…there’s just a lot of money involved, so it’s like when you have money
involved, and mixed with government, and it’s kind of hard to fight, you know,
so, I have no idea what would happen.
A gardener from Stanford Avalon, located in a very low-income, historically disadvantaged and resource-poor community spoke about the founding gardeners’ awareness of how the garden could make an impact on negative and unjust structures affecting the community by strategically locating the garden where it would make the greatest impact saying,
so, [the former mayor] had different locations and the Farmers chose, they went to
the different locations and chose this one, cause they noticed that there was a lot
of schools, there was a school there, another one here, another one there, and so
68 they felt it was a good way to, just, clean up the community because there was a
lot of trash and then just a lot of transients.
These gardeners were able to utilize the garden to turn the neighborhood from dangerous and avoided to a beautiful community asset, with the same gardener remarking,
just 10, 15 years ago it was just, people would come and, gang, gang-bangers
would come and do drugs, hide guns here, make love here, it was just really bad.
There was a lot of crime. People couldn’t, once it was 6pm people could not walk
through this area cause it was just really dangerous, so it’s gone through a change
and transformation. So it’s a really beautiful transformation that has occurred.
Summary. The Ability to ask ‘why’ (critical awareness) community empowerment domain connects to the gardener response themes: Learning in the garden, through the garden providing a space to learn through exploration, Identifying room for improvement, through gardeners recognizing ways in which their garden may not be fair and transparent, and Garden as catalyst through the gardeners’ deliberately using the garden as a tool to address larger injustices.
Builds Empowering Organizational Structures
Connects to themes: Garden leadership structure, Gardens connect, Value of respect, Garden as catalyst, and Significance of self-accomplishment
This domain was one of two with the most connections to themes (the other being
Improves resource mobilization). Laverack (2001) describes the domain as pertaining to both community organization building within a group, such as the formation of
69 committees, as well as a sense of social cohesion and belonging within the group, a necessary component for other groups and structures to form. This wide definition, as well as the many responses given pertaining to the formation of bonds between gardeners, translates to the high number of connections.
Garden leadership structure. A few gardeners from two gardens mentioned the existence of committees, primarily with a specialized focus such as tree care or event planning. One garden, Altadena Community Garden, held a large community-wide picnic every year, and had a specialized committee to prepare and plan for it. Other than these few mentions, there was no other evidence of smaller organizational or community structures within or stemming from the garden.
Gardens connect. Responses from the Gardens connect theme highlighted situations that created bonds between gardeners, such as sharing knowledge with other gardeners. One gardener remarked, “I’ve taught folks how to grow the different plants, how to move the dirt towards, take out weeds and stuff. It’s like creating that family like atmosphere, structure.” A number of gardeners spoke about being a knowledge resource and sharing their experience and skills with others as creating strong bond between gardeners. This sentiment also reoccurs in the Improves resource mobilization domain.
One gardener spoke about connecting with other gardeners who speak a different native language saying, “when we sit one on one, we can talk and talk, and slowly but surely, you know, it’s fun!”, and another gardener, who had previously emphasized that he was primarily there to garden, not for the social aspect, admitted “it is nice to have people around, I mean, gardening too.”
70 Another gardener spoke about attendance at events, such as clean ups or barbeques, building the sense of community in the garden saying, “usually I come, I’ll help whenever they have events, like to clean up, we’ll come and help out…” and later,
“we always have barbeques too, it feels more like a little family, than just like oh garden and then go home, pretty much. We’re really close.”
Alternatively, in the same garden two gardeners spoke about the lack of community felt throughout the garden as a whole, stemming from not knowing or ever seeing a majority of the other gardeners. One gardener said, “I only know three people out of forty people,” while the other remarked, “I know fifteen percent of the people in the garden…sixty-five percent I’ve never seen in my life and, the other twenty percent I see ‘em once in a blue moon.”
Value of respect. This gardener response theme encompassed sentiments including appreciating the diversity of people and cultures in a garden, respecting seniors in the garden for their experience and knowledge, and the wish for more understanding sometimes among the gardeners. Gardeners also spoke about how respect between gardeners created important social ties. These responses reflected impacts on communication such as one gardener who said, “it’s just a harmony, when everyone just works together and respects each other, it’s just good communication,” and another who reflected, “the communication is really good among everyone because we really respect each other and we’re like family.”
Other impacts of respect between gardeners were to the perceived value of one’s voice or opinion in the garden. One gardener noted, “I think since we all care about each
71 other…if I were to tell somebody something, they’ll take it in consideration,” while another similarly said, “I feel like my voice is respected, and when I do voice my opinion
I feel like I’m heard.” Conversely a lack of respect can create feelings of division and disinvestment, with one gardener noting, “there’s a lot of gossip, and sometimes that doesn’t really help.…Sometimes I don’t feel like my voice or concerns are heard.”
Another gardener spoke about the value diversity brings to the garden, saying,
“Well, I love the diversity of the plants and the trees that we have here, and also the diversity of the people we have here, all the different cultures.” This same gardener reflected that “I also feel that [the garden] does, I think awaken something inside of you and make you more respectful of other people, and of the life around you in all it’s forms.”
Garden as catalyst. Responses related to Garden as catalyst spoke to the powerful sense of community sparked in some gardeners, with one gardener, significantly, not a resident of the surrounding neighborhood, saying, “the only thing I’ve done, outside of the garden is, some of the community clean ups. We’ve held community clean ups and I’ve participated in those.” This response shows the powerful sense of community the garden created, that a gardener from a different neighborhood would volunteer to invest their time and efforts to participate in a community clean up.
Another gardener noted that the garden has a larger collective impact because of the many individual gardeners saying, “it’s the other gardeners who make it viable, along with myself being here,” indicating the importance of a garden as a whole entity, something that is greater than the sum of its parts.
72 Significance of self-accomplishment. This gardener response theme covered responses having to do with the immense sense of pride in growing something to fruition, a pride possibly made stronger due to the delayed gratification of cultivation, with one gardener noting,
there’s something to be said for having to plant seeds, or even plants, and then
you take care of it, you nurture it, and you don’t get immediate gratification, you
have to wait, and then all of a sudden, you start getting stuff, and it’s like, wow, I
helped do this.
Responses also highlighted the bond created with other gardeners, family, or friends from sharing the fruits of labor. One gardener remarked on how she enjoyed giving away produce she grew to friends, or using it to make food to share, while another gardener said, “I like it because whatever we’ve planted we’ve been able to reap the fruit.
I can take it back to my family and they’re able to enjoy it.”
Summary. The Builds empowering organizational structures community empowerment domain connects to the following gardener resource themes: Garden leadership structure, through the formation of committees, Gardens connect, through bonds created between gardeners, Value of respect, through the reflection on how essential respect is to building those bonds, Garden as catalyst, through the garden acting as a fulcrum for greater connections to people and communities, and Significance of self- accomplishment, through the power of sharing something with friends and loved ones that the gardener personally cultivated.
73 Improves Resource Mobilization
Connects to themes: Gardens connect, Garden as catalyst, Significance of self- accomplishment, Learning in the garden, and Pulling in resources
Improves resource mobilization was the second of two domains with the most connections to response themes (the first being Builds empowering organizational structures). Gardeners overall spoke about resources as connections to people within and without the garden, as well as seeing fellow gardeners as a resource, and being able to learn how to garden better from their experience and knowledge.
Gardens connect. Sharing resources or knowledge can help build bonds between gardeners, as evidenced by one gardener’s response, “I garden because I like to garden, but I also like to help others.” The same gardener also stated, “[teaching is] kind of fun, especially when there’s someone new and, in some cases they haven’t gardened before, like this woman here, she’d never gardened before, and, it was so cool.” Acting as an educator allowed this gardener to both share the resources he held, as well as build connections to other gardeners at the same time.
Garden as catalyst. A few gardeners spoke about individually being spurred to do their own research on horticulture and growing practices to become better gardeners.
One gardener spoke about researching ways to do things better when they interest her, speaking specifically about gardening in the context, while another told of when,
some nursery gave us boxes of these little seedlings, and they stayed there and no
one was really planting them, nobody knows what it is, I didn’t know what it was,
74 and then I went to the great ole magic computer, looked under kohlrabi, and I
said, ‘Wow!’
Additionally, another gardener spoke about growing things all wrong when she started at the community garden, but by observing other successful gardeners and how they did things, in addition to initiating her own research, the things she planted started to thrive.
Significance of self-accomplishment. Responses indicated that volunteering and sharing skills built connections and formed bonds between gardeners, with one gardener remarking how great it felt to be thanked by other gardeners as a volunteer, as well as increased capacity of the garden and gardeners through gained volunteer time, knowledge, and skills shared.
Additionally, one gardener noted when asked about skills gained or learned through the garden that simply feeling a sense of accomplishment in growing something successfully was a valuable skill saying,
just knowing that I can grow something, ‘cause when I would grow things at the
apartment, just when it was about to peak or something it would be, someone
would ruin it, and so I never [felt] that satisfaction of knowing I could grow
something to the end, so here, seeing plants and stuff growing all over the
place…people always talk about a green thumb, it’s not even like a skill, it’s just,
this confidence, like, when you plant seeds, if you’re confident about them, they’ll
grow.
75 Learning in the garden. Responses also reflected the value of other gardeners as a learning resource. One gardener discussed how much she learned from the older generation of gardeners with their years of experience and stored knowledge, both from observing how they gardened as well as through asking them for advice. Another gardener spoke about how she did not actually like gardening at first because she did not know how to, but learned to love it once helped by fellow gardeners:
why did I get involved? Ah, actually in the beginning I didn’t like it…my
husband was here for three years when I came first and, he asked me to come and
water, and I didn’t know how to water, didn’t know how to do anything…and I
had a lot of people here…they said, ‘no, this is how we do it’. So, they told me
how to do it. Little by little started loving it.
Other gardeners spoke of learning new specific gardening skills, with one gardener saying, “I’m learning about squash now, like if you plant squash at home, make it go up, and not around, ‘cause it will take everything over, so I kinda did an experiment with that, on my plot,” and another, “I’ve learned quite a lot about building raised beds and trellises, and sort of, beautiful ways to support things,” and yet another,
anytime I learn something new that I didn’t already pick up…like this straw-bale
stuff, I had never heard of it until that guy started putting all these bales of hay
and planting stuff, and I thought, ‘What? That’s a thing?’ and now I found out, oh
yeah, there’s booklets on it, all sorts of information.
Pulling in resources. Finally, responses also related more directly to the garden’s ability to secure physical resources. One of the more powerful examples of this
76 was an annu al gathering held at Altadena Communityen that Gardattracted neighborhood vendors, civic departments such as law enforcement, as well as local government. This gathering was able to bring in monetary resources for the garden, supplying gardeners with materials, as well as strengthening ties to important entities that could act as resources for the garden. Said one gardener, who was admittedly not very interested in social activities in the garden: “I mean, [the picnic is] a great thing, it brings in money, I mean, I’ve heard the advantages, it brings in money so we can have free fertilizer and all…kind of stuff, and I would support that.” Another gardener from a different garden spoke of leftover plant donations the garden would receive from local stores or nurseries.
On a more individual level, a few gardeners spoke about the garden being a connector to personal resources or skills, with one gardener who did not have access to a car speaking about the other gardeners helping out with rides to and from the garden.
This same gardener also told about connections she was making in the garden having the potential to lead to a new job, and how the skills she had learned through being a secretary at the garden, such as taking minutes or how boards of directors are structured, were transferrable to other aspects of her life.
At one garden with an active notification board, one gardener spoke about the resources people were able to share through the garden, and how people were better able to connect to jobs or services, such as getting their plot watered while out of town, through notifications posted on the boards.
Summary. The Improves Resource Mobilization community empowerment domain connects to the gardener response themes: Gardens connect, through the bond
77 built between gardeners when sharing resources or knowledge, Garden as catalyst, through gardeners being spurred to do their own research on best growing practices,
Significance of self-accomplishment, through being able to volunteer and share expertise in the garden, Learning in the garden, through gaining knowledge and skills from other gardeners, and Pulling in resources, through physical resources available to the garden through activities or built relationships.
Strengthens Links to Other Organizations and People
Connects to themes: Gardens connect, Value of respect, and Pulling in resources.
Negative connection to Significance of self-accomplishment
Gardens connect. The relationship between this theme and domain can be seen through the link the garden creates between gardeners and others. Two gardeners talked about how having the garden as a shared experience helped them to relate to and connect with other gardeners from both the area and overseas with one saying, “I heard about
[another garden]…, and I told them about this place, and it just makes it easier to connect the dots with people,” and another saying, “no matter where you go, I mean, when I was in Marseille last Fall, you know, the community gardens there, I mean, you have in common, you can talk to anybody.”
Another gardener talked about the link the garden was able to provide between local businesses and community members at an annual gathering, through advertisement as well as donated prizes that connect community members to new services they later go on to frequent.
78 Value of respect. This theme’s connection to the domain came from one gardener from Stanford Avalon talking about the appreciation she had for the former mayor for providing the space for the garden, and original gardeners for cleaning up the land and creating the garden saying, “I’m really grateful to [the former mayor and founding gardeners] because there was just a lot of trash that they had to clean up, to be here, and now it’s much more beautiful, it’s green, it’s better for the school too, cause the little school has, instead of seeing trash, they see greenery.”
Pulling in resources. An important aspect revealed through responses was that people themselves served as resources, both within the garden as well as without. By strengthening those ties, gardens were able to leverage their relationships to make a greater impact. One gardener spoke of the impact the garden president had on those relationships through spearheading the effort of building ties to the community in order to help the garden grow.
Two gardens spoke about the relationship the garden had with their local elected official. Multiple gardeners within each garden brought this subject up, and knew their local official by name, indicating a strong relationship between these gardens and local government. One gardener noted, “well we have a good relationship with our councilman…he’s been very supportive of us,” while another said, “yeah, we don’t have any problem with the city. The city is pretty good to us, I think will let us keep this area too,” and yet another remarked, “at the summer [picnic], even at other times, I think at
Christmas too, they put together a big vegetable basket for [the County] Supervisor.
Send it to his office, they’re always sending cards and things.”
79 Other responses also included the support for the garden gained by having a relationship with local elected officials, including at Altadena Community Garden where according to one gardener the County Supervisor donated a bench and other items, while another gardener noted of their relationship with a local elected official, “well, it works pretty good, because [City Councilman for the garden] is pretty nice guy…he donated some sort of money for the chipper, and he comes here and say hello once in a while.”
Altadena Community Garden, which hosted a community-wide picnic event every year, was able to build connections to local services and government departments through providing space for them to set up booths, giving them the opportunity to communicate with the communities they serve. This same garden, when faced with security issues, was able to leverage its relationships with local government and law enforcement to help stem the problem. One gardener described this saying,
the Sheriffs, we had a little rash of vegetable theft, and no-one could figure out
who it was, and they thought maybe it might have even been people jumping the
fence, and so, they tell the Sherriff’s Department, and, they’re swinging by
anyway, but they’ll swing by and look, or they’ll park their car there to eat lunch.
Significance of self-accomplishment. Finally, the Strengthens links to other organizations and people domain was determined to connect to the theme of Significance of self-accomplishment, however the connection was entirely negative, hindering empowerment. This happened when gardeners did not feel that they or their efforts were respected or valued by city or outside officials, and in particular, when it was perceived that the official or department was trying to take credit for or capitalize off of, work the
80 gardeners put in. These responses revealed how essential transparency, open communication, and respect, are to building empowering relationships.
One gardener remarked on his distrust of local politicians, and how they swoop in and take credit for work other people, in this situation the community gardeners, put in to create a successful space.
Another gardener spoke about the garden’s relationship with the city, after referring to fees levied on the garden by the city:
it’s basically a harmonious, although we are permitted to continue doing what we
have done which has been very effective. Taking care of these trees, we have
financed the fertilizer, the plumbing, the irrigation system, everything. The
greenhouse, everything you see we’ve done. The city has not helped us…we do
have some pride in what we’ve accomplished and for the city to step in and take
credit for it…
Summary. The Strengthens links to other organizations and people community empowerment domain connects to the gardener response themes Gardens connect, through the role gardens play in facilitating connections between people of various backgrounds, Value of respect, through the role respect has in building bonds between people, and Pulling in resources, through the ability of built relationships with people and organizations serving as a connection to resources. A negative relationship was found between the domain and Significance of self-accomplishment, due to the pride gardeners feel for what they have created, and feelings of distrust if local politicians or city departments attempt to use the garden for their own benefit.
81 Creates an Equitable Relationship with Outside Agents; Increases Control Over
Program Management
Two of Laverack’s organizational domains, Creates an equitable relationship with outside agents and Increases control over program management, were determined to have only a weak or tangential link to gardener response themes, denoted by a dotted line in Figure 8. Both domains concern the influence of outside agents on the program under study, in this case, community gardens, where outside agents are defined as groups or individuals implementing the program and providing assistance. As all gardener responses indicated their gardens were self-organized and self-governing, there was no apparent outside agent to evaluate these two domains against, however this absence can be seen as inherently indicative of empowerment, in that no outside agent was needed.
The absence of an outside agent, rather than the evidence of one, was viewed as a tangential link to the gardeners’ response theme of Garden leadership structure.
82 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION
This section discusses findings, implications, and recommendations based on the study’s analysis and results. Overall, gardener responses showed strong ties to
Laverack’s community empowerment domains, indicating a link between community gardens and community empowerment. Targeting interview questions to elicit responses related to each domain, as well as allowing for free-flowing conversation within interviews, allowed the researcher to use Laverack’s domains to examine the relationship between the garden and any community empowerment present. Sifting through interview responses by use of monster-dog matrices further allowed for the examination of responses, and the observation of connections and prominent themes across responses.
Of the four gardens studied, two were similar in that they had very formal organizational structures, they were large gardens, and they had been established for many years. Another garden had been around for a while, but not quite as long as the first two, was also large, but distributed over a wide geographic area, creating somewhat separated garden blocks, and also had a formal structure, but that had changed recently, leaving some gardeners confused on the details. One final garden had been established for only a few years, and had no formal organizational structure outside a garden manager who had also helped to start the garden. This garden was somewhat smaller than the others, but still fairly large.
Comparing responses from the different garden structures was interesting. All gardeners from the first two well-established gardens were aware of how their garden was structured, how the leadership worked, how to address grievances, and generally
83 when meetings and elections were held. Neither of the other two gardens had respondents who were as well informed on similar details.
On the other side, the gardeners from the well-organized gardens had very differing views on the effectiveness of the leadership system, and interest in getting involved, for those who were not already, was very limited. In the garden with no formal organizational structures, responses indicated a high level of involvement and unity amongst those gardeners who were often in the garden, and therefore involved with informal organizational conversations with the garden leader. No responses from this garden indicated a level of disinterest in involvement, or of perceived ineffectiveness in the existing system, outside wishing more gardeners got involved. As mentioned in the
Results section, this could be due to oversampling of invested and involved gardeners, simply by their nature of being present in the garden more often, and when the researcher arrived to conduct interviews.
These contrasting gardens present an interesting dichotomy. On the one hand, the gardeners from more structured gardens were better informed and had clear understanding on how to become involved if they desired to. On the other, the gardeners at the loosely structured garden felt very involved in the garden and exhibited a strong sense of unity toward each other and the garden. Both led to different forms of empowerment, and both are valuable end products.
Two domains were clearly the most well-connected to gardener response themes
(the domains being Builds empowering organizational structures and Improves resource mobilization), indicating a strong potential for gardens to contribute to community
84 empowerment through these domains. By creating empowering bonds between community members and building connections to resources, both within the garden and without, gardens can be utilized as powerful tools for building community empowerment.
Additionally, gardener response themes that were most connected to community empowerment domains were Garden leadership structure and Garden as catalyst. This indicates the potential to use the leadership structure of a garden, whether it be informal or formal, as a tool for community empowerment building. It also acknowledges an x- factor provided by community gardens that creates change within gardeners and gardens, and that spreads beyond its immediate impact.
Another powerful thread found throughout responses was the value of knowledge sharing. This was valuable on multiple fronts. First, the gardener sharing the knowledge was able to see the receiving gardener learn and grow, and gain satisfaction from helping and being a part of that process. Second, a bond was created between those gardeners involved, creating strong ties throughout the garden. Third, gardeners receiving the information in turn showed the sharing gardener respect for their knowledge and experience, further strengthening bonds created, and making the sharing gardener feel included and needed in the garden. Fourth, the garden capacity grows as gardeners learn new skills. Recognizing the many impacts this simple act can have, and intentionally programming in opportunities for it to occur, could have broad impact for community empowerment in gardens.
Creating situations of mutual respect, and of respect for all gardeners and their voices, also increases empowerment through increased participation. Those that
85 expressed a disinterest in participating in the organizational structures of their garden also felt that their concerns were not heard, or that their voice did not make an impact. If a gardener voices a concern, but does not feel that it has been taken into consideration, they will be less likely to continue investing or participating in that process.
Finally, it should be stressed that outside agents, particularly those with power such as elected officials or city departments, should take great strides to ensure full transparency and respect in relationships with community gardens. Oftentimes those outside a garden cannot see the blood, sweat, and tears, and all around thoroughly back breaking and consuming work that goes into creating a successful community garden.
Any attempts to profit off of the work put in by community gardeners, for profit or votes, is not received well, and effectively terminates any mutually beneficial relationship.
These relationships can be quite valuable for small operations such as community gardens, significantly improving their access to resources otherwise unavailable to them.
For a garden to have greater empowerment capacity, these relationships are often necessary. Gardeners can also strategize around ways to contribute to these relationships, through community events or similar, to ensure a two-way street and transparent communication flow is maintained.
Future Research
It should be made clear that while this study was able to uncover rich narratives around community empowerment in community gardens, it was not able to examine or determine causality, in other words, whether gardens empower people, or whether empowered people garden, a ‘chicken or the egg’ dilemma. The closest response to this
86 topic came from one gardener who, as mentioned previously in Chapter 4: Results, started gardening because her husband had a plot, but did not enjoy it because she did not know what she was doing. Other gardeners taught her how to garden well, and she began to bring the passion she found growing unique fruit trees and plants, such as cotton bushes, to others, including fellow gardeners, school children, and this researcher. Her enthusiasm in teaching people about exotic fruits was contagious, and was something her responses indicate she gained from her experience in the garden. Having previously tied sharing knowledge strongly to empowerment through responses found throughout the gardens, this indicates the garden provided some empowerment, but no larger conclusions can be drawn. This topic shows strong potential for future study examining the reality of this relationship and the implications it has for garden practitioners.
Additionally, two themes that appeared frequently in responses yet were determined to have no apparent connection to a community empowerment domain, and therefore community empowerment, were Restorative experience and Pragmatic observations. This is not to say these themes are not important. Some responses, particularly those within the Restorative experience theme, such as those indicating a therapeutic and re-energizing benefit to gardening (“you know, I open that gate, and I come here, there’s nobody around here except the plants, it’s like a sanctuary for me…you know, it’s like a church!”) likely contribute to individual empowerment, but do not have an immediate impact beyond the individual gardener, making them outside the scope of this study. There is also fairly extensive existing research, as indicated in the community garden benefits section of this study’s literature review, on the individual benefits of community gardens.
87 Further research could explore in greater detail the impacts of physical set-up and structure of gardens on increasing participation or involvement in the garden. For example, one gardener mentioned he preferred to garden in the community garden rather than at home because it was easier than messing up his yard, saying,
but this is already set up, and just from a pragmatic point of view, the water, I
mean, even with the drip…if I watered this big of an area at home, my water bill
would go up…you know, I don’t have to mess up my yard to do this.
Another gardener spoke of how, while she did also garden at home, she valued the community garden as a space separate from home and other responsibilities that she could retreat to.
Of particular note was that both the above gardeners also indicated they were just at the garden to garden and were not interested in the more social activities, indicating it was not the community part of the garden that drew them to the space. While it falls outside the scope of this study, learning more about these driving factors and how they intersect would be interesting and valuable for community garden practitioners.
One observation that could not be confirmed within the small sample size of gardens was that the one garden with plot term limits (each gardener could only hold a plot for a certain number of years before re-applying) was also the one garden with very limited involvement by most in the garden. Those gardens with no term limits had stronger observed involvement and investment from its gardeners. There is a potential that knowing your time with the garden might be limited keeps some from getting involved on a deeper level, and limits investment. However, the one garden with plot
88 limits was also the one garden with informal organization structures, so it was impossible to tell which factor impacted the lack of investment, or whether it might have been something else entirely. No research has been uncovered as of yet that provides insight on this subject, so further research would be interesting and recommended.
As mentioned previously in the Limitations of the study section, a stronger approach to this study (although one that would have been outside the scope of a master’s thesis) would have been to work with community gardens to develop unique empowerment frameworks with which to evaluate community empowerment in each garden, rather than imposing one framework across multiple varied gardens. In addition to a customized evaluation framework particularly suited to each garden, the actual process of developing such frameworks would be an empowering exercise in itself. This would make a strong potential future study, perhaps at a doctoral research level.
Further, while one of the initial rationales for selecting Laverack’s domains as an evaluation tool for this study was that they were comprehensive compared to others, it is possible they were too comprehensive, presenting the potential to pare them down as a modified framework.
While analyzing the results from this study, some overlap was identified between
Laverack’s domains, in particular the final two, Creates an equitable relationship with outside agents and Increases control over program management, both of which saw no direct responses from community gardeners. Particularly because Laverack’s domains were created by a health practitioner working in primarily developing countries as a tool to evaluate and attempt to quantify the empowerment of a practitioner-implemented
89 health program, these two domains may have had more importance in the context under which they were developed. In the context of this study however, where Laverack’s framework was used to qualitatively evaluate existing programs, these two themes were similar enough to consolidate, as they both reflect the power an outside organization holds, and the autonomy of the studied group.
It is hoped this study will be able to inform the field of empowerment and social research. While Laverack’s domains may have been most often used to evaluate programs implemented by the researcher, the fieldwork developed in this study could be utilized and built off to shape the domains further to be more suited for evaluation of existing programs, or programs where a relationship with the community has not already been established. While the study was based in Los Angeles, the interview questions were not tailored to the geography, and could be easily used or adapted for elsewhere.
Application to Landscape Architecture
Rather than see the process of participatory design as a box to check in order to validate the designer’s vision for a space, landscape architects have the opportunity to gather input and engage the community through genuine decision-making early on in the project when formative decisions are being made that will shape the space, as well as throughout the design and implementation process. Making sure public spaces meet the needs of those who will use them ensures they will be used, maintained, and owned by the community, making them safer and more successful in the long run (Francis, 2003;
Whyte, 1980). Providing for meaningful participation also ensures designers are not making assumptions about what community members desire or need, particularly
90 important when the designer comes from outside the community they wish to serve
(Guthman, 2008; Hester, 1985).
By taking a more emancipatory approach, landscape architects can position the participation process for public spaces as close to the top rung of Arnstein’s ladder of participation (1969) as possible, with the aim of full citizen control of projects and programs. This includes retaining an open mind that the solution the designer may think is best, such as a community garden or park, may not actually be best, and may not be desired by the community at all. Green space interventions are ultimately only successful when they come from the community (Francis, 2003; Whyte, 1980), with unsuccessful spaces turning quickly to blight. The findings of this study can help designers strategize around involving communities in a thoughtful and impactful manner, creating transformative spaces through empowerment.
One valuable observation from this study was the powerful connection that sharing knowledge and skills can create between gardeners and people. In one example, a gardener who had multiple times stated how little time he had to garden, and that he was not interested in getting involved in the social aspects of the garden, also stated more than once how he enjoyed helping others learn how to garden better. Knowing this, landscape architects and other practitioners can potentially bring people into spaces or design processes who otherwise would be uninterested in participating, by building in programmatic opportunities for sharing experiences and expertise with others in a meaningful way.
91 On a community garden implementation scale, items brought up by gardeners that linked to empowerment, such as notification systems with which to distribute meeting times and summaries, or annual gatherings that built ties within and without the garden, are things designers and practitioners can advocate for and ensure are programmatically built into the spaces they create. This will look different in each situation, as the individual community’s needs are addressed. Further, this study did not look specifically at the impact garden design or form had on community empowerment, and so cannot make physical design recommendations, but rather programmatic recommendations to consider thoughtfully throughout design, implementation, and stewardship processes.
Conclusion
While cities across the country grapple with solutions to disinvestment and blight within their urban cores, in conjunction with a lack of open space and recreational opportunities for often their most marginalized communities (Garvin et al., 2012), community gardens may provide an opportunity to tackle these issues while delivering social benefits, one of which may be empowerment.
One dilemma within this however, is the question of how many people community gardens are able to serve. Most often located on public land, they largely function as private spaces, inaccessible to the general public. This limits potential benefits to the greater community, particularly as an open space or recreation resource, and calls into question the suitability of community gardens as a green space intervention.
While direct benefits such as increased physical fitness mostly only accrue to those able to obtain plots, there remain indirect social benefits that spread beyond the
92 garden. This was demonstrated at Stanford Avalon, which according to one gardener was able to significantly impact safety in the community once it was implemented. This could be due to both the beautification of the area from its previous condition, as well as the consistent and reliable use of the space by the gardeners, from time spent tending plots as well as socializing in the garden.
This garden was also located underneath power lines, in space already providing a public good through energy transport, yet that would otherwise go unutilized by the public or contribute to blight. This speaks to potential land typologies that may be more suited to garden development, while reducing the public/private use dilemma. Even in this example however, it remains that developing the land as a fully accessible public space, such as a linear park, could provide direct and indirect benefits to a greater number of people, which may be a more appropriate use of publically supported spaces.
All this to say, there are inherent complexities in developing public space, funded by taxpayers, into what are generally not fully accessible spaces, and this must be considered in the conversation around community gardens. Ultimately, as a public space, the land use should be dictated by the community, through grassroots project formation, or authentic engagement where a designer, organization, or local government body not only listens to the community needs and desires, but also believes, respects, and acts upon them.
As the conversation around community gardens seems unlikely to slow down anytime soon, it is also important to reflect on the position the practitioner or others in power hold to potentially exploit their popularity for personal, reputational, or relational
93 gain. This concern underscores the need for a transparent community engagement process and outcome to ensure the project ties back into the community desires stated. It also highlights the importance of promoting empowerment through the built landscape, through participatory processes that ensure decision-making power is held by communities.
In regards to this study, while it was not built to prove causality between community gardening and empowerment, it was able to provide a rich narrative around connections between the two in the greater Los Angeles gardens studied, through use of
Laverack’s organizational domains as an evaluation tool.
The study found that community gardens most significantly connected to empowerment through the interpersonal bonds created by gardeners, as well as the resources and larger connections to the community the garden can help build. One of the more powerful ways bonds were built between gardeners, as evidenced by gardener responses, was through the sharing of knowledge, skills, and experience from one gardener to another. Other ways empowerment was observed were through transparent, inclusive, and respectful leadership and governance processes.
These findings have the potential to inform the field of landscape architecture through enhancing participatory planning strategies, aligning these practices more closely with empowerment goals and further from superficial engagement. By better understanding the factors that connect programs such as community gardens to community empowerment, practitioners, community leaders, and city officials can better
94 implement similar social benefit green space interventions that truly serve the unique needs of individual communities.
Researcher: “Why do you stay involved with the garden?”
Gardener: “Why, because you plant the seed, look at what you get. I mean, you get everything you plant that’s beautiful, and I love it!”
95 REFERENCES
Ackerman, K. (2012). The potential for urban agriculture in New York City: Growing
capacity, food security, & green infrastructure. Retrieved from Urban Design
Lab, Columbia University website
http://urbandesignlab.columbia.edu/files/2015/04/4_urban_agriculture_nyc.pdf
A. Hoen & Co. (1917). Uncle Sam says – garden to cut food costs: Ask the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. for a free bulletin on gardening –
it’s food for thought (Reproduction No. LC-USZC4-79310) [lithograph].
Retrieved from Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division, WWI
Posters website http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/00653180/
Aldag, L., & Tinsley, A. (1994). A comparison of focus group interviews to in-depth
interviews in determining food choice influences. Journal of Agriculture and
Food Information, 2(3), 89-96.
Algert, S. J., Baameur, A., & Renvall, M. J. (2014). Vegetable output and cost savings
of community gardens in San Jose, California. Journal of the Academy of
Nutrition and Dietetics, 114(7), 1072-1076.
Altadena Community Garden. (n.d.). About. Retrieved from
http://www.altadenacommunitygarden.com/about.html
Armstrong, D. (2000). A survey of community gardens in upstate New York:
Implications for health promotion and community development. Health and
Place, 6(4), 319-327.
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American
Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216-224.
96 Azuma, A. M., Gilliland, S., Vallianatos, M., Gottlieb, R. (2010). Food access,
availability, and affordability in 3 Los Angeles communities, Project CAFE,
2004-2006. Preventing Chronic Disease, 7(2), 1-9.
Bassett, T. J. (1981). Reaping on the margins: A century of community gardening in
America. Landscape, 25(2), 1-8.
Bhai, A. (2011, July 30). Wattles Farm (HALS No. CA-77). Retrieved from Historic
American Landscapes Survey, National Park Service website
https://cdn.loc.gov/master/pnp/habshaer/ca/ca3900/ca3931/data/ca3931data.pdf
Biernacki, P., & Waldorf, D. (1981). Snowball sampling: Problems and techniques of
chain referral sampling. Sociological Methods and Research, 10(2), 141-163.
Bopp, M., GermAnn, K., Bopp, J., Littlejohns, L. B., & Smith, N. (2000). Assessing
community capacity for change. Cochrane, Alberta: Four Worlds Centre for
Development Learning.
Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (4th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Center for a Livable Future. (2014, February). Soil safety resource guide for urban food
growers. Retrieved from Center for a Livable Future, Johns Hopkins University
website https://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins
center-for-a-livable-future/_pdf/projects/urban-soil
safety/CLF%20Soil%20Safety%20Guide.pdf
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2011). Strategies to prevent obesity and
other chronic diseases: The CDC guide to strategies to increase physical activity
97 in the community. Retrieved from
https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/downloads/pa_2011_web.pdf
Clementson, J. (1995). A qualitative study of elementary teachers and students
interactions with full option science system (FOSS). In A. Hofstein, B. Eylon, &
G. Giddings (eds.), Science education: From theory to practice (pp. 211-218).
Rehovot, Israel: The Weizmann Institute of Science.
Coleman-Jensen, A., Rabbitt, M. P., Gregory, C. A., & Singh, A. (2016, September).
Household Food Security in the United States in 2015 (ERR-215). Retrieved
from United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service
website http://www.arhungeralliance.org/wp
content/uploads/2012/12/Household-Food-Security-in-the-United-States-2015.pdf
Corrigan, M. P. (2011). Growing what you eat: Developing community gardens in
Baltimore, Maryland. Applied Geography, 31(4), 1232-1241.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry.
Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124-130.
Curran, W., & Hamilton, T. (2012). Just green enough: contesting environmental
gentrification in Greenpoint, Brooklyn. Local Environment, 17(9), 1027-1042.
Daftary-Steel, S., Herrera, H., & Porter, C. M. (2015). The unattainable trifecta of urban
agriculture. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development,
6(1), 19-32.
98 Denver Urban Gardens. (2012). Growing community gardens: A Denver Urban
Gardens’ best practices handbook for creating and sustaining community
gardens. Retrieved from https://dug.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Best
Practices.pdf
DiCiccio-Bloom, B., & Crabtree, B. F. (2006). The qualitative research interview.
Medical Education, 40(4), 314-321.
Draper, C., & Freedman, D. (2010). Review and analysis of the benefits, purposes, and
motivations associated with community gardening in the United States. Journal
of Community Practice, 18(4), 458-492.
Eisenman, T. S. (2013). Frederick Law Olmsted, green infrastructure, and the evolving
city. Journal of Planning History, 12(4), 287-311.
Eizenberg, E. (2012). The changing meaning of community space: Two models of NGO
management of community gardens in New York City. International Journal of
Urban and Regional Research, 36(1), 106-120.
Elwood, S. A. (2002). GIS use in community planning: A multidimensional analysis of
empowerment. Environment and Planning A, 34(5), 905-922.
Fawcett, S. B., Paine-Andrews, A., Francisco, V. T., Schultz, J. A., Richter, K. P., Lewis,
R. K., … Lopez, C. M. (1995). Using empowerment theory in collaborative
partnerships for community health and development. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 25(5), 677-697.
Francis, M. (1987). Some different meanings attached to a city park and community
gardens. Landscape Journal, 6(2), 101-112.
99 Francis, M. (2003). Urban open space: Designing for user needs. Washington, DC:
Island Press.
Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, New York: Bloomsbury
Academic. (Original work published 1970)
Garvin, E., Branas, C., Keddem, S., Sellman, J., Cannuscio, C. (2012). More than just
an eyesore: Local insights and solutions on vacant land and urban health. Journal
of Urban Health, 90(3), 412-426.
Geiger, M. (1968). The building of Mission San Gabriel: 1771-1828. Southern
California Quarterly, 50(1), 33-42.
Ghose, R., & Pettygrove, M. (2014). Urban community gardens as spaces of citizenship.
Antipode, 46(4), 1092-1112.
Gibbon, M., Labonte, R., Laverack, G. (2002). Evaluating community capacity. Health
and Social Care in the Community, 10(6), 485-491.
Gittleman, M., Jordan, K., & Brelsford, E. (2012). Using citizen science to quantify
community garden crop yields. Cities and the Environment (CATE), 5(1), 4.
Glover, T. D. (2003). Community garden movement. In K. Christensen & D. Levinson
(eds.), Encyclopedia of community (pp. 264-266). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Glover, T. D., Parry, D. C., & Shinew, K. J. (2005). Building relationships, accessing
resources: Mobilizing social capital in community garden contexts. Journal of
Leisure Research, 37(4), 450-474.
Goodman, R. M., Speers, M. A., McLeroy, K., Fawcett, S., Kegler, M., Parker, E., …
Wallerstein, N. (1998). Identifying and defining the dimensions of community
100 capacity to provide basis for measurement. Health Education and Behavior,
25(3), 258-278.
Gould, K. A., & Lewis, T. L. (2012). The environmental injustice of green
gentrification: The case of Brooklyn’s Prospect Park. In J. N. DeSena & T.
Shortell (Eds.), The World in Brooklyn: Gentrification, Immigration, and Ethnic
Politics in a Global City (pp. 113-146). Plymouth, United Kingdom: Lexington
Books.
Gray, M. R. (1913). The education of children in the school gardens of Los Angeles.
The Craftsman, 24(5), 472-479.
Guthman, J. (2008). Bringing good food to others: Investigating the subjects of
alternative food practice. Cultural Geographies, 15(4), 431-447.
Halprin, L., Hester, R. T., Mullen, D. (1999). Interview with Lawrence Halprin. Places,
12(2), 42-51.
Hanna, A. K., & Oh, P. (2000). Rethinking urban poverty: A look at community
gardens. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 20(3), 207-216.
Henderson, T. (2014, September 29). Yes, the rent really is too damn high. Governing
the States and Localities (Stateline, contributor). Retrieved from
http://www.governing.com/news/headlines/yes-the-rent-really-is-too-damn
high.html
Hess, D., & Winner, L. (2007). Enhancing justice and sustainability at the local level:
Affordable policies for urban governments. Local Environment, 12(4), 379-395.
Hester, R. T. (2005). Whose politics do you style? If all designers serve some political
will, whose will do you serve? Landscape Architecture, 95(12), 72-79.
101 Hynes, H. P., & Howe. G. (2004). Urban horticulture in the contemporary United States:
Personal and community benefits. Acta Horticulturae, 643, 171-181.
Iles, J. (2012). The social role of community farms and gardens in the city. In A.
Viljoen, K. Bohn & J. Howe (Eds.), Continuous productive urban landscapes:
Designing urban agriculture for sustainable cities (pp. 82-88). Oxford, United
Kingdom: Architectural Press. (Original work published 2005)
Jackson, J., Rytel, K., Brookover, I., Efron, N., Hernandez, G., Johnson, E., … Zabel, Z.
(2013, June). Cultivate L.A.: An assessment of urban agriculture in Los Angeles
County. Retrieved from
https://cultivatelosangeles.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/cultivate-l-a-7-24.pdf
Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. New York City, NY:
Random House, Inc.
Juarez, J. A., & Brown, K. D. (2008). Extracting or empowering? A critique of
participatory methods for marginalized populations. Landscape Journal, 27(2),
190-204.
Kasmel, A., & Andersen, P. (2011). Measurement of community empowerment in three
community programs in Rapla (Estonia). International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, 8(3), 799-817.
Kaufman, J., & Bailkey, M. (2000). Farming inside cities: Entrepreneurial urban
agriculture in the United States [working paper]. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln
Institute of Land Policy.
Kessler, R. (2013). Urban gardening: managing the risks of contaminated soil.
Environmental Health Perspectives, 121(11-12), A326-A333.
102 Kieffer, C. H. (1983). Citizen empowerment: A developmental perspective. Prevention
in Human Services, 3(2/3), 9-36.
Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (2001). Environment and crime in the inner city: Does
vegetation reduce crime? Environment and Behavior, 33(3), 343-367.
Labonte, R., & Laverack, G. (2001). Capacity building in health promotion, Part 2:
Whose use? And with what measurement? Critical Public Health, 11(2), 129
138.
Laverack, G. (2001). An identification and interpretation of the organizational aspects of
community empowerment. Community Development Journal, 36(2), 134-145.
Laverack, G. (2006). Using a ‘domains’ approach to build community empowerment.
Community Development Journal, 41(1), 4-12.
Laverack, G., & Labonte, R. (2000). A planning framework for community
empowerment goals within health promotion. Health Policy and Planning, 15(3),
255-262.
Laverack, G., & Wallerstein, N. (2001). Measuring community empowerment: A fresh
look at organizational domains. Health Promotion International, 16(2), 179-185.
Lawson, L. (2004). The planner in the garden: A historical view into the relationship
between planning and community gardens. Journal of Planning History, 3(2),
151-176.
Lawson, L. (2005). City bountiful: A century of community gardening in America.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
103 Lewis, C. A. (1992). Effects of plants and gardening in creating interpersonal and
community well-being. In D. Relf (Ed.), The role of horticulture in human well-
being and social development (pp. 55-65). Portland, OR: Timber Press, Inc.
Linn, K. (1999). Reclaiming the sacred commons. New Village, 1, 42-49.
Litt, J. S., Soobader, M.-J., Turbin, M. S., Hale, J. W., Buchenau, M., & Marshall, J. A.
(2011). The influence of social involvement, neighborhood aesthetics, and
community garden participation on fruit and vegetable consumption. American
Journal of Public Health, 101(8), 1466-1473.
Ljunggren, A., Huang, Z., Wang, F., Johansson, E. (2010). Promoting community
empowerment among rural Tibetans in China using focus group discussions.
Qualitative Health Research, 20(9), 1183-1191.
Lopez, S. (2015, December 30). 2015 in review: How income inequality pervades the
L.A. landscape. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-lopez-yearend-20151230
column.html
Los Angeles Community Garden Council. (2015a). Key projects. Retrieved from
http://lagardencouncil.org/about/key-projects/
Los Angeles Community Garden Council. (2015b). Message from the Executive
Director. Retrieved from http://lagardencouncil.org/about/greeting-letter/
Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation. (2016, May 9). Los Angeles
countywide comprehensive parks and recreation needs assessment. Retrieved
from http://lacountyparkneeds.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/FinalReport.pdf
104 Los Angeles County Department of Public Health. (2011, September). Obesity and
related mortality in Los Angeles County: A cities and communities health report.
Retrieved from
http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/ha/reports/habriefs/2007/obese_cities/obesity_20
11fs.pdf
Los Angeles County Department of Public Health. (2015, August). Mortality in Los
Angeles County 2012: Leading causes of death and premature death with trends
for 2003-2012. Retrieved from
http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/dca/data/documents/mortalityrpt12.pdf
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. (2015, December). Notice of proposed
water rate restructure and increases for the Los Angeles Department of Water
and Power and associated public hearing. Retrieved from
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/ladwp/pages/41/attachments/original/1450
296773/Notice_of_Proposed_Water_Rate_Restructure_and_Increases_for_the_L
os_Ange....pdf
MacQueen, K. M., McLellan, E., Metzger, D. S., Kegeles, S., Strauss, R. P., Scotti, R., …
Trotter, R. T. (2001). What is community? An evidence-based definition for
participatory public health. American Journal of Public Health, 91(12), 1929
1938.
Milburn, L. S., & Vail, B. A. (2010). Sowing the seeds of success: Cultivating a future
for community gardens. Landscape Journal, 29(1), 71-89.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
105 Morland, K., Wing, S., Roux, A. D., & Poole, C. (2002). Neighborhood characteristics
associated with the location of food stores and food service places. American
Journal of Preventative Medicine, 22(1), 23-29.
Nawyn, S. J., Gjokaj, L., Agbényiga, D. L., & Grace, B. (2012). Linguistic isolation,
social capital, and immigrant belonging. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography,
41(3), 255-282.
Olmsted, F. L., Sr. (1973). Forty years of landscape architecture: Central Park. F. L.
Olmsted, Jr. & T. Kimball (Eds.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Pack, C. L. (1918). Making a nation of garden cities. Garden Magazine, 27(4), 183
186.
Pack, C. L. (1919). The war garden victorious. Philadelphia, PA: J. B. Lippincott
Company.
Perkins, D. D., & Zimmerman, M. A. (1995). Empowerment theory, research, and
application. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23(5), 569-579.
Pudup, M. B. (2008). It takes a garden: Cultivating citizen-subjects in organized garden
projects. Geoforum, 39(3), 1228-1240.
Quastel, N. (2009). Political ecologies of gentrification. Urban Geography, 30(7), 694
725.
Rappaport, J. (1987). Terms of empowerment/exemplars of prevention: Toward a theory
for community psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 15(2),
121-148.
Raver, A. (1992, February 13). Growing. The New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/13/garden/growing.html
106 Rifkin, S. B. (1990). Community participation in maternal and child health/family
planning programmes: An analysis based on case study materials. Geneva,
Switzerland: World Health Organization.
Roy, P. (2010). Analyzing empowerment: An ongoing process of building state-civil
society relations - The case of Walnut Way in Milwaukee. Geoforum, 41(2), 337
348.
Saldivar-Tanaka, L., & Krasny, M. E. (2004). Culturing community development,
neighborhood open space, and civic agriculture: The case of Latino community
gardens in New York City. Agriculture and Human Values, 21(4), 399-412.
Sample, S. B. (2008, November 10). Los Angeles: The capital of the Pacific Rim
[Speech transcript]. Address to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council. Retrieved
from University of Southern California website
https://about.usc.edu/presidentemeritus/speeches/address-to-the-los-angeles
world-affairs-council/
Sardu, C., Mereu, A., Sotgiu, A., & Contu, P. (2012). A bottom-up art event gave birth
to a process of community empowerment in an Italian village. Global Health
Promotion, 19(1), 5-13.
Smith, N., Littlejohns, L. B., & Roy, D. (2003). Measuring community capacity: State
of the field review and recommendations for future research (Health Policy
Research Program Project No. 6795-15-1001/4440001). Red Deer, Alberta:
David Thompson Health Region.
Spurrier, J. (2010, October 6). In Highland Park, tomatoes amid the graffiti. Los
Angeles Times. Retrieved from
107 http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/home_blog/2010/10/milagro-allegro-community
gardens-highland-park.html
Stevens, K. (2014, August 19). A peak time to examine community garden etiquette in
Los Angeles. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from
http://www.latimes.com/home/la-hm-garden-etiquette-20140823-story.html
Tengland, P.-A. (2008). Empowerment: A conceptual discussion. Health Care
Analysis, 16(2), 77-96.
Trelstad, B. (1997). Little machines in their gardens: A history of school gardens in
America, 1891 to 1920. Landscape Journal 16(2), 161-173.
Ulrich, R. S. (1984). View through a window may influence recovery from surgery.
Science, 223, 420-421.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2011). Brownfields and urban
agriculture: Interim guidelines for safe gardening practices (EPA 560/S-11/001).
Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015
09/documents/bf_urban_ag.pdf
University of California, Los Angeles. (2017). [Interactive map of urban agriculture
sites in Los Angeles County]. Cultivate Los Angeles. Retrieved from
http://geodata.ucanr.edu/uala/uala_v2.00.html#
Vitiello, D., & Nairn, M. (2009, October). Community gardening in Philadelphia: 2008
Harvest Report. Retrieved from
http://www.farmlandinfo.org/sites/default/files/Philadelphia_Harvest_1.pdf
108 Vitiello, D., & Wolf-Powers, L. (2014). Growing food to grow cities? The potential of
agriculture for economic and community development in the urban United States.
Community Development Journal, 49(4), 508-523.
Voicu, I., & Been, V. (2008). The effect of community gardens on neighboring property
values. Real Estate Economics, 36(2), 241-283.
Wattles Farm. (2015). A brief history. Retrieved from
http://www.wattlesfarm.com/history/
Welch, R. (2006, July). A brief history of the Tongva tribe: The native inhabitants of the
lands of the Puente Hills Preserve. Retrieved from
http://tongvapeople.com/native_american_history.pdf
Western Regional Climate Center. (2016). Los Angeles DWTN USC Campus,
California: Period of record monthly climate summary, 07/01/1877 to
06/09/2016. Retrieved from http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca5115
Westphal, L. M. (2003). Urban greening and social benefits: A study of empowerment
outcomes. Journal of Arboriculture, 29(3), 137-147.
The White House, Office of the First Lady. (2016, October 5). First Lady Michelle
Obama dedicates White House Kitchen Garden and highlights impact of Let’s
Move! on healthy living [Press release]. Retrieved from
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/10/05/first-lady-michelle
obama-dedicates-white-house-kitchen-garden-and
White, S. C. (1996). Depoliticizing development: The uses and abuses of participation.
Development in Practice, 6(1), 6-15.
109 Whyte, W. H. (1980). The social life of small urban spaces. New York, NY: Project for
Public Spaces.
Wolch, J. R., Byrne, J., & Newell, J. P. (2014). Urban green space, public health, and
environmental justice: The challenge of making cities 'just green enough.’
Landscape and Urban Planning, 125, 234-244.
Yip, J. C. (2014). The evolution of science ownership in learners engaged in design and
technology usage (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses database (UMI No. 3627600).
Zimmerman, M. A. (1995). Psychological empowerment: Issues and illustrations.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 23(5), 581-599.
110 APPENDIX A: SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
Introductory Questions:
i. How long have you been involved with this community garden?
a. How long have you been gardening?
ii. What do you like most about this community garden?
iii. What is your role within the community garden?
Community Empowerment Organizational Domains Questions:
1. Why did you originally become involved with this community garden?
a. Why do you stay involved?
2. How does decision making occur within the garden?
a. How is leadership within the garden structured and chosen?
i. How long has the current garden leader been in position?
b. How does communication within the garden happen?
i. Between leadership and gardeners
ii. Between gardeners
3. How do conflicts and issues within the garden get solved or addressed?
a. How are issues identified?
b. Once identified, who are issues brought to?
c. Who has final say in solving an issue and how is it enforced?
4. Is there anything you think should change about the community garden?
a. Anything that should stay the same?
i. Anything that should it disappear tomorrow would make you
upset, sad, or angry?
111 b. Is there any project you’ve been involved with you’re particularly proud
of?
5. Has participating in this garden led to involvement in any other organizations?
a. Has it led to participation in or formation of any other groups or clubs?
i. (if not in their life directly) Have you observed the formation of
groups or clubs by any of the other gardeners?
b. Has participation in this garden led to a larger or stronger social support
system or network in your life?
i. Any lasting friendships?
c. How often does your garden host events
i. What percentage of gardeners attend?
6. Have you gained any skills or knowledge because of your involvement in this
garden?
a. Can you describe these skills?
b. Why are these skills or knowledge important to you?
7. Has your participation in the garden made you more aware of other groups and
organizations in your community?
a. Has it made you more aware of how the systems and structures of the
world around you affect and impact your life?
b. Has it provided opportunities for you or the garden community to build
partnerships with other individuals and/or organizations?
8. How would you describe the garden’s relationship with local government and/or
local organizations?
112 a. How would you describe your relationship with local government and/or
organizations?
i. Do you engage with local government and/or organizations more
as a result of your involvement with the garden?
b. Has being a part of the garden impacted the level of civic engagement in
your life?
c. Can you tell me about how the garden was formed?
i. (if garden was established by a pre-existing organization/entity)
Can you describe the relationship you and the garden has with the
garden’s parent organization?
9. How would you describe the level of voice you have in the garden, or how well
do you feel your opinions are listened to and respected?
a. Do you feel your concerns are valued and taken into account by the rest of
the garden and garden management?
b. Do issues affecting your garden feel like they are solvable by you and/or
the rest of the garden members?
10. Is there anything else you would like to share about the garden I haven’t touched
on already?
a. Anything that you value the most?
Demographics Questions:
iv. How far from the garden do you live?
v. What gender do you identify with?
vi. What ethnicity do you identify with?
113 vii. What year were you born in? viii. What is the highest level of education you have completed?
114 APPENDIX B: INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL
115 APPENDIX C: INFORMED CONSENT FORM
116 and community empowerment in the Southern California region_
Contacts: For any questions about this research and study, including your rights as a participant, feel free to contact the primary investigator (Edna Robidas) or the faculty advisor (Dr. Kyle Br Consent Participation in this interview is voluntary and by signing this informed consent form you are agreeing to the terms stated_ If, at any time, you decide to discontinue this interview, no information collected before withdrawal will be used unless you have stated otherwise_ As the interviewee, you are entiUed to a copy of this completed informed consent form_ -,------,,------,,-- (please initial} I understand that there will be an audio recording device recording throughout the duration of the interview. Interviewee Name (Print) Interviewee Signature Date Primary Investigator Name (Print} Primary Investigator Signature Date 117 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona Fonna de Consentimiento lnfonnada para lnvestigacion que lmplica Sujetos Humanos Usted esta invitado a participar en un estudio de investigacioo que el Comite Examinador lnstitucional (CEI) de Cal Poly Pomona ha revisado y aprobado para ser conducido por los investigadores nombrados aqui_ Esta forma esta diseiiada para proporcionarle informacion acerca de este estudio en su calidad de sujeto humano_ B investigador o su representante le describiran este estudio y le contestaran cualquier pregunta que tenga_ Usted tiene derecho a la Declaracion de Derechos del Sujeto que participe en una lnvestigacion Experimental ya recibir una copia de este documento_ Si tiene alguna pregunta o quejas acerca del proceso descrito en dicho documento, por favor llame a la Oficina de la Conformidad que fonna parte de la Oficina de lnvestigacion de la Universidad de Cal Poly Pomona al (909) 869-4215_ Mas informaci6n esta disponible en el sitio web del CEI en el www .csupomona.edu/research/irb. Titulo del Estudio: Agricultura Urbana y el Empoderamiento Comunitario en el Sur de California IRB N.-Oero Protocolo: 14-0059 Contactos: lnvestigador Principal- Edna Robidas: (860) 214-2370 - [email protected] Afiliacioo: MLA Candidato 2014, de la Universidad Politecnica Estatal de California, Pomona Consejero de la Facultad- la Dra_ Kyle Bru.vn: (909) 869-0178- [email protected] Afiliacion: Facultad de la Universidad Estatal Politecnica de California. Pomona Prop6sito: B prop6sito de este estudio es determinar el papel que las actividades de agricultura urbana, como jardines comunitarios y granjas urbanas. tienen en el proceso de empoderamiento de la comunidad_ Procedimientos: El metodo de investigaci6n principal utilizado por este estudio es la entrevista semi estructurada_ La entrevista se guiara por una serie de preguntas fonnuladas por el investigador principal para promover una conversacion informal_ La entrevista tendra una duracion de aproximadamente 45 a 60 minutos, y se puede terminar antes de este por cualquier razon_ Con su consentimiento. la totalidad de la entrevista sera grabada por un dispositivo de grabacion de audio, asi como por las notas tomadas por el investigador principal. Esta grabacion a continuacion, se transcribe por el investigador principal, con todos los registros que se estan almacenados en un annario seguro para la duracion del estudio _ Es posible que haya un contacto de seguimiento despues de que el estudio se haya completado para comprobar el ancilisis de los resultados de la entrevista con usted para la exactitud_ ConFidencialidad: Las citas de esta entrevista se pueden utilizar en los documentos y presentaciones relacionados con este estudio, y se analizaran a fondo para asegurar una representacion exacta de sus intenciones_ Su nom bre sera elim inado de todas las citas. Nos com unicaremos con usted para la aprobaciOn del uso de las com illas de esta entrevista antes de su inclusion en los infonnes o presentaciOn relacionada con este estudio . Todos los datos recogidos de los participantes en el estudio, incluyendo transcripciones de entrevistas. seran anonimos, lo que significa que cada entrevistado se le dara un numero, que sera grabado en un fonnato de cooigo de clave, con el fin de proteger la identidad del entrevistado_ Los datos sin identificacion y el c6digo clave se almacenan en ubicaciones separadas y seguras para proteger aun mas la identidad de la entrevista del sujeto_ Todos los datos, incluyendo los fonnularios de consentimiento infonnado finnado, grabaciones de audio, transcripciones de entrevistas, notas de la entrevista, y el cOdigo de identiFicaciOn de la llave se mantendran en archivadores seguras durante la duracion del estudio, accesible s61o para el investigador principal y el consejero de la facultad, y se destruira al tenn ino de este y otros estudios relacionados con cualquiera, articulos y presentaciones. 118 Riesgos y BeneFicios Posibles: Se espera que durante el estudio, como participante. no experimentara ninguna molestia mas alla de lo que cabria esperar largo de un dia normal_ Si se presenta alguna molestia, por cualquier motivo, la entrevista puede ser cancelada en cualquier momento_ No hay beneficios directos esperados para participar en este estudio. sin embargo usted sera elegible para recibir una copia de los resultados finales del estudio. lo que podria mejorar su comprension de su comunidad_ Como regalo de gracias por la participacion se le dara una seleccion de paquetes de semillas de hortalizas_ Su participacion en este estudio se sumara al conjunto de conocimientos sobre la agricultura urbana y el empoderamiento de la comunidad en la regi6n del sur de California_ Contactos: Para cualquier pregunta sobre esta investigaci6n y el estudio, incluyendo sus derechos como participante. no dude en ponerse en contacto con el investigador principal (Edna Robidas) o el consejero de la facultad (Dr_ Kyle Brown) utilizando la informacion de contacto proporcionada anteriormente_ Consentimiento: La participaci6n en esta entrevista es voluntaria y al firmar este formulario de consentimiento informado usted est.a de acuerdo con los terminos establecidos_ Si, en cualquier momento. decide poner fin a esta entrevista, ninguna informaci6n recopilada antes de la retirada se utilizara a menos que se haya indicado lo contrario_ B entrevistado tiene derecho a una copia de este formulario de consentimiento informado completado_ ______(escnba sus iniciales} Entiendo que habnl un dispositivo de grabaciOn de audio durante la duraciOn de la entrevista. Nombre Entrevistado pmprimir} Firm a Entrevistado Feeha Nombre Principal lnvestigador pmprimir} Firma Principal lnvestigador Feeha 119