James Na

The Garden Box Project: A needs assessment

Healthy Black Families

Ms. Suzette Chaumette MPH

June 2020 – April 2021

April 19, 2021

 

Abstract: Access to healthy foods is vital to the health of any community, and Berkeley, CA, is no exception. Demand for organic produce has resulted in increased prices. The COVID19 pandemic made socioeconomically challenged residents a more significant challenge to access.¹ Although food banks are accessible, quantities are being stretched to meet community needs.² The purpose of this project was to map the fourteen current community gardens and match them to neighborhood demographics.  In doing so, we found several types of gardens and governance. The focus was to highlight how members of the community are utilizing the gardens. Methods included literature reviews, quantitative and qualitative methods to gather more information about community gardens in this city. The assessment is furthered with existing databases on city demographics and highlighting on Google maps, qualitative interviews, and quantitative public data collection. Results In completion of this assessment, we learned about the various types of gardens that exist.  Eight of the fourteen gardens listed in the Berkeley Ecology collaborative responded for an interview.  Four of the CG managers were interviewed over phone calls, one over video conference, and opt-for in-person interviews and tours tour.  Competencies: The five foundational competencies and one Public Health practice competency were met through the project despite alterations from the original scope. Evaluation: The cultivation of the experience concluded with a starting base to locate public access community gardens and determined the number of offerings to community stakeholders.

 

 

 

 

Introduction

Berkeley, located in Northern California, has around 120,000 residents with a unique non-county managed public health office.³ The project seeks to gather data on current organic community gardens (CG) operating in Berkeley and determine how they serve the community. Healthy Black Families, Inc. (HBF), located near the downtown area, began as Berkeley's Black Infant Health Program community advisory board in 2002. Their advocacy works entailed serving families who identify as African American or Black and bridging the gaps towards health equity. The organization's mission is to educate, engage, and advocate for the holistic growth and development of diverse Black individuals and families. HBF public health project called Thirsty for Change engages shopping at farmer's market, nutrition programs, and CG engagement; in support of the healthy eating programming of HBF, the duties of the project were to map and conduct interviews to have a greater understanding of the CG.  The project's initial phase consisted of a literature review of peer-reviewed articles found in Pub Med on CG. Afterward, Berkeley CG was mapped out geographically to determine the location and availability of existing gardens.  Understanding city demographic data based on zip codes were reviewed through the Berkeley Public Health and US census. The next step was to design and develop a survey question and format to measure stakeholder feedback. The deliverables and data collected were presented and sent to HBF executive director and preceptor for future in-depth focus and program development.

Project Goals and Objectives

The project's purpose was to identify CG locations and learn about the offerings at each site HBF. Through literary analysis, one of the concerns was that people who identified as Black were less likely to engage in gardening than those who identify as Asian or White.⁴ The caution was that the same notion was reflected in Berkeley despite many of the garden's origins. Numerous studies have explored the correlation between participants actively gardening and increasing consumption of vegetables, and reducing health risks like obesity, diabetes, and other chronic care conditions.^5,6 Community gardens are also known to improve mental health, whether it comes in cultural familiarity as an immigrant or positive behavior reinforcement through rewards of cultivation.^7,8 However, the project had a unique perspective as the pandemic created a shelter in place (SIP) situation that resulted in a greater need to focus on food accessibility. The pandemic created a rare opportunity during unprecedented times and its effect on the need's assessment.

            During the one-year practicum, two deliverables were provided to HBF in four parts. The initial portion of the gap analysis deliverable was a literary review to understand past studies on community gardens. The benefits and concerns from each study and a synopsis report were presented. The second part that also supported the gap analysis was mapping each garden location through Google Earth and the city's demographics from the Berkeley Public Health and the 2010 US census projections. The third portion that helped with the deliverable of the needs assessment with recommendations was the qualitative data collected from interviewing eight managing stakeholders of the fourteen listed on the Berkeley Ecology Collaborative, managed by the city. The final deliverable for the need assessment was the quantitative data survey accessed through a QR code scanned with the participant's cell phone and located publicly near community gardens. Data collected from the quantitative study was given to HBF for future studies or follow-up. The four parts consisted of the assessment and recommendations to improve accessibility to community gardens. A deliverable gap analysis for each county was reduced to focus only on Berkeley due to the size of the initial scope.

Objective 1:

By June 30, 2020, investigate and perform a Literature review on organic urban gardens impacting residents of East Bay Counties in Northern California.

            The search conducted for the literature review focused on using Pub Med and an agricultural journal database to locate crop yield comparison articles.  Peer-reviewed articles were searched on community garden, urban garden, gardens and mental health, community garden, and health applicable to Berkeley CG inquiry. An article about a Los Angeles school study of community garden impact on socioeconomically (SES) had an incredible research design but was retracted due to errors in calculation.⁶ The scope of the objective focused on Berkeley's 14 CG that varied in management, focus, design, and purpose.

Objective 2:

By October 31, 2020, collect data on organic urban gardens and demographic density across the East Bay counties of Northern California

The second objective was accomplished by finding CG and locating them on Google Earth to highlight the area to represent the space it occupies. Demographic information was located through the website of the Berkeley Public Health and US Census estimates. These objective questions were being developed for CG manager interviews, which gave a better view of the people that the CG serves. A quantitative survey was in the design phase to poll the public by using a QR code that participants can scan with their phone and answer 9 to 10 questions. Unfortunately, some delays occurred due to nearby fires, pandemic SIP, and weather challenges, objective deadline extended into 2021

Objective 3:

By January 30, 2020, deliver urban garden needs assessment to stakeholders based on findings and compare best practices in East Bay counties of Northern California.

            The third objective was delayed due to objective two, but deliverables for objective three were given in segments. Through weekly meetings, data information was presented and discussed on possible future CG reach and equitable access.

Objective 4:

By February 28, 2021, evaluate the needs assessment with proven best practices of urban gardens in the East Bay counties of Northern California.

            Communication of findings from the quantitative was discussed with CG managers that expressed a desire for follow-up. Some of the quantitative data that interested stakeholders revolved around types of food grown as best practices would dictate regenerative plants that produce food regularly. Also, another recommendation is the collaboration of several CG to utilize and feed off of each group's strengths

Methods

            The project was to create an initial understanding of each community garden site and survey the public of their thoughts on gardening and accessibility. Each interviewed location had varying member counts and different sizes of property. In total, fourteen gardens were listed as community gardens accessible to anyone from the public. Removed from the initial project consideration is the school district's 17 public school gardens designated for student learning and education funded by the SSB tax.⁹ The lack of community accessibility due to school safety rendered the school gardens inaccessible for nine out of the twelve months of the year. However, an interview was still conducted with the school gardens and cooking program director to garner insight. Another subset of gardens that excluded residential community gardens is that they are limited to residents with primary residence on the contracted site; the resident community gardens are not open to the public and potentially more difficult to access, especially during SIP.

            The program's start was to gain knowledge and a better understanding to answer questions concerning demographics and accessibility to CG. Pub Med was the primary database for the literary analysis to search for peer-reviewed articles in gardening, urban gardens, and community gardens. The primary search was supported with secondary search words for related topics on the effects of mental health, obesity, chronic disease, and healthy eating. Only one journal article arose regarding crop yield comparisons from in-ground planters and planter boxes, which supported one of the interviewed participant feedback.¹⁰ A web search was then conducted to locate city documents on efforts made for CG progression to expand in Berkeley.

The next step in addressing food accessibility was geographically locating and mapping all gardens listed on the Berkeley Community Gardening Collaborative web page hosted by the Ecology Center. Email contact and location information can be found on the web page; unfortunately, some of the emails lead to no response, and one email was sent to a garden manager that moved out of state. The list contained fourteen CG locations and contact information; however, only eight responded for an interview.

            Each of the eight gardens was unique in design and governance; although gardens could categorize as food-based or decorative, the reality supersedes the two categories. An example that was toured during the interview was a privately owned community garden located on two private properties with a board of directors overseeing the garden. Another was a collaborative with the city and a youth food education program. A third garden is a faith-based garden and food outreach program. A fourth garden was a senior living home that contracts with a youth cooking program and has a secondary sensory beautification garden for the elderly residents at the long-term care facility. The fifth type of garden is a city property owned, and steering committee managed community garden. All five types of gardens had different aspects of the garden to focus on, which would be reflected in the interview of the qualitative data.

            The interview questions (Appendix A) are a list of ten questions that help identify demographics for the stakeholders in each CG and management structure. Managers of each garden are the primary contact and access for resources for CG participants. One location pre-seeded over 4,000 starter plants in an onsite hand-built greenhouse so produce and fruit grow year-round, including winter cover crops like lettuce and collard greens.

            The interprofessional relationship with HBF and other CGs a private nonprofit location site that resides merely blocks from two other CGs. Many CG needs to secure more property for needed space to grow other fruits and vegetables to meet demands. One site, as an example, is shared by both a private nonprofit and city-managed CG group. The competing limited space has caused tension at times, and the manager felt the support from the city is lacking. However, interprofessional support was maintained during the pandemic as the need for additional access to healthy foods resulted in higher demands.

The pandemic created challenges on the planning due to local and state shelter in place mandate. The website did not contain phone numbers and must be reliant on email feedback. Only one garden manager who responded to the email did not participate or answer a follow-up email. Many of the CG sites were welcoming and encouraged a tour either during the interview or at a convenient time. All gardens were viewable from the public sidewalk as security gates and fencing surrounding all sites.

Results

            The outcomes of the project assisted with two deliverables, which were broken down into four portions.  However, measurable results of the project were from the interview of the CG managers and the quantitative survey of the public via QR code. The use of demographic data and mapping through Google Earth were supporting data and supported recommendations for future CGs. As previously mentioned, school gardens were not included in this project as community access is restricted to only school staff and students attending the assigned site. However, recommendations can be presented that a possible collaboration between community and garden instructors during school off sessions is a possibility.

Qualitative Interview

The nine garden managers that responded only eight partook the interview. Four of the CG managers participated in the interview over a phone call, one over video conference, and three preferred in-person interviews and garden tours. The interviews were conducted over two weeks, consisting of questions that are located in Appendix A. Participants are not aware of which other managers are involved or whether they have responded. Many of the respondents are long-time CG participants and elected to represent the garden in meetings held by the city. One of the gardens that responded is a faith-based youth outreach that has worked with HBF for nearly ten years on various projects. However, there is a second faith-based CG that did not respond to requests or inquiries. Two private property and one shared property of CG report to a board of directors or a vertical structure management system. The last three CG have a volunteer steering committee with elected managers to represent and manage annual calendar operations. Consolidated similar responses from the nine questions are posted in Appendix B. All interviews except two garden managers answered that the purpose of the garden was food-based. One of the community garden locations has two gardens; one for growing food and the other garden is decorative for emotional and mental health purposes. A second uniquely structured community garden location focused on demonstration and education programs but predominantly grew decorative and medicinal plants. The few members that do rent plots at the site grew small vegetables and microgreens.

            The project also presented challenges that each site was concerned about; many of the properties that community gardens exist had a previous alternate use that concerns many CG managers. Only two gardens have been tested for lead and chemicals; both have taken significant measures to abate the issue. Due to the cost of the test and the lack of a person to interpret the results, two of the interviewed community garden sites are left wondering about environmental contamination and the safety of consuming foods grown from the garden.

            The geographic location and construct of the gardens also present a possibility that age plays a factor in the outcome of CG participants. Two interviewed and one not interviewed CG, all reside less than 100 feet from each other, have similar constructs in-ground raised beds. Pictures in Appendix C. show that bed heights vary, and paths are more notable than other CG sites. According to CG managers, mobility challenged individuals and those who are elderly find raised beds were preferred for gardening than traditional at ground level gardening.

Due to space issues, the garden is limited to a number of plots at each site. Unfortunately, the measurement of wait times has not been gauged and would be suited for a separate study. However, the consensus that CG has a high demand and low turnover rate means there is not enough space for additional gardeners.  Upon visiting each CG site, plot sizes are not uniform and vary considerably, creating a possible disparity in the volume of produce grown. The was information discovered only upon visiting and observing each site.          

Quantitative Survey

The design for the quantitative survey was based on input from CG managers and the preceptor. A total of thirteen questions were developed for the survey: Likert scale, dichotomous questions, text entry, and multiple choices were programmed through Qualtrics that enabled carry forward response. Questions and data results from the survey can be located in Appendix D. Results of the data have shown that 52 participants (n=52) voluntarily participated in the survey using the QR code or link provided on the posted survey invitation. The survey was located at or near community gardens that lined near the Ohlone greenway that active residents in the area frequent. The survey was available to the public for two weeks in March.

The findings that were interesting or important consisted in the establishment of numerous gardens during the interview. One of the all-volunteer nonprofit gardens happens to site on on two private property lots owned by former residents of Berkeley that identified as Black. Unfortunately, one of the owners of the lot had deceased, and the property now sits in limbo without any owner commitment, which factors into the public land-use concerns of CGs. Another fascinating discovery was that although the participant survey was small, the self-identification of ethnicities was similar to the city's overall demographics but not to the 94702 zip code's demographics. Many of the CG is located in Appendix F.

Another aspect of the unique project is that 40% of the respondents claim to have home gardens: further explanation and additional study are required to conclude personal use of home gardens compared to CG.

Results from question three and four about frequency visiting the community garden was not a surprise. The pandemic SIP affected CG participants' ability to visit the CG. However, a conclusion cannot be drawn if it stay-at-home order, transportation, fear, or other reasonings. The follow-up question regarding food cost 11 out of 23 surveyed deemed that having a garden plot did little to reduce food cost. However, it became curious because when questioned about why people joined or wanted to join a CG, food accessibility and survey results ranked third. A more comprehensive survey to focus on the effects between reasoning to join or wanting to join and food cost mitigation would be recommended.

Future for Public Health

Accessibility to healthy foods is a significant concern for public health welfare, healthy eating, and reducing risk behavior that leads to obesity and chronic care. The qualitative study interviews that lead to the quantitative input on property allocation for community gardens show that over 55% of the surveyed responded positively to utilizing the private property for community gardens as owners can potentially or donate property to organizations like HBF. Another route in expanding CG through the city is allocating park space for CG development, which was highly supported by 98% of the 52 surveyed. The challenge, however, is the requirement of square footage that is to be dedicated for open public recreational spaces and the timing of park site remodeling.¹¹

Competencies

Competency 1:
Describe the importance of cultural competence in communicating public health content.

Interviews of the CG managers provided historical context on the garden's origins and the current members of the garden. Two of the nonprofit youth outreach programs are invested in CG focus on cultural youth engagement. The cultural competence was more about the intergenerational gap as younger generations do not wish to be associated with gardening or see it as an elderly activity or hobby. However, an inference can be made based on zip code demographics and geolocation of CG. Zipcodes 94702 and 94703 have the two highest populations of those who identify as African American or Black and those who identify as Latin X.  More than half of all Berkeley's CG is located in the 94702 and 94703 (Appendix G).

Competency 2:
Assess population needs, assets, and capacities that affect communities' health

The competency was fulfilled through interviews of CG managers and question 7 on the survey. The survey identified reasons participants joined a CG or wish to join, with the top two answers tied at 22.92% pertained to improved emotion/mental health and community connection. The survey also showed that over 60% of the surveyed had a family size of one to three members collective, but a standalone household size of four topped at 30%. 

Competency 3:
 Propose strategies to identify stakeholders and build coalitions and partnerships for influencing public health outcomes.

Data showed more than half of the CG is located in 94702 and 94703. It also showed that 56% of participants surveyed identified as 94702 residents. It would make sense to propose partnerships for CG to coordinate programs to influence public health outcomes. Positively more than 76% of surveyed walked to the QR code, although 15% drove or took rideshare, an inference cannot be established as variables could have affected results.

Competency 4:
Interpret results of data analysis for public health research, policy, or practice

The data presented from the QR code survey is mapped in Appendix E. The project aims to ascertain what community members motivated them to join or want to join a CG.  Due to the insight of managers at CG, input from the interview was thought to be the best approach. Data provided in the interview can also expand on additional information that was not considered before and set up future project ideas. The second data to interpret was the community public response. Survey design company Qualtrics was used to administer, collect, and interpret captured results.

Competency 5:
Select communication strategies for different audiences and sectors

Communication was solely focused on the CG managers of this project and the preceptor. The contact information limitation communications consisted entirely by email until a reply was received requesting a phone call follow-up. The SIP created a unique circumstance; on the one hand, people locked down during the pandemic had social contact restricted, making reaching CG managers easier. However, the SIP also resulted in people working from home, which meant a potential lack of work resources to communicate. The two are speculation possibilities of why some communicated and others did not. During the interview, communication strategies varied depending on the manager; those who were more experienced in their role told a story and provided information beyond the question scope. Managers who were new to their roles answered the questions directly and did not give in-depth context. 

Competency 6: Explain the strategic planning processes and the relationship to budget formulation and sustainability planning

The strategic planning from the surmised survey data provided that focus is within walking distance in the 94702 area; however, vehicle accessibility should be considered. The varying plot measurements encountered during the interview and tour disclosed that plot size dimensions need to be proportionate based on household size; current practices are plot assignment based on the next name on the list.

Evaluation

            Personal experience of the field studies was challenging as the pandemic made everything from communication, collaboration, and guidance difficult. My preceptor was incredibly patient and worked with me as best possible under these unprecedented times. I highly discourage a remote practicum, as distractions were around every corner. The coursework for the field studies program was thought-provoking and engaging, something I truly enjoyed. Although there are a million things I wish I had done differently, the insight my preceptor provided was invaluable and beyond my expectation.  However, one of the big disappointments fell on my ability to absorb verbal information. Knowing this downside about myself, I tried to use the life captioning program to read the words that are spoken to me

            Throughout the experience, I saw relations to classroom skills taught in health programming and evaluation coursework.  Dr. Mel Minarik's course work on Organizational Behavioral Leadership allowed me to understand myself as an individual better and provided guidance explaining why current leadership practices succeeded or failed. One of the biggest lessons that I have learned about public health practices is understanding and being familiar with numerous fields that expand beyond public health. For example, if one desired to build community gardens, a person would need to wear the following hats politics and bureaucracy navigation, business development and budgeting, property and zoning requirements, and landscape architecture, to name a few. As a future emerging public health, my preceptor gave me essential advice: it takes ten years to become a topic expert. Therefore, patience and constant learning are key; my father once taught me that a student could be taught to be a teacher, but a teacher never ceases to be a student.

 

Appendices:

Appendix A: Interview Questions for Community Garden Managers

 

1. What is the organizational structure of your garden? 
2. Who are the people who generally use your garden?
3. What grows in your garden?
4. Who tends the garden? 
5. What are the biggest challenges your community garden is facing before and during the pandemic?
6. What specific challenges and gaps would you like to address?  How would you like to see them addressed, supported, and fulfilled?
7. What does your annual calendar look like as a manager?
8. What do you think are the top three reasons people apply for community gardens, no particular order?
9. What do you know about your participants? How are they using your space, social, extra money? 
10. When do you see the most participant activity in the garden?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B: Qualitative feedback from the interview

1. What is the organizational structure of your garden?
   "All volunteers, nonprofit, garden on two private property lots owned by African American family."
   "A Youth resilient center, afterschool program and youth services…due to pandemic most programs are suspended. The Garden program is located on a shared property with a Berkeley community garden program."
   "Faith-based managed communal style garden that has partnered with HBF for nearly ten years."
   "City land share with a not-for-profit youth group, there are 36 plots used by 50 community members that rent annually, and 115 people on the waitlist.
   "Steering Committee and a coordinator who are all members of the garden. Currently there are 20 raised bed plots and 7 to 8 people on the waitlist.".
   "Steering committee and shared coordinator position. Water is from a nearby city park which results in free water for the community garden. A local mass transit agency formerly owned the property. There are 30 raised bed plots available, with 50 to 60 people currently on the waitlist."
2. Who are the people who generally use your garden?
   "Mostly friends of friends…invitation based and very informal. Half of the people are nearby neighborhood folks."

"Mostly youth for education program. The orchard garden is currently rented out to a preschool forest program."
"Kids generally use the garden, seniors from the community and church, Due to COVID concerns neighbors assist with the pick and harvest."
"All hours and throughout the year, people are free to come and go."
"Ordinary times open to the public, but for now not allowed. Members who are mostly retired, over 65 to 75 years of age, and predominantly white folks use the garden."
"50 years of age and older members primarily."

3. What grows in your garden?
   "not decorative, not human food base, more herbs and pollination education, but ten plots are available to rent
   "Mostly Food"
   "Mostly food and a butterfly garden."

"Food is primary, and any food that the youth group does not harvest is given to the community."
"Mostly food, but people grow what they choose…only one person grew succulents."
"Mostly food, but as you can see, there are a lot of flowers and weeds too."

4. Who tends the garden? 
   "Long-term volunteers have gate code and those who rent plots. During COVID, mostly managers."
   "[Garden/Green Pathway Program Coordinator], a limited number of volunteers are recruited to assist in weeding and harvest produce."
   "Church members and neighbors of the church, the pandemic is limiting."
   "[Garden Manager] is there every day from 10:30 am to 1 pm and then 2:30 till dusk and maintain the ground and prepare seedlings."
   "Garden members must dedicate 8hours a week and 2hours on any weekend to care for plots that include weeding and actively growing plants; failure results in loss of plot."

"Different agencies assist with various projects like building planters or install irrigation systems. The members create work parties and input 8 hours a year to pull weeds and maintenance work.."

5. What are the biggest challenges your community garden is facing before and during the pandemic?
   "Increased traffic due to pandemic, homeless camps that made dealing with boundaries difficult. Also, curb enthusiasm due to poor community system and schedules volunteers mistakenly cut down plants others may want to cultivate."

"Waitlist and spaces that are grandfathered in with no intentions of moving, access is an issue as COIVD restricts how many can be out at the garden, maintenance became backed up."
"Land is the biggest problem; the second problem is community engagement on a variety level. We need to figure out multi-entry points to garner interest, but then there are funding issues.
"Soil disease and rats from the mass transit tunnel."
"Due to pandemic work parties are reduced, and strictness on the policy of garden requirements are lax. You can see the exterior of the planters is starting to grow out of control."

6. What specific challenges and gaps would you like to address?  How would you like to see them addressed, supported, and fulfilled?

"Property ownership is in limbo, creating challenges in long-term planning. Would like to see the garden on a more guaranteed permanent land."
"Bridging the gap between Berkeley Community Garden group and their youth program. Both have been working separately despite shared space. Past challenges made collaborations difficult."
"Soil mitigation is the biggest challenge; assistance from UC Co-Op was helpful. Another challenge is housing; community members want garden converted into additional affordable housing."
"More land."
"Zoom meetings during the pandemic worked well…but it is the predictable people that show up.  Five meetings a year…must show up to at least three."

"Zoning is a big problem, and there use to be a person that enforced ADA requirements. All the paths need to be paved; zoning is a challenge because the community garden is  not classified as  a park or a grocery store, so standards are difficult, and funding is another issue."

7. What does your annual calendar look like as a manager?

"Saturday and Sunday open for community work. The garden's ambitions are on workshops and elderly outreach programs throughout the year."
"Winter cover crop and seeding program to ready for spring and summer. Inviting 8-10 youths back into the program, nutrition program year-round."
"Grow period is late March to October, January February and November are sheet mulching months."
"All year-round crops, winter cover crops like lettuce and collards, over 4,000 starter plants in the greenhouse. Minor construction to increase growth capacity. Best part giving to the community."
"People are to grow year-round…four-season gardens. Cover crops are acceptable. There are things to doing soil, not growing food. Improving the soil is fine. "

"Yearlong garden."

8. What do you think are the top three reasons people apply for community gardens, no particular order?
   "Most want only to volunteer, initiate projects, and meet people."
   "Access to safe food, tired of shopping and cost factor, knowing what you are eating."
   "They just want to grow and engage (community). Heal the environment, making a statement about the food statement and education of where food comes from."
   "Grow food, serenity, and exercise."
   "Mental health, grow food and flowers but not have enough space, accessibility (Apt dwellers), community engagement."
   "Hobby gardening and Therapeutic."
9. What do you know about your participants? How are they using your space, social, extra money?
   "Berkeley Community Garden group cultivate extra produce grown in their space and gives out to the community."
   "Very informal space and organic."
   "Many who are supposed to grow food grow ornamental and decorative plants to keep their plot. Unfortunately, food is not desperate for these folks."
10. When do you see the most participant activity in the garden?

"Mostly through email or zoom, pandemic created a schedule work system to tend the garden."

"Definitely during the summertime."

"All year round, when [Garden Manager] is at the community garden, the public is free to explore, and volunteers can come anytime to help."
"All hours during the spring and summer."
"Second Saturday of each month and at meetings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C: Pictures of Community Gardens

Figure 1- Raised bed, symmetrical plots, are uniform (1 of 2)

 

Figure 2 – Older raised beds nonsymmetrical plots varying in sizes  (2 of 2)

 

Figure 3 – treated property with in-ground organic community garden food waiting to be harvested

 

Appendix D:  Quantitative Question and Data

Q1 - Are you a member of a Berkeley Community Garden
#	Field	Min	Max		Mean		Std Dev		Var	Count
		1	2		1.57		0.49		0.24	63
#	Answer	%	Count
1	Yes	42.86%	27
2	No	57.14%	36
	Total	100%	63
Q2 - What is your level of interest in a Community Garden?
#	Field	Min	Max		Mean		Std Dev		Var	Count
		1	6		3.46		1.93		3.73	35
#	Answer	%	Count
1	No Interest or Do not have time	11.43%	4
2	I have a Home Garden	40.00%	14
3	No, I prefer just to volunteer and help out	8.57%	3
4	Keep plants away from me, I will most likely kill every plant I touch	2.86%	1
5	I am on a waitlist for a community garden plot	5.71%	2
6	I am interested but have not signed up	31.43%	11
	Total	100%	35
Q3 - How often did you garden at your community garden (Before pandemic)
#	Field	Min	Max		Mean		Std Dev		Var	Count
		1	5		3.35		1.09		1.18	23
#	Answer	%	Count
1	Daily	8.70%	2
2	4-6 times a week	4.35%	1
3	2-3 times a week	47.83%	11
4	Once a week	21.74%	5
5	1 -3 times a month, it really varies	17.39%	4
	Total	100%	23
Q4 - How often did you garden at your community garden (During pandemic)
#	Field	Min	Max		Mean		Std Dev		Var	Count
		1	5		3.78		1.21		1.47	23
#	Answer	%	Count
1	Daily	4.35%	1
2	4-6 times a week	13.04%	3
3	2-3 times a week	21.74%	5
4	once a week	21.74%	5
5	1-3 times a month, it really varies	39.13%	9
	Total	100%	23
Q5 - Did having a garden plot help reduce your food cost?
#	Field	Min	Max		Mean		Std Dev		Var	Count
		1	5		3.48		1.1		1.21	23
#	Answer	%	Count
1	A great deal	8.70%	2
2	A lot	8.70%	2
3	A moderate amount	21.74%	5
4	A little	47.83%	11
5	None at all	13.04%	3
	Total	100%	23
Q6 - List 3 fruits or vegetables you wish to grow or currently cultivating:
List 3 fruits or vegetables you wish to grow or currently cultivating:
	Kale	8
	tomatoes	7
	collards	6
	beans	5
	Broccoli	4
	cucumber	4
	Squash	3
	carrots	2
	Chard	2
	cherries	2
	fig	2
	greens	2
	lettuce	2
	onions	2
	Spinach	2
	Strawberries	2
	apples	1
	Arugula	1
	Asparagus	1
	avocado	1
	culinary herbs	1
	Parsley	1
	peppers	1
	Potatoes	1
	snap peas	1
	Sorrel	1
	turnips	1
Q7 - Please identify 3 reasons why you want to garden or join a community garden?
#	Answer	%	Count
2	Improve Emotional / Mental Health	22.92%	33
5	Community Connection	22.92%	33
3	Food Accessibility / Need	18.06%	26
1	Increased Physical Activity	14.58%	21
6	Volunteering / Community Service	13.19%	19
4	Decorative / Beautification	8.33%	12
	Total	100%	144
Q8 - How many people currently live in your household?
	1	21.15%	11
	2	23.08%	12
	3	23.08%	12
	4	30.77%	16
	5	1.92%	1
	total	100.00%	52
Q9 - What is your race or ethnicity?
#	Field	Min	Max		Mean		Std Dev		Var	Count
		1	8		5.5		1.91		3.63	52
#	Answer	%	Count
1	Black or African American	3.85%	2
2	Asian	11.54%	6
3	Hispanic or Latino	5.77%	3
4	Native American or Alaskan Native	0.00%	0
5	Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander	0.00%	0
6	White	57.69%	30
7	Another Race or ethnicity	9.62%	5
8	I respectfully decline to answer	11.54%	6
	Total	100%	52
Q10 - How did you travel to the garden location?
#	Field	Min	Max		Mean		Std Dev		Var	Count
1		1	4		1.55		1.09		1.19	51
#	Answer	%	Count
1	Walk	76.47%	39
2	Bicycle	7.84%	4
3	Public Transportation	0.00%	0
4	Drive or rideshare	15.69%	8
	Total	100%	51
Q11 - Your residential zip code, please
	94603	1.96%	1
	94702	56.86%	29
	94703	5.88%	3
	94704	1.96%	1
	94706	1.96%	1
	94707	5.88%	3
	94708	7.84%	4
	94709	13.73%	7
	94710	3.92%	2
	total	100.00%	51
Q12 - How do you feel about Community Gardens developing on private properties?
#	Field	Min	Max		Mean		Std Dev		Var	Count
		1	5		2.08		1.07		1.15	52
#	Answer	%	Count
1	Strongly agree	44.23%	23
2	Somewhat agree	11.54%	6
3	Neither agree nor disagree	38.46%	20
4	Somewhat disagree	3.85%	2
5	Strongly disagree	1.92%	1
	Total	100%	52
Q13 - Do you believe additional City Park space should be dedicated to community Gardens?
#	Field	Min	Max		Mean		Std Dev		Var	Count
		1	2		1.02		0.14		0.02	52
#	Answer	%	Count
1	Yes	98.08%	51
2	No	1.92%	1
	Total	100%	52

 

Appendix E: Quantitative Question Map

 

 

Appendix F: Berkeley Demographic data

Zip Code	White	%	Black	%	Hispanic or Latin X	%	Asian	%	American Indian	%	Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander	%	Two or More Race	%	Other Race	%
Berkeley	63,095	51.60%	10,623	8.70%	16,215	13.30%	23,488	19.20%	110	0.09%	859	0.70%	7,419	6.10%	7419	6.10%
94702	7,386	47.30%	3,502	22.40%	2,233	14.30%	1,876	12.00%	54	0.30%	47	0.30%	787	5.10%	84	0.50%
94703	9,969	50.50%	3,541	17.90%	2,539	12.90%	2,539	12.90%	50	0.30%	30	0.20%	1,075	5.40%	103	0.50%
94704	10,882	51.30%	1,126	5.30%	2,648	12.50%	9,444	44.50%	51	0.20%	26	0.10%	1,323	6.20%	92	0.40%
94705*	9,403	75.60%	475	3.80%	804	6.50%	1,435	11.50%	25	0.20%	20	0.20%	538	4.30%	62	0.50%
94706*	9,876	62.30%	684	4.30%	1,968	12.40%	5,909	37.20%	43	0.30%	34	0.20%	989	6.20%	112	0.70%
94707*	9,145	77.00%	235	2.00%	612	5.20%	1,134	9.50%	10	0.08%	7	0.06%	528	4.40%	39	0.30%
94708*	8,529	79.50%	204	1.90%	545	5.10%	1,116	10.40%	6	0.06%	14	0.10%	504	4.70%	67	0.6%
94709	7,110	70.10%	325	3.20%	868	8.60%	2,876	28.40%	18	0.20%	17	0.20%	547	5.40%	45	0.40%
94710*	2,518	30.90%	1,497	18.40%	1,817	22.30%	694	8.50%	10	0.10%	16	0.20%	356	4.40%	40	0.50%

* denotes zip code is shared with a neighboring city/town

 

Appendix G

Garden Name	Zip Code
Bancroft Community Garden	94702
Berkeley Youth Alternatives Production Garden	94702
Karl Linn Community Garden	94702
Northside Community Garden	94702
Peralta Community Garden	94702
Sprouts Cooking Club@ Chaparral House	94702
Ohlone Community Garden	94703
McGee Avenue Baptist Church Garden	94703
Garden Village -UC Berkeley Housing	94704
People's Park Community Garden	94704
Ashby Community Garden	94705
Student Organic Garden Association	94709
Good Shepherd Episcopal Church Garden	94710
West Berkeley Senior Center Garden	94710

MPH Competency Crosswalk

MPH Competency	Graduate Project Product/Deliverable	Completed Activity(s), which Demonstrate competency	Faculty Assessment
1.      Describe the importance of cultural competence in communicating public health content.	Literary review of peer review journal and participant data. Qualitative Interview data. Demographic data	Demographic information is used based on zip codes to determine community population ethnicities. Through Google Earth mapping of the various gardens, many of the gardens are located in the 94702, where residents who identify as Black or Latin X have a more prominent population presence. It is further supported with the CG manager interview of inquiring question 2: who are the people who generally use your garden? Most individuals are 65 years or older.	Describe the importance of cultural competence in communicating public health content.
2.      Assess population needs, assets, and capacities that affect communities' health	QR code placed on the exterior of Berkeley Community Gardens. Capturing public input	I used Qualtrics to design a 13-question quantitative survey.  Participants are voluntary and capture resident's interest in Community Gardens and the number of current CG members.  For those who identify as a CG member, measurement of activity levels and future developments were determined. The garden managers were interviewed and provided concerns for other gardens due to the community's high demand and low turnover rate. The study needed to establish possible property assets for future community garden locations is a challenge, and measurement of the community garden offerings to be gauged. All quantitative data was forwarded to the preceptor for review.	Assess population needs, assets, and capacities that affect communities' health
3.      Propose strategies to identify stakeholders and build coalitions and partnerships for influencing public health outcomes.	Scheduled and interview community garden managers	I met with several garden managers near the Ohlone Greenway, a proposed strategy to create partnerships and share program ideas and education.	Propose strategies to identify stakeholders and build coalitions and partnerships for influencing public health outcomes.
4.      Interpret results of data analysis for public health research, policy, or practice.	Quantitative and Qualitative data deliverables	Interviews were scheduled over three weeks to accommodate participants' schedules. Interviews were conducted over the phone, in video conferencing, and person. Data collected were recorded in separate Microsoft documents.   Quantitative data was collected using a QR code posted near Community Gardens in public view.  Data were collected over two weeks a total of 63 individuals scanned the QR code or link to participate. However, the study had a disqualifier portion to ensure proper data information about the study was captured.	Interpret results of data analysis for public health research, policy, or practice.
5.      Select communication strategies for different audiences and sectors	Communication is utilized to approach the audience.	Unfortunately, initial communications were limited due to pandemic shelter in place. Communication was predominantly email-based. Establishing trust was needed with some managers. Discussions that demonstrated I was a resident community member allowed more accessible communication with community garden managers.	Select communication strategies for different audiences and sectors
6.      Explain the strategic planning processes and the relationship to budget formulation and sustainability planning	Inferences made from survey data, garden location, and interviews.	The budget formulation to determine the operation of each garden was inconclusive due to land concerns that CG managers expressed. However, inferences can be made on strategic sustainability planning. Discussion about the zip code 94702 and 94703 are good to focus areas to consider future studies and a gap analysis	Explain the strategic planning processes and the relationship to budget formulation and sustainability planning

 

 

 

References

 

1.         Lucier G, Davis W. Vegetables and Pulses Outlook Vegetables Withstand Pandemic. United States Department of Agriculture. Published online 2020.
   
   
2.         Reiley L. US faces shortage of up to 8 billion meals in next 12 months, leading food bank says. The Washington Post. Published 2020. Accessed April 17, 2021.
   https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/10/02/food-bank-shortage-feeding-america/
   
   
3.         Why does Berkeley have its own public health department? Accessed April 17, 2021. https://www.berkeleyside.com/2020/04/15/berkeley-is-unusual-in-having-its-own-public-health-division-how-does-that-work-during-a-pandemic
4.         Kegler M, Prakash R, Hermstad A, Williamson D, Anderson K, Haardörfer R. Home gardening and associations with fruit and vegetable intake and BMI. Public Health Nutrition. Published online 2020:1-6. doi:10.1017/S1368980020001329
   
   
5.         Zick CD, Smith KR, Kowaleski-Jones L, Uno C, Merrill BJ. Harvesting more than vegetables: The potential weight control benefits of community gardening. American Journal of Public Health. 2013;103(6):1110-1115. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2012.301009
   
   
6.         Alaimo K, Beavers AW, Crawford C, Snyder EH, Litt JS. Amplifying Health Through Community Gardens: A Framework for Advancing Multicomponent, Behaviorally Based Neighborhood Interventions. Current environmental health reports. 2016;3(3):302-312. doi:10.1007/s40572-016-0105-0
   
   
7.         Teig E, Amulya J, Bardwell L, Buchenau M, Marshall JA, Litt JS. Collective efficacy in Denver, Colorado: Strengthening neighborhoods and health through community gardens. Health and Place. 2009;15(4):1115-1122. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2009.06.003
   
   
8.         Harris N, Minniss FR, Somerset S. Refugees connecting with a new country through community food gardening. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2014;11(9):9202-9216. doi:10.3390/ijerph110909202
   
   
9.         Hicks T. Where are the millions from Berkeley's soda tax going? Lots of places — Berkeleyside. Berkeleyside. Published 2019. Accessed September 22, 2019. https://www.berkeleyside.com/2019/02/07/where-are-the-millions-from-berkeleys-soda-tax-going-lots-of-places
   
   
10.        Algert SJ, Baameur A, Renvall MJ. Vegetable output and cost savings of community gardens in San Jose, California. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. 2014;114(7):1072-1076. doi:10.1016/j.jand.2014.02.030
    
    
11.        Arreguin J. Community Garden Zoning. Published 2017. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Development/Level_3_-_Commissions/Commission_for_Planning/2017-10-04_Item 10 Urban Agriculture_Complete.pdf