Who Participates in Small-Scale Urban Agriculture? And Why?

As urbanization increases across the globe, it is important for policymakers and local leaders to ensure that urban residents find affordable, sustainable produce that positively impacts local and global ecosystems. One solution is community gardening and private at-home gardens, otherwise known as “small-scale urban agriculture.”

Community gardens are often run by non-profits or community groups that allow gardeners to grow produce while sharing space, tools, and resources. Small-scale urban agriculture benefits both individual growers as well as communities. The growers save money on food, tend to reduce stress by being outside and active, and depend less on commercial grocery stores which import most of their produce through environmentally harmful supply chains. Communities also benefit from small-scale urban agriculture through improved physical landscapes, greater community cohesion, and education through available gardening resources.

Small-scale urban gardening does have drawbacks, too. At-home gardens can be expensive and take up a lot of space, and urban settings may be more at risk for having contaminated soil that can be a health risk for growing produce. Additionally, gardeners can actually damage the land further and cause harmful runoff if they are uneducated about things like fertilizers and pesticides. Given the increased importance of small-scale urban agriculture, it is critical to understand not only its benefits and drawbacks, but also individual motivations for participation.

Carola Grebitus at Arizona State University conducted a study in Detroit, Michigan in 2017 to illuminate the intrinsic motivations of community gardeners. The study found that household size, knowledge, income, social behaviors, and trust affects whether gardeners are more likely to garden at-home or participate in community gardens.

The researcher collected data from more than four hundred Detroit gardeners via internet survey which asked residents about the frequency of their community and at-home gardening and questions to evaluate their general personality traits, such as trust in others.

Grebitus’s analysis found that 67% of respondents grew produce at home and 35% in community gardens at least sometimes. When it came to social behaviors, those who believed growing produce is beneficial were more likely to grow produce. Also, extroverts in general were more likely to participate in community gardens. Finally, respondents 1) with high incomes or 2) that identified as female were less likely to participate in community gardens, while those with larger households were more likely to participate in at-home gardening.

The study faces some limitations. As Grebitus recognizes, it over-represents white Detroit residents. Furthermore, because the survey was voluntary, respondents who chose to participate were already highly likely to participate in gardening of some sort. As a result, it does not study the motivations of those who may want to garden but do not currently. This study also cannot be readily applied to other urban settings: different climates affect not only what types of produce grows, but when it grows, and what then motivates gardeners to grow. Finally, as Grebitus recognizes, there are many unstudied factors that can motivate urban residents to garden; for example, disabilities, availability of urban space, and distance from a community garden. In general, more research needs to be done in various climates to better understand the general motivations of gardeners.

Overall, this study provides policymakers with unique insights into what motivates or hinders gardeners to participate in small-scale urban agriculture. City planners can use this study to think about the use of spaces, like targeted vacant lots, or programs, like incentives or providing tools and materials, to encourage participation in small-scale urban agriculture. Additionally, city programs, non-profits, and community garden groups can use this data to target and support potential gardeners who are facing barriers to participation. Increasing participation in small-scale urban agriculture can provide alternative sources of produce that are local, fresher, and negate the need for high-emission import channels, while also helping to avoid food deserts and encouraging consumption of environmentally sustainable and healthier produce.

 

---

Grebitus, Carola. “Small-scale urban agriculture: Drivers of growing produce at home and in community gardens in Detroit.” PloS one 16, no. 9 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256913.