Recent from talks
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Community gardening
View on Wikipedia
A community garden is a piece of land gardened or cultivated by a group of people individually or collectively. Normally in community gardens, the land is divided into individual plots. Each individual gardener is responsible for their own plot, and the yield or production belongs to them.[1] In collective gardens, the piece of land is not divided. A group of people cultivates it together, and the harvest belongs to all participants. Around the world, community gardens exist in various forms; they can be located near neighborhoods or on balconies and rooftops. Its size can vary greatly from one to another. Depending on the location can determine the price of community gardens
Community gardens have experienced three waves of major development in North America. The earliest wave of community gardens development coincided with the Industrial Revolution and rapid urbanization process in Europe and North America; they were then called 'Jardin d'ouvrier' (or workers' garden). The second wave of community garden development happened during the WWI and WWII; they were part of "Liberty Gardens" and "Victory Gardens" respectively. The most recent wave of community garden development happened in the 1970s during the OPEC crisis, results of grassroots movement in quest for available land to combat against food insecurity.[2]
More recently, community gardens have seen a global resurgence. This may be related to several issues faced by the global population in the 21st century, such as ecological crisis, climate change and the new sanitary crisis.[clarification needed][3] Community gardens contribute to the urban agriculture movement and the requests from citizens for more community gardens has been surging in recent years. Community gardens are also accessible in over 190 + countries/regions
Background
[edit]According to Marin Master Gardeners, "a community garden is any piece of land gardened by a group of people, utilizing either individual or shared plots on private or public land".[4] Community gardens provide fresh products and plants as well as contribute to a sense of community and connection to the environment and an opportunity for satisfying labor and neighborhood improvement.[5] They are publicly functioning in terms of ownership, access, and management,[6] as well as typically owned in trust by local governments or not for profit associations.

Community gardens vary widely throughout the world. In North America, community gardens range from "victory garden" areas where people grow small plots of vegetables, to large "greening" projects to preserve natural areas, to large parcels where the gardeners produce much more than they can use themselves. Non-profits in many major cities offer assistance to low-income families, children's groups, and community organizations by helping them develop and grow their own gardens. In the UK and the rest of Europe, the similar "allotment gardens" can have dozens of plots, each measuring hundreds of square meters and rented by the same family for generations. In the developing world, commonly held land for small gardens is a familiar part of the landscape, even in urban areas, where they may function as market gardens.
Community gardens are often used in cities to provide fresh vegetables and fruits in "food deserts", which are urban neighborhoods where grocery stores are rare and residents may rely on processed food from convenience stores, gas stations, and fast-food restaurants.[7]
Some writers have proposed re-framing the concept of "food deserts" as "food apartheid," emphasizing that neighborhoods lacking access to healthy food have been racially oppressed through segregation, redlining, and limited access to land. Some Black, Indigenous, and people of color have supported self-sustaining community gardens, recognizing that their liberation requires access to both land and healthy food.[8][9]
Community gardens may help alleviate one effect of climate change, which is expected to cause a global decline in agricultural output, making fresh produce increasingly unaffordable.[10] Community gardens are also an increasingly popular method of changing the built environment in order to promote health and wellness in the face of urbanization. The built environment has a wide range of positive and negative effects on the people who work, live, and play in a given area, including a person's chance of developing obesity.[11] Community gardens encourage an urban community's food security, allowing citizens to grow their own food or for others to donate what they have grown.[10][12] Advocates say locally grown food decreases a community's reliance on fossil fuels for transport of food from large agricultural areas and reduces a society's overall use of fossil fuels to drive in agricultural machinery.[13]

Community gardens improve users’ health through increased fresh vegetable consumption and providing a venue for exercise.[10][14]
The gardens also combat two forms of alienation that plague modern urban life: they reconnect urban gardeners with the source of their food and reduce isolation by fostering a sense of community. Community gardens provide other social benefits, such as the sharing of food production knowledge with the wider community and safer living spaces.[15][16]
Ownership
[edit]Land for a community garden can be publicly or privately held.[17] In North America, often abandoned vacant lots are cleaned up and used as gardens.[18] Because of their health and recreational benefits, community gardens may be included in public parks, similar to ball fields or playgrounds. Historically, community gardens have also served to provide food during wartime or periods of economic depression. Access to land and security of land tenure remains a major challenge for community gardeners worldwide, since in most cases the gardeners themselves do not own or control the land directly.[19]
Some gardens are cultivated collectively, with everyone working together, while others are divided into individual plots, each managed by a different gardener, group, or family. Many community gardens include both common areas with shared upkeep and individual or family plots. Though communal areas are successful in some cases, in others there is a tragedy of the commons, which results in uneven workload on participants, and sometimes demoralization, neglect, and abandonment of the communal model. Some relate this to the largely unsuccessful history of collective farming.[20]
Unlike public parks, whether a community garden is open to the general public is dependent upon the lease agreements with the management body of the park and the community garden membership. Open- or closed-gate policies vary from garden to garden. Community gardens are managed and maintained by the gardeners themselves, rather than tended only by a professional staff. A second difference is food production: Unlike parks, where plantings are ornamental (or more recently ecological), community gardens are usually focused on food production.[21]
Types of gardens
[edit]There are multiple types of community gardens.[22]
- Neighborhood gardens are the most common type, where a group of people come together to grow fruits, vegetables and ornamental plants. They are identifiable as a parcel of private or public land where individual plots are rented by gardeners for a monthly or annual fee.
- Residential Gardens are typically shared among residents in apartment communities, assisted living, and affordable housing units. These gardens are organized and maintained by residents living on the premise.
- Institutional Gardens are attached to either public or private organizations and offer numerous beneficial services for residents. Benefits include mental or physical rehabilitation and therapy, as well as teaching a set of skills for job-related placement.
- Demonstration Gardens are used for educational and recreational purposes in mind. They often offer short seminars or presentations about gardening and provide the necessary tools to operate a community garden.

Plot size
[edit]In Britain, the 1922 Allotment act specifies "an allotment not exceeding 40 [square] poles in extent"; since a rod, pole or perch is 5.5 yards in length, 40 square rods is 1210 square yards or 10890 square feet (equivalent to a large plot of 90 ft x 121 ft).[23] In practice, plot sizes vary; Lewisham offers plots with an "average size" of "125 meters square".[a][24]
In America there is no standardized plot size. For example, plots of 3 m × 6 m (10 ft × 20 ft = 200 square feet) and 3 m x 4.5 m (10 ft x 15 ft) are listed in Alaska.[25] Montgomery Parks in Maryland lists plots of 200, 300, 400 and 625 square feet.[26] In Canada, plots of 20 ft x 20 ft and 10 ft x 10 ft, as well as smaller "raised beds", are listed in Vancouver.[27]
Location
[edit]Community gardens may be found in neighborhoods and on the grounds of schools, hospitals, and residential housing. The location of a community garden is a critical factor in how often the community garden is used and who visits it. Exposure to a community garden is much more likely for an individual if they are able to walk or drive to the location, as opposed to public transportation.[28] The length of travel time is also a factor. Those who live within a 15-minute or less travel distance is more likely to visit a community garden as compared to those with a longer travel time.[28] Such statistics should be taken into consideration when choosing a location for a community garden for a target population.
The site location should also be considered for its soil conditions as well as sun conditions. An area with a fair amount of morning sunlight and shade in the afternoon is most ideal. While specifics vary from plant to plant, most do well with 6 to 8 full hours of sunlight.[29]
When considering a location, areas near industrial zones may require soil testing for contaminants. If soil is safe, the composition should be loose and well-draining. However, if the soil at the location cannot be used, synthetic soil may also be used in raised gardens beds or containers.[29]

Plant choice and physical layout
[edit]Food production is central to most community and allotment gardens. However, restoration of natural areas and native plant gardens are also popular, as are "art" gardens. Many gardens have several different planting elements, and combine plots with such projects as small orchards, herbs and butterfly gardens. Individual plots can be used as "virtual" backyards, each highly diverse, creating a "quilt" of flowers, vegetables and folk art.[citation needed]
Gardeners often grow in-ground—this type of garden contrasts most with an urban environment. Gardeners may also grow in raised beds, or in boxes, sometimes on top of a paved area. Gardens may include raised for use by people who cannot bend or work directly on the ground.
Regardless of plant choice, planning out the garden layout beforehand will help avoid problems down the line. According to the Arizona Master Gardener Manual, taking measurements of the garden size, sunlight locations and planted crops vs. yield quantity, will ensure a detailed record that helps when making decisions for the coming years. Other considerations when laying out a plot are efficient use of space by using trellises for climbing crops, plant location so that taller plants (like sunflowers) do not block needed sunlight to shorter plants and grouping plants that have similar life cycles close together.
Group and leadership selection
[edit]Community gardeners in North America may be of any cultural background, young or old, new gardeners or seasoned growers, rich or poor. Because of this diversity, when gardeners share their harvest, they often learn about cultural foods created from the plants grown by other gardeners.
Some community gardens "self-support" through membership dues, and others require a sponsor for tools, seeds, or money donations. Support may come from churches, schools, private businesses or parks and recreation departments.[30] Local nonprofit beautification and community-building organizations may contribute as well.
There are many different organizational models in use for community gardens. Most elect their leaders from within their membership. Others are run by individuals appointed by their management or sponsor. Some are managed by non-profit organizations, such as a community gardening association, a community association, a church, or other land-owner, others by a city's recreation or parks department, a school or a university.
Gardens are often started when neighbors come together to commit to the organization, construction and management of a garden, and are assisted by experienced organizers such as the Green Guerillas of New York City.[31] Alternatively, a garden may be organized "top down" by a municipal agency. In Santa Clara, California a non-profit by the name of Appleseeds[32] offers free assistance in starting up new community gardens around the world. Rules and an 'operations manual' are invaluable tools; ideas for both are available at the American Community Gardening Association[33] and in the United States, from local master gardeners and cooperative extensions.
Membership fees
[edit]In most cases, gardeners are expected to pay monthly or annual dues to pay for water, infrastructure, garden-provided tools, water hoses, ordinary maintenance, etc.[citation needed]
Health effects of community gardens
[edit]This section may incorporate text from a large language model. (October 2025) |
Community gardens have been shown to have positive health effects on those who participate in the programs, particularly in the areas of decreasing body mass index and lower rates of obesity. Studies have found that community gardens in schools have been found to improve average body mass index in children. A 2013 study found that 17% of obese or overweight children improved their body mass index over seven weeks.[34][35] Specifically, 13% of the obese children achieved a lower body mass index in the overweight range, while 23% of overweight children achieved a normal body mass index.[34] Many studies have been performed largely in low-income, Hispanic/Latino communities in the United States.[36] In these programs, gardening lessons were accompanied by nutrition and cooking classes and optional parent engagement. Successful programs highlighted the necessity of culturally tailored programming.
There is some evidence to suggest that community gardens have a similar effect in adults. A study found that community gardeners in Utah had a lower body mass index than their non-gardening siblings and unrelated neighbors.[37] Administrative records were used to compare body mass indexes of community gardeners to that of unrelated neighbors, siblings, and spouses. Gardeners were less likely to be overweight or obese than their neighbors, and gardeners had lower body mass indexes than their siblings. However, there was no difference in body mass index between gardeners and their spouses which may suggest that community gardening creates healthy habits for the entire household.
Participation in a community garden has been shown to increase both availability and consumption of fruits and vegetables in households. A study showed an average increase in availability of 2.55 fruits and 4.3 vegetables with participation in a community garden. It also showed that children in participating households consumed an average of two additional servings per week of fruits and 4.9 additional servings per week of vegetables.[38]
Community gardens also have notable positive effects on mental health and well-being. Participation in gardening activities has been associated with reduced stress, enhanced mood, and improved overall mental health.[39] Studies show that engaging in community gardening fosters a sense of belonging and social connectedness, which can mitigate feelings of loneliness and isolation, particularly in urban environments.[40] For instance, community gardens provide safe, communal spaces where individuals can form social bonds, build relationships, and support each other through shared activities. These interactions can help create resilient communities by improving both individual mental health and broader social networks.[40]
Policy implications
[edit]There is strong support among American adults for local and state policies and policy changes that support community gardens. A study found that 47.2% of American adults supported such policies.[41] However, community gardens compete with the interests of developers.[42] Community gardens are largely impacted and governed by policies at the city level. In particular, zoning laws—which incentivize or deincentivize land development—strongly impact the possibility of community gardens. Rezoning is necessary in many cities for a parcel of land to be designated a community garden,[citation needed] but rezoning doesn't guarantee that a garden will not be developed in the future.
Policies can be enacted to protect community gardens from future development. For example, New York State reached a settlement in 2002 which protected hundreds of community gardens which had been established by the Parks and Recreation Department GreenThumb Program from future development.[43]
At times, zoning policy lags behind the development of community gardens. In these cases, community gardens may exist illegally. Such was the case in Detroit when hundreds of community gardens were created in abandoned spaces around the city. The city of Detroit created agricultural zones in 2013 in the middle of urban areas to legitimize the over 355 "illegal" community gardens.[44]
Examples
[edit]Australia
[edit]
The first Australian community garden was established in 1977 in Nunawading, Victoria followed soon after by Ringwood Community Garden[45] in March 1980.[46] Hawthorn Community Gardens were also established in 1980.[47] In 2025 there were around 800 community gardens.[48]
Czech Republic
[edit]The trend of community gardening in the Czech Republic is increasing. The first community garden was founded in 2002 and in 2020 there are more than 100.[49]
Japan
[edit]
In Japan, rooftops on some train stations have been transformed into community gardens.[50] Plots are rented to local residents for $980 per year. These community gardens have become active open spaces now.[51]
Mali
[edit]Often externally supported, community gardens become increasingly important in developing countries, such as West African (Mali) to bridge the gap between supply and requirements for micro-nutrients and at the same time strengthen an inclusive development.[52]
Singapore
[edit]
Spain
[edit]Most older Spaniards grew up in the countryside and moved to the city to find work. Strong family ties often keep them from retiring to the countryside, and so urban community gardens are in great demand. Potlucks and paellas are common, as well as regular meetings to manage the affairs of the garden.[55]
Taiwan
[edit]There is an extensive network of community gardens and collective urban farms in Taipei City often occupying areas of the city that are waiting for development. Flood-prone river banks and other areas unsuitable for urban construction often become legal or illegal community gardens. The network of the community gardens of Taipei are referred to as Taipei organic acupuncture of the industrial city.[56]
United Kingdom
[edit]In the United Kingdom, community gardening is generally distinct from allotment gardening, though the distinction is sometimes blurred. Allotments are generally plots of land let to individuals for their cultivation by local authorities or other public bodies—the upkeep of the land is usually the responsibility of the individual plot owners. Allotments tend (but not invariably) to be situated around the outskirts of built-up areas. Use of allotment areas as open space or play areas is generally discouraged. However, there are an increasing number of community-managed allotments, which may include allotment plots and a community garden area. Many of the community gardens are members of Social Farms & Gardens (a registered charity).[57]
The community garden movement is of more recent provenance than allotment gardening, with many such gardens in built-up areas on patches of derelict land, waste ground or land owned by the local authority or a private landlord that is not being used for any purpose. They can also be on more rural land, often in partnership with a farmer or estate owner. A community garden in the United Kingdom is typically run by people from the local community as an independent, non-profit association or organization, or registered charity (though this may be wholly or partly funded by public money).[citation needed][58]
It is also likely to perform a dual function as an open space or play area (in which role it may also be known as a 'city park') and—while it may offer plots to individual cultivators—the organization that administers the garden will normally have a great deal of the responsibility for its planting, landscaping and upkeep. Examples of inner-city gardens of this sort in London are Calthorpe Community Garden[59] in King's Cross, Islington's Culpeper Community Garden[60] and Camden's Phoenix Garden.[61]
In the UK, not all community gardens are constituted in the same way. The London-based examples above are registered charities, however, other community-garden and food-growing initiatives operate under different structures (such as a constituted community group). An example of this is Norwich's Fifth Quarter gardens and community group.
A significant addition to the community gardening movement in the United Kingdom was initited with the launch of Incredible Edible in 2008. Many local Incredible Edible groups now exist[62] to champion and connect food-growing initiatives across local, regional and national networks.
United States
[edit]

See also
[edit]Notes
[edit]- ^ This apparently means 125m2 or about 1345 square feet, equivalent to a plot of about 15ft x 90ft.
References
[edit]- ^ "What is a community garden?". American Community Garden Association. Archived from the original on 2007-12-04.
- ^ Vikram, Bhatt (2016). "Cultivating Montreal: A Brief History of Citizens and Institutions Integrating Urban Agriculture in the City". Urban Agriculture & Regional Food Systems. 1 (1): 1–12. doi:10.2134/urbanag2015.01.1511. S2CID 56294530.
- ^ Lovell, Rebecca; Husk, Kerryn; Bethel, Alison; Garside, Ruth (2014-10-07). "What are the health and well-being impacts of community gardening for adults and children: a mixed method systematic review protocol". Environmental Evidence. 3 (1): 20. Bibcode:2014EnvEv...3...20L. doi:10.1186/2047-2382-3-20. hdl:10871/19910. ISSN 2047-2382. S2CID 3884117.
- ^ Marin Master Gardeners, Community Gardens, University of California, archived from the original on 10 May 2016
- ^ Hannah, A.K.; Oh, P. (2000). "Rethinking Urban Poverty: A look at Community Gardens". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 20 (3): 207–216. doi:10.1177/027046760002000308. S2CID 144427985.
- ^ Ferris, J.; Norman, C.; Sempik, J. (2001). "People, Land and Sustainability: Community Gardens and the Social Dimension of Sustainable Development". Social Policy and Administration. 35 (5): 559–568. doi:10.1111/1467-9515.t01-1-00253.
- ^ Sugar, Sarah (March 26, 2015). "Oases in the urban 'food desert'? | Yale Environment Review". Yale School of the Environment. Archived from the original on May 31, 2017. Retrieved 2017-05-25.
- ^ Penniman, Leah (June 15, 2020). "How to Grow Change Through Black-Led Agriculture, According to Leah Penniman". Food & Wine.
- ^ "Farming While Black". Farming While Black. Retrieved 2022-05-17.
- ^ a b c Harris, E (2009). "The role of community gardens in creating healthy communities", Australian Planner, v. 46, no. 2 (June 2009) pp. 24–27.
- ^ Xu, Y., & Wang, F. (2015). Built environment and obesity by urbanicity in the U.S. Health & Place, 34, 19–29.
- ^ Nelson, Toni (1 November 1996). "Closing the nutrient loop: Using urban agriculture to increase food supply and reduce waste". World Watch. 9: 10–17.
- ^ [1]: Kishler, Les. Opinion: community gardens are a serious answer to food supplies, health (2010, March 18) San Jose Mercury News.
- ^ "Lean and green". Wellbeing.com.au. 1 May 2013. Archived from the original on 3 May 2013. Retrieved 7 May 2013.
- ^ Harris, E (2009). Active communities experience less crime and vandalism.
- ^ Melville Court, Chatham, Kent," Moiser, Steve, Landscape Design, no306 (Dec. 2001/Jan. 2002) p. 34.
- ^ Hogbin, Tricia (20 November 2015). "How to start a community garden". NineMSN. Archived from the original on 20 November 2015.
- ^ Evelly, Jeanmarie (24 September 2014). "How You Can Turn New York City's Vacant Lots into Community Gardens". DNAinfo New York. Archived from the original on 21 September 2015.
- ^ Visionaries and planners : the garden city movement and the modern community, Stanley Buder. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990. ISBN 0-19-506174-8
- ^ "At The Community Garden, It's Community That's The Hard Part". NPR. 20 March 2012. Retrieved 26 April 2012.
- ^ Selected factors influencing the success of a community garden, by Gordon Arthur Clark. Kansas State University, 1980.
- ^ Resources, University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural. "Community Gardens". marinmg.ucanr.edu. Archived from the original on 2019-09-07. Retrieved 2017-05-22.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ "Allotments: a plotholder's guide" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 18 May 2015. Retrieved 18 May 2015.
- ^ "Allotments and community gardens". Lewisham Borough Council. Archived from the original on 10 May 2015. Retrieved 18 May 2015.
- ^ "Parks and Recreation: Community Gardens". Municipality of Anchorage. Archived from the original on 24 May 2015. Retrieved 18 May 2015.
- ^ "Community Gardens Program". Montgomery Parks, Maryland. Archived from the original on 25 September 2021. Retrieved 18 May 2015.
- ^ "Community Gardens". City of Vancouver. Retrieved 18 May 2015.
- ^ a b Blaine, Thomas W.; Grewal, Parwinder S.; Dawes, Ashley; Snider, Darrin (December 2010). "Profiling Community Gardeners". 48 (6). Archived from the original on 5 May 2016.
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=(help) - ^ a b "Ten Steps to a Successful Vegetable Garden" (PDF). Retrieved 2020-06-26.
- ^ "Growing Community Across the U.S. and Canada – American Community Garden Association". American Community Garden Association. Archived from the original on 2018-04-16. Retrieved 2017-05-20.
- ^ Green Guerillas
- ^ Community Gardens as Appleseeds
- ^ American Community Gardening Association
- ^ a b Castro, DC; Samuels, M; Harman, AE (2013). "Growing healthy kids: a community garden-based obesity prevention program". American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 44 (3 Suppl 3): S193–9. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2012.11.024. PMID 23415183.
- ^ Chen, D.; Jaenicke, E. C.; Volpe, R. J. (2016). "Food Environments and Obesity: Household Diet Expenditure Versus Food Deserts". Am J Public Health. 106 (5): 881–888. doi:10.2105/ajph.2016.303048. PMC 4985118. PMID 26985622.
- ^ Davis, JN; Ventura, EE; Cook, LT; Gyllenhammer, LE; Gatto, NM (August 2011). "LA Sprouts: a gardening, nutrition, and cooking intervention for Latino youth improves diet and reduces obesity". Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 111 (8): 1224–30. doi:10.1016/j.jada.2011.05.009. PMID 21802571.
- ^ Zick, CD; Smith, KR; Kowaleski-Jones, L; Uno, C; Merrill, BJ (June 2013). "Harvesting more than vegetables: the potential weight control benefits of community gardening". American Journal of Public Health. 103 (6): 1110–5. doi:10.2105/ajph.2012.301009. PMC 3698715. PMID 23597347.
- ^ Salud America! Pilot Investigator Project Results (PDF), archived from the original (PDF) on 3 December 2015
- ^ Guitart, Daniela; Pickering, Catherine; Byrne, Jason (2012-01-01). "Past results and future directions in urban community gardens research". Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 11 (4): 364–373. Bibcode:2012UFUG...11..364G. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2012.06.007. hdl:10072/48504. ISSN 1618-8667.
- ^ a b Ernwein, Marion (2014-09-01). "Framing urban gardening and agriculture: On space, scale and the public". Geoforum. 56: 77–86. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.06.016. ISSN 0016-7185.
- ^ Foltz, JL; Harris, DM; HM, Blanck (2012), "Support among U.S. adults for local and state policies to increase fruit and vegetable access", Am J Prev Med, 43 (3): S102–8, doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2012.05.017, PMC 10880681, PMID 22898158
- ^ Schmelzkopf, Karen (1995). "Urban Community Gardens as Contested Space". Geographical Review. 85 (3): 364–381. Bibcode:1995GeoRv..85..364S. doi:10.2307/215279. ISSN 0016-7428. JSTOR 215279.
- ^ Robert Fox Elder. (2005). protecting new york city's community gardens. New York University Environmental Law Journal, 13, 769–803.
- ^ Kaffer, N. (2010). Planners recommend new zoning, lower tax rate for urban farms. Crain's Detroit Business, 26(13), 8. 91 U. Det. Mercy L. Rev. 345. Retrieved from www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic
- ^ "Ringwood Community Garden". Archived from the original on 13 June 2006. Retrieved 29 January 2014.
- ^ Environment and Sustainable Development Directorate (5 April 2013). "A Study of the Demand for Community Gardens and their Benefits for the ACT Community". ACT Government. Retrieved 14 April 2013.
- ^ "Hawthorn Community Gardens | Local Food Connect". 2019-05-21. Retrieved 2025-10-22.
- ^ "Garden Directory". Community Gardens Australia. Retrieved 2025-10-22.
- ^ "Mapa komunitních zahrad a kompostérů".
- ^ "まちなか菜園" (in Japanese). 17 May 2021.
- ^ Meinhold, Bridgette (25 March 2014). "Rooftop Farms on Japanese Train Stations Serve as Community Gardens". Inhabitat. Retrieved 4 April 2019.
- ^ Hans-Heinrich Bass, Klaus von Freyhold und Cordula Weisskoeppel: Water harvesting, tree protection: towards food security in the Sahel, Bremen 2013
- ^ Williamson, Fiona; Goh, Joshua. "Growing Food in a Garden City". BiblioAsia. Retrieved 19 February 2025.
- ^ "Community Gardens". National Parks Board. Retrieved 18 February 2025.
- ^ "Urban Gardens". Urbangardensbarcelona.wordpress.com. 25 November 2009. Retrieved 11 December 2011.
- ^ "The Community Gardens of Taipei" Casagrande, Marco (2010). P2P Foundation
- ^ "About SF&G". Social Farms & Gardens. Retrieved 7 October 2022.
- ^ Ramsden, Sam (16 February 2021). ""It's one of the few things that … pulls us together when the outside world is really tough." Exploring the outcomes and challenges of a charity-led community garden in a disadvantaged English city". Local Environment. 26 (2): 283–296. Bibcode:2021LoEnv..26..283R. doi:10.1080/13549839.2021.1886067 – via https://hull-repository.worktribe.com/output/3726501.
{{cite journal}}: External link in(help)|via= - ^ "Calthorpe Community Garden". Calthorpe Community Garden. 19 October 2025. Retrieved 19 October 2025.
- ^ "Culpeper Community Garden: Islington's Green Oasis". Retrieved 12 January 2014.
- ^ "The Phoenix Garden". Retrieved 12 January 2014.
- ^ "Incredible Edible". Incredible Edible Groups. 19 October 2025. Retrieved 19 October 2025.
- ^ Joy, LaManda (2014). Start a community food garden: the essential handbook (1st ed.). Portland, Oregon. ISBN 978-1-60469-668-4. OCLC 899209216.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) - ^ "A century later, victory gardens connect Americans again". ABC News. Retrieved 2021-03-16.
Community gardening
View on GrokipediaHistory
Origins in the Industrial Era
In the United States, community gardening emerged during the economic recession of the 1890s, particularly the Panic of 1893, as a means to address unemployment and food insecurity in urban areas without relying on direct charitable handouts. In Detroit, Mayor Hazen Pingree initiated the "Potato Patch Plan" in 1894, organizing the cultivation of vacant lots by over 1,000 unemployed workers who received seeds, tools, and instructions in multiple languages to grow potatoes and other vegetables for personal use.[3][9] This municipal effort emphasized self-sufficiency, with participants retaining their produce while fostering habits of labor and moral improvement, rather than passive aid distribution.[10] By 1897, similar vacant lot programs had expanded to cities like Buffalo, New York, and Cleveland, Ohio, where private landowners and civic groups leased underutilized land cheaply to families, yielding thousands of plots that produced staple crops amid industrial job losses.[11] Parallel developments occurred in Europe during the Industrial Revolution's peak urbanization from the mid- to late 19th century, as rural migrants flooded cities, straining housing and food supplies in densely packed working-class districts. In Germany, Kleingärten (small gardens) originated around the 1860s in Leipzig and spread to industrial centers like Berlin, providing leased plots of about 300-400 square meters for laborers to grow vegetables, supplementing wages eroded by factory work and high living costs.[12] In England and France, allotment systems evolved from earlier rural enclosures but adapted to urban needs by the 1870s, with municipalities and philanthropists allocating marginal lands—often 10-20 rods per plot—for nominal rents, enabling self-provisioning in cities like Manchester and Paris where imported food prices soared.[13] These gardens prioritized individual family plots over collective farming, promoting voluntary tenant associations for maintenance and reflecting a pragmatic response to market failures in food distribution rather than centralized welfare.[14] Across North America and Europe, these early initiatives underscored ad-hoc cooperation between landowners, civic leaders, and workers, with plots typically assigned on a first-come basis and focused on high-yield staples like potatoes, beans, and cabbage to maximize caloric output from limited space.[15] Yields varied but often covered 20-50% of a family's vegetable needs, alleviating reliance on volatile urban markets while instilling discipline through seasonal labor.[11] Unlike later state-mandated programs, these gardens operated through informal leases and community oversight, avoiding permanent infrastructure to match the transient nature of industrial unemployment.[16]Wartime and Depression-Era Expansions
During World War I, community gardening expanded significantly in the United States through the National War Garden Commission's efforts starting in 1917, encouraging citizens to plant home and community plots to alleviate food shortages for troops and civilians in Europe.[17] These "war gardens" numbered over 5 million by the war's end, with schoolchildren alone contributing millions of plots that yielded substantial vegetables, fostering self-reliance amid disrupted imports.[17] Similar initiatives occurred in the United Kingdom, where allotments increased to support domestic food production during wartime scarcity. The programs scaled dramatically in World War II, with the U.S. Victory Garden campaign promoting patriotic participation that resulted in approximately 20 million gardens by 1944, producing around 8 million tons of food—equivalent to about 40 percent of the nation's fresh vegetable supply.[18] [19] In the UK, the "Dig for Victory" campaign, launched in 1939, converted parks, lawns, and vacant lots into productive plots, expanding allotments from 1.4 million to 1.75 million by 1943 and generating an estimated additional million tons of produce annually to offset rationing and U-boat blockades.[20] These efforts emphasized individual responsibility for food security, reducing pressure on commercial agriculture redirected to military needs.[21] In the 1930s Great Depression, relief gardens proliferated in U.S. cities as nonprofits and local governments allocated vacant lots for subsistence cultivation to diminish dependence on cash aid amid mass unemployment.[22] Programs like New York City's 1934 initiative provided 300 plots initially, expanding via federal works projects to thousands nationwide, enabling families to grow staple crops and supplementing diets during economic collapse.[23] By 1936, such gardens covered over 2 million plots, yielding vegetables that offset shortages without straining relief budgets.[24] Participation waned post-crises as market access and employment recovered, highlighting gardens' role as temporary responses to acute necessity rather than enduring preferences.[25]Post-1970s Urban Revival and Modern Trends
In the 1970s, New York City faced severe urban decay, fiscal crisis, and widespread abandonment of lots amid high crime rates, prompting activist responses through community gardening. The Green Guerillas, founded in 1973 by Liz Christy, Amos Taylor, and Martin Gallent, initiated efforts by hurling "seed bombs"—balls of soil, clay, and seeds—into vacant lots to spark vegetation and reclaim spaces.[26] [27] These guerrilla tactics evolved into organized gardens, such as the Bowery-Houston Community Garden established in 1973, which formalized community stewardship of derelict urban land.[28] Community gardening saw renewed expansion in the 21st century, with the total number of gardens rising 44% across the 100 largest U.S. cities from 2012 to 2018, reflecting broader interest in local food production amid urbanization.[29] The COVID-19 pandemic from 2020 onward amplified demand, as heightened food insecurity—exacerbated by supply chain disruptions and economic pressures—drove participation in gardening for self-sufficiency, with studies documenting increased engagement in urban plots during this period.[30] However, as food markets stabilized post-2022, growth plateaued, with reliance on transient volunteerism revealing limits in scaling without sustained economic drivers like yield-based incentives.[31] Recent trends from 2023 to 2025 emphasize integration with advanced urban agriculture, including vertical and rooftop adaptations to maximize limited space in dense cities, as evidenced by expanding market projections for such systems projected to grow at 13.4% CAGR through 2029.[32] Rooftop greenhouses and vertical walls in community contexts offer potential for higher yields and resource efficiency, yet empirical data on retention underscore modest long-term viability, with pilot studies highlighting that garden longevity hinges on consistent leadership and participation rather than initial enthusiasm.[33] [34] Without mechanisms tying operations to tangible economic returns, such as offsetting produce costs, many initiatives face attrition, as volunteer-driven models prove insufficient against urban pressures like land redevelopment.[35]Definition and Core Features
Legal Ownership and Property Rights
Community gardens in the United States typically occupy land under a spectrum of ownership models, from municipally owned public parcels granted via revocable licenses or short-term leases to nonprofit-held properties or resident cooperatives managing private lots acquired through land trusts or direct purchase.[36][37] Publicly owned gardens, often on vacant urban lots transferred to city control during the mid-20th century due to tax delinquencies, predominate in cities like New York, where gardeners receive plot assignments but lack fee simple title, exposing them to administrative revocation.[38] Private models, such as those sponsored by investors or grassroots groups on deeded land, impose clearer accountability through defined membership rights and maintenance obligations, reducing free-rider problems inherent in unallocated public commons.[39][40] Property rights tensions arise prominently from redevelopment pressures and eminent domain risks, as gardens compete with higher-value uses like housing on scarce urban land. In New York City, numerous evictions have targeted gardens on city-owned sites, including the 2024 notice to vacate Elizabeth Street Garden for construction of 123 affordable housing units and similar actions against Ridgewood's Sunset Community Garden in 2025 over alleged maintenance failures.[41][42] Historical threats include proposals to use eminent domain against gardens for private development, countered in some cases by community efforts to invoke it for preservation, as in 2016 advocacy to condemn lots endangering gardens in Brooklyn.[43] Vandalism and liability concerns further complicate public models, with landowners wary of property damage from unvested users, though empirical data on elevated risks remains mixed and often tied to broader neighborhood crime dynamics rather than ownership per se.[44] Empirical analysis underscores that well-maintained gardens can enhance adjacent property values, but outcomes hinge on enforceable stewardship to avert neglect. A 2008 Furman Center study of New York City gardens found they raised nearby residential prices by up to 9% within 1,000 feet, with effects amplifying over time in lower-income areas and correlating positively with garden longevity and upkeep, implying that private incentives for accountability—such as assigned plots with usage fees—sustain these benefits more reliably than diffuse public access.[45][46] Conversely, reversion to vacancy or poor maintenance under tenuous public leases erodes value gains, highlighting causal trade-offs in land allocation where short-term communal use yields to long-term private development absent robust rights enforcement.[40]Variations in Garden Types
![A 20ft x 20ft community garden plot in Harrisonburg, Virginia.jpg][float-right] Community gardens exhibit structural variations primarily in space allocation and participant involvement. Allotment-style gardens apportion land into discrete individual plots, typically rented or assigned to members who independently manage their sections, with collective responsibility for perimeter or communal zones.[47] Collective gardens, by contrast, employ shared beds across the entire site, where participants collaborate on planting, maintenance, and harvest distribution without personal subdivisions.[48] Hybrid models integrate allotment and collective elements, such as designated personal plots adjacent to communal herb or crop beds, allowing flexibility in individual and group cultivation.[49] Therapeutic gardens adapt these formats with accessibility features like elevated raised beds or sensory plantings to support physical rehabilitation or mental health objectives.[50] Educational variants, frequently integrated into school grounds, prioritize structured plots for instructional purposes, distinguishing them from production-focused community sites by emphasizing curriculum-aligned activities over yield.[51] Prison-based gardens constitute specialized implementations, often featuring secure, contained plots designed for inmate participation in skill-building horticulture within correctional confines.[52] Urban community gardens commonly utilize compact allotment or vertical configurations to accommodate dense populations and scarce land, whereas rural counterparts exploit larger tracts for expansive shared or mixed layouts.[53] Globally, adaptations include allotment systems in space-constrained regions like Japan, where urban participants lease plots for personal produce absent private yards.[54]Physical Design Elements
Individual plots in community gardens typically range from 100 to 400 square feet, providing sufficient space for household-scale production while remaining manageable for volunteer gardeners.[55][56] This size balances crop yield potential against labor constraints, as larger plots exceeding 400 square feet often require more intensive maintenance that exceeds the capacity of part-time participants.[57] Site selection prioritizes access to at least six to eight hours of direct sunlight daily to support photosynthesis and growth, reliable water sources for irrigation, and proximity to urban populations for accessibility.[58][59] Level terrain minimizes erosion and eases cultivation, though sloped sites can be adapted with terracing.[58] In urban settings, brownfield locations pose risks of soil contamination from heavy metals like lead or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons accumulated through prior industrial use, necessitating testing and remediation such as raised beds or imported clean soil to mitigate ingestion or inhalation exposure.[60][61][62] Garden layouts influence efficiency through path-to-growing-area ratios and worker ergonomics; traditional row planting dedicates more space to walkways, reducing productive area to about 60% of the total, whereas intensive raised beds or wide beds achieve over 80% efficiency by minimizing paths and allowing closer plant spacing.[63] Raised beds, typically 4 feet wide for arm's-reach access without stepping into soil, improve drainage, soil warming, and reduce back strain during weeding or harvesting compared to in-ground rows requiring deeper bending.[64][65] These designs leverage soil compaction avoidance in paths and concentrated amendments in growing zones, enhancing overall productivity per unit area.[66]Operational Aspects
Organizational Structure and Leadership
Community gardens predominantly operate under volunteer-led organizational structures, which can range from informal collectives relying on ad hoc coordination among participants to more formalized setups with designated leadership teams or boards. Informal models preserve a cooperative ethos by distributing tasks through consensus or rotation, as observed in many North American community food gardens where initial teams evolve without rigid hierarchies to foster ongoing participation.[67] Formal structures, such as those affiliated with municipal programs, often incorporate boards selected via applications, nominations, or elections to ensure accountability and mitigate risks of favoritism or capture by dominant personalities; for instance, Seattle's P-Patch program outlines leadership handbooks emphasizing periodic meetings and shared responsibilities to sustain operations.[68] Selection processes prioritize demonstrated commitment over democratic voting alone, with some gardens using lotteries for plot assignments that indirectly influence leadership emergence by equalizing access and reducing entrenched power.[69] Leadership in these gardens plays a critical role in enforcing rules on plot maintenance, resource sharing, and conflict resolution, drawing on practical authority to maintain productivity amid diverse participant needs. Empirical studies of self-organizing urban gardens reveal that, contrary to ideals of pure egalitarianism, natural hierarchies frequently emerge based on epistemic authority—individuals with specialized gardening knowledge or organizational skills assume de facto leadership, guiding decisions on crop rotation or pest management more effectively than rote democratic processes.[70] This expertise-driven dynamic enhances operational efficiency but can strain leaders, as case studies document high turnover rates due to burnout from uncompensated demands like coordinating volunteers and mediating disputes; systematic reviews of garden sustainability identify organizer exhaustion as a primary factor in project decline, with multi-functional roles exacerbating time burdens on coordinators.[71][72] Transparent communication and inclusive practices, such as regular team check-ins, mitigate these risks by distributing authority without undermining competence-based guidance.[73]Membership Models and Financial Mechanisms
Community gardens typically operate under membership models that require participants to pay annual fees for access to individual plots, fostering accountability and covering operational costs like water usage, tool maintenance, and shared infrastructure. In the United States, these fees generally range from $15 to $60 per plot per season, depending on location and plot size; for example, 500-square-foot plots in Manhattan are priced at $20 for reduced-fee participants or $40 at full rate, while full plots in Fargo, North Dakota, cost $35.[74][75] Such charges, akin to market mechanisms, encourage committed participation by requiring financial investment, reducing turnover compared to no-fee arrangements where free-riding or neglect can undermine collective maintenance.[76] Demand for plots often exceeds supply, evidenced by extensive waitlists that signal exclusionary effects despite broad interest. In San Francisco's Fort Mason Community Garden, wait times stretch 8-9 years for one of 128 plots, while other local gardens report lists exceeding 12 years, prioritizing long-term members and leaving newcomers sidelined.[77] This scarcity underscores the value placed on secured access but highlights barriers for low-mobility or transient populations, prompting some gardens to implement lotteries or priority systems for veterans and seniors.[78] Financial mechanisms vary between self-sustaining dues-based systems and subsidy-dependent ones reliant on grants, donations, or municipal budgets, with the latter facing heightened vulnerability during funding shortfalls. Self-funded models, where plot fees generate 50-100% of revenue, promote resilience by aligning costs with user benefits, whereas grant-heavy gardens risk closure amid budget cuts, as observed in urban programs during economic downturns.[79][76] Supplemental funding streams, such as corporate sponsorships or fundraising events, can bolster viability but often supplement rather than replace member contributions, ensuring gardens avoid over-dependence on volatile public or philanthropic support.[80]Crop Selection and Maintenance Practices
![A 20ft x 20ft community garden plot in Harrisonburg, Virginia showing divided crop sections][float-right]Crop selection in community gardens prioritizes high-yield edible plants suited to local conditions, such as tomatoes, beans, leafy greens like kale and lettuce, carrots, beets, and cucumbers, which provide substantial harvests per square foot in urban settings.[81][82] These choices emphasize vegetables over ornamentals to maximize food production, though selection is constrained by urban factors including limited sunlight from shading, variable soil quality often compromised by prior contamination or compaction, and regional climate influencing growing seasons and pest pressures.[83][84] For instance, cool-season crops like brassicas and root vegetables are favored in temperate zones, while heat-tolerant varieties such as okra may be selected in warmer areas, with soil testing recommended to address nutrient deficiencies or heavy metals prevalent in city plots.[85] Maintenance practices demand regular inputs to sustain yields, including manual weeding to suppress competition, targeted irrigation delivering approximately 1 inch of water weekly at the plant base to minimize evaporation, and integrated pest management relying on crop rotation, sanitation, mulching, and companion planting rather than chemical interventions.[86][87] These methods require consistent labor, with practices like mulching to retain soil moisture and deter weeds, alongside monitoring for diseases through healthy plant promotion and removal of debris.[86] However, empirical data reveal high abandonment risks due to these demands; in a 2022 survey of 1,960 plots across urban programs, approximately 10% were entirely unused and 12% showed low activity, attributing lapses to inconsistent participation amid time constraints.[7] Sustainability in these practices faces scrutiny, as community garden yields, while potentially double those of conventional farms per area—reaching up to 2 pounds per square foot for intensive plots—often necessitate five times the labor input, challenging scalability for non-professional gardeners.[88] Water efficiency lags behind commercial operations in some cases, with urban plots averaging 71.6 liters of irrigation per kilogram of harvested food, higher than optimized industrial systems due to manual application and smaller scales lacking drip technology.[89][90] Claims of inherent environmental superiority thus warrant caution, as localized inefficiencies in resource use can offset gains unless augmented by practices like rainwater harvesting or soil amendments tailored to site-specific data.[90]
Empirical Evidence of Benefits
Nutritional and Physical Health Outcomes
Community gardening participation correlates with elevated fruit and vegetable consumption among participants. A randomized controlled trial reported that gardeners increased total vegetable intake by 0.63 servings per day (P=0.047) and garden-specific vegetables by 0.67 servings (P=0.02) compared to controls.[91] Systematic reviews of multiple studies similarly link gardening to higher overall fruit and vegetable intake, though evidence quality varies due to observational designs and small sample sizes in many cases.[5] These dietary shifts may contribute to modest improvements in body mass index (BMI), with gardeners exhibiting lower BMI values in cross-sectional analyses.[92] Garden yields, however, remain limited in scale relative to household nutritional needs. Urban community plots, often constrained to 100-400 square feet per participant, typically produce supplemental rather than primary food supplies, with outputs equivalent to a fraction of daily caloric or micronutrient requirements for most households.[82] For instance, average yields approximate 20.4 servings of produce per 11 square feet annually, insufficient to substantially offset broader dietary gaps without complementary sources. Thus, while access to fresh produce rises, nutritional benefits depend on consistent consumption of these modest harvests alongside market foods. Physically, gardening entails moderate-intensity labor such as digging, planting, and weeding, which elevates daily activity levels and energy expenditure.[94] Systematic evidence indicates this activity reduces obesity risks by increasing caloric burn and fostering habitual movement, with participants logging activity comparable to structured exercise sessions.[95] Interventions combining gardening with nutrition education have shown BMI reductions in overweight adults, attributing gains to both exertion and behavioral reinforcement.[96] Recent Michigan State University research underscores how gardening's physical demands integrate with nature exposure to sustain engagement, potentially aiding long-term adherence to active lifestyles.[97] Overall, these outcomes manifest most reliably in motivated participants, with effects tempered by plot access and maintenance intensity.Social Cohesion and Psychological Effects
Community gardening participation correlates with increased perceptions of social support and cohesion among participants, as evidenced by self-reported data from observational studies. A 2022 systematic review in BMC Public Health synthesized findings from 21 studies involving over 6,000 individuals across various demographics, reporting consistent associations between garden involvement and enhanced social networks, reduced loneliness, and higher community attachment.[5] These outcomes were attributed to shared labor, collaborative decision-making, and informal interactions during garden activities. However, the review emphasized methodological limitations, including predominant reliance on cross-sectional designs without control groups, small non-representative samples (often under 100 participants per study), and self-selection bias, whereby socially outgoing individuals are disproportionately likely to self-enroll, confounding causal inferences about the garden's role in fostering cohesion.[5] Psychological benefits, such as lowered stress and elevated mood, have been linked to the hands-on aspects of gardening, including soil manipulation and plant tending, which engage biophilic responses and provide a sense of accomplishment independent of group dynamics. A 2024 study from Michigan State University, surveying 200 community gardeners, found statistically significant reductions in self-reported stress scores (p<0.05) post-participation, mediated by perceived mastery over plant growth and nature immersion.[97] Complementary evidence from a broader 2024 meta-analysis of 28 gardening interventions reported moderate effect sizes (Cohen's d=0.45) for anxiety and depression alleviation, though effects were not isolated to communal formats and appeared comparable to solitary or household gardening.[98] This suggests that while community settings amplify some interpersonal gains, core psychological uplifts derive from individual agency in cultivation, with communal elements potentially introducing stressors like coordination disputes that dilute net benefits for introverted or conflict-averse participants. Despite reported cohesion advantages, empirical accounts reveal uneven integration, where established garden members sometimes form insular subgroups that deter newcomers, particularly from marginalized backgrounds. Qualitative analyses in urban case studies document instances of informal gatekeeping, such as preferential plot allocation or exclusionary communication norms, undermining broader inclusivity claims.[99] Such dynamics highlight a tension between collective ideals and real-world social frictions, where overemphasis on group harmony may suppress individual contributions and exacerbate free-riding or alienation, as inferred from lower retention rates (around 30-50% annually) in long-term garden cohorts.[5] Overall, while associations exist, rigorous longitudinal randomized trials are scarce, tempering confidence in causal efficacy beyond selection effects.Economic and Productivity Impacts
Community gardens generate modest direct economic returns through household food production, with estimates indicating annual savings of $70 to $380 per plot after accounting for basic inputs like seeds and water.[100] A study of U.S. gardens reported an average yield of 128 pounds of produce per 253-square-foot plot, equivalent to approximately 0.51 pounds per square foot, which translates to tangible reductions in grocery expenditures for participants growing high-value crops like tomatoes and leafy greens.[82] These savings, however, are often offset by unremunerated labor, which can require 100-200 hours per season per plot for planting, weeding, and harvesting, potentially exceeding the monetary value when time is valued at prevailing urban wage rates of $15-20 per hour.[101] Indirect economic benefits include uplifts in neighboring property values, as documented in New York City where community gardens increased residential prices by about 9% within 1,000 feet in lower-income neighborhoods, with effects accumulating over five years post-establishment.[45] This premium arises from perceived enhancements in neighborhood aesthetics and stability rather than direct fiscal mechanisms, though gains diminish in higher-income areas where open space is less scarce.[46] In terms of productivity, community gardens exhibit high land-use efficiency, with yields in some urban settings nearly double those of conventional Australian vegetable farms on equivalent areas, driven by intensive manual practices and diverse cropping.[88] Yet, aggregate output remains marginal relative to commercial markets, as gardens typically produce only 4 pounds of food weekly per participant, insufficient to displace large-scale supply chains or achieve economies of scale without substantial coordination challenges.[35] Extensions like those from Utah State University demonstrate potential for gardens to incubate small agribusinesses by providing low-barrier testing grounds for techniques scalable to market-oriented operations, though success depends on participants' entrepreneurial capacity rather than inherent productivity advantages.[102] Overall, while offering localized fiscal offsets, community gardens' economic impacts prioritize supplemental rather than substitutive production, with verifiable returns constrained by labor intensity and site limitations.Criticisms and Limitations
Governance Conflicts and Free-Rider Problems
Community gardens frequently encounter governance conflicts stemming from the challenges of managing shared spaces, such as disagreements over plot allocation, maintenance duties, and decision-making processes. These disputes often arise when individual preferences clash with collective needs, leading to tensions over resource distribution and rule interpretation. For example, plot squatting—where members informally claim abandoned or unassigned plots—has been documented as a recurring issue, prompting informal resolutions or formal interventions by garden coordinators. Similarly, unequal labor contributions, where some participants shirk communal tasks like weeding or infrastructure upkeep, foster resentment and erode group cohesion. Online forums and gardener reports highlight political infighting, including factionalism over leadership or policy changes, which can paralyze operations in volunteer-driven settings.[103][104] The free-rider problem exacerbates these conflicts by allowing non-contributors to benefit from others' efforts, such as harvesting from shared areas or relying on collective pest control without reciprocal input. In urban agriculture contexts, initial free-riding on surplus labor provided by dedicated gardeners discourages broader participation, as contributors perceive inequity in the distribution of benefits versus costs. This dynamic contributes to high turnover, with community gardens exhibiting elevated failure rates due to participant attrition from frustration over unaddressed freeloading. Garden managers report that sustaining engagement requires vigilant monitoring, yet persistent free-riding undermines the voluntary cooperation essential to these commons-based systems.[105][106] To mitigate these issues, many gardens enforce strict rules, including progressive sanctions like warnings, plot reassignment, and expulsions for chronic non-compliance or violations such as unauthorized harvesting. Boards or committees typically hold authority for adjudication, as seen in operational guidelines that empower them to revoke access and reallocate resources to compliant members. Such measures underscore the necessity of formalized governance to counteract incentive misalignments, though enforcement can itself spark further disputes if perceived as arbitrary. Empirical observations from garden operations indicate that gardens with robust rule enforcement experience lower dissolution rates compared to those relying solely on informal norms.[107][108]Inefficiencies in Resource Use and Scalability
Community gardens in urban settings frequently incur opportunity costs by occupying land that could support higher-density housing or commercial development, exacerbating shortages in high-demand areas. In land-constrained cities like New York, preserving sites for gardens forgoes potential property tax revenues and housing units, with analyses estimating these forgone benefits as a primary economic drawback despite localized property value uplifts nearby.[46] This diversion persists even as garden plots remain underutilized relative to alternative yields, prioritizing low-output communal use over market-driven allocation. Crop productivity in community gardens exhibits inefficiencies when measured against commercial benchmarks. While yields per acre can exceed those of conventional vegetable farms—reaching nearly double in surveyed Australian urban plots—these gains demand approximately five times the labor input, rendering the model reliant on unpaid volunteer hours rather than efficient mechanization.[88] Such labor substitution undermines scalability, as expanding beyond small plots amplifies coordination costs without proportional output gains, contrasting with industrialized agriculture's optimization of capital and technology for volume production. Ongoing maintenance requirements further erode viability, with weeding, irrigation, and soil management often overwhelming participants and contributing to widespread attrition. Expert consensus highlights these operational burdens as recurrent barriers, fostering volunteer burnout and inconsistent plot care that diminishes overall garden functionality.[8] In practice, U.S. initiatives have encountered high failure risks, as evidenced by a Georgia county's $500,000 investment in just 12 planters prompting policy overhauls due to unsustainable upkeep demands.[106] Efforts to scale community gardening face inherent limits from these resource strains, particularly following transient demand surges. Post-2020 pandemic interest elevated applications and self-sufficiency appeals, yet structural constraints like land competition and persistent maintenance needs have curtailed broad replication, with growth confined to incremental rather than systemic expansion.[29] This pattern underscores a causal mismatch: initial enthusiasm driven by supply disruptions fails to overcome embedded inefficiencies, restricting gardens to supplementary roles absent subsidies or technological offsets.[29]Potential Drawbacks in Health, Environment, and Equity
Community gardens established on previously industrial or urban vacant lots can expose participants to soil contaminants such as heavy metals like lead and arsenic, which accumulate from past pollution and pose risks of acute and chronic health issues including neurological damage and cancer upon ingestion or inhalation.[109][110] Testing reveals elevated levels in many urban sites, with children facing heightened vulnerability due to hand-to-mouth behavior, necessitating costly remediation like raised beds that not all gardens implement.[111][112] Participation often demands physical labor that exacerbates allergies to pollen, pesticides, or plant materials, particularly in dense planting schemes without adequate mitigation.[113] Environmentally, community gardens in water-scarce regions compete with broader municipal needs, as irrigation demands—often exceeding 1 inch per week per plot during peak growth—strain limited supplies amid climate-induced droughts and restrictions.[114][115] Plots frequently prioritize high-yield, non-native crops in monocultural arrangements, potentially diminishing local agrobiodiversity through soil depletion, erosion, and reduced habitat for native species compared to natural succession on untilled land.[116] Such practices can lead to salinization or nutrient imbalances without vigilant management, undermining long-term viability in urban ecosystems.[116] In terms of equity, access to community gardens disproportionately favors individuals with disposable time, mobility, and motivation, excluding low-income or working-class participants burdened by employment demands, transportation barriers, or plot maintenance efforts that require consistent attendance.[117][118] Food insecurity persists at structural levels—such as poverty rates exceeding 20% in affected demographics—unaddressed by gardens that yield minimal caloric output per participant and often devolve into hobbies for middle-income enthusiasts rather than scalable solutions for the underprivileged.[119] Theft, vandalism, and waitlists further entrench inequalities, as vulnerable communities report higher non-participation due to these risks over purported communal benefits.[117][120]Policy and Broader Implications
Role of Government Subsidies and Regulations
In the United States, federal subsidies for community gardens are channeled through U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) programs, such as the People's Garden Initiative, which in November 2024 announced $1 million in funding via the Office of Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production to support urban projects including garden infrastructure and education. These grants enable initial setup by covering costs like soil testing and tools, but they can engender dependency, as seen in cases where funding interruptions threaten operations; for example, federal cuts in Lexington, Kentucky, affected 75% of community garden infrastructure, including wash stations and coolers, highlighting vulnerabilities in subsidy-reliant models.[121][122] Zoning regulations and liability requirements frequently erect barriers to garden establishment and persistence. Many municipalities treat community gardens as conditional uses requiring variances, complicating land access on public or private property, while liability for injuries or contamination risks discourages participation without city-held insurance or waivers. Reforms, such as classifying gardens as permitted or by-right uses in residential and vacant lot zones, have been proposed to streamline approvals and shift toward self-reliant community-led initiatives, minimizing regulatory overhead that favors bureaucratic oversight over organic growth.[39][123][124] Empirical assessments indicate that subsidized gardens often achieve elevated initial productivity through provided resources, yet long-term performance varies, with sustainability challenged by funding volatility and the absence of market mechanisms. Community gardens, including those with initial grant support, can yield produce values offsetting significant household food expenses—up to hundreds of dollars annually per plot—but declines occur when external support wanes without strong internal governance or sales outlets, suggesting that minimal-intervention approaches prioritizing participant incentives outperform persistent subsidy dependence.[35][79]Interactions with Urban Development and Markets
Community gardens frequently encounter tensions with urban development priorities, as municipal governments and developers prioritize higher-density housing or commercial projects on underutilized land. In New York City during the mid-1990s, under Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, the administration sought to auction off approximately 114 community gardens in 1999 to facilitate affordable housing construction, viewing the plots as vacant city-owned land better suited for redevelopment amid a housing shortage.[125] This led to widespread protests, legal challenges, and occupations by gardeners asserting use rights against formal property claims, culminating in a 2002 settlement that preserved over 500 gardens while allowing development on select sites.[126] Such conflicts highlight causal pressures from land scarcity in growing cities, where gardens' informal tenure often yields to market-driven zoning and eminent domain, though empirical analyses indicate gardens can initially stabilize blighted areas before appreciating land values attract redevelopment.[46] Regarding market interactions, community gardens function primarily as supplements to commercial supermarkets rather than viable substitutes, given their limited scale and focus on fresh, nutrient-dense produce that complements staple goods available through larger retail chains. A 2016 study across 19 North American cities found that urban gardens increased participants' vegetable intake and access in food-insecure areas without evidence of displacing supermarket purchases, as gardens yielded only modest quantities suited for household use.[127] Similarly, policy analyses estimate gardeners save around $450 annually on produce costs compared to grocery prices, but this represents augmentation of diets rather than competition, since urban land constraints prevent gardens from achieving the economies of scale or year-round reliability of industrialized food supply chains.[128] Food security research underscores that gardens mitigate gaps in fresh food availability—particularly in underserved neighborhoods—but rely on markets for bulk, processed, and non-local items, avoiding direct rivalry.[119] Privatization incentives emerge as gardens demonstrably boost adjacent property values, creating market pressures for transitions from communal to private stewardship that can enhance operational viability. Longitudinal data from New York City reveal that properties near community gardens appreciate by up to 9.4% within five years of establishment, signaling to developers and residents the land's enhanced worth for private investment or resident-led buyouts.[46] In cases where gardens transition to private or cooperative ownership models, such as through nonprofit trusts or individual plot sales, maintenance improves due to aligned property rights that reduce free-rider issues inherent in open-access communal systems, though this risks exclusivity and higher barriers to low-income participation.[129] These dynamics reflect first-principles economic logic: secure tenure incentivizes investment, potentially sustaining gardens longer than precarious public allocations amid urban expansion.[130]Long-Term Sustainability and Alternatives
Many community gardens exhibit limited long-term viability, with a substantial proportion failing within their initial years owing to inconsistent funding, volunteer attrition, and inadequate maintenance protocols.[131] Analyses of return on investment (ROI) for such projects highlight that while short-term outputs like produce yield can offset costs—particularly for high-value crops such as tomatoes—sustained operations often falter without dedicated resources, as data constraints in pilot assessments reveal gaps in ongoing financial and labor inputs.[132] These challenges stem from reliance on voluntary participation, which exposes gardens to lapses in collective commitment, contrasting with more stable individual or market-driven models. Alternatives to community gardens, such as home gardening and community-supported agriculture (CSA) programs, can deliver comparable nutritional and social benefits while incurring lower coordination and governance overheads. Home gardens enable personalized control over plot management and harvesting, yielding meaningful food production volumes per household without the free-rider dynamics inherent in shared spaces.[82] CSAs, by contrast, connect consumers directly to local farmers via prepaid shares, ensuring reliable supply chains and economic incentives for producers that enhance scalability beyond volunteer-dependent plots.[133] Both options prioritize individual accountability, potentially fostering greater persistence than communal efforts prone to dissolution. Prospects for enhancing community garden sustainability include technological integrations like automated irrigation systems, which as of 2025 optimize water use through sensor-driven adjustments, reducing manual labor demands and mitigating drought risks in urban settings.[134] However, such advancements remain supplementary, as core dependencies on voluntary effort and funding persist, underscoring that no technology fully obviates the need for robust organizational frameworks to rival the efficiency of private or commercial alternatives.[135]Global Examples and Case Studies
United States and North America
During World War II, the United States promoted Victory Gardens as a national effort to supplement food supplies, with over 20 million such gardens producing approximately 8 million tons of fruits and vegetables by 1944, accounting for about 40% of the nation's fresh produce.[19][136] These community and home plots were established on vacant lots, backyards, and public lands, demonstrating early organized urban gardening to address wartime shortages.[21] In New York City, the Green Guerillas group initiated community gardening in 1973 by seeding vacant lots to reclaim abandoned urban spaces, leading to the establishment of hundreds of gardens amid 1970s fiscal crisis and property neglect.[26] By the late 1990s, the city hosted over 700 community gardens, though conflicts arose when Mayor Rudy Giuliani proposed auctioning 114 of them in 1998 to prioritize housing development, sparking legal battles over land use rights.[137] A 2002 settlement preserved many through the GreenThumb program and environmental protections, but ongoing property disputes highlight tensions between gardening advocates and developers, with more than 600 gardens persisting as of 2025.[138][139] In Detroit, community gardening expanded post-2020 amid heightened demand during the COVID-19 pandemic, with organizations like Keep Growing Detroit supporting around 2,000 gardens and involving approximately 24,000 participants by 2021 to bolster local food access in food-insecure areas.[140] Studies indicate these efforts responded to increased needs for fresh produce and community services, converting vacant lots into productive spaces, though scalability remains constrained by land availability and volunteer reliance.[141] Canadian examples include Toronto's allotment-style community gardens, which provide individual plots for rent and have been linked to modest economic gains such as elevated neighboring property values and reduced food costs for participants.[142] However, maintenance challenges persist, including internal disputes and uneven participation, as gardens require consistent volunteer input to sustain operations amid urban pressures.[7] These sites, numbering in the hundreds across the city, emphasize shared harvests but face issues with long-term plot management.[143]Europe and Australia
In the United Kingdom, allotment gardens trace their origins to the industrial era, emerging as a response to urban poverty and land enclosures, with the General Enclosure Act of 1845 mandating provisions of land for the laboring poor.[144] By the late 19th century, their numbers expanded rapidly to support working-class food production, reaching approximately 1.5 million plots between the 1870s and 1913 amid legislative pushes like the Small Holdings and Allotments Act of 1908, which established statutory protections against arbitrary eviction.[145] [146] These protections persist today, safeguarding around 300,000 plots from urban redevelopment pressures.[146] Similarly, in the Czech Republic, allotment gardens developed from early 20th-century initiatives tied to industrial urbanization, peaking under state socialism with integration into local master plans from the 1960s onward to bolster food self-sufficiency.[147] Post-1989 market reforms have led to declines, particularly in Prague, where urban planning and private land interests have reduced available plots despite ongoing policy inclusions in spatial frameworks.[148] [147] European regulatory frameworks emphasize historical entitlements and public interest safeguards, contrasting with Australia's more decentralized, council-led approaches that prioritize environmental adaptation over entrenched rights. In the UK and Czech contexts, national and local laws often require justification for converting allotment land to other uses, mitigating but not eliminating conflicts from land scarcity in densely populated areas.[144] [148] Australian community gardens, governed by municipal policies such as the City of Sydney's 2016 framework, rely on site-specific approvals and community group management without federal statutory guarantees, allowing flexibility but exposing gardens to competing land uses in expanding cities.[149] This contrast highlights Europe's legacy of state-protected commons versus Australia's emphasis on voluntary, sustainability-focused initiatives. Australian urban gardens have adapted to chronic drought conditions through water-efficient designs, informed by empirical studies demonstrating reduced irrigation needs via native plantings and drip systems. A 2015 trial in Perth's Butler suburb showed that managed urban plots could achieve up to 50% water savings compared to traditional lawns by integrating recycled water and xeriscaping principles.[150] Broader data indicate that such gardens, contributing to food production for over 52% of households either directly or via communal plots, enhance resilience in arid regions without straining municipal supplies.[151] [90] However, land scarcity in high-density Australian locales mirrors European challenges, where regulatory hurdles and urban expansion limit plot availability, often requiring advocacy for temporary or rooftop adaptations.[152]Asia, Africa, and Other Regions
In Taiwan, the Taipei Garden City program, launched in 2015, has established numerous urban farms and community gardens to integrate edible greenspaces into densely built environments, enabling residents to cultivate crops on small public plots.[153] By 2023, initiatives like the Jiuzhuang Community Garden demonstrated high community involvement, with participants managing plots for personal harvest and fostering social ties amid limited land availability in the compact city.[154] These efforts prioritize experiential farming over large-scale production, adapting to urban constraints through vertical and rooftop designs suitable for seismic-prone areas.[155] Singapore's community gardens, overseen by the National Parks Board, comprise over 2,400 allotment plots across 28 parks as of recent counts, emphasizing volunteer management in heartland areas to promote self-sufficiency and biodiversity.[156] The Community in Bloom program, initiated around 2005, has expanded gardening culture through collective plots yielding vegetables like brinjal and chye sim, integrating high-tech elements such as hydroponics in space-limited urban settings.[157] Participation rates remain robust due to government facilitation, though outputs focus on supplemental rather than primary food provision.[158] In Africa, community gardening often serves subsistence needs in arid climates, as seen in Mali where sack gardening—cultivating crops in soil-filled sacks—addresses food insecurity for women by enabling vegetable production independent of degraded land.[159] Programs like health gardens combine agriculture with nutrition education to enhance dietary diversity, yet empirical studies reveal frequent failures due to mismatches between NGO objectives and local priorities, such as prioritizing cash crops over household consumption.[160] Scalability remains constrained in poverty contexts; smallholder models supply 70-80% of continental food but face barriers including insecure tenure, water scarcity, and inadequate support, limiting expansion beyond localized plots.[161] [162] Vertical and forest gardening variants show promise for resilience but require institutional reforms to overcome environmental and economic hurdles.[163]References
- https://odh.[ohio](/page/Ohio).gov/media-center/feature-stories/march-is-national-nutrition-month
