Urban Ecosystems

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-019-00921-2

Home gardening practice in Pune (India), the role of communities,

urban environment and the contribution to urban sustainability
Ingo Zasada 1 & Meike Weltin 1 & Felix Zoll 1 & Siddhartha Lawrence Benninger 2

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020

Abstract
Urban agriculture (UA) is regarded as an emerging tool and strategy for sustainable urban development as it addresses a wide
array of environmental, economic and social objectives. Home gardening represents a common form of UA in the close living
environments of urban dwellers that can be particularly important for rapidly growing cities and metropolitan regions in
developing and transitional countries. However, a structured conceptual analysis of different urban sustainability benefits,
including its operationalisation, is lacking. We therefore investigated whether and to which extent home gardening practices in
urban residential environments contribute to urban sustainability. In detail, we analysed the contribution of prevailing cultivation
practices, socio-economic situations, motivation, knowledge and networking of individual household and external framework
conditions to the environmental, economic and socio-cultural dimensions of urban sustainability. Between January and
May 2014, we conducted a questionnaire survey among 111 gardeners in residential neighbourhoods of Pune (India) and applied
an analytical framework using composite indicators with index values to the compiled data. Our main results showed that
sustainability benefits can be expected especially in environmental and socio-cultural aspects, particularly for urban biodiversity
conservation and aesthetic green urban spaces, and less expected in economic contributions and food production. Gardening
practice and sustainability contribution is rather determined by the motivation and socio-demographic factors of the gardener than
type and size of the garden. We conclude that conserving and building home gardens can contribute to urban sustainability and
should therefore be considered in the planning, design and management of urban spaces.

Keywords Urban agriculture . Home gardens . Impact assessment . Urban environment . Sustainability . Questionnaire survey .
Food production . Biodiversity

Introduction developing and transitional countries, there is a need to adapt

to the challenges for sustainable and resilient urban develop-
With the majority of humankind living in urban areas ment (Zhang and Li 2018). These adaptations include the
(UNFPA 2007), especially the rapidly growing cities in enhancement of food security, human health and well-being,
social equality and inclusion, sustainable economic growth
and environmental quality (UN Habitat 2016). To comply
* Ingo Zasada with these challenges, further transformations are needed to
ingo.zasda@zalf.de improve self-reliance for food (Grewal and Grewal 2012) and
reduce the ecological footprint by improving resource effi-
Meike Weltin ciency, shortening food supply chains and closing nutrient
meike.weltin@zalf.de
cycles (Viljoen et al. 2005; Wascher et al. 2015).
Felix Zoll Beyond the commercial farming activities at the peri-urban
felix.zoll@zalf.de fringes (Krikser et al. 2016; Piorr et al. 2018; Zasada 2011),
Siddhartha Lawrence Benninger agriculture and gardening in urban residential areas have been
siddhartha@cdsaindia.org increasingly recognised as promising concepts and elements
1
of urban green infrastructure to address multiple urban sus-
Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research, Eberswalder
tainability and resilience objectives (Dubbeling et al. 2009;
Str. 84, 15374 Müncheberg, Germany
2
Mougeot 2005; Orsini et al. 2013). Depending on the scale,
Centre for Development Study and Activities (CDSA), Pune, India,
intensity and type of food production, there is a strong
Survey No. 58 & 49/4, Bavdhan Khurd, Pune 411021, India

diversity of food production practices in urban areas (Pearson
et al. 2010). Particularly, differences exist between the rudi-
ments of larger economic farming practice and private small-
scale home gardens, which are closely bound to buildings and
dwellings (Cameron et al. 2012). Examples are vertical and
rooftop gardens (Safayet et al. 2017; Specht et al. 2013).
Others are located in close proximity, such as kitchen and
backyards gardens (Calvet-Mir et al. 2012).
Due to their large spatial extent as land use type (Gaston
et al. 2005), it is generally acknowledged that urban agricul-
ture (UA) and particular home or domestic gardens provide a
multitude of benefits for urban sustainability and resilience.
According to Schmutz et al. (2017) economic and private-
purpose UA contribute to a number of sustainability benefits
and outperforms even other types of alternative and short
modes of food supply, Benefits encompass, for example, im-
proved food security, ecosystem services and biodiversity
conservation or community building (Kumar and Nair 2004)
and are depicted as an important part of the green infrastruc-
ture of cities. These gardens are relevant for nutritional self-
sufficiency and access to affordable and fresh food (Glavan
et al. 2018), especially for socially disadvantaged, food-
insecure populations and beyond (Eigenbrod and Gruda
2015; Gerster-Bentaya 2013; Zezza and Tasciotti 2010), im-
proving dietary quality and diversity as well as human health
(Armar-Klemesu 2000; Potutan et al. 2000). Draper and
Freedman (2010) and (Trendov 2018) noted physical and
mental health as well as recreational benefits derived from
the gardening activity itself.
As managed green spaces, home gardens provide multiple
ecosystem service benefits in the close living quarters of urban
dwellers (Gorgolewski et al. 2011). These include micro-
climate regulation, air purification, cooling and the reduction
of heat-island effects as well as the purification of water and
treatment of organic waste (Calvet-Mir et al. 2012; Mohri
et al. 2013; Qiu et al. 2013; Safayet et al. 2017). In comparison
with conventional food, self-provisioning can also lead to de-
creased GHG emissions (Vávra et al. 2018). Constituting a
specific habitat for species and often showing very high plant
species diversity (Das and Das 2005; Jaganmohan et al. 2012),
home gardens are seen as biodiversity hotspots within urban
areas (Galluzzi et al. 2010; Jaganmohan et al. 2012). Others
also highlight aesthetical values and the design and manage-
ment potential for housing neighbourhoods (Litt et al. 2011).
The autonomy over their garden also enables people to crea-
tively design their garden with ornamental plants and elements
as a mean of self-expression (Cameron et al. 2012).
As an environmental movement, home gardening is also
recognised for its strong community orientation (Mok et al.
2014). Gardeners, as local stewards of their living environ-
ment (Andersson et al. 2014), encourage social interaction,
bonding and civic engagement (Shimpo et al. 2019; Sumner
et al. 2010) and can also play an important role in social
Urban Ecosyst
integration, e.g., of minority or migrant groups (Mazumdar
and Mazumdar 2012). Within social networks around the gar-
dening activities, human and social capital is created (Macias
2008). Sharing access and garden products with neighbours
and friends strengthens local relationships and networks
(Mohri et al. 2013). Further, knowledge and management ca-
pacities from socio-cultural memories are established and con-
served, enhancing the resilience of the urban social-ecological
system (Barthel et al. 2010; Leys and Vanclay 2011).
However, the specific potential and contribution of home
gardens, the influence of the urban environment and socio-
demographic characteristics and the motivation of gardeners
requires more attention and study (Cameron et al. 2012).
Conceptual frameworks and analytic approaches such as sus-
tainability impact assessment (see for instance Schmutz et al.
(2017)), which are capable to identify (urban) sustainability
benefits, are lacking or hardly applied to small-scale UA or
even home gardening. Therefore, for our empirical study in
the city of Pune (India), we followed the central research
question, whether and to which extent home gardening prac-
tices in urban residential environments contribute to urban
sustainability. Applying the conceptual framework by
Vásquez-Moreno and Córdova (2013), we distinguished po-
tential contributions to specific types of benefits covering all
three sustainability dimensions. In addition, the influence of
garden types and sizes as well as socio-demographic and mo-
tivation differences of the gardening community on cultiva-
tion practices and urban sustainability are analysed.
Research design and methodology
Case study
The city of Pune (see Fig. 1), located in the western Indian
state of Maharashtra, is one of the fastest-growing cities in the
country and the Asian-Pacific region as a whole. According to
Indian official census data the city’s population was 3.12 mil-
lion in 2011; the United Nations (2018) estimates an increase
to 6.28 million in 2018 and 8.44 million in 2030. Due to its
population growth, developed areas in Pune expanded from
an area coverage of 21% in 1990 to 43% in 2008, mainly at the
expense of farmland and other green areas (Fernandez et al.
2012). In addition, the percentage of impervious surfaces in
already developed areas, such as the inner city, greatly in-
creased (ibid), which is related to the loss of soil functionality
and ability to provide required ecosystem services. Under
these conditions, UA, including home gardens, might become
more relevant as productive green spaces that contribute to
urban sustainability.
Traditionally, agricultural and gardening activities repre-
sent an important element in Pune, taking very different forms
(Behmanesh 2009, 2010), including residual farms in urban
Urban Ecosyst
Fig. 1 City of Pune: spatial location, satellite and photo image
and peri-urban areas, municipal farms and agricultural re-
search institutions. However, within residential environments,
home gardens represent the dominant form of UA. These
micro-scale forms take shape either as terrace and rooftop
gardens (TRGs, Fig. 2a) or as backyard and kitchen gardens
Fig. 2 a Visited terrace garden mainly with fruit trees, such as mango,
chiku and papaya in pots and containers. Photo: Rucha Ghanekar/FLOW.
b Visited kitchen garden next to a house mainly with banana trees and
vegetables, incl. Cauliflower and cabbage, grown in ground soil. Photo:
Asmita Dalvi/FLOW. c On-site demonstration for the composting
(BKGs, Fig. 2b, d) (Behmanesh 2010). BKGs, as the primary
type of small-scale UA, are frequently associated with bunga-
low housing areas. Due to the morphologic structure in some
parts of the city, which consist mainly of bungalows and other
types of detached low-density residential buildings, larger
practice (translation from Marathi language; from above: 1. (wet) waste,
2. vermiculture, 3. dry leaves, 4. coconut husk, 5. gravel, 6. pieces of
brick). Photo: Ingo Zasada. d Visited home garden with fruit trees, incl.
Banana and other edible and non-edible plants. Photo: Rucha Ghanekar/
FLOW

green spaces on private grounds exists, which allows for the
establishment of green productive spaces from BKGs to small
fruit tree orchards. In these cases, food cultivation typically
takes place in the soil of unsealed surfaces, for example, in
vegetable patches.
In contrast, TRGs are directly bound to building structures
and the available spaces on top of houses and on terraces. To a
large extent, this second home gardening type is found in
complexes of dense multi-story housing blocks, which have
been built mainly in the last two decades and are often
characterised by the underproduction of green spaces.
Supported by the frequent construction of flat and accessible
roofs, residents use raised beds and planters to establish small
gardens on these sealed surfaces. It is noteworthy that in Pune,
the home gardening community is well organised with a net-
work of local gardeners’ clubs, which promote the distribution
of knowledge about cultivation practice and exchange of ex-
periences. They are accompanied by research institutions and
private consultancies, which complement the local knowledge
system and improve the professionalisation of gardening prac-
tices. Figure 2c shows a demonstration model for composting
practice at a gardening site in Pune.
Analytical framework
Sustainability has been mainstreamed as a guiding principle in
the urban development debate, which follows an integrative
approach to include environmental, economic and social as-
pects in urban planning and management. The United Nations
Habitat Conferences (HABITAT II & III) established the New
Urban Agenda (UN Habitat 2016), which focuses on the de-
velopment of urban settlements in a sustainable way. The UN
has also included the development of sustainable cities and
communities as one of the Sustainable Development Goals
(SDG 11). Through their multiple benefits, the development
of (productive) urban green spaces, such as home gardens, has
been identified as a key approach to achieve urban sustainabil-
ity (Jennings et al. 2016). This type of urban green space, such
as those classified as “fair”, “beautiful”, “creative”, “green”
city, “diverse” and “community-promoting” cities, is at the
core of a number of urban development visions and para-
digms, which have occurred in the urban sustainability debate
(Vásquez-Moreno and Córdova 2013).
Following these paradigms and making them operational
for analysis, Vásquez-Moreno and Córdova (2013) developed
a consistent theoretical framework, which links potential ben-
efits from UA to urban sustainability objectives. Based on a
literature analysis and stakeholder consultation, the frame-
work links four sustainability dimensions (environmental,
economic, social, and cultural) with a broad coverage of
topics, such as health and nutrition, social equality and justice,
visual quality and diversity of urban green, creativity, ecosys-
tem services, training and skills acquisition or alternative and
Urban Ecosyst
local market development. With this narrower scope on home
garden as a specific UA type, we have adapted this framework
to three sustainability dimensions (environmental, economic,
socio-cultural) and a reduced set of 15 benefit categories (see
Fig. 3).
Operationalising and measuring sustainability
benefits
Based on a literature review and interviews with local experts,
we defined a variable set of 49 indicators to measure the 15
sustainability benefits of the theoretical framework. The liter-
ature review was based on a search conducted on three data-
bases (google scholar, web of science, science direct). As
search terms we used “home garden”, “domestic garden”,
“residential garden”, “urban garden” and “private garden” in
combination with the terms “sustainability” and “practices”.
The articles were then checked and only articles that themat-
ically fit to our topic of home garden practices were selected as
input for the development of our variables. These cover char-
acteristics of the land use and cultivation practice as well as
the linkages to the urban (agricultural and gardening) commu-
nity. The indicators were aggregated in composites
representing the respective benefit. We followed the guideline
for constructing composite indicators by the OECD (2008).
Most of the selected variables affect multiple urban sustain-
ability benefits, such as compost use, which is related to the
circular metabolism of nutrients (Env1), cost reduction of sol-
id waste disposal (Econ3) and the efficient and productive use
of vacant and small plots of urban land (Econ4). Sustainability
benefits are represented by three to ten different indicators
(Table 2).
Before aggregating into composite indicators, the variable
values, nominal [yes, no], interval or metric scaled, were nor-
malised to the interval [0; 1], if necessary. Factor analysis was
applied to statistically determine weights for the indicators in
each composite and to balance the influence of correlated
variables within a composite and prevents overweighting
(Gan et al. 2017). A factor solution was calculated for each
composite indicator. Correlation matrices were estimated
using tetrachoric correlation coefficients for binary variables
(Kolenikov and Angeles 2004) and Pearson correlation coef-
ficients otherwise. As a criterion to select a factor solution, it
had to explain at least 60% of the overall variance.
Additionally, all factors explaining 10% of the variance indi-
vidually were retained. Varimax rotation was applied to obtain
a simple structure with variables loading high for one factor
and low for all others. Weights were derived for each indicator
according to its factor loading and the explained variance of
the respective factors (see OECD 2008, p.90 for details).
In a linear weighted additive approach, the indicators were
aggregated into composites using the following formula:
Urban Ecosyst
Fig. 3 Theoretical model: potential contributions of urban agriculture (UA) to urban sustainability objectives. Adapted from Vásquez-Moreno and
Córdova (2013)
Q Q
CI in ¼ ∑q¼1
i
wq I qn ; ∑q¼1
i
wq ¼ 1;
where CIin = composite indicator for sustainability benefit i in
garden n, Iqn= value of indicator q for garden n, and Qi =
number of indicators used in sustainability benefit i. The com-
posite indicators reflect the degree of contribution of the gar-
dening activity to the respective sustainability benefit with
values from 0 (‘not contributing’) to 1 (‘fully contributing’).
Refer to the appendix for an overview of the variables’ sum-
mary statistics, aggregation to composite indicators and indi-
cator weights (Table 2). Statistical analyses were carried out
using the software package Stata14.
Explaining sustainability benefits
Previous studies and reviews (Galhena et al. 2013; Kirkpatrick
and Davison 2018) have shown that substantial variations for
the type of management and subsequently for the sustainabil-
ity benefits exist for home gardens. First, the housing environ-
ment context, i.e., multi-story apartment houses, detached
houses or bungalows, define the type of garden, being either
closely attached to the building (terrace and rooftop gardens)
or in its vicinity (backyard and kitchen gardens). Despite gen-
eral limitations of physical expansion, the size of the garden
can vary considerably (Drescher et al. 2006), influencing cul-
tivation practices and subsequently plant species diversity
(Galluzzi et al. 2010; Pearson et al. 2010).
Garden work can vary from low- to high-intensity labour
and may involve more ‘natural’ or more ‘chemical’ practices.
Some gardeners use inorganic pesticides and herbicides;
others rely on integrated and more sustainable approaches,
adopt organic growing methods, utilise compost or aim at im-
proving the soil quality (Kirkpatrick and Davison 2018). Mainly
autonomously managed by the individual gardener, the cultiva-
tion practice and sustainability performance depend on the per-
sonal characteristics and gardening motivations (Home et al.
2018), which can be economic, social-recreational and environ-
mental in nature (Kirkpatrick and Davison 2018). Even strong,
production-oriented home gardens can be either market-oriented
or contribute to family food security (Trinh et al. 2003).
However, the cultural and economic background, education
and gender of the gardener also affect, for instance, the contribu-
tion to environmental (Galluzzi et al. 2010) and food security
(Ferdous et al. 2016) goals.
To account for these characteristics and differences, we
have included the physical context (garden type and size),
the socio-demographic characteristics of gender, age, educa-
tion and household size, as well as different motivation types
(production, recreation, knowledge acquisition) (Scheromm
2015) as explanatory variables in the sustainability analysis
and estimated linear regression models for each sustainability
benefit. This supports identifying influencing factors of sus-
tainability and to what degree they differ between aspects of
sustainability.
Survey design
We conducted an empirical study among urban gardeners be-
tween January and May 2014. Based on the theoretical frame-
work and indicator selection, a questionnaire was prepared.
The first part of the questionnaire focused on socio-
economic information of the household (9 variables) and the

spatial context of the housing and gardening setting (4). The
second part was dedicated to the gardening practice, including
questions about inputs (9), cultivation techniques (11), activ-
ities (4), and cropping patterns (10). Further questions refer to
embeddedness into the local (gardening) community (6), mo-
tivation (5), knowledge (3), activities and restrictions (4).
Sampling started with interviewing members of an organised
gardening club (INORA, www.inora.in). Sampling progressed
using a snowball sampling method as interviewed gardeners
were asked for further potential interviewees. The survey was
carried out as a face-to-face interview with mainly close-ended
questions (single and multiple responses). In total, 111 survey
responses were collected. The questionnaire and the full database
is publicly accessible at the ZALF Open Research Data
Repository (https://doi.org/10.4228/ZALF.DK.109). A detailed
description of the survey design, sampling and mode of data
collection is provided by Zasada et al. (2019). We calculated
the sustainability indicators for 43 RTGs and 65 BKGs. Three
other cases, which were larger community and municipal gar-
dens, were excluded from the study, because they did not belong
to the scope of the study, focussing on RTGs and BKGs. Due to
missing values in explanatory variables, we only used 100 ob-
servations in the regression models.
A key limitation of our study is that we investigate a popula-
tion which is difficult to sample. As there is no central register or
database on local UA activities, it was not possible to obtain
robust information about the whole population of the home gar-
deners which poses a challenge to the assessment of the repre-
sentativeness of the sample. However, based on preliminary in-
terviews, we found that the local home gardening community
was, to a large extent, organised in gardening clubs. Therefore,
we did not assume strong sample selection bias when ap-
proaching club members for the interviews. The sample size
was rather small due to the high effort of personal interviews.
This makes statistical inference in regression models challenging
as standard errors tend to decrease with the number of observa-
tions and the models lose in degrees of freedom. We met this
challenge by carefully selecting the explanatory variables based
on established literature and theory to avoid unnecessary factors.
Furthermore, especially in applied sciences the economic signif-
icance and effect sizes determine the importance of results be-
sides statistical significance (Ziliak and McCloskey 2004). As
there is not much statistical evidence on the drivers of sustain-
ability in urban agriculture, our results can build a baseline of
departure for further modelling.
Results
Home gardening practice
Home gardening is well established in Pune. In 30% of the
cases, the garden existed for more than 10 years and in 33% of
Urban Ecosyst
cases, for more than 20 years. In single home gardens, up to 70
different varieties of herbs and vegetables and 30 different
types of fruit trees were cultivated with a strong focus on local
varieties and a high average diversity of produced crops (12.6
types of vegetables and herbs; 6.5 fruit tree types). The most
frequent vegetable and herb types are chilli (82% of all cases),
tomato (73%), mint (69%), spinach (62%), coriander (60%),
basil (59%), eggplant (56%), beans (45%), okra (44%), and
pumpkin (43%). The most frequent fruit trees are lime (74%),
mango (57%), papaya (56%), coconut (54%), pomegranate
(48%), custard apple (48%), banana (48%), chiku (sapota,
45%), guava (45%), and fique (23%). Additionally, the culti-
vation of non-edible ornamental plants, such as flowers,
shrubs and bushes (75.0%) or trees (80.6%) was frequent.
Gardens further contained facilities that increased habitation
quality, such as sitting facilities (50.0%) or artwork (23.1%).
The gardens also frequently contained environmental features,
such as ponds (30.6%), small meadows (25.9%) or bird homes
(36.1%). In contrast, features for food production, such as
greenhouses (4.6%) were rather seldom.
Garden sizes varied between less than 10 to nearly
2000 m2 (average 152 m2). On average, in just over half of
the garden areas (52.3%), cultivation was carried out directly
in the soil; in the rest of the area, high beds, boxes, buckets,
etc. were used, usually above sealed surfaces. The manage-
ment of home gardens was often optimised regarding input
efficiency, and specific cropping techniques were deliberate-
ly applied. This includes specific types of crop rotation
(39.8%) and non-conflicting (45.4%) or supporting
(28.7%) crop arrangements. The majority of gardeners ap-
plied compost substrate (88.0%), organic fertiliser (94.4%),
non-chemical pest control (63.0%), and manual weeding
(94.4%). Only a minority used chemical inputs (22.2% pest
control, 26.9% fertiliser, and 8.3% weed control). Due to the
monsoon climate with pronounced dry seasons, all gardens
were additionally irrigated, mainly from the public water
supply (81.9%). Additionally, 8.3% of the gardeners also
kept livestock, mainly honey bees.
Regarding the time people spent in the garden, working
(84.3%), relaxing (78.7%), nature watching (56.5%) and
socialising (38.9%) were the activities mentioned most often.
The home gardeners were frequently embedded in a larger
community of family and friends and other gardeners. In
30.6% of the cases, more than one person was active in the
garden. In addition, 38.9% of the gardeners indicated that six
or more of their friends and family members also gardened.
Further, 24.1% stated that three to five of their friends and
family members were involved in gardening. They used their
social network as a knowledge source (75.5%), to share seeds
(35.1%), and to give the harvested food away to others
(94.7%). Table 2 in the appendix provides an overview of
the summary statistics and the allocation of gardening vari-
ables to composite indicators for urban sustainability.
Urban Ecosyst
Contribution to urban sustainability
For the analysis of the contribution of home gardens to urban
sustainability, we aggregated gardening practice variables into
five composite indicators for each of the three sustainability
dimensions in line with the theoretical framework of sustain-
ability benefits. Figure 4 shows the boxplots, mean values and
standard deviations of each CI, the averaged aggregates for the
environmental, economic and socio-cultural dimensions as
well as the overall sustainability as a range between 0 (‘not
contributing’) and 1 (‘fully contributing’). Overall, the results
showed that, on average, gardens contributed substantially
less to sustainability in the economic dimension (0.37) com-
pared to the environmental (0.50) and socio-cultural dimen-
sions (0.52). When looking at the individual sustainability
benefits measured by the CI, larger variations were also ob-
served within sustainability dimensions. Our figures showed
that home gardens in Pune contributed most to the environ-
mental benefits of local biodiversity conservation (Env4;
0.56) and clean production (Env5; 0.56) as well as to commu-
nity building and empowerment, gender equity and social in-
clusion (SoCu1; 0.56) and aesthetics of open green spaces
(SoCu3; 0.65). In contrast, low values were found for food
proximity and cost reductions (Econ2; 0.34), employment
generation and household income (Econ5; 0.35), and local
economies (Econ1; 0.37).
Dependency from urban environment
and socio-demographic characteristics
The composite indicator (CI) values showed substantial vari-
ations across the garden sample. Here, we hypothesised that
the influence of physical factors of the urban environment
Fig. 4 Contribution of home
gardens to urban sustainability
objectives (N = 108). Note:
outside values are excluded
(garden type and size), socio-economic characteristics (gen-
der, age, education, household size, expenditures for food) and
motivation (food production, recreation and knowledge acqui-
sition) differed across sustainability benefits.
The gardening community was characterised by a domi-
nance of female gardeners (71.3%), older age groups (52%
between 46 and 65 years; 27% >65 years) and high education
levels (40% with higher secondary school/high school; 51.4%
university graduation). More than 85% of the interviewees
lived in Pune for more than 20 years. A slight majority of
56% of the gardeners had no occupation, being either pen-
sioners or unemployed. The average household was made
up of 3.8 persons, which is below the value of 4.6 for Indian
urban areas according to official statistics. Although most re-
spondents only needed to spend a minor share of their income
for food (37% spent less than 20%; 45% spent 20–40%), for
43% and 30% of them, the garden played a moderate or even
important role for their own nutrition (see summary statistics
in Table 1).
We conducted a regression analysis to test the particular
role of these explanatory factors on the contribution to urban
sustainability. The majority of regression models (see Table 3
in the appendix and Fig. 5) showed substantial explanatory
values, especially those for the CIs ‘Improvement of food
proximity and food cost reductions’ (Econ2 / adj. R2 =
0.300), ‘Contribution to local biodiversity conservation’
(Env4 / adj. R2 = 0.212) and most of socio-cultural CIs
(SoCu2 / adj. R2 = 0.187; SoCu4 / adj. R2 = 0.203; SoCu5 /
adj. R2 = 0.201). On the other hand, no statistically significant
explanation was found for Env1, Env2, Econ1, Econ3 and
SoCu1 (according to F-tests on the full models, p > 0.05).
Especially in those cases, unobserved and more complex re-
lationships must be considered.
 Urban Ecosyst

Table 1 Summary statistics of explanatory variables

Variable Measure / Coding (normalised) Mean Std. N

value Dev.

Garden type BKG = 0; RTG = 1 0.40 0.49 108

Gender female = 0; male = 1 0.29 0.46 107
Age years categorised (<17 = 1, 18–29 = 2, 30–45 = 3, 46–65 = 4, > 65 = 5) 4.02 0.79 106
Education none = 0; primary = 1; secondary = 2; higher secondary = 3; graduation = 4; 4.42 0.67 106
post-graduation = 5
Household members number 3.84 1.73 107
Garden area size m2 (logarithmic) 5.45 1.19 103
Food spending (<20% = 1; 21–40% = 2; 41–60% = 3; 61–80% = 4; > 80% = 5) 3.08 1.03 107
Motivation food production (yes = 1; no = 0) 0.66 0.48 108
Motivation recreation (yes = 1; no = 0) 0.84 0.37 108
Motivation knowledge (yes = 1; no = 0) 0.63 0.49 108
acquisition

The regression results revealed that all three variable Whereas the type of garden showed only a mixed impact,
groups contributed to explaining CI value distributions. the garden size had a positive impact on six CIs. Among the

Fig. 5 Coefficient plots of the regression models (N = 100). Note: Markers indicate the coefficient estimate, whiskers the 90%-confidence interval. In
case the whisker does not cross the value zero (solid black line) the coefficient estimate is statistically different from zero on the 10% significance level
Urban Ecosyst
socio-economic factors, especially age and gender, gardeners
played an important role. According to the regression results,
female and older gardeners carried out gardening practices,
which enhanced sustainability benefits. Whereas gender af-
fected mainly environmental and economic sustainability ben-
efits, age showed positive effects on socio-cultural aspects.
The expenditures gardeners’ households spent on food
showed a positive but limited effect on sustainability perfor-
mance, e.g., on the food proximity and cost CI. The most
distinct explanatory values, however, were revealed for the
gardeners’ motivations. Food production motivation positive-
ly contributed to food-related CIs, such as clean production,
food proximity, and efficient and productive use of land or
conservation of traditional production systems. In contrast,
recreation motivation had statistically significant and large
positive effects on community building, provision of recrea-
tional spaces and aesthetics of open green spaces. The moti-
vation type ‘knowledge acquisition’ showed no statistically
significant result. The coefficient plots in Fig. 5 provide an
overview of effect sizes and statistical significance of the ex-
planatory variables and illustrate differences in their influence
across the sustainability dimensions.
Discussion
In our study, we analysed the urban sustainability contribution
by home gardens in residential neighbourhoods in Pune
(India). To this end, we adapted an established a theoretical
framework to assess urban sustainability, specifically de-
signed for the urban agricultural context (Vásquez-Moreno
and Córdova 2013), and applied it empirically based on sur-
vey data. The analytical approach, which subdivided three
sustainability dimensions into 15 sub-objectives, allowed for
a detailed assessment of urban sustainability benefits.
Furthermore, expert and literature-based allocation of vari-
ables to sustainability benefits was supported by a statistical
weighting process to avoid the overestimation of certain
issues.
The general picture is that home gardens mainly provide
socio-cultural and environmental benefits, whereas contribu-
tions to economic sustainability are clearly less relevant. It is
remarkable that the gardening practices are carried out explic-
itly under an environmental focus, where gardeners deliber-
ately follow organic production schemes, knowledge-
intensive composting, cultivation and cropping techniques
and handle a large variety of plants and trees. As a conse-
quence, garden management particularly supports gardens’
capacity to contribute to local biodiversity conservation and
environmental (food) production with low levels of agro-
chemical application. This confirms previous studies, such
those by Galluzzi et al. (2010) or Jaganmohan et al. (2012),
that highlighted the role of home gardens as biodiversity
hotspots. Besides the environmental and biodiversity benefits,
broad urban sustainability benefits in the socio-cultural di-
mensions have been found, such as aesthetic quality of urban
green spaces, provision of recreational spaces and personal
well-being. This general picture of the prevalence of social
and environmental benefits for UA primarily for private con-
sumption has been confirmed by the study by Schmutz et al.
(2017). Public access to these private gardens is rather limited
to the specific gardeners’ households and neighbours,
representing a barrier to the wider environment (Alexander
2002). Nevertheless, the gardens are located in the direct vi-
cinity of the living environment, which emphasises the role of
providing recreational value at least for the respective housing
environments, and contributing to place attachment, identity
and satisfaction with the neighbourhood (Clayton 2007).
Mainly due to the large social networks of gardeners who
exchange knowledge, input and harvest, gardening activities
also contribute to the creation of social capital, which was
established by Cameron et al. (2012) in their review that also
emphasised the importance of place attachment (Brook 2003).
The high degree of institutional organisation in gardening
clubs and the long-term existence of the home gardens, on
average, for one or two decades additionally amplify the
community-building effect. This implies that the mentioned
urban sustainability benefits can also have a long-term effect
because they are based on developed structures and routines
and not on short-term trends. Here, the results are also in line
with findings from other studies (Macias 2008).
Economic and cost considerations, e.g., for access to food,
play only a minor role. As most of the gardeners were attrib-
uted to the Indian middle class, food insecurity and poverty
issues were less relevant. In contrast to a number of other
studies, not only in the global South (Eigenbrod and Gruda
2015), but also in Europe (Glavan et al. 2018), which found a
significant economic role in saving money on food, in our
study at hand, gardeners were less dependent on the produc-
tion of their own food crops; rather, gardens had recreational
value. Several studies have noted that people with higher in-
comes, education levels or good access to markets can afford
the luxury of using their gardens mainly for ornamentals
(Caballero-Serrano et al. 2016; Clarke et al. 2014).
Regarding the relationship between socio-economic status
and species abundance, Caballero-Serrano et al. (2016) found
a decrease in diversity with increasing income. Birol et al.
(2005) observed that the gardens of the most marginalised
people exhibited the highest level of crop diversity.
However, in times of species depletion through monoculture,
home gardens still contain spaces where biodiversity is con-
served, even though plant selection greatly depends on per-
sonal preferences and the socio-economic background
(Galluzzi et al. 2010). However, sharing of the harvest is very
frequent and plays at least an indirect role in the production of
social capital and community building.

Due to different spatial and building-structural conditions
of the home garden, either located in densified multi-story
housing block areas or in more low-density bungalow areas,
there are substantial differences in the garden configuration,
which is most obviously manifested in the different garden
types (backyard and kitchen or terrace and rooftop gardens)
and sizes. Interestingly, the differences in urban sustainability
benefits across the garden sample, such as local biodiversity or
food proximity, were only partly explained by these physical
conditions. Regarding backyard and kitchen gardens of larger
sizes, their direct connection to the soil allows for a larger
diversity of species habitats, ecological niches and a higher
abundance and variation of plant types, especially trees.
In contrast, the individual gardener and households are in
the centre of the gardening activities and the contribution to
the sustainability benefits. Our study also yielded insights into
the gardening community, which was clearly female, highly
educated and of older age, with many gardeners retired from
work. Particularly in the cases where the gardener was female,
the contribution to sustainability was higher nearly throughout
all benefit types. In home gardens as extensions of the house-
holds (Alexander 2002), women as managers of the house-
hold play an important role in gardening decision-making
(Kumar and Nair 2004) and custodians of the practice knowl-
edge (Galluzzi et al. 2010). Even more pronounced is the
influence of the motivation of the individual gardener. First,
in contrast to findings from rural areas (Sangakkara and
Frossard 2016), recreation represents the most frequently
mentioned motivation. Second, strong differences between
recreational and food production motivations were found re-
garding the benefit types they drive. In the literature, (Clayton
2007; Draper and Freedman 2010), motivation is mainly con-
sidered a driver for participation in gardening or as a result of
socio-demographic characteristics (Martinho da Silva et al.
2016). However, we were able to show that motivation also
affects how the gardening practice is carried out and how this
contributes to the outcome.
Conclusion
In rapidly growing and densifying cities and mega-cities, such as
Pune, especially in developing and transitional countries, green
areas, environmental quality and the capacity to provide locally
demanded ecosystem services are increasingly under pressure.
New buildings and infrastructure are not only driving land-use
change at the urban fringe but also in existing housing areas; new
investment-driven settlements often lack sufficient environmen-
tal quality from the beginning due to the loss of natural green
spaces and the underproduction of new ones.
There are many studies providing evidence on benefits of home
gardens in rural areas often focussing on the livelihood or food
security issues. This study goes insofar a step forward as it widens
Urban Ecosyst
the perspective to broader urban sustainability issues. To this aim
an analytical model has been applied, which connects garden
management practices with individual sustainability dimensions
using a composite indicator approach. Due to the purposeful se-
lection of home gardens in middle-class inner-city housing areas,
the results are first of all limited to this specific type of urban areas,
social milieu and gardening practice. However, the general appli-
cability of the chosen sustainability assessment approach allows
for future studies to confirm the results for other types of urban
agriculture and other urban context.
The main lesson learned from the Pune home garden study is
that home gardens mainly cover socio-cultural and environmen-
tal benefits, such as the improvement of aesthetic quality, recre-
ational value and biodiversity conservation, whereas food provi-
sion or food cost reduction play a minor role. Here the gardening
in the private realms shares strong similarities to public green
spaces. The results provide a valuable information base for the
planning, design and management of productive green spaces. It
has the potential to improve decision-making processes, which
take the potential urban sustainability benefits of different types
of home gardens and their management practices into
consideration.
The conservation of existing home gardens and their inte-
gration in the planning of new housing areas can help to con-
tribute to urban sustainability goals. Due to this variability in
type, size and management, the amount and diversity of edible
and non-edible trees and other plants and the opportunity to be
disconnected from unsealed surface, home gardens can be a
useful tool to conserve and manage urban green spaces. As
highly managed elements of an urban green infrastructure,
they contribute to a variety of ecosystem services, increase
the quality of life for close-proximity urban dwellers and rep-
resent important pockets for urban biodiversity – benefits also
beyond private realms. In addition, home gardens are very
effective in creating networks and social capital and improv-
ing social cohesion in urban areas, which is contested by con-
tinuing in-migration and social segregation.
Along with testing the approach in another urban context,
future work and a further application should also take the local
demand into consideration, preferably through an additional
weighting factor of the urban sustainability indicators.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank FLOW social sci-
ences research organisation (http://www.flowindia.org/) for their kind
support to conduct the survey among home gardeners.
Funding information This work was supported by a fellowship within
the Postdoc-Program of the German Academic Exchange Service
(DAAD).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
Appendix
Table 2 Summary statistics for garden variables (N = 108)
Urban Ecosyst

Composite Indicators of Urban Sustainability

Variable Measure / Coding (normalized) Mean Std. Env1 Env2 Env3 Env4 Env5 Econ1 Econ2 Econ3 Econ4 Econ5 SoCu1 SoCu2 SoCu3 SoCu4 SoCu5
value Dev.

Multiple people involved in 0 (no); 1 (yes) 0.31 0.46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.16 0 0 0 0

the gardening
Employment of gardener 0 (no); 1 (yes) 0.51 0.50 0 0 0 0 0 0.11 0 0 0 0.25 0 0 0 0 0
Share of cultivation in soil metric in % (0–1) 0.52 0.33 0 0.13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Share of cultivation in beds, metric in % (0–1) 0.45 0.33 0.03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
boxes and buckets
Share of other cultivation metric in % (0–1) 0.02 0.11 0.04 0 0 0 0 0.13 0 0.14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(e.g. hydroponic)
Cultivation on sealed surface 0 (no); 0.5 (partly); 1 (yes) 0.35 0.41 0 0.14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0 0 0
Compost use 0 (no); 1 (yes) 0.88 0.33 0.15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.15 0.06 0 0 0 0 0 0
Use of soil from elsewhere 0 (no); 1 (yes) 0.19 0.39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.06 0 0 0 0 0 0
Companion cropping 0 (no); 1 (yes) 0.29 0.45 0 0 0 0 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.08
Non-conflicting cropping 0 (no); 1 (yes) 0.45 0.50 0 0 0 0 0.15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Crop rotation 0 (no); 1 (yes) 0.40 0.49 0 0 0 0 0.16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.07
Organic fertilisation 0 (no); 1 (yes) 0.94 0.23 0.06 0 0 0 0.11 0.13 0 0.15 0.11 0 0 0.08 0 0 0.17
Non-organic/non-chemical 0 (no); 1 (yes) 0.27 0.45 0 0 0 0 0.18 0.08 0 0 0.10 0 0 0.09 0 0 0.10
fertilisation
Biological pest protection 0 (no); 1 (yes) 0.19 0.40 0 0 0 0.10 0.05 0.07 0 0 0.04 0 0 n0.07 0 0 0.07
Manual pest protection 0 (no); 1 (yes) 0.66 0.48 0 0 0 0 0.11 0.12 0 0 0.08 0 0 0.04 0 0 0.05
Manual/physical weed 0 (no); 1 (yes) 0.94 0.23 0.14 0 0 0 0.18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.11 0 0 0
protection
Can and sprinkler irrigation 0 (no); 1 (yes) 0.19 0.39 0.10 0.16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0 0 0.08
Rainwater use from the 0 (no); 1 (yes) 0.08 0.28 0.12 0.15 0 0 0 0.06 0.17 0.12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.12
garden
Rainwater use from 0 (no); 1 (yes) 0.02 0.14 0.12 0 0 0 0 0.10 0.13 0.06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.16
neighbouring buildings
Other non-public water 0 (no); 1 (yes) 0.05 0.21 0.13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
source
Compost production 0 (no); 1 (yes) 0.84 0.37 0.11 0 0 0 0 0 0.06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Garden as compost source 0 (no); 1 (yes) 0.75 0.44 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Organic waste from 0 (no); 1 (yes) 0.52 0.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
household as compost
Organic waste from 0 (no); 1 (yes) 0.28 0.45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
neighbourhood as compost
Other organic waste sources 0 (no); 1 (yes) 0.05 0.21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
for compost
Table 2 (continued)

Composite Indicators of Urban Sustainability

Variable Measure / Coding (normalized) Mean Std. Env1 Env2 Env3 Env4 Env5 Econ1 Econ2 Econ3 Econ4 Econ5 SoCu1 SoCu2 SoCu3 SoCu4 SoCu5
value Dev.

Number of vegetable and in quartiles (0; 0.33; 0.66; 1.0) 0.53 0.38 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0.16 0 0.04 0 0 0 0 0 0
herb varieties
Number of fruit tree varieties in quartiles (0; 0.33; 0.66; 1.0) 0.55 0.36 0 0.17 0 0.04 0 0 0.17 0 0.10 0 0 0 0 0 0
Livestock keeping 0 (no); 1 (yes) 0.08 0.28 0 0 0 0.14 0 0 0 0 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ornamental 0 (no); 1 (yes) 0.75 0.44 0 0 0 0.14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.17 0 0
flowers/shrubs/bushes
Ornamental trees 0 (no); 1 (yes) 0.81 0.40 0 0.09 0 0.16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.15 0 0
Number of non-edible trees 0 (0); 0.25 (1–2); 0.5 (3–5); 0.75 0.89 0.25 0 0.17 0 0.03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.21 0 0
(6–10); 1.0 (> 10)
Presence of sitting facilities 0 (no); 1 (yes) 0.57 0.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.10 0.12 0 0
and artwork
Presence of education 0 (no); 1 (yes) 0.10 0.30 0 0 0.14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.08 0 0.33 0
facilities
Presence of ecological 0 (no); 1 (yes) 0.67 0.47 0 0 0 0.16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.16 0 0
elements
Presence of greenhouse 0 (no); 1 (yes) 0.05 0.21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.16 0 0.12 0 0 0 0 0 0
Garden work activity 0 (no); 1 (yes) 0.84 0.37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.08 0 0 0
Socialising activity 0 (no); 1 (yes) 0.39 0.49 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.16 0.04 0 0 0
Nature watching activity 0 (no); 1 (yes) 0.56 0.50 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Art creation and meditation 0 (no); 1 (yes) 0.23 0.42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.09 0.19 0 0
activity
Educational programmes as 0 (no); 1 (yes) 0.30 0.46 0 0 0.12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.03 0 0 0
knowledge s.
Consultancy as knowledge s. 0 (no); 1 (yes) 0.07 0.26 0 0 0.18 0 0 0.11 0 0 0 0.26 0 0.06 0 0 0
Friends and family as 0 (no); 1 (yes) 0.76 0.44 0 0 0.16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.12 0.11 0 0.33 0
knowledge s.
Books, internet and other 0 (no); 1 (yes) 0.63 0.49 0 0 0.16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.02 0 0 0
knowledge s.
Community and own 0 (no); 1 (yes) 0.58 0.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.15 0 0 0 0.08 0 0 0.33 0.10
propagation as seed s.
Shop and other seed source 0 (no); 1 (yes) 0.75 0.44 0 0 0 0 0 0.08 0 0 0 0.24 0 0 0 0 0
Years of gardening 0.25 (< 5); 0.5 (6–10); 0.75 0.47 0.27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.17 0 0 0 0
(11–20); 1.0 (> 20)
Harvest sale 0 (no); 1 (yes) 0.07 0.26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0 0 0 0 0
Harvest donation 0 (no); 1 (yes) 0.95 0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.16 0 0 0 0
Size of gardening community 0 (0); 0.25 (1–2); 0.5 (3–5); 0.75 0.59 0.30 0 0 0.16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.16 0 0 0 0
(6–10); 1.0 (> 10)
Urban Ecosyst
Urban Ecosyst

Table 3 Regression Models explaining 15 urban sustainability composite indicator values (N = 100)

Composite Indicators for Urban Sustainability

Env1 Env2 Env3 Env4 Env5 Econ1 Econ2 Econ3 Econ4 Econ5 SoCu1 SoCu2 SoCu3 SoCu4 SoCu5

Garden type β 0.00 −0.00 −0.04 −0.02 0.08 −0.01 0.03 0.03 0.06 −0.09 −0.06 0.02 −0.02 0.03 0.06
(BKG = 0; (p) (0.89) (0.88) (0.27) (0.55) (0.08) (0.80) (0.30) (0.34) (0.06) (0.04) (0.09) n(0.44) (0.72) (0.56) (0.04)
RTG = 1)
Garden area size β 0.00 0.02 −0.01 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.02 −0.03 0.02
(m2, logarithmic) (p) (0.85) (0.14) (0.54) (0.03) (0.08) (0.04) (0.04) (0.98) (0.03) (0.18) (0.58) (0.56) (0.21) (0.12) (0.06)
Gender (female = 0; β −0.03 −0.06 −0.05 −0.07 −0.08 −0.05 −0.09 −0.01 −0.05 −0.07 0.03 −0.05 −0.07 −0.08 −0.05
male = 1) (p) (0.32) (0.06) (0.20) (0.08) (0.11) (0.08) (0.01) (0.70) (0.11) (0.14) (0.42) (0.12) (0.12) (0.12) (0.13)
Age (years) β −0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.08 0.00 0.03 −0.02 0.03 −0.05 −0.02 0.02 −0.00 0.06 0.04
(p) (0.69) (0.76) (1.00) (0.50) (0.01) (1.00) (0.11) (0.35) (0.06) (0.09) (0.24) (0.26) (0.88) (0.03) (0.02)
Education (none = 0; β −0.02 −0.02 −0.03 −0.05 −0.01 −0.01 −0.05 −0.04 −0.01 0.03 −0.03 −0.03 −0.07 −0.03 −0.02
Prim. = 1; (p) (0.41) (0.36) (0.28) (0.07) (0.68) (0.75) (0.06) (0.05) (0.58) (0.34) (0.30) (0.11) (0.03) (0.35) (0.41)
Sec. = 2; Higher
sec. = 3;
Grad. = 4;
Post-grad. = 5)
Household members β −0.00 0.01 −0.01 0.02 0.01 −0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 −0.02 −0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01
(number) (p) (0.88) (0.51) (0.35) (0.09) (0.49) (0.62) (0.01) (0.76) (0.47) (0.06) (0.88) (0.70) (0.92) (0.07) (0.22)
Food expenditure β 0.01 −0.02 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 −0.00
(<20% = 1; (p) (0.50) (0.28) (0.06) (0.23) (0.52) (0.40) (0.06) (0.07) (0.69) (0.11) (0.86) (0.70) (0.94) (0.67) (0.97)
21–40% = 2;
41–60% = 3;
61–80% = 4; >
80% = 5)
Motivation food β 0.04 0.02 −0.01 0.08 0.11 0.03 0.09 0.01 0.09 −0.07 0.05 0.06 0.04 0.17 0.12
production (p) (0.15) (0.61) (0.80) (0.06) (0.03) (0.38) (0.01) (0.76) (0.01) (0.13) (0.20) (0.06) (0.36) (0.00) (0.00)
(yes = 1; no = 0)
Motivation β 0.03 0.06 0.11 0.09 0.01 −0.02 −0.04 −0.04 0.01 0.02 0.11 0.13 0.14 0.10 −0.00
recreation (p) (0.33) (0.13) (0.03) (0.08) (0.94) (0.71) (0.34) (0.37) (0.86) (0.72) (0.04) (0.00) (0.02) (0.14) (0.87)
(yes = 1; no = 0)
Motivation learning β 0.00 −0.00 0.04 −0.01 −0.01 0.04 −0.01 −0.00 0.00 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.01 −0.04 0.01
(yes = 1; no = 0) (p) (0.87) (0.94) (0.34) (0.80) (0.75) (0.22) (0.80) (0.89) (0.92) (0.12) (0.34) (0.56) (0.82) (0.39) (0.71)
Constant β 0.50 0.42 0.45 0.26 −0.19 0.20 0.05 0.60 0.04 0.24 0.61 0.37 0.70 0.30 −0.01
(p) (0.00) (0.01) (0.03) (0.24) (0.46) (0.24) (0.77) (0.00) (0.82) (0.34) (0.00) (0.02) (0.01) (0.28) (0.96)
Adjusted R2 0.00 0.04 0.09 0.21 0.17 0.05 0.30 0.06 0.17 0.11 0.08 0.19 0.12 0.20 0.20

References Barthel S, Folke C, Colding J (2010) Social–ecological memory in urban

Alexander C (2002) The garden as occasional domestic space. Signs 27:
857–871
Andersson E, Barthel S, Borgström S, Colding J, Elmqvist T, Folke C,
Gren Å (2014) Reconnecting cities to the biosphere: stewardship of
green infrastructure and urban ecosystem services. Ambio 43:445–
453
Armar-Klemesu M (2000) Urban agriculture and food security, nutrition
and health. In: Bakker N, Dubbeling M, Guendel S, Sabel Koschella
U, de Zeeuw H (eds) Growing cities, growing food, urban agricul-
ture on the policy agenda. Deutsche Stiftung für internationale
Entwicklung (DSE), Feldafing, pp 99–118
gardens—retaining the capacity for management of ecosystem ser-
vices. Glob Environ Chang 20:255–265
Behmanesh S (2009) Urban agriculture in Pune/India. Transition process-
es in the context of an emerging megacity. University of Cologne,
Cologne
Behmanesh S (2010) Municipal solid waste management as an incentive
for City farming in Pune, India. Urban Agriculture Magazine 23:23–
28
Birol E, Bela G, Smale M (2005) The role of Home gardens in promoting
multi-functional agriculture in Hungary. EuroCoices 4:14–21
Brook I (2003) Making Here like there: place attachment, displacement
and the urge to garden. Ethics Place Environ 6:227–234

Caballero-Serrano V, Onaindia M, Alday JG, Caballero D, Carrasco JC,
McLaren B, Amigo J (2016) Plant diversity and ecosystem services
in Amazonian homegardens of Ecuador. Agric Ecosyst Environ
225:116–125
Calvet-Mir L, Gomez-Baggethun E, Reyes-Garcia V (2012) Beyond food
production: ecosystem services provided by home gardens. A case
study in Vall Fosca, Catalan Pyrenees, northeastern Spain. Ecol
Econ 74:153–160
Cameron RWF, Blanuša T, Taylor JE, Salisbury A, Halstead AJ, Henricot
B, Thompson K (2012) The domestic garden – its contribution to
urban green infrastructure. Urban For Urban Green 11:129–137
Census of India (2011) Data of Census 2011 of Pune Municipal
Corporation
Clarke LW, Li L, Jenerette GD, Yu Z (2014) Drivers of plant biodiversity
and ecosystem service production in home gardens across the
Beijing municipality of China. Urban Ecosyst 17:741–760
Clayton S (2007) Domesticated nature: motivations for gardening and
perceptions of environmental impact. J Environ Psychol 27:215–
224
Das T, Das AK (2005) Inventorying plant biodiversity in homegardens: a
case study in Barak Valley, Assam, north East India. Curr Sci 89:
155–163
Draper C, Freedman D (2010) Review and analysis of the benefits, pur-
poses, and motivations associated with community gardening in the
United States, Journal of Community Practice 18:458–492
Drescher AW, Holmer RJ, Iaquinta DL (2006) Urban Homegardens and
allotment gardens for sustainable livelihoods: management strate-
gies and institutional environments. In: Nair PK, Kumar B (eds)
Tropical Homegardens: a time tested example of sustainability.
Springer, Berlin, pp 317–338
Dubbeling M, Campbell MC, Hoekstra F, Veenhuize Rv (2009) Building
resilient cities. Urban Agriculture Magazine 22:3–11
Eigenbrod C, Gruda N (2015) Urban vegetable for food security in cities.
A review Agron Sustainable Dev 35:483–498
Ferdous Z, Datta A, Anal AK, Anwar M, Khan ASMMR (2016)
Development of home garden model for year round production
and consumption for improving resource-poor household food se-
curity in Bangladesh. NJAS-Wage J Life Sc 78:103–110
Fernandez RB, Dhorde AG, Dhorde AA (2012) Impervious surface map-
ping for Pune city using satellite data. Golden Research Thoughts 1:
1–4
Galhena DH, Freed R, Maredia KMJA, Security F (2013) Home gardens:
a promising approach to enhance household food security and
wellbeing 2:8
Galluzzi G, Eyzaguirre P, Negri V (2010) Home gardens: neglected
hotspots of agro-biodiversity and cultural diversity. Biodivers
Conserv 19(13):3635-3654
Gan X, Fernandez IC, Guo J, Wilson M, Zhao Y, Zhou B, Wu J (2017)
When to use what: methods for weighting and aggregating sustain-
ability indicators. Ecol Indic 81:491–502
Gaston KJ, Warren PH, Thompson K, Smith RM (2005) Urban domestic
gardens (IV): the extent of the resource and its associated features.
Biodivers Conserv
Gerster-Bentaya M (2013) Nutrition-sensitive urban agriculture. Food
Secur 5(5):723–737
Glavan M, Schmutz U, Williams S, Corsi S, Monaco F, Kneafsey M,
Guzman Rodriguez PA, Čenič-Istenič M, Pintar M (2018) The eco-
nomic performance of urban gardening in three European cities –
examples from Ljubljana, Milan and London. Urban For Urban
Green 36:100–122
Gorgolewski M, Komisar J, Nasr J (2011) Carrot City: creating places for
urban agriculture. The Monacelli Press, New York
Grewal SS, Grewal PS (2012) Can cities become self-reliant in food?
Cities 29:1–11
Home, R., Lewis, O., Bauer, N., Fliessbach, A., Frey, D., Lichtsteiner, S.,
Moretti, M., Tresch, S., Young, C., Zanetta, A., Stolze, M.J.U.E.
Urban Ecosyst
(2018) Effects of garden management practices, by different types
of gardeners, on human wellbeing and ecological and soil sustain-
ability in Swiss cities
Jaganmohan M, Vailshery LS, Gopal D, Nagendra H (2012) Plant diver-
sity and distribution in urban domestic gardens and apartments in
Bangalore, India. Urban Ecosyst 15:911–925
Jennings V, Larson L, Yun J (2016) Advancing sustainability through
urban green space: cultural ecosystem services, equity, and social
determinants of health. Int J Environ Res Public Health 13:196
Kirkpatrick JB, Davison A (2018) Home-grown: gardens, practices and
motivations in urban domestic vegetable production. Landsc Urban
Plan 170:24–33
Kolenikov S, Angeles G (2004) The use of discrete data in PCA: theory,
simulations, and applications to socioeconomic indices. Carolina
Population Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, pp
1–59
Krikser T, Piorr A, Berges R, Opitz I (2016) Urban agriculture oriented
towards self-supply, social and commercial purpose: a typology.
Land 5:28
Kumar BM, Nair PKRJAS (2004) The enigma of tropical homegardens.
Agrofor Syst 61:135–152
Leys AJ, Vanclay JK (2011) Social learning: a knowledge and capacity
building approach for adaptive co-management of contested land-
scapes. Land Use Policy 28:574–584
Litt JS, Soobader M-J, Turbin MS, Hale JW, Buchenau M, Marshall JA
(2011) The influence of social involvement, neighborhood aes-
thetics, and community garden participation on fruit and vegetable
consumption. Am J Public Health 101:1466–1473
Macias T (2008) Working toward a just, equitable, and local food system:
the social impact of community-based agriculture. Soc Sci Q 89:
1086–1101
Martinho da Silva I, Oliveira Fernandes C, Castiglione B, Costa L (2016)
Characteristics and motivations of potential users of urban allotment
gardens: the case of Vila Nova de Gaia municipal network of urban
allotment gardens. Urban For Urban Green 20:56–64
Mazumdar S, Mazumdar S (2012) Immigrant home gardens: places of
religion, culture, ecology, and family. Landsc Urban Plan 105:258–
265
Mohri H, Lahoti S, Saito O, Mahalingam A, Gunatilleke N, Irham, Hoang
VT, Hitinayake G, Takeuchi K, Herath S (2013) Assessment of
ecosystem services in homegarden systems in Indonesia, Sri
Lanka, and Vietnam. Ecosyst Serv 5:124–136
Mok H-F, Williamson V, Grove J, Burry K, Barker SF, Hamilton A
(2014) Strawberry fields forever? Urban agriculture in developed
countries: a review. Agron Sustain Dev 34:21–43
Mougeot LJA (2005) Agropolis : the social, political, and environmental
dimensions of urban agriculture. International Development
Research Centre, Ottawa
OECD (2008) Handbook on constructing composite indicators - method-
ology and user guide. OECD, Paris
Orsini F, Kahane R, Nono-Womdim R, Gianquinto G (2013) Urban ag-
riculture in the developing world: a review. Agron Sustain Dev 33:
695–720
Pearson LJ, Pearson L, Pearson CJ (2010) Sustainable urban agriculture:
stocktake and opportunities. Int J Agric Sustain 8(1-2):7-19
Piorr A, Zasada I, Doernberg A, Zoll F, Ramme W (2018) Research for
AGRI committee – urban and Peri-urban agriculture in the EU.
European Parliament, Policy Department for Structural and
Cohesion Policies, Brüssel
Potutan GE, Schnitzler WH, Arnado JM, Janubas LG, Holmer RJ (2000)
Urban agriculture in Cagayan de Oro: a favourable response of City
government and NGOs. In: Bakker N, Dubbeling M, Guendel S,
Sabel Koschella U, Zeeuw Hd (eds) Growing cities, growing food:
urban agriculture on the policy agenda. DSE, Feldafing, pp 413–428
Urban Ecosyst
Qiu G-y, Li H-y, Zhang Q-t, Chen W, Liang X-j, Li X-z (2013) Effects of
evapotranspiration on mitigation of urban temperature by vegetation
and urban agriculture. J Integr Agric 12:1307–1315
Safayet M, Arefin MF, Hasan MMU (2017) Present practice and future
prospect of rooftop farming in Dhaka city: a step towards urban
sustainability. Journal of Urban Management 6:56–65
Sangakkara UR, Frossard E (2016) Characteristics of south Asian rural
households and associated home gardens - a case study from Sri
Lanka. Trop Ecol 57:765–777
Scheromm P (2015) Motivations and practices of gardeners in urban
collective gardens: the case of Montpellier. Urban For Urban
Green 14:735–742
Schmutz U, Kneafsey M, Sarrouy Kay C, Doernberg A, Zasada I (2017)
Sustainability impact assessments of different urban short food sup-
ply chains: examples from London, UK. Renew Agr Food Syst:1–
11
Shimpo N, Wesener A, McWilliam W (2019) How community gardens
may contribute to community resilience following an earthquake.
Urban For Urban Green 38:124–132
Specht K, Siebert R, Hartmann I, Freisinger U, Sawicka M, Werner A,
Thomaier S, Henckel D, Walk H, Dierich A (2013) Urban agricul-
ture of the future: an overview of sustainability aspects of food
production in and on buildings. Agric Hum Values:1–19
Sumner J, Mair H, Nelson E (2010) Putting the culture back into agricul-
ture: civic engagement, community and the celebration of local
food. Int J Agric Sustain 8:54–61
Trendov NM (2018) Comparative study on the motivations that drive
urban community gardens in Central Eastern Europe. Ann Agrar
Sci 16:85–89
Trinh LN, Watson JW, Hue NN, De NN, Minh NV, Chu P, Sthapit BR,
Eyzaguirre PB (2003) Agrobiodiversity conservation and develop-
ment in Vietnamese home gardens. Agric Ecosyst Environ 97:317–
344
UN Habitat (2016) New urban agenda, United Nations conference on
housing and sustainable urban development (Habitat III) in Quito,
Ecuador, on 20 October 2016, Quito
UNFPA (2007) State of the world population 2007: unleashing the po-
tential of urban growth, New York
United Nations, D.o.E.a.S.A., Population Division (2018) The World’s
Cities in 2018 - Data Booklet (ST/ESA/ SER.A/417)
Vásquez-Moreno L, Córdova A (2013) A conceptual framework to assess
urban agriculture’s potential contributions to urban sustainability: an
application to San Cristobal de Las casas, Mexico. International
Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 5:200–224
Vávra J, Daněk P, Jehlička P (2018) What is the contribution of food self-
provisioning towards environmental sustainability? A case study of
active gardeners. J Clean Prod 185:1015–1023
Viljoen A, Bohn K, Howe J (2005) Continuous productive urban land-
scapes: designing urban agriculture for sustainable cities. Elsevier,
Oxford
Wascher D, Kneafsey M, Pintar M, Piorr A (2015) Food planning and
innovation for sustainable metropolitan regions. Wageningen,
Synthesis Report
Zasada I (2011) Multifunctional peri-urban areas – a review of societal
demands and agricultural provision of goods and services. Land Use
Policy 28:639–648
Zasada I, Benninger SL, Weltin M (2019) Survey data on home gardeners
and urban gardening practice in Pune, India. DiB 104652
Zezza A, Tasciotti L (2010) Urban agriculture, poverty, and food security:
empirical evidence from a sample of developing countries. Food
Policy 35:265–273
Zhang X, Li H (2018) Urban resilience and urban sustainability: what we
know and what do not know? Cities 72:141–148
Ziliak ST, McCloskey DN (2004) Size matters: the standard error of
regressions in the American economic review. J Socio-Econ 33:
527–546