Abstract
School environments can create healthy settings to foster children’s health and well-being. School gardening is gaining popularity as an intervention for healthier eating and increased physical activity. We used a systematic realist approach to investigate how school gardens improve health and well-being outcomes for school-aged children, why, and in what circumstances. The context and mechanisms of the specific school gardening interventions (n = 24) leading to positive health and well-being outcomes for school-aged children were assessed. The impetus of many interventions was to increase fruit and vegetable intake and address the prevention of childhood obesity. Most interventions were conducted at primary schools with participating children in Grades 2 through 6. Types of positive outcomes included increased fruit and vegetable consumption, dietary fiber and vitamins A and C, improved body mass index, and improved well-being of children. Key mechanisms included embedding nutrition-based and garden-based education in the curriculum; experiential learning opportunities; family engagement and participation; authority figure engagement; cultural context; use of multi-prong approaches; and reinforcement of activities during implementation. This review shows that a combination of mechanisms works mutually through school gardening programs leading to improved health and well-being outcomes for school-aged children.
Keywords: community gardens, school gardens, childhood education, experiential learning, nutrition, food security, childhood obesity, realist evaluation
1. Introduction
Access to and consumption of healthy, nutritious food plays a crucially important role in maintaining good health and well-being and is a fundamental human right [1,2]. For many populations worldwide, however, deep-rooted and complex underlying problems associated with food systems influence the availability and access to healthy diets and nutritious food [2]. Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social, and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food that meets both their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life [3]. Unfortunately, these conditions remain elusive for many [4], and in some instances, this leads to food insecurity. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the ability to be food secure largely depends on the uninterrupted supply and availability of different types of healthy food, food utilization, and the stability of each of these dimensions over time [3]. Additionally, a range of social determinants underpins the inequities in healthy eating [5]. For example, ‘urban poverty’, resulting from lower income availability, may lead to inadequate resources for people affected by such circumstances in accessing healthy diets, including fresh fruit and vegetables, and instead tend to consume higher quantities of sugars, fats, highly processed, and/or energy dense, ultra-processed foods [6].
Global urbanization and accompanying detachment from traditional agricultural practices have accentuated the decline in access to healthy food, including fruit and vegetables, and by extension, the associated nutritional benefits [7,8]. These dynamics are further complicated by the speed of transition to urban living and a simultaneous decline for some population groups in understanding healthy food production and consumption [7,8]. As a result, a plethora of public health interventions are geared towards increasing access to healthy, nutritious food. Community gardens, a space managed collectively by community members for growing food and non-edible plants [7,8,9], is a good example.
Community gardens are used in many settings, including residential neighborhoods, prisons, and schools [9]. Several scoping, narrative, systematic, and meta-analysis reviews suggest that school-based gardens are particularly useful in improving children’s nutritional outcomes [10,11,12,13,14,15]. For example, studies report that children’s fruit and vegetable consumption increased [13], and they were more willing to taste unfamiliar foods such as fruits and vegetables, cooking and food preparation skills improved, and nutritional knowledge increased [14]. Further, recent evidence also suggests health outcome improvements that transcend nutritional or food-related benefits, such as enhanced academic learning, social development, and improvements in general health and well-being [10,16]. As childhood obesity rates have increased dramatically over recent decades, school gardens have specifically been identified as settings to engage children in healthier eating and physical activity, with the objective of obesity prevention [15,17].
School gardening is widely reported to improve health and well-being outcomes [10,13,14,15,17,18]. However, systematic reviews report that quantitative evidence for changes in fruit and vegetable intake is limited and largely based on self-report [10] or limited through non-randomized study designs [13]. Although qualitative evidence reports a range of health and well-being benefits for school-aged children, these are rarely substantiated by quantitative evidence [10]. While more robust study designs would contribute to building the evidence base, using theory-led methods adds value by examining causal explanations of how and why school gardening interventions work [10]. This is the basis that we sought to address in this realist review.
The aim of the study was to assess the mechanisms which lead to positive health and well-being outcomes for school-aged children and answer the research question, “How do school gardens improve health and well-being outcomes for school-aged children?”
A systematic realist approach was selected for its value in moving beyond an investigation of “what works?” to focus on “how or why an intervention works, for whom, and in what circumstances?” [19]. Program theory guides the conduct of such systematic reviews, wherein reviewers seek to understand complex interventions [20,21,22].
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Overview
Using a three-staged approach, the realist synthesis was used as the guiding methodology to analyze articles reporting school gardening interventions with positive outcomes.
The stages were to (1) identify relevant systematic, and meta-analysis review articles, (2) screen the Stage 1 reviews to extract primary source articles reporting positive health and well-being outcomes, and (3) use the primary source articles (from Stage 2) to identify specific school gardening interventions that robustly evidence health and well-being outcomes.
2.2. Searching the Literature and Defining Eligibility Criteria
Three databases (Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed) were systematically searched using the term, “school garden*”, which ensured broad coverage of the review articles (Stage 1). Inclusion criteria comprised peer-reviewed review articles only, published between 2012–2021 inclusive, and in English only. Exclusion criteria were applied to articles, book chapters, conference papers, proceeding papers, meeting abstracts, books and documents, clinical trials, and randomized controlled trials. Only systematic and meta-analysis reviews were included, and their search strategies had to clearly specify and adhere to The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [23]. These review articles allowed for quick and efficient identification of primary sources/articles reporting on school gardening interventions.
2.3. Selection of School Gardening Reviews, Primary Articles, and Interventions
Identified review articles (Stage 1) were exported to EndNote reference management software (EndNote™ 20, Clarivate Analytics, Chandler, AZ, USA). Duplicate records were removed. Titles and abstracts were manually screened for terms related to “school garden/s” or “school gardening”, and articles were assessed for eligibility and inclusion.
Stage 2 included screening the full text of each eligible article to identify primary articles reporting positive health and well-being outcomes. Positive health and well-being outcomes were defined broadly as having improved change, either determined quantitatively (e.g., increased fruit and vegetable intake) or improved benefit determined qualitatively (e.g., improved behaviors towards fruit and vegetables). Positive health and wellbeing outcomes were identified from either text, tabulated data, or figure data. All study designs were identified, comprising quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods studies.
During Stage 3, the full text of each primary article was reviewed to identify specific school gardening interventions.
2.4. Data Extraction, Appraisal, Synthesis, Analysis, and Evaluation
Publication details, including authors, year of publication, location, objectives, study design, duration, participants, sample size, outcomes investigated, method of measuring outcomes, and details of positive health and well-being outcomes, were extracted from all included articles. To help improve the completeness in the reporting of the various interventions, the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and guidelines were used [24]. Data extraction was supplemented with key components: rationale, materials, procedures (activities), providers, delivery, timing, tailoring, modifications, and planning.
Data analysis drew on the principles of a realist synthesis for each school gardening intervention. This consisted of identifying the underlying causal or potential mechanism/s acting toward positive health and well-being outcomes by producing a Context–Mechanism–Outcome configuration for each of the school gardening interventions. If a number of primary articles were associated with a single intervention, then their data were combined during this Context–Mechanism–Outcome configuration process.
3. Results
3.1. Identification of School Gardening Interventions
Stage 1 screening identified 6 reviews for inclusion [10,13,14,15,17,18] (Figure 1; Supplementary Table S1); Stage 2 screening identified 65 primary articles with positive health and well-being outcomes; and Stage 3 screening identified 35 articles associated with 24 school gardening interventions [25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59].
Figure 1.
Three stages include identification of review articles, positive health and well-being articles, and articles associated with school gardening interventions.
3.2. Context–Mechanism–Outcome Configuration
For each intervention identified, a Context–Mechanism–Outcome configuration was developed, using the extracted data together with supplementary information from the TIDier process (Table 1).
Table 1.
Context–Mechanism–Outcome configuration of individual school gardening interventions.
Context (Materials/Activities) | Mechanism | Outcomes (Health/Well-Being) |
---|---|---|
How do you grow? How does your garden grow? [25,26] 10-week program with Grade 5–6 students | ||
|
|
|
Multicultural School Gardens [27] 2-year program with 6–12-year-old children | ||
|
|
|
Outreach School Garden Project (OSGP) [28] 6-month project with Grades 5–6 and 7–9 students | ||
|
|
|
Stephanie Alexander Kitchen Garden Program (SAKGP) [29,30,31,32] 2.5–3-year programs with Grade 3–6 students | ||
|
|
|
Growing Schools and The Gloucestershire Food Strategy [33] 3-year programs with Grade 3 and Grade 6 students | ||
|
|
|
Royal Horticultural Society (RHS) Campaign for School Gardening [34,35] 1-year programs with Grade 3–4 students | ||
|
|
|
Delicious and Nutritious Garden [36] 12-week intervention with Grade 4–6 students attending a summer camp | ||
|
|
|
Eat Your Way to Better Health (EYWTBH) [37] 6–10-week program with Grade 3 students | ||
|
|
|
Gardens Reaching Our World (GROW) [38] 4.5-week program with Kindergarten to Grade 5 students | ||
|
|
|
Got Dirt? Garden Initiative [39] 4-month initiative with 7–13-year-old students | ||
|
|
|
Growing Healthy Kids (GHK) [40] 1-year program with 2–15-year-old children in the community | ||
|
|
|
Healthier Options for Public Schoolchildren (HOPS)/The OrganWise Guys (OWG) [41] 2-year program with 4–13-year-old children | ||
|
|
|
Healthy Gardens, Healthy Youth [42] 2-year program with Grade 4–5 students | ||
|
|
|
Junior Master Gardener “Health and Nutrition from the Garden” [43] Up to 12-week programs with Grade 2–5 students | ||
|
|
|
LA Sprouts [44,45,46,47,48] 12-week programs with Grade 3–5 students | ||
|
|
|
Master Gardener Classroom Garden Project [49] Ongoing project with Grade 2–3 students | ||
|
|
|
Nutrition in the Garden [50,51] 1-year program with Grade 3–5 students | ||
|
|
|
Shaping Healthy Choices Program (SHCP) [52] 1-year program with Grade 4–5 students | ||
|
|
|
Sprouting Healthy Kids (SHK) [53] 5-month program with Grade 6–7 students | ||
|
|
|
Texas Sprouts [54] 9-month intervention with Grade 3–5 students | ||
|
|
|
Texas!Grow!Eat!Go! (TGEG) [55] 4–6-month intervention with Grade 3 students | ||
|
|
|
Watch Me Grow [56] 4-month program with 3–5-year-old children at child care centers | ||
|
|
|
Gardens for Life (GfL) [57] 3-year project with 7–14-year-old students in different countries | ||
|
|
|
Vegetables Go to School [58,59] 2-year program with Grades 6–7 students in different countries | ||
|
|
|
Abbreviations: OSGP, Outreach School Garden Project; SAKGP, Stephanie Alexander Kitchen Garden Program; RHS, Royal Horticultural Society; EYWTBH, Eat Your Way to Better Health; GROW, Gardens Reaching Our World; GHK, Growing Healthy Kids; HOPS, Healthier Options for Public Schoolchildren; OWG, OrganWise Guys; SHCP, Shaping Healthy Choices Program; SHK, Sprouting Healthy Kids; TGEG, Texas!Grow!Eat!Go!; GfL, Gardens for Life.
3.2.1. Context of School Gardening Interventions with Positive Health and Well-Being Outcomes
Location, Garden Spaces, and Facilitation
Identified school gardening interventions were conducted across a wide range of geographical locations, including Australia [25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32], the United Kingdom [33,34,35,57], the United States [36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56], India [57], Kenya [57], Bhutan [58], and Nepal [59] (Supplementary Table S2). Interventions mostly utilized gardens at school or child care premises, with the exception being community gardens or a summer camp garden [36,40,44]. Children and families participated in the design of gardens in interventions [27,29,30,57]. Initiatives were primarily facilitated by kindergarten, elementary, primary, and/or secondary school, and childcare center staff [25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,57,58,59], with research teams [25,26,28,42,44,45,46,47,48,56], University departments [39,40], and external partners and/or specialists contributing in some contexts [25,26,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,53,54,55,56,58,59].
Rationale
School gardening interventions were predominantly used to influence school-aged children’s knowledge, attitudes, and/or behaviors toward diet and nutrition, particularly in connection to increasing fruit and/or vegetable consumption [25,26,29,34,35,36,37,38,39,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,50,51,52,53,54,55,56]. In many instances, this was associated with the impetus of addressing the prevalence and prevention of obesity [38,39,40,41,44,45,46,47,48,50,51,52,53,54,55], particularly as low-income minority groups may be disproportionately affected by lower fruit and/or vegetable intake and experience higher rates of childhood obesity [44,45,46,47,48,55]. Additionally, the ability of school gardens to influence physical activity and active living formed part of the reasoning for some interventions [38,42,55].
Participants and Activities
Most of the interventions were conducted at primary schools, with participating children in Grades 2 through 6. In multiple instances, nutrition and gardening education was integrated into the curriculum itself and delivered through school garden and kitchen activities [27,28,29,30,31,32,33,37,42,43,50,51,54,55,56,58,59]. Specifically, children were provided with opportunities to participate in growing, harvesting, and consuming garden produce (usually fruit and vegetables), with some enabling the sharing of meals together in a ‘family style’ environment [29,30,40,44,46]. Parental and family engagement were also encouraged through newsletters [25,26,36,40,52], take-home activities [36,37,55], and opportunities for volunteering [29,30,31,32]. Teacher training was also an important component in several interventions, particularly with nutritional and gardening activities [34,35,39,41,58,59]. Several interventions facilitated cultural awareness, including opportunities for cultural exchange or appreciation for culturally tailoring interventions in accordance with demographic profiles as focal points [27,40,44,45,46,47,48,55,57,58,59].
Some interventions were adapted from existing curricula, activity guides, peer-reviewed resources, or garnered from previous pilot initiatives. For example, several interventions were based on the curriculum of Junior Master Gardener® (College Station, TX, USA) and Health & Nutrition from the Garden programs [37,43,54], and several utilized the activity guide developed by Lineberger and Zajicek (1998) [25,26,50,51]. Further, a few interventions were based on the model of Montessori (1964) and grounded in school gardening research and garden-based learning [49,57].
Duration, Frequency, and Type
Typically, the duration of interventions ranged from 6 weeks to 3 years [25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59]. “Frequency” and “type” of intervention also varied considerably and included a mix of weekly lessons (teaching nutrition, cooking, and/or gardening) [25,26,28,29,30,36,37,40,43,44,45,46,47,48,53,58,59], occasional expert/specialist visits [30,34,53,56], field trips [46,53], take-home activities [52,55], nutrition and cooking demonstrations and/or workshops [40,52], parental lessons [44,47,54], and teacher training sessions [34,35].
3.2.2. Mechanisms Leading to Positive Health and Well-Being Outcomes
The combined action of nutrition-based and garden-based education, often integrated into the curriculum, was a common mechanism that contributed towards positive outcomes, particularly in connection to fruit and/or vegetables [25,26,33,44,45,46,47,48,50,51,58,59].
Experiential or “hands-on” learning experiences for students were also a common strategy amongst multiple interventions, with children involved in growing, nurturing, harvesting, preparing, and consuming produce from school gardens [25,26,27,29,30,31,32,36,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,55,57]. Reports also emphasized the effectiveness of experiential experiences as a pedagogical learning tool for students, with newly learned knowledge influencing attitudes, behavioral change, and building self-efficacy towards healthier eating [27,42].
The engagement and participation of families provided opportunities for intergenerational learning, informing behaviors and self-efficacy of children, and parents/guardians volunteering at school [27,29,30,31,32,36,37,49]. School teachers, principals, and other “authority figures” were important for behavioral modeling, leadership, and expertise as nutrition or gardening specialists [28,33,34,35,49,53,54]. Some interventions were tailored for minority groups, providing experiential learning opportunities in the context of cultural backgrounds and opportunities for intercultural learning [27,40,44,45,46,47,48,57,58,59].
A distinguishing feature was the use of multi-pronged approaches. For example, this included the adoption of multi-level and multi-sectoral methodologies, with involvement from individuals, community, and governmental agencies. In addition, programs implemented multi-component approaches including, for example, a combination of nutrition-based education, family involvement, development of community partnerships, support from the agricultural sector, and school wellness committees [33,39,40,41,44,45,46,47,48,52,53,58,59].
The reinforcement of activities leading to sustainability was also seen as a key mechanism, such as repeated and/or increased exposure to fruit and vegetables during the intervention duration. The notion of ensuring the impacts of school gardening activities was sustained was also accomplished by consistent and coordinated messaging through multiple intervention components [36,37,39,40,43,52].
3.2.3. Positive Health and Well-Being Outcomes
Positive health and well-being outcomes were primarily related to fruit and vegetables (e.g., increased knowledge, awareness, preferences, behaviors, intake, and variety) [25,26,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,43,44,45,46,47,48,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59]; dietary fiber, and vitamins A and C (e.g., increased intake) [44,45,46,47,48,50,51]; anthropometric measures (e.g., improved BMI percentile, BMI z-score, and waist-to-height ratio) [40,41,44,45,46,47,48,52,55]; children’s well-being (e.g., increased social skills and confidence, improved social connections, and a greater sense of belonging) [27,28,29,30,31,32]; and parent’s/family’s health and well-being (e.g., improved healthy eating, greater family interaction, and greater connection to school) [27,29,30,31,32,49].
4. Discussion
Through this realist synthesis, we investigated how school gardening improves health and well-being for school-aged children, finding that a combination of mechanisms operates in tandem under different contexts for the success of the school gardening interventions to yield positive outcomes. The impetus of many interventions was to increase fruit and vegetable intake and address the prevention of childhood obesity. Most were conducted at primary schools with participating children in Grades 2 through 6 and were located in high-income countries, including the United States and Australia. The mechanisms ranged from embedding nutrition and garden education in the curriculum to experiential learning, engagement and involvement of family and “authority figures”, and the relevance of cultural context. Types of positive outcomes included increased fruit and vegetable consumption, dietary fiber and vitamins A and C, improved BMI, and improved well-being of children.
The review results in evidence that the benefits of combining nutrition-based and garden-based education are important in improving outcomes, particularly with attitudes and behaviors toward fruit and vegetable consumption. This suggests that classroom-based lessons may be enhanced through practical and garden-based lessons. For example, in the How do you grow? How does your garden grow? intervention, the curriculum encompassed a variety of topics in relation to health and well-being, reinforced through ‘hands-on’ exposure to gardening activities [25,26]. Similarly, the Nutrition in the Garden program integrated nutrition education into the curriculum, with particular emphasis on a practical application involving comprehensive gardening and cooking activities [50,51]. In addition, findings from Berezowitz et al. (2015), through a review of school garden studies, conclude that garden-based learning may favorably affect fruit and vegetable consumption but also positively impacts academic performance [11]. Similarly, experiential learning strategies have proved useful in improving children’s knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors toward eating more healthily, including those in school garden settings [18]. Schools, therefore, have significant potential to create garden spaces for enabling experiential experiences linked to the curriculum, leading to enhanced learning and improved health and well-being outcomes.
Family involvement in school gardening initiatives was at the center of impacting positive health and well-being outcomes, demonstrated across several interventions, with mechanisms working at multiple levels. Previous research reports that family involvement helps change eating behaviors in school-aged children [14]. Consistent with the “bioecological theory” and “primary socialization theory”, a child’s development is collectively impacted by numerous proximal (e.g., parents, peers, community) and distal (e.g., cultural norms, laws, customs) influences and their complex interdependencies [60]. Accordingly, the importance of parents in promulgating healthy nutrition behaviors in children cannot be underestimated. Garnering the cooperation/participation of as many parents as possible in school-based gardening can be strengthened using volunteering programs and take-home activities, including produce and recipes. These strategies have proven to be effective at meaningfully engaging parents with school-garden-related activities [14].
Visionary leadership and inspirational role models are integral to school-based gardening interventions leading to health and well-being outcomes. Strong engagement between students and “authority figures”, including school teachers, school principals, and external experts, has consistently been shown to be associated with positive health and well-being outcomes. For example, Growing Schools and The Gloucestershire Food Strategy identified clear leadership and vision from the head teacher as critical for initiating change [33]. Findings from the Royal Horticultural Society Campaign for School Gardening indicate how the willingness of teachers to engage with the intervention may be important towards a greater intake of fruit and vegetables [35]. In addition, Viola (2006) identified how support from the school principal is key in the Outreach School Garden Project, leading to improved nutrition knowledge and skills [28]. More recently, Mann et al. (2022) synthesized evidence of nature-specific outdoor learning outside of the classroom on school children’s learning and development and suggested that all teacher training efforts should include skill development activities pertaining to this type of pedagogical approach [61]. Integration of ideas such as these is important as teachers are often highly influential during childhood education and development, as indicated above.
Considering the increasingly diverse societies we dwell in, it is no surprise that many made a conscious effort to accommodate the varying cultural needs in their interventions. For instance, culturally-tailored components, together with experiential learning, were central to the LA Sprouts program, leading to many potentially beneficial outcomes, including changed behaviors and preferences towards dietary fiber, fruit, and vegetables for children of Hispanic/Latino heritage [44,45,46,47,48]. Similarly, Ornelas and colleagues (2021) reported the importance of drawing on cultural strengths and traditional practices in addressing childhood obesity through school gardening, specifically for American Indian communities [62]. Therefore, cultural aspects and/or ethnic diversity would be an important consideration in the design of school gardening programs to ensure potential health and well-being outcomes are culturally sensitive and sustainable.
This realist review highlights that several key elements and numerous permutations of context and mechanisms work mutually, leading to positive health and well-being outcomes in school-aged children that may be observed collectively (Figure 2; Table 1). The synthesis demonstrates the potential for change when important contextual and mechanistic elements are drawn from a range of successful interventions that may be incorporated into current or proposed school gardening programs. This provides guidance in conjunction with published systematic and meta-analysis reporting on school gardening interventions. This also provides a template for consideration in designing new school gardening interventions or enabling adjustment and inclusion of additional elements to current interventions.
Figure 2.
Context, mechanism, and outcome synthesis of school gardening interventions.
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time a systematic realist synthesis with the accompanying use of program theory has been applied to school gardening interventions. The strength of this approach lies in using high-level research-based evidence through the identification of systematic and meta-analysis reviews. This informed identification of pertinent peer-reviewed primary articles with positive health and well-being outcomes and subsequent identification of school gardening interventions. This approach enabled the identification of evidence associated with school-based gardening interventions as previously identified and reviewed, allowing a comparison of our findings with the existing literature. Data extraction and TIDier checklist methodologies enabled holistic assessment of individual school gardening interventions, supporting robust configuration of context, mechanism, and outcomes and subsequent realist synthesis.
Notwithstanding the potential for positive outcomes that result from school gardens, it is important to note that the generalizability of the results from these interventions may be limited to high-income countries as most of the programs were based in Australia, the United Kingdom, and America. In addition, while a number of programs were based in areas of socio-economic disadvantage, addressing particular health inequities affecting low-income, under-resourced, and/or specific ethnic groups, including a focus on childhood obesity prevention, the results may not be entirely generalizable and transferable to other settings, either in other high-income countries or low-income countries.
5. Conclusions
Through this realist synthesis of identified school gardening interventions, we have shown how various mechanism work mutually to support positive health and well-being outcomes of school-aged children in particular contexts, which may assist with future endeavors. School gardening interventions potentially hold strong promise in supporting action toward the prevention of modern public health problems, including food insecurity and childhood obesity, both requiring urgent global attention.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the University of Tasmania library staff for assistance with literature search strategies.
Supplementary Materials
The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/nu15051190/s1, Table S1: Identification of school gardening articles with positive health and well-being outcomes; Table S2: Summary of school gardening interventions.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, R.H., K.D.K.A., T.P.H., S.J. and A.P.H.; methodology, R.H., K.D.K.A. and T.P.H.; formal analysis, T.P.H., K.A.E.P. and K.D.K.A.; investigation, R.H., K.D.K.A., T.P.H. and A.P.H.; resources, K.A.E.P., K.D.K.A., R.H., N.M.B. and A.P.H.; data curation, T.P.H. and K.D.K.A.; writing—original draft preparation, T.P.H.; writing—review and editing, K.D.K.A., L.D., R.H., S.J., S.M., R.S., K.A.E.P., N.M.B. and A.P.H.; project administration, R.H., N.M.B. and A.P.H.; funding acquisition, K.A.E.P., K.D.K.A., R.H., N.M.B. and A.P.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Funding Statement
This research was funded by a National Health & Medical Research Council (NHMRC) grant (#113672) as part of the CAPITOL Project. The study funder had no role in the study design, collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data, in writing the report, or in the decision to submit the article for publication. The contents of this article are the responsibility of the authors and do not reflect the views of the NHMRC.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
References
- 1.AIHW Food and Nutrition. [(accessed on 14 August 2022)]; Available online: https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports-data/behaviours-risk-factors/food-nutrition/overview.
- 2.FAO. IFAD. UNICEF. WFP. WHO . The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2022. Repurposing Food and Agricultural Policies to Make Healthy Diets More Affordable. FAO; Rome, Italy: 2022. [Google Scholar]
- 3.FAO . Declaration of the World Summit on Food Security. FAO; Rome, Italy: 2009. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Andress L., Fitch C. Juggling the five dimensions of food access: Perceptions of rural low income residents. Appetite. 2016;105:151–155. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2016.05.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Friel S., Hattersley L., Ford L. Evidence Review: Addressing the Social Determinants of Inequities in Healthy Eating. The Australian National University; Canberra, Australia: 2015. [Google Scholar]
- 6.Vilar-Compte M., Burrola-Mendez S., Lozano-Marrufo A., Ferre-Eguiluz I., Flores D., Gaitan-Rossi P., Teruel G., Perez-Escamilla R. Urban poverty and nutrition challenges associated with accessibility to a healthy diet: A global systematic literature review. Int. J. Equity Health. 2021;20:40. doi: 10.1186/s12939-020-01330-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Guitart D., Pickering C., Byrne J. Past results and future directions in urban community gardens research. Urban For. Urban Green. 2012;11:364–373. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2012.06.007. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Kingsley J., Bailey A., Torabi N., Zardo P., Mavoa S., Gray T., Tracey D., Pettitt P., Zajac N., Foenander E. A Systematic Review Protocol Investigating Community Gardening Impact Measures. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2019;16:3430. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16183430. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Gregis A., Ghisalberti C., Sciascia S., Sottile F., Peano C. Community Garden Initiatives Addressing Health and Well-Being Outcomes: A Systematic Review of Infodemiology Aspects, Outcomes, and Target Populations. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2021;18:1943. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18041943. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Ohly H., Gentry S., Wigglesworth R., Bethel A., Lovell R., Garside R. A systematic review of the health and well-being impacts of school gardening: Synthesis of quantitative and qualitative evidence. BMC Public Health. 2016;16:286. doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-2941-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Berezowitz C.K., Bontrager Yoder A.B., Schoeller D.A. School Gardens Enhance Academic Performance and Dietary Outcomes in Children. J. Sch. Health. 2015;85:508–518. doi: 10.1111/josh.12278. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Davis J.N., Spaniol M.R., Somerset S. Sustenance and sustainability: Maximizing the impact of school gardens on health outcomes. Public Health Nutr. 2015;18:2358–2367. doi: 10.1017/S1368980015000221. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Savoie-Roskos M.R., Wengreen H., Durward C. Increasing Fruit and Vegetable Intake among Children and Youth through Gardening-Based Interventions: A Systematic Review. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 2017;117:240–250. doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2016.10.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Charlton K., Comerford T., Deavin N., Walton K. Characteristics of successful primary school-based experiential nutrition programmes: A systematic literature review. Public Health Nutr. 2021;24:4642–4662. doi: 10.1017/S1368980020004024. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Rochira A., Tedesco D., Ubiali A., Fantini M.P., Gori D. School Gardening Activities Aimed at Obesity Prevention Improve Body Mass Index and Waist Circumference Parameters in School-Aged Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Child. Obes. 2020;16:154–173. doi: 10.1089/chi.2019.0253. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Ozer E.J. The effects of school gardens on students and schools: Conceptualization and considerations for maximizing healthy development. Health Educ. Behav. 2007;34:846–863. doi: 10.1177/1090198106289002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Qi Y., Hamzah S.H., Gu E., Wang H., Xi Y., Sun M., Rong S., Lin Q. Is School Gardening Combined with Physical Activity Intervention Effective for Improving Childhood Obesity? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Nutrients. 2021;13:2605. doi: 10.3390/nu13082605. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Varman S.D., Cliff D.P., Jones R.A., Hammersley M.L., Zhang Z., Charlton K., Kelly B. Experiential Learning Interventions and Healthy Eating Outcomes in Children: A Systematic Literature Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2021;18:10824. doi: 10.3390/ijerph182010824. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Pawson R., Greenhalgh T., Harvey G., Walshe K. Realist review—A new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J. Health Serv. Res. Policy. 2005;10((Suppl. 1)):21–34. doi: 10.1258/1355819054308530. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Popay J., Roberts H., Sowden A., Petticrew M., Arai L., Rodgers M., Britten N., Roen K., Duffy S. Guidance on the Conduct of Narrative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews. A Product from the ESRC Methods Programme. Lancaster University; Lancaster, UK: 2006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Noyes J., Lewin S. Supplemental guidance on selecting a method of qualitative evidence synthesis, and integrating qualitative evidence with Cochrane intervention reviews. In: Noyes J.H.K., Harden A., Harris J., Lewin S., Lockwood C., Cochrane Collaboration Qualitative Methods Group, editors. Supplementary Guidance for Inclusion of Qualitative Research in Cochrane Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version. 2011. [(accessed on 13 January 2023)]. Updated August 2011. Available online: https://kuleuven.limo.libis.be/discovery/fulldisplay?docid=lirias1794168&context=SearchWebhook&vid=32KUL_KUL:Lirias&search_scope=lirias_profile&adaptor=SearchWebhook&tab=LIRIAS&query=any,contains,lirias1794168. [Google Scholar]
- 22.Tranfield D., Denyer D., Smart P. Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review. Br. J. Manag. 2003;14:207–222. doi: 10.1111/1467-8551.00375. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Page M.J., McKenzie J.E., Bossuyt P.M., Boutron I., Hoffmann T.C., Mulrow C.D., Shamseer L., Tetzlaff J.M., Akl E.A., Brennan S.E., et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Hoffmann T.C., Glasziou P.P., Boutron I., Milne R., Perera R., Moher D., Altman D.G., Barbour V., Macdonald H., Johnston M., et al. Better reporting of interventions: Template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ. 2014;348:g1687. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g1687. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Jaenke R.L., Collins C.E., Morgan P.J., Lubans D.R., Saunders K.L., Warren J.M. The impact of a school garden and cooking program on boys’ and girls’ fruit and vegetable preferences, taste rating, and intake. Health Educ. Behav. 2012;39:131–141. doi: 10.1177/1090198111408301. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Morgan P.J., Warren J.M., Lubans D.R., Saunders K.L., Quick G.I., Collins C.E. The impact of nutrition education with and without a school garden on knowledge, vegetable intake and preferences and quality of school life among primary-school students. Public Health Nutr. 2010;13:1931–1940. doi: 10.1017/S1368980010000959. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Cutter-Mackenzie A. Multicultural School Gardens: Creating Engaging Garden Spaces in Learning about Language, Culture, and Environment. Can. J. Environ. Educ. 2009;14:122–135. [Google Scholar]
- 28.Viola A. Evaluation of the Outreach School Garden Project: Building the capacity of two Indigenous remote school communities to integrate nutrition into the core school curriculum. Health Promot. J. Aust. 2006;17:233–239. doi: 10.1071/HE06233. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Block K., Gibbs L., Staiger P.K., Gold L., Johnson B., Macfarlane S., Long C., Townsend M. Growing community: The impact of the Stephanie Alexander Kitchen Garden Program on the social and learning environment in primary schools. Health Educ. Behav. 2012;39:419–432. doi: 10.1177/1090198111422937. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Gibbs L., Staiger P.K., Johnson B., Block K., Macfarlane S., Gold L., Kulas J., Townsend M., Long C., Ukoumunne O. Expanding children’s food experiences: The impact of a school-based kitchen garden program. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 2013;45:137–146. doi: 10.1016/j.jneb.2012.09.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Henryks J. Changing the menu: Rediscovering ingredients for a successful volunteer experience in school kitchen gardens. Local Environ. 2011;16:569–583. doi: 10.1080/13549839.2011.577058. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Townsend M., Gibbs L., Macfarlane S., Block K., Staiger P., Gold L., Johnson B., Long C. Volunteering in a School Kitchen Garden Program: Cooking Up Confidence, Capabilities, and Connections! VOLUNTAS Int. J. Volunt. Nonprofit Organ. 2012;25:225–247. doi: 10.1007/s11266-012-9334-5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Lakin L., Littledyke M. Health promoting schools: Integrated practices to develop critical thinking and healthy lifestyles through farming, growing and healthy eating. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2008;32:253–259. doi: 10.1111/j.1470-6431.2007.00658.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Christian M.S., Evans C.E.L., Nykjaer C., Hancock N., Cade J.E. Evaluation of the impact of a school gardening intervention on children’s fruit and vegetable intake: A randomised controlled trial. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2014;11:99. doi: 10.1186/s12966-014-0099-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Hutchinson J., Christian M.S., Evans C.E., Nykjaer C., Hancock N., Cade J.E. Evaluation of the impact of school gardening interventions on children’s knowledge of and attitudes towards fruit and vegetables. A cluster randomised controlled trial. Appetite. 2015;91:405–414. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2015.04.076. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Heim S., Stang J., Ireland M. A garden pilot project enhances fruit and vegetable consumption among children. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 2009;109:1220–1226. doi: 10.1016/j.jada.2009.04.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Kararo M.J., Orvis K.S., Knobloch N.A. Eat Your Way to Better Health: Evaluating a Garden-based Nutrition Program for Youth. HortTechnology. 2016;26:663–668. doi: 10.21273/HORTTECH03225-16. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Wright W., Rowell L. Examining the Effect of Gardening on Vegetable Consumption Among Youth in Kindergarten through Fifth Grade. Wis. Med. J. 2010;109:125–129. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Meinen A., Friese B., Wright W., Carrel A. Youth Gardens Increase Healthy Behaviors in Young Children. J. Hunger. Environ. Nutr. 2012;7:192–204. doi: 10.1080/19320248.2012.704662. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Castro D.C., Samuels M., Harman A.E. Growing healthy kids: A community garden-based obesity prevention program. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2013;44:S193–S199. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.11.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Hollar D., Lombardo M., Lopez-Mitnik G., Hollar T.L., Almon M., Agaston A.S., Messiah S.E. Effective Multi-level, Multi-sector, School-based Obesity Prevention Programming Improves Weight, Blood Pressure, and Academic Performance, Especially among Low-Income, Minority Children. J. Health Care Poor Underserved. 2010;21:93–108. doi: 10.1353/hpu.0.0304. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Wells N.M., Myers B.M., Henderson C.R., Jr. School gardens and physical activity: A randomized controlled trial of low-income elementary schools. Prev. Med. 2014;69((Suppl. 1)):S27–S33. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.10.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Koch S., Waliczek T.M., Zajicek J.M. The Effect of a Summer Garden Program on the Nutritional Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behaviors of Children. HortTechnology. 2006;16:620–625. doi: 10.21273/HORTTECH.16.4.0620. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Davis J.N., Ventura E.E., Cook L.T., Gyllenhammer L.E., Gatto N.M. LA Sprouts: A gardening, nutrition, and cooking intervention for Latino youth improves diet and reduces obesity. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 2011;111:1224–1230. doi: 10.1016/j.jada.2011.05.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Davis J.N., Martinez L.C., Spruijt-Metz D., Gatto N.M. LA Sprouts: A 12-Week Gardening, Nutrition, and Cooking Randomized Control Trial Improves Determinants of Dietary Behaviors. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 2016;48:2–11.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jneb.2015.08.009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Gatto N.M., Ventura E.E., Cook L.T., Gyllenhammer L.E., Davis J.N. LA Sprouts: A garden-based nutrition intervention pilot program influences motivation and preferences for fruits and vegetables in Latino youth. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 2012;112:913–920. doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2012.01.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Gatto N.M., Martinez L.C., Spruijt-Metz D., Davis J.N. LA sprouts randomized controlled nutrition, cooking and gardening programme reduces obesity and metabolic risk in Hispanic/Latino youth. Pediatr. Obes. 2017;12:28–37. doi: 10.1111/ijpo.12102. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Landry M.J., Markowitz A.K., Asigbee F.M., Gatto N.M., Spruijt-Metz D., Davis J.N. Cooking and Gardening Behaviors and Improvements in Dietary Intake in Hispanic/Latino Youth. Child. Obes. 2019;15:262–270. doi: 10.1089/chi.2018.0110. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Alexander J., North M., Hendren D.K. Master Gardener Classroom Garden Project: An Evaluation of the Benefits to Children. Child. Environ. 1995;2:256–263. [Google Scholar]
- 50.Lineberger S.E., Zajicek J.M. School Gardens: Can a Hands-on Teaching Tool Affect Students’ Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Fruit and Vegetables. HortTechnology. 2000;10:593–597. doi: 10.21273/HORTTECH.10.3.593. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 51.McAleese J.D., Rankin L.L. Garden-based nutrition education affects fruit and vegetable consumption in sixth-grade adolescents. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 2007;107:662–665. doi: 10.1016/j.jada.2007.01.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Scherr R.E., Linnell J.D., Dharmar M., Beccarelli L.M., Bergman J.J., Briggs M., Brian K.M., Feenstra G., Hillhouse J.C., Keen C.L., et al. A Multicomponent, School-Based Intervention, the Shaping Healthy Choices Program, Improves Nutrition-Related Outcomes. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 2017;49:368–379.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jneb.2016.12.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Evans A., Ranjit N., Rutledge R., Medina J., Jennings R., Smiley A., Stigler M., Hoelscher D. Exposure to multiple components of a garden-based intervention for middle school students increases fruit and vegetable consumption. Health Promot. Pract. 2012;13:608–616. doi: 10.1177/1524839910390357. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Davis J.N., Perez A., Asigbee F.M., Landry M.J., Vandyousefi S., Ghaddar R., Hoover A., Jeans M., Nikah K., Fischer B., et al. School-based gardening, cooking and nutrition intervention increased vegetable intake but did not reduce BMI: Texas sprouts—A cluster randomized controlled trial. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2021;18:18. doi: 10.1186/s12966-021-01087-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.van den Berg A., Warren J.L., McIntosh A., Hoelscher D., Ory M.G., Jovanovic C., Lopez M., Whittlesey L., Kirk A., Walton C., et al. Impact of a Gardening and Physical Activity Intervention in Title 1 Schools: The TGEG Study. Child. Obes. 2020;16:S44–S54. doi: 10.1089/chi.2019.0238. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.Namenek-Brouwer R.J., Benjamin-Neelon S.E. Watch Me Grow: A garden-based pilot intervention to increase vegetable and fruit intake in preschoolers. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:363. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-363. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Bowker R., Tearle P. Gardening as a learning environment: A study of children’s perceptions and understanding of school gardens as part of an international project. Learn. Environ. Res. 2007;10:83–100. doi: 10.1007/s10984-007-9025-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 58.Schreinemachers P., Rai B.B., Dorji D., Chen H.-p., Dukpa T., Thinley N., Sherpa P.L., Yang R.-Y. School gardening in Bhutan: Evaluating outcomes and impact. Food Secur. 2017;9:635–648. doi: 10.1007/s12571-017-0673-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Schreinemachers P., Bhattarai D.R., Subedi G.D., Acharya T.P., Chen H.-p., Yang R.-y., Kashichhawa N.K., Dhungana U., Luther G.C., Mecozzi M. Impact of school gardens in Nepal: A cluster randomised controlled trial. J. Dev. Eff. 2017;9:329–343. doi: 10.1080/19439342.2017.1311356. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Bronfenbrenner U. Ecological Systems Theory. In: Vasta R., editor. Six Theories of Child Development: Revised Formulations and Current Ideas. Jessica Kingsley Publishers; London, UK: 1992. [Google Scholar]
- 61.Mann J., Gray T., Truong S., Brymer E., Passy R., Ho S., Sahlberg P., Ward K., Bentsen P., Curry C., et al. Getting Out of the Classroom and Into Nature: A Systematic Review of Nature-Specific Outdoor Learning on School Children’s Learning and Development. Front. Public Health. 2022;10:877058. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.877058. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62.Ornelas I.J., Rudd K., Bishop S., Deschenie D., Brown E., Lombard K., Beresford S.A.A. Engaging School and Family in Navajo Gardening for Health: Development of the Yeego Intervention to Promote Healthy Eating among Navajo Children. Health Behav. Policy Rev. 2021;8:212–222. doi: 10.14485/HBPR.8.3.3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
Not applicable.