bs_bs_banner
Growing an Urban Oasis: A Qualitative Study of
the Perceived Benefits of Community Gardening
in Baltimore, Maryland
Melissa N. Poulsen,
Kristyna R. S. Hulland, Carolyn A. Gulas,
Hieu Pham, Sarah L. Dalglish,
Rebecca K. Wilkinson, and Peter J. Winch
Abstract
Community gardening is lauded as an urban planning
tool to enhance local food systems while improving
degraded urban environments. To understand how best to
expand community gardening participation, this study
explores the perceived benefits of community gardening in
Baltimore, Maryland. In-depth interviews and focused
group interviews with community gardeners revealed that
gardens provide benefits at multiple levels, creating an
“urban oasis” that provides refuge from urban decay while
revitalizing city neighborhoods. At the individual level,
gardeners underscored psychological benefits, including
pride and a connection with nature. At the neighborhood
level, gardeners developed trusting relationships with their
neighbors and shared learning experiences. At the commu-
nity level, gardeners perceived that gardens reclaim city
space by cleaning up degraded lots, creating gathering
places, and improving the food environment. The variety of
perceived benefits that gardens provide to individuals and
their communities should be promoted as a tool for devel-
oping healthy urban environments. [qualitative methods,
grounded theory, community gardens, food access,
urban agriculture, urban revitalization]
Melissa N. Poulsen, Kristyna R. S. Hulland, Carolyn A. Gulas, Hieu
Pham, Sarah L. Dalglish, Rebecca K. Wilkinson, and Peter J. Winch
are affiliated with the Social and Behavioral Interventions Program,
Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg
School of Public Health, and include faculty and former and current
graduate students. Their combined backgrounds include
specializations in the areas of behavior change, health education,
food systems, farm management, environmental sustainability, and
qualitative research.
Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment Vol. 36, Issue 2 pp. 69–82, ISSN 2153-9553, eISSN 2153-9561. © 2014 by the American Anthropological
Association. All rights reserved. DOI: 10.1111/cuag.12035
Introduction
Historically, the prevalence of urban agriculture
in the United States has ebbed and flowed in response
to economic, social, and environmental conditions of
cities. Urban agriculture began as early as the 1890s
with the rise of vacant-lot cultivation associations,
which aimed to improve poor environmental condi-
tions in cities while also providing a self-help
approach for unemployed laborers through gardening
on shared plots of land. Community and home
gardens became popular again during the two World
Wars, when they made important contributions to
food supplies and civilian morale (Lawson 2005).
Beginning in the 1970s, community gardening became
“an expression of self-reliance” that arose in response
to rising food prices, as well as to concerns about the
destructive impact of agricultural technologies on the
environment and the health consequences of pesti-
cides on food. It was also a form of urban activism
that “showed resistance to the deterioration of the
city” (Lawson 2005:219).
More recently, urban agriculture has gained trac-
tion as an urban planning tool to encourage local food
production and distribution, provide green space in
urban environments, and improve access to healthy
foods. As described by Lovell (2010), the benefits
and services provided by urban agriculture can be
viewed through a framework of “landscape multi-
functionality.” This multi-functionality includes pro-
duction of food resources, ecological services, and
socio-ecological functions, each of which benefits the
health of the surrounding community. In more
explicit terms, urban agriculture brings food produc-
tion closer to consumers, contributes to the local
economy, and improves the urban environment by
producing greener urban landscapes and utilizing
vacant land (Brown and Jameton 2000; Lovell 2010;
McCullum et al. 2005; Okvat and Zautra 2011). Fur-
thermore, urban greening efforts can benefit the
natural environment by contributing to carbon
sequestration, improving air quality and watershed
management, providing habitat for animals and
insects, and helping to alleviate urban heat islands
(Okvat and Zautra 2011).
Today’s community gardens are defined by a
growing diversity of gardeners, gardening motiva-
tions, and organizational and political support that
Birky and Strom (2013) argue will sustain the current
community gardening movement well into the future.
In fact, urban agriculture has been promoted at the
national level, with the planting of the White House
garden by First Lady Michelle Obama; at the munici-
pal level, with city governments’ support of urban
agriculture through new initiatives and updated
zoning codes; and at the community level, with
numerous community-based organizations and neigh-
borhood groups starting urban agriculture projects.
In Baltimore, the site of this study, the city gov-
ernment has embraced urban agriculture as a poten-
tial solution to two major municipal issues:
degraded urban neighborhoods and lack of access to
fresh, nutritious food. The abundance of vacant
property in Baltimore puts a financial strain on the
city, both by requiring ongoing upkeep of these
spaces and by lowering property values (Accordino
and Johnson 2000). Baltimore currently has an esti-
mated 30,000 abandoned properties, including 5,000
vacant lots that are owned by the city (Baltimore
Office of Sustainability 2012). In addition, many
Baltimore residents live in “food deserts”—
neighborhoods with limited access to fresh, healthy
foods, such as vegetables and fruits. A recent assess-
ment1 revealed that one in five residents in Balti-
more lives in a food desert, including 25 percent of
the city’s African American population and 7
percent of whites (Baltimore City Department of
Planning 2012). This reinforces other studies that
have found that access to healthy foods—
particularly fruits and vegetables—is low in Balti-
more’s low-income neighborhoods (Franco et al.
2007; Gittelsohn et al. 2007), and that African Ameri-
can and lower-income neighborhoods have fewer
healthy food options available than do white and
higher-income neighborhoods (Franco et al. 2008).
The current mayoral administration has developed
policies and new initiatives to support urban agri-
culture as both a greening strategy and as a way to
reduce the number of food deserts (Baltimore Office
of Sustainability 2009).
Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment
Though urban agriculture can take a variety of
forms—such as urban farms, school gardens, and
rooftop gardens—community gardens are the most
ubiquitous in the United States. The American
Community Gardening Association (2011) estimates
there are about 18,000 community gardens. A broad
literature has examined the multitude of benefits that
community gardening provides, taking one of two
research approaches. One is to measure the objective
benefits, often through pre/post intervention studies.
Such research has shown community gardening to be
associated with higher consumption of fruits and
vegetables (Litt et al. 2011; Poston et al. 2005),
improved social ties (Austin et al. 2006), and to
provide learning opportunities in the physical and
social sciences (Graham and Zidenberg-Cherr 2005).
The second approach is to gather self-reported data
on the benefits perceived by community gardeners,
generally using qualitative methods. The latter
approach reinforces objective benefits research, and
has also revealed the role community gardens play in
municipal development (Henderson and Hartsfield
2009), increased social and cultural interactions
(Lawson 2007; Teig et al. 2009), and community devel-
opment (Saldivar-Tanaka and Krasny 2004).
With our study, we expand upon the existing
literature to examine community gardening in Balti-
more, a city with a burgeoning urban agriculture
scene but little prior research on this topic. We chose
the second research approach—self reported
benefits—for two reasons. First, this was an explor-
atory study in a new setting and therefore more
conducive to qualitative methods. Second, to ensure
our findings were applicable to future efforts to
promote greater participation in community garden-
ing, we deemed it critical to understand what moti-
vates individuals to participate and the perceived
benefits gardeners gain from participation. As
described above, while community gardens have been
part of the urban landscape since the 1890s, the moti-
vations driving their development have shifted
through the decades.
In Baltimore, the municipal government and
community-based organizations have framed commu-
nity gardening as one solution to the large-scale prob-
lems of urban degradation and a lack of access to
healthy foods, but these are not necessarily the
reasons that community gardeners choose to partici-
pate. Even as political leaders and public health prac-
titioners promote the role of community gardening in
70 Vol. 36, No. 2 December 2014
Table 1.
Individual and Group Interview Topics

• How participant started gardening and length of time participating in community gardening
• What is grown and why
• How much food is grown, and what is done with it
• Importance of community garden produce as a food source
• Perceived benefits of community gardening (including health, social, environmental, and economic)
• Why participant continues gardening
• Social atmosphere of community gardens
• How a community garden changes a neighborhood
• Drawbacks to community gardening
• Ease of accessing fresh foods in the neighborhood, and how community gardens impact this
• Perceived support by community and city for community gardens
• Perceptions of nonparticipating neighbors of community gardens

creating a healthier city, community gardeners may be
driven by more personal reasons and not see them-
selves as contributing to solving these large-scale
problems. While previous research broadly highlights
the motivations and deterrents to community garden-
ing, understanding what motivates people to garden
or not at the local level is important for identifying
the factors that facilitate or impede community gar-
dening in a specific setting. With this research, we
sought to characterize the motivations of Baltimore’s
community gardeners and to contribute to under-
standing of how to best promote community garden-
ing in urban settings.
To meet this aim, we designed a qualitative study
among community gardeners in Baltimore to under-
stand the benefits of community gardening from their
perspectives, including how the urban environment
influences their experiences. Using in-depth inter-
views and focused group interviews with gardeners,
this study builds upon current social scientific under-
standing of urban community gardening. We also
present Grounded Theory as a useful methodology
for understanding the variety of factors that influence
individual participation and community support of
urban agriculture.
Methods
We conducted in-depth interviews and focused
group interviews between February and May 2011
with active community gardeners residing in Balti-
more City. Our goal was to elicit gardeners’ percep-
tions of the ways in which community gardening
benefits both individual gardeners and the wider
community. Table 1 lists the topics included in the
individual and group interview guides. Our purpose
in conducting in-depth interviews was to delve into
the lived experience of individual gardeners. By con-
ducting focused group interviews, we aimed to assess
areas of consensus and divergence among community
gardeners from different gardens, as well as to
enhance the credibility of our findings through
method triangulation (specifically, triangulation by
data source—with data collected from different
persons—and through the use of two interview
formats).
Grounded Theory Methodology
To explore how gardeners spontaneously
described the benefits of participating in community
gardening, we applied Grounded Theory methodol-
ogy in our study. Grounded Theory is a research
methodology in which qualitative data are collected
and analyzed in such a way as to construct a theory
that is “grounded” in the data (Charmaz 2006). A
general set of principles guides the data collection and
analysis so that the results are not only descriptive,
but also form the foundation of the theory (Creswell
2007). Though we were aware of some of the reasons
that policy makers support community gardening,
this methodology allowed us to formulate a theory
that characterizes the data—in this case, to help build

Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment 71 Vol. 36, No. 2 December 2014
a conceptual framework of factors that affect partici-
pation in community gardening.
Charmaz built upon the initial conceptualization
of Grounded Theory put forth by Glaser and Strauss
in the 1960s (Glaser and Strauss 1967), adding her
own constructivist point of view to the methodology.
Based on her approach, the key steps to conducting a
Grounded Theory study include simultaneous
involvement in data collection and analysis; con-
structing analytic codes from data rather than from
pre-existing hypotheses; using a constant comparative
method during analysis; advancing theory during
each step of data collection and analysis; memo
writing to elaborate on concepts and identify gaps in
the research; sampling aimed toward theory construc-
tion rather than population representativeness; and
conducting the literature review after completing an
independent analysis (Charmaz 2006).
Participant Recruitment
The Johns Hopkins University Center for a
Livable Future provided a list of over 100 community
gardens in Baltimore City. We initially selected ten
food-producing gardens representing neighborhoods
of varying income levels and racial demographics in
Baltimore from which to recruit study participants; an
additional three gardens were later included to
increase our recruitment pool. We contacted garden
managers and primary garden contacts, explained the
purpose of the study and eligibility criteria, and asked
them to provide contact information for potential
participants. Adults who had participated in commu-
nity gardening for at least one season and who had
resided in Baltimore for at least three years were
eligible to participate. While we did not provide
monetary incentives, we gave interviewees seed
packets to show our appreciation for their participa-
tion, and we provided snacks during the group inter-
views. Study participants provided verbal informed
consent prior to participating in the study.
Interviewees represented 13 gardens in Baltimore
City and had gardening experience ranging from a
single season to decades. The gardeners in our study
represented a broad range of ages, from the early
twenties to late seventies. Of the 28 participants, 19
were female, 23 were white, and five were black.
Data Collection Procedures
We conducted individual interviews with 17 com-
munity gardeners. We continued to recruit partici-
Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment
pants for interviews until the study team determined
that new themes were no longer emerging from inter-
views, at which point the data were considered satu-
rated. Interviews were semi-structured following
prompts in our interview guide; however, participants
were permitted to lead the conversation. Given the
iterative nature of our Grounded Theory methodol-
ogy, we made gradual changes to our interview
guide, refining research questions and adding
prompts that helped elicit feedback on a range of
benefits. Interviews took place in a location of the
interviewee’s choosing, frequently the gardener’s
home or community garden, and lasted 40–60
minutes.
In addition, we held two focused group inter-
views (Schensul et al. 1999) comprised of six and five
participants for a total of 11 participants. Group inter-
views lasted an average of 85 minutes. Interviews
were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim by
the interviewers; transcriptions were supplemented
with non-verbal-cue notes taken by the interviewer or
note-taker. We pooled data from the individual and
group interviews (total participants = 28) to generate
the final dataset.
Analysis
Our approach to data analysis was similarly
iterative. Following Grounded Theory methodology,
we began data analysis after completion of the first
interviews. To derive our emergent codes, members
of the research team read each transcript to become
familiar with the content and wrote detailed memos
capturing the major themes from the interview. After
discussing themes that had emerged from the
memos and categorizing them into code groups, the
research team selected several passages of interview
transcripts for initial, line-by-line coding, adopting
terminology used by participants as potential codes.
After comparing the code groups elicited through
memos and the initial codes, all members of the
research team worked together to develop a
codebook grounded in the data. The codebook was
organized by broader axial codes and sub-codes.
Using Atlas/ti version 6.0 (Muhr 2011) each tran-
script was coded by a team member who did not
conduct the interview; the coding of each transcript
was then verified by the interviewer to ensure con-
gruence based on their insider knowledge of the
interview and respondent.
72 Vol. 36, No. 2 December 2014
 After coding was complete, we worked with each
code to organize participants’ statements into clusters
of themes. Among these clusters, we identified key
themes by examining concepts that were ubiquitous
across interviews or that highlighted areas of conver-
gence or divergence across participants. Memo
writing was used to summarize the patterns that were
identified through coding. Through this iterative
process we began to develop our conceptualization of
the benefits of community gardening, framing our
results using a hierarchy of individual, interpersonal,
and community-level benefits that naturally emerged
from our data during development of the codebook.
Results
Creating an Urban Oasis
Gardeners in this study discussed the benefits
they gain from community gardening, and while they
Figure 1.
Conceptual framework for how community gardens create urban oases.
Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment
were also queried about potential drawbacks, few
were mentioned. The findings we present demon-
strate how community gardens improve the urban
environment by creating an urban sanctuary that ben-
efits individuals, neighborhoods, and the larger com-
munity. The term “oasis” arose in several interviews
with gardeners. We build on this term to tie together
our conceptualization of how community gardens
revitalize the urban environment. “Oasis” can refer to
either “a fertile or green area in an arid region,” or
“something that provides refuge, relief, or pleasant
contrast” (Merriam-Webster 2011), encompassing both
the juxtaposition of verdant plots surrounded by con-
crete and also the sense of community that is created
by these spaces. Thus, the idea of “creating an urban
oasis” forms the centerpiece of our conceptual frame-
work. Figure 1 represents our emergent theory,
illustrating the three main themes and eight sub-
categories that arose from our analysis and support-
ing the idea of community gardens creating urban
73 Vol. 36, No. 2 December 2014
oases. These categories are discussed in detail below.
The few drawbacks discussed by gardeners are inter-
woven throughout the results as they apply to par-
ticular categories.
A Personal Place to Thrive
From gardeners’ accounts, community gardens
provide direct personal benefits by creating a space
where gardeners thrive physically, psychologically,
and socially.
Enhancing bodily health
Gardeners reported that participation in commu-
nity gardening directly enhances physical health and
nutrition, frequently speaking of the reward of
growing high-quality, fresh food. Most gardeners took
pride in the taste and freshness of the food they grow.
Several gardeners also mentioned the satisfaction of
knowing “What’s going in our vegetables,” reflecting
a distrust in conventional, store-bought produce. One
participant noted, “. . . what you put in your body
makes your body. So it just feels so much better to be
eating things that feel alive because it makes you feel
alive.” Gardeners also said participation in commu-
nity gardening increased the amount of vegetables
they ate, particularly during the summer months.
Gardening also provides exercise for some of the
gardeners, being something “you can do at your own
pace, whatever your age.” This seemed to be particu-
larly important for some of the older gardeners. For
example, one gardener in his seventies stated, “. . . it
helps you keep yourself loose, moving. You got to
work the rows and plants . . . That’s exercise right
there itself.”
Cultivating psychological well-being
Beyond the physical benefits associated with gar-
dening, participation appears to fulfill a more primal
need:
I think that [gardeners] have a need to experience
things on a variety of levels—you know, like taste,
smell, touch. And they really enjoy that experi-
ence of putting the seed in the ground, and then
something goes on your table.
The cultivation of psychological well-being was a
theme that strongly emerged from most of our inter-
views. Many gardeners found inherent joy in garden-
ing and connecting with nature. For some, spending
Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment
time in their gardens is like a “vacation” from the
asphalt dominating city life. Many people—including
non-gardeners—appreciate the beauty of the gardens:
one gardener described how a neighbor with limited
mobility found great joy in watching the garden from
her window. Gardeners themselves were awed by
seeing plants grow:
. . . it’s fun to come back . . . into the garden and
be shocked at something so huge . . . it takes your
breath away. Like almost screaming, “You have
this foot long zucchini!” all of the sudden.
For some, appreciating the natural beauty of
gardens nurtures a sense of spirituality that ties them
to the earth. One gardener explained how she views
gardening as a way to exercise spiritual practices such
as “patience, exertion, discipline, love, and humble-
ness.” She also sees gardening as a way to connect with
the natural rhythm of the earth by modeling one’s
activities around the seasonal activities of the garden:
. . . we need to reflect [on] those activities in our
lives as the seasons change. . . . Like don’t run
around like a chicken with its head cut off in the
wintertime! That is the time to be at home and eat
soup, and nourish yourself by being quiet. . . .
And in the summer, that is the time to . . . be
playful and . . . have lots of parties so you can
feed people gazpacho because you have way too
many tomatoes to eat by yourself.
Similarly, one long-time gardener explained that
gardening holds a meditative quality for him, stating
that he would go to the garden, “say a prayer and sit
down sometimes and just melt away.”
Much of the personal joy in gardening seemed to
arise from the sense of pride and accomplishment that
gardeners achieve from growing food. For a few
gardeners, being recognized in an annual citywide
gardening competition brings a sense of accomplish-
ment, while newer gardeners expressed pride in
simply watching their efforts turn into something
edible. The joy of growing food also emerged as
gardeners described being able to give food away, and
in doing so, connect with their neighbors. Gardeners
also talked about the enjoyment associated with learn-
ing new things about food and the growing process:
It opens you up to different ways of eating the
same food. And for some people, they try food
74 Vol. 36, No. 2 December 2014
 that they never had in their lives. And so, it’s kind
of like a mind-opening, pantry-opening type of
experience.
Many participants discussed ways they learned
from or taught others in the garden, sharing tips for
pest control, exchanging recipes, and demonstrating
planting techniques.
Though gardeners expressed many benefits to
community gardening, some viewed the hard work
and commitment of gardening as a reason why
people may choose not to participate:
Cause it’s so much work that unless . . . you’re
enjoying the food and [find] weeding meditative,
and like the community aspect of it, and didn’t
mind the bugs, and the dirt and all of that, I don’t
think you would do it.
In a similar vein, one garden manager noted that
many people join the garden at the start of the season,
but then gradually disappear as the season pro-
gresses, not realizing the time commitment required.
Also, getting one’s hands dirty is literally part of the
gardening process, which gardeners admitted not
everyone enjoys. Working in the summer heat and
humidity was also cited as a drawback. Some respon-
dents also reported safety concerns in the garden,
particularly after dark. Though many gardeners
expressed confidence in the quality of the food they
grow, some raised concerns about soil quality and the
potential presence of heavy metals in reclaimed city
lots.
Constructing Community
In speaking with community gardeners in Balti-
more, we discovered that their gardens are not simply
plots of land on which to grow vegetables, but spaces
where communities are constructed. Community
gardens build “a sense of unity” in a neighborhood by
breaking down social barriers to bring people
together, strengthening social bonds, and connecting
gardeners with the greater community.
Breaking down social barriers
As one garden manager noted, community
gardens bring together a diverse set of people:
I have people that are really not proficient at
reading and writing and I have to fill out their
Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment
contract for them. . . . And then I have people who
are PhDs. . . . And they all seem to be able to
communicate on that gardening level.
In this way, gardens connect neighbors who
might not otherwise meet. One gardener admitted,
“I’ve definitely met neighbors and people at the
garden that I know I never would have spoken to
otherwise.” Gardeners acknowledged that the
gardens help break down social barriers and at times,
overcome stereotypes. It also provides gardeners with
a sense of safety. One gardener spoke at length about
how the community garden helps keep the neighbor-
hood safe by connecting her to other neighbors who
garden.
Building social bonds
Community gardens are places where friends are
made and social bonds built. For example, commu-
nity gardening was the way one gardener made
friends after moving to a new neighborhood. A few
gardeners felt that community gardens are particu-
larly important for providing camaraderie for those
who may be socially isolated, such as retirees, because
it provides them a way to interact with others. And
while not all gardeners had formed friendships in the
gardens, most felt gardening was a good way to get
to know others. The gardens also appeared to increase
social capital in neighborhoods, as demonstrated by a
high degree of reciprocity among gardeners, which,
for some, goes beyond the garden itself.
Gardeners frequently mentioned sharing every-
thing from food to gardening tips to tools, creating a
connection between garden members:
I’m not exactly sure what to grow, when to grow
it, how many inches apart it needs to be. But
that’s the best part about being part of this com-
munity garden, is that there’s people here who
know all that stuff.
Gardeners appeared eager to share advice and
problem-solve with each other about such things as
how to prevent blight, get rid of pests, and fertilize
plants. They also learn about new types of food from
each other, and often share produce or seeds to let
others try something new.
In addition, gardeners reported sharing responsi-
bility and frequently relying on each other to water
their plants when “things come up.” The sense of
reciprocity extended beyond the garden as well:
75 Vol. 36, No. 2 December 2014
 They’re [the other gardeners] people that I rely
on. They help me and I help them . . . it ends up
being not just the garden. We’re helping each
other throughout the year . . . we can depend on
each other.
Both reciprocity and feelings of shared responsi-
bility appeared to be important for maintaining com-
munity gardens, particularly for those where plots are
cultivated collectively. Several gardeners spoke about
the excitement of working together and described the
sense of being part of “something greater.”
Though community gardens appeared to be
strong facilitators of social bonding, a few gardeners
mentioned that divisions can arise. In one instance, a
gardener was asked to leave after stealing an entire
crop of tomatoes, and a lock was installed on the
garden gate. An interview with a gardener at this site
revealed that several gardeners felt conflicted about
restricting access to the community space. There are
also occasional instances of “tense” interactions in
gardens, particularly when some gardeners are per-
ceived to have “difficult social skills” or neglect the
maintenance of their garden plots. In general, official
rules that promote order were seen as helping to
maintain harmony in the garden.
Overall, interviews with gardeners revealed that
working together in a community garden contributes
to gardeners’ sense of fulfillment, and, as one gar-
dener explained, provides an opportunity to act for
the common good:
It’s so easy to just be in this frame of mind of me,
me, me. I think it’s a good challenge for Ameri-
cans to be doing something communal always.
Because we’re so individualistic in this culture.
When you’re in the community garden, it inspires
moments of being conscious [of others].
Connecting with the larger community
The ties that bind community gardeners together
also appear to strengthen bridges between gardeners
and the greater community. For example, members of
different community gardens recounted a sense of
shared pride and collective accomplishment at the
annual citywide community gardening competition
and exposition. Community gardens also seem to
strengthen ties to the wider community, often a dif-
ficult task in urban environments. One gardener
stated, “It just makes me feel tied to Baltimore . . . I
Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment
mean, like I’m not living my own isolated life . . . it
makes me feel more like I belong.”
Reclaiming the City
Gardeners also described how community
gardens facilitate urban reclamation, turning vacant
lots into safe spaces that not only provide a place to
grow food, but also where neighbors can gather.
Cleaning up vacant lots
As gardeners described, many of the community
gardens in Baltimore began as vacant lots and were
considered crime-ridden eyesores. Residents worked
together to transform these spaces, clearing the lots of
rubble, overgrown weeds, trash, and drugs. Garden-
ers stated that through this transformation, commu-
nity gardens make their neighborhoods feel safer and
more stable. “When you have a place that’s tended,
it’s like leaving traces of the fact that people care, and
that does a lot to push out negative uses.”
Gardens were also seen as providing “an oasis in
a sea of pavement” that is appreciated by the wider
neighborhood. Demonstrating the appeal of gardens
from the other side of the sidewalk, several gardeners
mentioned that community members often stop to ask
what they are growing or to tell them that they are
“doing great work.” Several of the gardeners we
spoke with stated that they were changing the city for
the better, and saw the abundance of vacant lots as
opportunities for greater community engagement and
neighborhood improvement. One gardener declared,
“I just think that without these gardens . . . you’re not
going to keep cities alive. It’s the best hope.”
Creating communal space
Some communities also appear to benefit from the
shared space, as it is put to use for neighborhood
gatherings. Gardeners mentioned numerous commu-
nity activities that occur in the gardens, including
health fairs, school activities, and barbecues, all pro-
viding opportunities for community involvement. “In
the community we had a potluck, cookouts, activities
for the elementary school next door . . . and every-
body has been able to share in the green space.”
Some gardeners feared the loss of these commu-
nity assets, as most community gardens hold only
temporary licenses for the land. Tenure rights were
perceived to be insecure in several of the gardens we
sampled. Gardeners cited past examples of develop-
ers attempting to repossess the land, which had been
76 Vol. 36, No. 2 December 2014
made more desirable due to the gardens. A few
community gardens had already undergone a process
of securing tenure over the land by way of a
community-based land trust.
Most gardeners acknowledged that the city is
generally supportive of community gardening,
although issues with water access were brought up
repeatedly. One gardener expressed how helpful it
was for their garden to gain access to the city water
supply, “For about two years, I have a plastic barrel
. . . I don’t live far from the garden, but I would fill it
up much as I can [shakes head]. I was so glad when we
got that water.”
Changing the food environment
Community gardens also appear to revitalize the
city by changing the food environment. Our partici-
pants seemed highly attuned to issues of cost and
transportation that limit the quality of food available
to the city’s disadvantaged:
I know people don’t have choices. People have
farmers’ markets, but it’s expensive. . . . You’re
not going to buy food there on a limited income,
and the corner grocery store doesn’t have [healthy
choices]. And there’s no grocery stores in really
poor areas. So unless you can give them access to
them, you really can’t expect them to have fruits
and vegetables.
Community gardens were said to provide an
important source of fresh food for residents living in
areas with scarce access to fresh, healthy options,
particularly those without transportation.
Though the gardeners appreciated the
affordability, convenience, and quality of the food they
grow, few seemed to depend on gardening alone for
fresh produce. As one gardener put it, “I do it because
I like to. It’s not because I’m hungry.” Still, participants
extolled the abundance of food that could be freely
shared with the community. Not only do gardeners eat
their fill, they also take pride in sharing food with
friends, relatives, neighbors, coworkers, churches, and
passersby. As one gardener stated, “I give trash bags of
greens away.” And another said, “. . . whenever
anybody comes in we’re offering them tomatoes or
whatever’s ready to be picked so they can taste it right
off of the vine. . . . There’s just so much stuff.”
As gardeners spoke about cleaning up vacant lots,
creating community space, and changing the food
Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment
environment, it became evident that the community
gardens described by our participants create urban
oases that benefit Baltimore as a city. “It’s a reclaiming
of the city. . . . A recycling. A re-urbanization. A renais-
sance.”
Neighborhoods divided
Despite the many benefits, community support
for gardens is not always immediate. Gardeners spoke
about instances in which community members were
divided in the decision to start a garden. Some
wanted to use the land for other things, such as dog
parks, while others doubted that a community garden
could be successful. Still others associated gardens
with rats.
A few gardeners also spoke about a divide in
garden participation that is often unevenly distrib-
uted along racial lines. For example, one gardener
discussed how most of the community garden par-
ticipants are white, even though the neighborhood is
predominantly black. She said, “I think that creates a
barrier for some people . . . Personally, I would rather
the demographics [of the garden] reflect the demo-
graphics in the neighborhood.” Proposed reasons for
this divide included income disparities that prevent
people from having time to garden, and gardens
being run by white garden managers with few con-
nections to the black community. One white gardener
thought this issue ran deeper, to values, history, and
a daily struggle for survival. Referring broadly to
Baltimore’s black residents, she stated:
. . . they’ve grown up in the midst of concrete and
they don’t have the same kind of aesthetic value
of plants in their lives, plus they have a history
that would go against the idea of doing this kind
of labor . . . the underserved community has an
aversion . . . to the idea of working the soil, and
toiling. [Some] have a hard time in seeing the
value of volunteering, because their life is a daily
struggle to find means to support themselves.
Several gardeners expressed a desire to involve
underserved residents in community gardening. One
gardener spoke at length about how she invested
time engaging community members and building
their trust during the first year the garden was
open, rather than directly asking for their participa-
tion. She felt this led to the garden’s success in her
community.
77 Vol. 36, No. 2 December 2014
Discussion
This study explored the perceived benefits of
community gardening in Baltimore to better under-
stand the variety of factors influencing gardeners’
participation. In addition to providing research on
community gardening in a new setting, our study
demonstrates the utility of using Grounded Theory
methodology to build upon current understandings of
urban agriculture. In particular, using an iterative
approach to sampling, data collection, and analysis
allowed us to collect and analyze qualitative data that
are not only descriptive, but also form the foundation
for a data-driven framework regarding the influence
of the urban environment on gardeners’ perspectives.
Our study of community gardening in Baltimore
led us to conceptualize its benefits along three levels,
all of which serve to revitalize the urban environment
by creating what are, in effect, “urban oases.” At the
individual level, we found that community gardeners
experience direct health benefits from gardening, such
as increased physical activity and eating fresh
produce. Similar physical health benefits have been
described in prior research linking community garden
participation to increased physical activity (Infantino
2004; Kingsley et al. 2009; McCreedy and Leslie 2009;
Wakefield et al. 2007) and greater consumption of
fruits and vegetables (Alaimo et al. 2008; Brown and
Jameton 2000; Corrigan 2011; Flanigan and Varma
2006; Litt et al. 2011; Wakefield et al. 2007).
Within the theme of creating “a personal place to
thrive,” the psychological benefits of community gar-
dening appeared to be most salient among our
research participants. As seen in past research (Farr
2007; Infantino 2004; Kaplan 1973; Wakefield et al.
2007), pride, a sense of accomplishment, shared learn-
ing experiences, and a connection with nature were
significant aspects of many interviews.
At the interpersonal level, participants revealed
how gardening helps forge social bonds within a
neighborhood and fosters a sense of connection to the
greater community. Prior studies similarly show how
community gardening offers social support and can
reduce social isolation among older gardeners
(Kingsley et al. 2009; Milligan et al. 2004). Participa-
tion in community gardening has also been linked to
feelings of neighborhood attachment and community
cohesion, helping to build neighborhood social capital
(Alaimo et al. 2010; Comstock et al. 2010; Glover et al.
2005; Kingsley et al. 2009; Saldivar-Tanaka and Krasny
Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment
2004; Schmelzkopf 1995; Teig et al. 2009; Wakefield
et al. 2007). Similarly, a strong theme that emerged
from our study was that community gardening helps
to construct a community that is eager to work
together, help each other, and contribute to “some-
thing greater.”
Finally, at the community level, we found that
participants see community gardens as serving a
larger purpose in the urban landscape. They not only
provide a safe refuge from the concrete of the urban
environment, but are also a tool by which to reclaim
urban space by beautifying and revitalizing neighbor-
hoods, improving safety, and changing the food envi-
ronment. This affirms related research on green spaces
that suggests they enhance the appearance of neigh-
borhoods (Kingsley et al. 2009), reduce crime and
safety concerns (Kuo and Sullivan 2001), and revital-
ize neighborhoods (Gorham et al. 2009).
Our results support much of the prior literature on
community gardening. In addition to the works cited
above, our findings align well with the results of a
review conducted by Draper and Freedman (2010) of
55 studies regarding the benefits, purposes, and moti-
vations for community gardens, highlighting 11 key
themes. Our findings touch upon many of these
themes, including health benefits, use and preserva-
tion of open space, crime prevention, neighborhood
beautification, and community empowerment. In
addition, more recent qualitative research on commu-
nity gardening has shown that community gardening
helps to shape values, personal identity, and fosters a
sense of collective activism (Flachs 2010). It also
encourages greater engagement with living things and
appreciation for “natural processes” (Hale et al. 2011),
findings that are further supported by our results.
Finally, our study reinforces findings by Birky and
Strom (2013) that modern community gardeners have
diverse motivations for participating beyond previous
gardening eras’ concerns about food security.
Nurturing Urban Oases
The conceptual model stemming from our
research may be useful in studying and promoting
community gardening in that it provides greater
understanding of the benefits gardeners perceive as a
result of participation. Whether an individual chooses
to garden because it provides a sense of connection to
the earth, allows for the formation of new friendships,
or provides a way to beautify a neighborhood, the
gardener is altering the urban environment into some-
78 Vol. 36, No. 2 December 2014
thing more fertile and green that provides refuge from
the concrete and decay of the city. Given the recent
movement toward urban agriculture in cities across
the United States, we set out to understand the factors
that motivate individuals to participate in community
gardening. We found that in most cases, our partici-
pants experience a range of benefits from their com-
munity gardens, and it is the combination of these
factors that make gardens valued community spaces.
Future efforts to promote participation in community
gardening should emphasize the full range of indi-
vidual, social, and community-level benefits that may
be possible.
In addition, although participants in our study
cited few drawbacks to community gardening, efforts
should be made to address any barriers to participa-
tion. While aspects of community gardening such as
the summer heat, the necessity of getting one’s hands
dirty, and the social challenges of working in a shared
space are unavoidable, other concerns can be readily
addressed. For example, increased police presence
around gardens or the use of motion-detection lights
could help ensure that gardeners feel safe while gar-
dening in the evenings or early mornings. Concerns
about potential soil contamination can be alleviated
through guidance on soil testing, remediation, and
safe gardening practices (Kim et al. 2014). Municipal
governments can demonstrate their support for com-
munity gardens by providing them access to a con-
venient water source, as is already occurring in
Baltimore, as well as by granting long-term leases to
groups that demonstrate a commitment to maintain-
ing their garden over time.
From the perspective of the city of Baltimore and
some local organizations, the benefits of community
gardening are those that affect the city on a large
scale—including productively using vacant land and
helping to alleviate food deserts. With our research,
we hoped to learn whether these considerations play
a dominant role in gardeners’ view of community
gardening. Our findings show that gardeners do, in
fact, perceive benefits beyond the direct impact on
their individual lives to consider how gardens
improve the neighborhood and city. Similar to the
city’s motivation in promoting community garden-
ing, participants said greening vacant lots was an
important benefit, although they seemed more
attuned to improvements at the immediate neighbor-
hood level than to an overarching strategy for urban
renewal. Therefore, efforts to promote community
Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment
gardening should emphasize its potential impacts on
individual neighborhoods, along with direct benefits
to individuals.
Although community gardens have the potential
to increase food security among urban residents
(Alaimo et al. 2008; Brown and Jameton 2000;
Corrigan 2011; Flanigan and Varma 2006; Wakefield
et al. 2007), Birky and Strom (2013) argue that food
insecurity does not explain the recent proliferation of
community gardens. Indeed, this benefit was not an
emergent theme discussed by our study participants.
Greater emphasis was given to the quality of food
grown and the importance of connecting with the
process of growing, cooking, and eating garden
produce. Some gardeners were aware of the potential
of community gardens to increase access to healthy
foods, alleviating the problem of food deserts, but
none provided this as a reason why they choose to
garden. Although we recruited participants from a
diversity of neighborhoods in terms of income level, it
is possible that individuals who have the time and
resources to garden are not those who face the great-
est barriers in accessing food. Still, discussions of the
abundance of produce grown in community gardens
and the joy in sharing the food with others, along
with the appeal of eating fresh food with known
inputs, may reflect a desire to contribute to the local
food system.
This study has a number of limitations. While
potentially transferable to other urban settings, the
environmental context is certain to have influenced
our study results and may limit the applicability of
our findings to other cities. Specifically, Baltimore’s
population decreased by one-third since its peak in
the 1950s—the fourth largest population loss among
U.S. cities (Cohen 2001)—resulting in numerous
vacant properties and degraded neighborhoods. Our
study results may also be limited by the sample of
gardeners. Although the gardens included in our
study represent a range of neighborhoods and reflect
a variety of urban demographics, study participants
discussed how membership composition of commu-
nity gardens did not always reflect the demographics
of the neighborhood. Our sample of 28 gardeners
included only five black participants (18 percent) in a
city that is 63 percent black (U.S. Census Bureau
2010), and so the views of white gardeners may be
over-represented. However, in a study of interracial
interactions in community gardens, Shinew et al.
(2004) found that the perceived motivation and ben-
79 Vol. 36, No. 2 December 2014
efits received from community gardening varied little
by race and that participants perceived community
gardening to bring diverse groups of people together.
Issues underlying nonparticipation may have more to
do with income or a lack of experience with or
interest in gardening than race. Further research
might target non-gardeners in neighborhoods with
community gardens to examine their attitudes toward
garden participation. In addition, the types of gardens
included in the study may have influenced our
results. While our study included both gardens that
are cultivated individually and collectively, their
primary purpose was to provide gardening space to
individuals, as opposed to socially oriented purposes
such as growing food for donation or educating
children.
Questions also remain as to how to encourage the
creation of new gardens. One strategy to increase
interest in community gardening is to capitalize on
the passion of current community gardeners, which
we witnessed first-hand through our interviews. If
provided the appropriate outlet—such as a commu-
nity picnic in the garden or demonstrations at schools
or churches—these gardeners would be the ideal
spokespeople to tout the benefits of eating and
growing fresh produce, and ultimately promote com-
munity gardening.
Conclusions
For such a simple thing—a small plot of land
where gardeners grow food together—community
gardens are a surprisingly strong force for positive
change, particularly in cities struggling with urban
decay and an unhealthy food environment. Commu-
nity gardening is one avenue toward revitalizing
urban environments and provides a way of address-
ing multi-faceted urban problems ranging from
limited food access to safety and community cohe-
sion. In addition, community gardens nurture indi-
viduals’ physical and psychological well-being, foster
community activities, and repurpose degraded urban
lots. Cities like Baltimore have much to gain by pro-
moting involvement in community gardening and
supporting the maintenance and expansion of com-
munity gardening networks. To be most effective,
promotional efforts can emphasize the range of ben-
efits perceived by gardeners. Our conceptual frame-
work identifies key motivations for gardening at the
individual, social, and community level. Fostering
Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment
this growing movement toward community-driven
urban development provides a model for turning
food deserts into flourishing oases that are rich in
physical, psychological, and relational resources.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Amanda Behrens, Jamie
Harding, and Anne Palmer at the Johns Hopkins
University Center for a Livable Future.
Note
1. For this assessment, a food desert was defined as “an
area where the distance to a supermarket is more than ¼
mile, the median household income is at or below 185
percent of the Federal Poverty Level, over 40 percent of
households have no vehicle available, and the average
Healthy Food Availability Index score for supermarkets,
convenience and corner stores is low (measured using
the Nutrition Environment Measurement Survey).”
References Cited
Accordino, John, and Gary T. Johnson 2000 Addressing the
Vacant and Abandoned Property Problem. Journal of
Urban Affairs 22(3):301–315.
Alaimo, Katherine, Elizabeth Packnett, Richard A. Miles,
and Daniel J. Kruger 2008 Fruit and Vegetable Intake
among Urban Community Gardeners. Journal of Nutri-
tion Education and Behavior 40(2):94–101.
Alaimo, Katherine, Thomas M. Reischl, and Julie O. Allen
2010 Community Gardening, Neighborhood Meetings,
and Social Capital. Journal of Community Psychology
38(4):497–514.
American Community Gardening Association 2011
Frequenty Asked Questions. Columbus, OH: American
Community Gardening Association.
Austin, Elizabeth N., Yvonne A.M. Johnston, and Lindsay
Lake Morgan 2006 Community Gardening in a Senior
Center: A Therapeutic Intervention to Improve the Health
of Older Adults. Therapeutic Recreation Journal 40:48–56.
Baltimore City Department of Planning 2012 Food Deserts,
Vol. 2012. Baltimore, MD: City of Baltimore.
Baltimore Office of Sustainability 2009 The Baltimore
Sustainability Plan. Baltimore, MD: Baltimore Office of
Sustainability.
——— 2012 Cleanliness: Vacant Lots. Baltimore, MD: Balti-
more Office of Sustainability.
80 Vol. 36, No. 2 December 2014
Birky, Joshua, and Elizabeth Strom 2013 Urban Perennials:
How Diversification Has Created a Sustainable Commu-
nity Garden Movement in the United States. Urban Geog-
raphy 34:1193–1216.
Brown, Kate H., and Andrew L. Jameton 2000 Public Health
Implications of Urban Agriculture. Journal of Public
Health Policy 21(1):20–39.
Charmaz, Kathy 2006 Constructing Grounded Theory: A
Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. London:
Sage Publications.
Cohen, James R. 2001 Abandoned Housing: Exploring
Lessons from Baltimore. Housing Policy Debate 12(3):415–
448.
Comstock, Nicole, L. Miriam Dickinson, Julie A. Marshall,
Mah-J. Soobader, Mark S. Turbin, Michael Buchenau, and
Jill S. Litt 2010 Neighborhood Attachment and Its Corre-
lates: Exploring Neighborhood Conditions, Collective
Efficacy, and Gardening. Journal of Environmental Psy-
chology 30:435–442.
Corrigan, Michelle P. 2011 Growing What You Eat: Devel-
oping Community Gardens in Baltimore, Maryland.
Applied Geography 31(4):1232–1241.
Creswell, J. W. 2007 Qualitative Inquiry and Research
Design: Choosing among Five Approaches. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Draper, Carrie, and Darcy Freedman 2010 Review and
Analysis of the Benefits, Purposes, and Motivations Asso-
ciated with Community Gardening in the United States.
Journal of Community Practice 18(4):458–492.
Farr, Douglas 2007 Sustainable Urbanism: Urban Design
with Nature. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Flachs, Andrew 2010 Food for Thought: The Social Impact
of Community Gardens in the Greater Cleveland Area.
Electronic Green Journal 1(30). https://escholarship.org/
uc/item/6bh7j4z4, accessed September 25, 2014.
Flanigan, Shawn, and Roli Varma 2006 Promoting
Community Gardening to Low-Income Urban Partici-
pants in the Women, Infants and Children Programme
(WIC) in New Mexico. Community, Work & Family
9(1):69–74.
Franco, Manuel, Arijit Nandi, Thomas Glass, and Ana
Diez-Roux 2007 Smoke before Food: A Tale of Baltimore
City. American Journal of Public Health 97(7):1178.
Franco, Manuel, Ana Diez-Roux, Thomas Glass, Benjamín
Caballero, and Frederick L. Brancati 2008 Neighborhood
Characteristics and Availability of Healthy Foods in Bal-
timore. American Journal of Preventive Medicine
35(6):561–567.
Gittelsohn, Joel, Maria C.T. Franceschini, Irit R. Rasooly,
Amy V. Ries, Lara S. Ho, Wendy Pavlovich, Valerie T.
Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment
Santos, Sharla M. Jennings, and Kevin D. Frick 2007
Understanding the Food Environment in a Low-Income
Urban Setting: Implications for Food Store Interventions.
Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition 2(2/3):33–
50.
Glaser, Barney G., and Anselm L. Strauss 1967 The Discov-
ery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative
Research. Chicago: Aldine Pub. Co.
Glover, Troy, Diana Parry, and Kimberly Shinew 2005
Building Relationships, Accessing Resources: Mobilizing
Social Capital in Community Garden Contexts. Journal of
Leisure Research 37(4):450–474.
Gorham, M. R., T.M. Waliczek, A. Snelgrove, and J.M.
Zajicek 2009 The Impact of Community Gardens on
Numbers of Property Crimes in Urban Houston.
HortTechnology 19(2):291–296.
Graham, H., and S. Zidenberg-Cherr 2005 California Teach-
ers Perceive School Gardens as an Effective Nutrition Tool
to Promote Healthful Eating Habits. Journal of the Ameri-
can Dietetic Association 105:1797–1800.
Hale, James, Corrine Knapp, Lisa Bardwell, Michael
Buchenau, Julie Marshall, Fahriye Sancar, and Jill S. Litt
2011 Connecting Food Environments and Health through
the Relational Nature of Aesthetics: Gaining Insight
through the Community Gardening Experience. Social
Science & Medicine 72(11):1853–1863.
Henderson, Bethany R., and Kimberly Hartsfield 2009 Is
Getting into the Community Garden Business a Good
Way to Engage Citizens in Local Government? National
Civic Review 98:12–17.
Infantino, Mary T. 2004 Gardening: A Strategy for Health
Promotion in Older Women. Journal of the New York
State Nurses Association 35(2):10–17.
Kaplan, Rachel 1973 Some Psychological Benefits of Gar-
dening. Environment and Behavior 5(2):145–162.
Kim, Brent F., Melissa N. Poulsen, Jared D. Margulies, Katie
L. Dix, Anne M. Palmer, and Keeve E. Nachman 2014
Urban Community Gardeners’ Knowledge and Percep-
tions of Soil Contaminant Risks. PLoS ONE 9(2):e87913.
Kingsley, Jonathan, Mardie Townsend, and Claire
Henderson-Wilson 2009 Cultivating Health and Wellbe-
ing: Members’ Perceptions of the Health Benefits of a Port
Melbourne Community Garden. Leisure Studies 28(2):
207–219.
Kuo, Francis E., and William C. Sullivan 2001 Environment
and Crime in the Inner City: Does Vegetation Reduce
Crime? Environment and Behavior 33(3):343–367.
Lawson, Laura. 2007 Cultural Geographies in Practice: The
South Central Farm: Dilemmas in Practicing the Public.
Cultural Geographies 14:611–616.
81 Vol. 36, No. 2 December 2014
Lawson, Laura J. 2005 City Bountiful: A Century of Com-
munity Gardening in America. Berkeley and Los Angeles,
CA: University of California Press.
Litt, Jill S., Mah-J. Soobader, Mark S. Turbin, James W. Hale,
Michael Buchenau, and Julie A. Marshall 2011 The Influ-
ence of Social Involvement, Neighborhood Aesthetics,
and Community Garden Participation on Fruit and Veg-
etable Consumption. American Journal of Public Health
101(8):1466–1473.
Lovell, Sarah Taylor 2010 Multifunctional Urban Agriculture
for Sustainable Land Use Planning in the United States.
Sustainability 2:2499–2522.
McCreedy, Malisa, and Jill G. Leslie 2009 Get Active
Orlando: Changing the Built Environment to Increase
Physical Activity. American Journal of Preventive Medi-
cine 37(6 Suppl. 2):S395–S402.
McCullum, Christine, Ellen Desjardins, Vivica I. Kraak,
Patricia Ladipo, and Helen Costello 2005 Evidence-Based
Strategies to Build Community Food Security. Journal of
the American Dietetic Association 105(2):278–283.
Merriam-Webster 2011 Merriam Webster Dictionary. Spring-
field, MA: Encyclopedia Britannica Company, Inc.
Milligan, Christine, Anthony Gatrell, and Amanda Bingley
2004 “Cultivating Health”: Therapeutic Landscapes and
Older People in Northern England. Social Science &
Medicine 58(9):1781–1793.
Muhr, Thomas 2011 ATLAS.TI: Scientific Software
Development.
Okvat, Heather A., and Alex J. Zautra 2011 Community
Gardening: A Parsimonious Path to Individual, Commu-
nity, and Environmental Resilience. American Journal of
Community Psychology 47(3–4):374–387.
Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment
Poston, Suzanne A., Candice A. Shoemaker, and David A.
Dzewaltowski 2005 A Comparison of a Gardening and
Nutrition Program with a Standard Nutrition Program in
an Out-of-School Setting. HortTechnology 15:463–467.
Saldivar-Tanaka, Laura, and Marianne Krasny 2004 Cultur-
ing Community Development, Neighborhood Open
Space, and Civic Agriculture: The Case of Latino Com-
munity Gardens in New York City. Agriculture and
Human Values 21:399–412.
Schensul, Jean J., Margaret D. LeCompte, Bonnie K. Nastasi,
and Stephen P. Borgatti 1999 Enhanced Ethnographic
Methods: Audiovisual Techniques, Focused Group Inter-
views, and Elicitation. Lanham, MD: Altamira Press.
Schmelzkopf, Karen 1995 Urban Community Gardens as
Contested Space. Geographical Review 85(3):364–381.
Shinew, Kimberly J., Troy D. Glover, and Diana C. Parry
2004 Leisure Spaces as Potential Sites for Interracial Inter-
action: Community Gardens in Urban Areas. Journal of
Leisure Research 36(3):336–355.
Teig, Ellen, Joy Amulya, Lisa Bardwell, Michael Buchenau,
Julie A. Marshall, and Jill S. Litt 2009 Collective Efficacy
in Denver, Colorado: Strengthening Neighborhoods and
Health through Community Gardens. Health and Place
15(4):1115–1122.
U.S. Census Bureau 2010 State & County QuickFacts: Bal-
timore City, Maryland.
Wakefield, Sarah, Fiona Yeudall, Carolin Taron, Jennifer
Reynolds, and Ana Skinner 2007 Growing Urban Health:
Community Gardening in South-East Toronto. Health
Promotion International 22(2):92–101.
82 Vol. 36, No. 2 December 2014
Copyright of Culture, Agriculture, Food & Environment is the property of Wiley-Blackwell
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.