Community Gardens: A Catalyst for Community Change

Abstract

Community gardens are increasing in popularity and are associated with extensive physical and mental health benefits, increased access to fresh produce, and increased social connections. However, evidence is primarily from research in urban and school settings, and little is known about the role of community gardens in rural settings as part of policy, systems, and environmental (PSE) changes to promote health. This study explores the implementation of community gardens as part of an obesity prevention project, titled Healthier Together (HT), in five rural Georgia counties with limited food access and high obesity prevalence (>40%) using a mixed-methods research design that included data from project records, a community survey, interviews, and focus groups with county coalition members. Nineteen community gardens were implemented across five counties, 89% distributed produce direct to consumers, and 50% were integrated into the food system. Few (8.3%) of the survey respondents (n = 265) identified gardens as a food source, but 21.9% reported using an HT garden in the past year. Themes emerging from interviews (n = 39) and five focus groups suggested community gardens were a catalyst for broader community health change by increasing awareness of the value and absence of healthy food and generating excitement for future PSE initiatives to more comprehensively address food and physical activity access. Practitioners should consider placement of rural community gardens to optimize access to and distribution of produce as well as communication and marketing strategies to increase engagement and leverage gardens as gateways for PSE approaches to improve rural health.

Community gardens have existed for more than a century; however, their use has grown rapidly in the past two decades, particularly in schools and urban settings (Draper & Freedman, 2010; Garcia et al., 2018). Community gardens exist in public environments and generate fruits and vegetables for eating and/or sharing and selling in the community (Draper & Freedman, 2010; Lampert et al., 2021). Previous research suggests community gardens may foster fresh produce intake and access (Booth et al., 2018; Draper & Freedman, 2010; Garcia et al., 2018; Sadeghzadeh et al., 2021). Additional studies reported health benefits including decreased body mass index; improved psychosocial factors (e.g., fatigue, anger, anxiety, depression, self-esteem, and life satisfaction); and increased bone mineral density, physical activity, and cognitive function (Booth et al., 2018; Lampert et al., 2021; Park et al., 2014; Soga et al., 2017; Zick et al., 2013).

Community gardens may also foster community engagement as an outlet for collective action, identity, ownership, and access (Draper & Freedman, 2010). Within communities, they may build capacity, social capital, and networked partnerships, core components of public health program infrastructure (Booth et al., 2018; Lampert et al., 2021; Lavinghouze et al., 2014; Sadeghzadeh et al., 2021).

To date, however, community gardens research has focused on urban settings where people live in close proximity to one another or attend school together (Draper & Freedman, 2010; Lampert et al., 2021). Little is known about community garden implementation and outcomes in rural settings where larger distances between residences and mostly undefined neighborhoods pose challenges (Draper & Freedman, 2010; Lampert et al., 2021). Namely, rural communities have low population density and potentially long distances between gardens, consumers, and food system outlets (e.g., retailers, markets, and community centers). Rural residents urgently need access to healthy food due to fewer grocery stores and public transportation options, two important social determinants of health (SDoH; Schopfer, 2021). Moreover, higher rates of nutrition-related chronic disease and mortality in rural areas than suburban/urban areas warrant multilevel interventions to address healthy food access and behaviors via SDoH, like social connections (Buys & Rennekamp, 2020; Schopfer, 2021). Given the potential diverse benefits, community gardens may help address these challenges (Schopfer, 2021).

Exploring community garden reach, uptake, and maintenance in rural communities can inform implementation and sustainability for maximum impact. As community gardens are not a comprehensive solution, understanding their role in larger policy, systems, and environmental (PSE) approaches to obesity and food access is key (Murriel et al., 2020; O’Toole et al., 2022).

PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES

This study seeks to examine community gardens’ role in rural counties participating in the Georgia High Obesity Program (HOP; Murriel et al., 2020; O’Toole et al., 2022). The specific objectives were to (a) assess the implementation, reach, and uptake of community gardens in the HOP counties (Calhoun, Clay, Dooly, Stewart, Taliaferro); (b) explore how participants described community gardens as part of rural food systems change. Together, this study will (a) demonstrate proof-of-concept for community gardens as a catalyst for PSE change and (b) provide practical lessons learned for establishing and maintaining community gardens in rural settings to support healthy food access.

METHOD

We used a mixed-methods research design to address the objectives—combining data from project records, community surveys, semi-structured interviews, and focus groups. The University of Georgia Institutional Review Board approved or exempted all methods and procedures. All interview and focus group participants provided informed consent.

Project, Framework, and Setting

The social-ecological model (SEM) considers interacting individual, relationship, community, and societal contexts that affect health, guided the Healthier Together (HT) project in Georgia (Emery & Trist, 1972; Golden et al., 2015; McLeroy et al., 1988; Stokols, 1996). HT aimed to improve obesity, rural health disparities, and nutrition and physical activity behaviors by increasing community access to healthy food and physical activity opportunities through PSE changes led by Cooperative Extension¹ and determined through multiple stakeholder input (Emery & Trist, 1972; Lavinghouze et al., 2014; Murriel et al., 2020; Stokols, 1996; U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], National Institute of Food and Agriculture [NIFA], 2014). Guided by a community coalition model, HT implemented strategies to improve healthy food availability and access across the social ecology such as family education and programs, schools, and broader community efforts in retail stores and places of worship (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2011; Murriel et al., 2020; O’Toole et al., 2022).

Local Extension staff coordinated the development of community-based coalitions in each county (CDC, 2011). Staff invited community members and various leaders like county and city government officials, faith leaders, and school staff to attend meetings to learn about HT and join the coalition (Jones et al., 2021). Thus, coalition members had time, availability, and resources to participate and may not fully represent each county. A neutral third-party facilitated initial meetings where coalition members engaged with local data, identified potential food and physical activity interventions across SEM levels, and voted to prioritize projects. Through this process, community gardens emerged as a preferred initial intervention in all five counties.

HT began in 2016 in two rural counties, Calhoun and Taliaferro, where adult obesity prevalence exceeded 40% (CDC, 2013), adding Clay, Dooly, and Stewart Counties in 2018 (CDC, 2015). Table 1 shows HT county characteristics and Fulton County, which includes Atlanta, the state capital for comparison. These communities have few food outlets; Taliaferro county has no grocery stores. Initially, each county ranked in the bottom 50% of Georgia counties for health outcomes (e.g., premature death, poor physical or mental health, low birthweight) and bottom 25% for health factors (e.g., obesity, physical inactivity, and access to health care; Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, 2016). These communities’ largest employment sectors are local schools, agriculture, and city/county government (Georgia Department of Labor, 2021).

TABLE 1.

Healthier Together and Comparison County Characteristics

	Healthier together counties (% of the population unless otherwise noted)					Metro county comparator	State
Characteristic	Taliaferro	Calhoun	Clay	Stewart	Dooly	Fulton County (Atlanta, GA)	Georgia
Population (# persons)a	1,611	6,365	2,951	6,293	13,736	1,021,902	10,403,847
Population density (# persons per square mile)a	8.85	23.9	16.3	13.2	38.1	749.06	185.6
RWJF County Health Rankingsb	115	82	123	147	114	11	–
Grocery stores (#)c	0	1	2	1	0	196	1,755
Convenience stores (#)c	3	5	2	7	17	415	6,061
County demographics
Sex (% female)	50.8	38.9	51.6	33.5	45.9	51.6	48.7
Age
Under 18 years (%)	15.0%	17.6	19.1	12.2	17.7	22.2	24.1
65 and older (%)	25.2%	15.1	25.8	14.9	19.2	11.4	13.5
White (%)	34.2	35.5	36.0	25.1	46.7	46.4	60.7
Black (%)	62.3	61.2	62.6	53.4	50.4	45.4	33.0
Persons w/o health insurance (%)	11.1	17.0	16.0	16.3	16.7	10.3	13.2
Received SNAPd benefits in past 12 months (%)	21.9	32.0	32.6	24.4	25.4	11.4	12.8
Median income ($)	$37,446	$34,167	$22,325	$29,732	$37,340	$69,673	$58,700
Education—Bachelor’s degree or higher (age ≥ 25 y) (%)	8.1	9.1	12.5	12.2	12.1	52.9	31.3
Unemployment rate (%)	7.3	13.2	12.9	9.1	11.6	5.5	5.7
Works outside of the county (% of employed workers 16 and older)	75.0	50.9	40.4	43.6	37.0	58.2	39.1

^aU.S. Census Bureau (2020).

^bRobert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) County Health Rankings. University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute. County Health Rankings & Roadmaps 2021. 1 to 159 (1 = healthiest county, 159 = least healthy county).

^cU.S. Department of Agriculture (2016).

^dSupplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

Data Collection and Measures

The SEM guided community garden implementation evaluation and assessment of influence on individuals, families, the community, and society.

Garden Implementation (Project Records).

We assessed implementation using project records, coalition agendas and meeting notes, HT PSE project applications, and county Extension records. We assessed number of counties where coalitions selected and implemented a community garden, the percentage of project applications for gardens (garden applications/total project applications), number of gardens implemented out of number planned, and the current status of garden produce distribution (direct to consumers or direct to food system outlets, e.g., food pantries, retailers, schools, and childcare centers).

Garden Reach and Uptake (Community Survey).

A community survey assessed reach, uptake, and participant demographics. In Spring 2021, HT staff recruited a convenience sample of residents from each county to complete surveys at coalition meetings, community events, local businesses, housing complexes, schools, city halls, and other community locations. Online versions were distributed via listservs and social media.

Participants indicated if they obtained food from a community garden from a list of retailers (i.e., grocery, convenience, dollar stores, and restaurants) and other community food sources (i.e., food pantries, churches, and home garden). Surveys asked participants if they used HT community gardens and other retailers that distributed garden produce (i.e., grab n’ go coolers [GGCs]) provided by the HT project). During survey administration, only Taliaferro, Calhoun, and Stewart had implemented gardens accessible to the broader community and were included for reach assessment. Garden reach was calculated as the total number of participants reporting they used the gardens for food. Uptake was assessed as the percentage of total respondents who reported using the gardens.

Descriptive statistics were calculated for reach and uptake. We examined differences within and across counties using chi-square tests (a priori significance level: p < .05). We used the Bonferroni method for multiple comparisons where appropriate and IBM SPSS version 27 for statistical analyses.

Coalition Member Perceptions (Semi-Structured Interviews and Focus Groups).

Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted between April and June 2020. Coalition members in each county were contacted to participate in a 45-min interview. Four focus groups were conducted during regularly scheduled coalition meetings from March to April 2021 via Zoom and one used a hybrid format (Zoom and in-person). Interviews and focus groups were recorded and transcribed by a third-party.

The interview protocol contained 20 open-ended questions for HT’s formative evaluation. Question topics explored community history; community members’ role in the coalition; experiences with COVID-19; changes to physical activity opportunities, nutrition policy, and healthy food access; community acceptance; and community members’ ideal vision for coalition accomplishments over the next 3 years. The focus group protocol was modified from the interview protocol by removing COVID-19 questions to focus on HT. Facilitators framed interview and focus group questions according to appreciative inquiry—a strengths-based approach focusing on a program’s successes to enhance momentum and develop a shared future vision (Ludema et al., 2017; Preskill & Catsambas, 2006). Participants were asked to describe project successes and specific positive consequences of the community gardens. Data were analyzed to determine which project successes could be used to leverage future transformational change.

We coded data using abductive qualitative analysis wherein researchers first read transcripts to identify inductive themes within the data and then review again applying deductive coding based on predetermined research objectives to see how data help answer research questions (Corbin & Strauss, 2014; DeCuir-Gunby et al., 2011; Thornberg & Charmaz, 2014). Next, we applied the constant comparative method to identify themes across multiple transcripts (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; MAXQDA software version 20.2.2). Peer debriefing and a codebook helped enhance the findings’ trustworthiness (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). One researcher (CES) conducted initial open and axial coding, inputting MAXQDA data into a shareable codebook. The two primary authors (ACB and HMP) reviewed the codebook to ensure themes aligned with data in each category. The team debriefed the codebook together, addressed revisions, and met to reach a consensus for developed themes. Each researcher has shared access to all codebook quotations and iterations used for theme development. The codebook is available as an audit trail (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

RESULTS

Garden Implementation

All five counties (100%) expressed interest in community gardens as a PSE strategy. At project onset in 2016, Calhoun and Taliaferro coalitions identified access to fresh produce as a challenge and community gardens as a potential solution. HT supported community gardens through the purchase of supplies, materials, and plants and coordinating labor and administration. Trained Extension professionals provided education and administrative support for garden installation. All gardens were installed on public lands identified by the coalitions or on private lands by organization request (i.e., child care center; Table 2).

Table 2.

HOP Garden Locations and Community Distribution and Food Systems Integration Status

County	Number of gardens	Sites (year established)	Produce distributed to comm unity	Community recipients	Food systems integration status (yes/no)	Community members and/or food systems involved or planned
Taliaferro	2	Municipal Community Garden (2017)	YES	General public	YES	Senior Center
		Family Center (2018)	YES	General public Older adults at senior center (ad hoc)	NO	n/a
Calhoun	8	County Extension Office (2017; expansion project in 2021)	YES	Older adults without transportation	YES	Senior Center—until closed during COVID Local grab n’ go coolers
		High School (2017)	YES	School faculty, staff, student families	NO
		Charter Academy (2017)	NO	n/a	YES	School nutrition program
		Head Start (2017)	YES	School staff and student families	NO	n/a
		Municipal Community Garden (2017)	YES	City of Leary staff and general public	NO	n/a
		Commissioner’s office (2017; expanded in 2019)	YES	County/city government employees, older adults without transportation	NO	n/a
		Community Member’s Garden (2018)	YES	General public	YES	Public housing and community center Direct to older adults without transportation
		Independent Child Care Center (2020)	NO	n/a	YES	Child care center meals program (100%)
Clay	3	Municipal Community Garden (2018)	YES	General public	NO	n/a
		Municipal Community Garden (2018)	YES	General public	NO	n/a
		Housing Authority Community Garden (2020)	YES	Housing authority residents	NO	n/a
Stewart	3	Municipal Community Garden (2018)	YES	Community-residing older adults General public	NO	n/a
		Municipal Teaching Garden/Health Department (2019)	YES	General public	YES	WIC and other health department clientele
		County Extension Office/ Community Center (2020)	YES	General public	YES	Senior Center Community Teaching Kitchen (planned)
Dooly	3	Alternative High School (2018)	YES	School faculty, staff, student families	YES	Preserved at school canning plant and distributed to community
		High School (2020)	YES	School faculty, staff, student families	YES	Preserved at school canning plant and distributed to community
		K-8 School (in-progress)	NO	n/a	NO	n/a

Note. HOP = Georgia High Obesity Program; WIC = Women Infants and Children.

Construction on the first gardens began in 2017 in the city of Sharon in Taliaferro and at the Calhoun Extension Office. Garden implementation was slow, as challenges arose with location selection and identifying garden caretakers. By the end of 2018, Taliaferro and Calhoun each had one community garden. Taliaferro aimed to have one large garden, and Calhoun aimed to have several smaller gardens. With the next grant cycle (2018–2023), Taliaferro and Calhoun expanded their gardens. The three new counties (Clay, Dooly, and Stewart) also identified gardens as a preferred intervention. Clay had an additional grant-funded project that established three gardens. The HT Clay coalition selected projects to support garden sustainability and food system integration, including GGCs at food retailers and refrigerated storage for food pantries to distribute garden produce.

Altogether, communities implemented 19 gardens (Table 2). In fall 2020, HT initiated applications for coalition projects to prioritize them and allocate resources across all counties. Of the 13 applications submitted, 10 (77%) included expansion of existing or new community gardens in four of five counties. Nine of these 10 garden projects have been implemented with 4 having distributed food to the community (Table 2).

Seven (36.8%) of 19 community gardens were integrated into the local food system as of fall 2021 via school meal programs, senior centers, food pantries, GGCs, and other community food resources (Table 2). Moreover, 84% of gardens provided produce directly to community members.

Garden Reach and Uptake

Table 3 shows community survey respondent (n = 265) characteristics. Participants were primarily black, female, and middle-aged, generally reflective of the community in race, age, and SNAP participation. Grocery and dollar stores were the primary food sources. Less than 10% of respondents reported community gardens as a food source.

TABLE 3.

Community Survey Participant Characteristics (n = 265)

Characteristic	N	Percentagea
Age (years)	257
18–34		16.2
35–64		59.9
65 +		23.7
Female	259	74.9
Race/ethnicity	265
White, non-Hispanic		34.7
Black/African American		58.1
Hispanic/Latino		2.6
Other or did not respond		4.6
Unemployed	249	8.0
Education (Bachelor’s degree or higher)	254	20.9
Received SNAPb benefits in past 12 months	255	26.7
Received WICc benefits in the past 12 months	265	11.2
Participant reported food sources	265
Grocery store inside the county		61.9
Grocery store outside the county		76.2
Dollar stores		51.7
Restaurants		24.9
Food Bank or Pantry		31.3
Home Gardens		16.2
Gas station or convenience/corner store		15.8
Online store		14.7
Farmer’s market		12.8
Faith-based or community organization		10.2
Community Gardens		8.3
Senior meal site		3.0
Other		3.0

^aPercentages may not add to 100% due to rounding.

^bSupplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

^cSpecial Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women Infants and Children (WIC).

At the time of the survey, HT gardens in Taliaferro, Calhoun, and Stewart were active and had produce available to the community in the past year. The Dooly County gardens were only accessible to Dooly high school students and were not assessed in the survey. While only 8.3% of survey respondents identified community gardens as a source of their food overall (Table 3), 50%, 30%, and 17.7% of respondents in Stewart, Calhoun, and Taliaferro, respectively, reported using the HT gardens in the previous year (Table 4), with Stewart county residents significantly more likely to report using a garden than Taliaferro residents (p < .01).

TABLE 4.

Reach and Uptake of Community Gardens

County	Total survey responses (n)	Identified community garden(s) as a food source (%)	Reported using a garden in the past year (%)
Total	265	8.3	21.9
Taliaffero	62	6.5	17.7
Calhoun	110	11.8	30.0a
Clayb	44	6.8	—
Stewart	28	7.1	50.0
Dooly	21	0	—

Note. HT = Healthier Together.

^an = 109.

^bParticipants in Clay county were not asked about using particular gardens as implementation was not funded by the HT project.

Coalition Member Perceptions of Community Gardens in Rural Food Systems Change

Thirty-five individuals participated in interviews (9 in Taliaferro; 13 in Calhoun, 3 in Clay, 6 in Stewart, and 5 in Dooly). Thirty-two individuals participated in focus groups (12 in Taliaferro, 13 in Calhoun, 2 in Clay, 3 in Stewart, and 2 in Dooly).

The three researchers identified six overarching themes: food availability, food access, rural considerations, food systems changes, gardens as a symbol, and gardens as community building. Major themes and associated subthemes are described in Table 5, with representative quotations. Food availability involved data related to how the HT community gardens helped increase the quantity of nutrient-dense foods in the community. Nine participants identified availability as a benefit of the HT program: “[The gardens provide] a source of fresh food in the county [including] seasonal vegetables,” (Judy, Table 5).

Table 5.

Identified Themes for Participant Descriptions of Garden-Related Food Systems Change

Theme	Subtheme	Description	No. of participants	Representative quotation
Food availability		How food availability and healthy food options improved from community gardens	9	“Well, I know we’ve had better opportunities to have healthy food available to individuals such as fresh fruits, fresh vegetables and things like that in the community.” (Glen)
Food access		How gardens increased community members’ access to healthy food	13	“All of the community gardens grow healthy foods that are open to anyone in the community that want to go and partake. They can go in and they can pick the greens and tomatoes and fresh vegetables… it is throughout the community… Everybody can take advantage of them.” (Sharron)
	Lack of access	Gardens were direct response to lack of access to nutrient-dense food	4	“We’re surrounded by agriculture here but we’re a food desert. There’s no real grocery stores except in [city]. These gardens and all have really helped to alleviate that.” (Logan)
	Awareness	Gardens helped increase awareness of healthy eating	13	“[The garden is] a springboard for awareness around health issues. To me, the garden is great, not only just the food production aspect of it, the fact that it’s at the old school, the fact that we’ve got a big area that we can meet outside and it has passed civic importance as a community. An education center.” (Roger)
Rural considerations		Specific considerations for community garden work in rural communities	9	“In a rural area, sometimes you don’t have the freshest but that is out of the garden. It is beautiful. I think that’s one of the things, one asset that we have gotten from this program is having community gardens in the area.” (Marlene)
	Geographic	community members spread across geographic distances, still transportation barriers	5	“I’ll say this from the standpoint of the community garden. We’ve focused on primarily one location with a community garden. And I think that there’s an opportunity to do silos and put multiple community gardens out throughout the county, look at it from a regional standpoint or whatever you want to say. And someone doesn’t have to drive 15 miles to go to the community garden; they’ve only got to go two or three miles. And you know what you don’t drive over there what do you do? You take your bicycle.” (Ryan)
	Paradox	Despite agriculture being the only industry in county, agricultural production does not feed the communities	2	“It’s real funny that even in an [agricultural] community… you see poor health because this is really like a row crop [area]. It’s not a vegetable production area… What you find is even in an agriculture community there’s not a lot of people that are growing vegetables and stuff. One of the ways that the big grant has really benefited the community is to bring the production of vegetables and more healthy foods into these communities.” (Logan)
	Older Community	Demographic age makeup of county	4	“The [garden] gives [older] people something to do to plant the vegetables to eat healthy.” (Lacy)
Food systems changes		Coalitions are working to increase garden connections for broader PSE change	21	“I know the coalition provided them with a garden as well. They use those fruits and vegetables or whatever they grow. The day care provider… Once the kids were in that garden with her or whatever and then they used the fruits and vegetables to eat as part of their meals.” (Alice)
	Actuated	Descriptions of actuated PSE changes in the community	4	“]H]ere at the community center we’ve got the incorporation [of] whatever was in season at the garden, we were having some kind of event or whatever… we tried to make sure we incorporate some of the food and let them know where it came from and how it was grown and stuff like that…. If it was in season and we had some available, we made sure we incorporated that into our menu.” (Frank)
	Planned/desired	Descriptions of planned PSE changes in the community.	17	“I think if we’ve accomplished a lot more of those community gardens … what we’re planning on doing, even in our school systems, is we have a canning plant where people can bring the vegetables there and do canning and preserving, that sort of thing. We’re looking at incorporating that into the curriculum. We would teach about the science of food preparation and the science of preserving foods and things of that nature.” (Ty)
Gardens as a symbol		Gardens as a symbol of health for the community, motivating behavior change beyond food access	10	“I think for me, the community garden is sort of an embodiment of so many different aspects of healthier living.” (Roger)
	Popularity	Gardens were the most popular HT intervention and created recognition of the coalition work in the community	4	“That garden was a success, a very big success.” (Joanne)
	Advertisement	Gardens were an advertisement of other HT projects	3	We’ve just got a fantastic area for a garden and a lot of the nay sayers at first were like, “How is that going to work? That is not going to work”. Now we see those people driving by and saying, “That garden looks wonderful. I can’t believe you all actually got people together to do this”. We say, “Yeah and more is coming in. Don’t you want to come in?”. “Well you know, that really looks good”, and I say, “It’s a lot of fun”. The more we talk it up the more they’ll talk it up.” (Donna)
	Gateway	Gardens as a catalyst for change in the community for social and PSE changes	3	“I hope that, in the long run, what we do will have some kind of positive influence, and may, just by having it there, spur people on to try some of these things themselves, and as the garden grows and gets more substantial, that it may attract more participants from the community. It’s an apolitical activity that can bring people from a lot of different backgrounds together in a non-controversial way, that I hope would be positive.” (Roger)
Gardens as community building		Gardens acted as a community center where people from different towns would come together	9	“I also think that…it’s developing a sense of community. People are meeting people in their own communities for the common good. having said that, this is really a comment for the end of 2019. It’s not been the case in 2020. for example, over in the city, they have a community garden… It’s starting to take shape, and I see pictures on Facebook of how they’ve got four beds over there and about ready to put some vegetables in it. It’s created a little excitement and community spirit. That’s just an amazing thing to see.” (Don)
	Integral role of schools	Gardens were connected strongly to schools, both as an educational practice and as a community partner	12	“The school has been very, very supportive. The principal… has been very forward-looking in helping the students to understand and to reopen the greenhouse and to have a green space for the county.” (Judy)
	Educational opportunity	Gardens were educational for adults to learn how to eat more nutrient-dense foods	6	“Over [at the] community garden, we’ve got several beds in our location and people come walking out, they’re just beginning to get an eye for how to use this or whatever and we have an event we got to make sure we incorporate some of the stuff from the garden and people know how it’s grown and stuff like that. Kids came by with their grandparents or something and they started learning about gardening and stuff like that.” (Frank)

Note. PSE = policy, systems, and environmental; HT = Healthier Together.

Food access referred to how the HT gardens influenced community member’s ability to obtain nutrient-dense foods due to price or proximity (13 participants). Angela explained the community gardens increased affordable produce available in the communities: “even [. . .] when COVID-19 wasn’t an issue, we still pay a lot more for our fruits and vegetables at our grocery store.” Frank described how garden produce brought to the community center increased access for those who may not have been able to travel to the gardens. This theme included subthemes of lack of access and awareness of healthy eating behaviors. Lack of food access often expressed the irony of being in a community with a rich agricultural heritage but not being able to access fresh fruits and vegetables. In addition, participants described the gardens as catalysts helping increase community awareness needing to eat healthier, a “springboard for awareness around health issues” (Table 5; Roger).

Rural considerations encompassed challenges of implementing community gardens in rural communities that practitioners should consider in planning. Geographic spread and lack of public transportation remained barriers. Older populations in the communities presented challenges for accessing and distributing produce but also an opportunity to engage older community members in planting and eating healthier via the garden. In addition, several coalition members explained the paradox of living in a predominately agricultural county, yet none of the food produced actually being consumed by community members.

Food systems changes captured descriptions of coalitions working to increase garden connections for broader PSE change. Participants described PSE changes achieved, like incorporating garden produce at the community center menus, and also planned and desired PSE changes inspired by the gardens like operating a local canning plant to preserve garden produce for year-round consumption. Many coalition members hoped the community gardens would be “an evolving type of thing, [that] it’s never finished” (Billy).

Gardens as a symbol referred to abstract benefits community gardens encouraging other HT projects and helping increase awareness of healthy living behaviors within the communities. The community coalesced around the gardens for not just food access but a shared vision for what the community could be in 5 to 10 years. Gardens are tangible pieces of HT’s efforts in the communities, increasing promotion and visibility by “advertising by showing the activity that’s going on” (Roger).

The final theme, gardens as community building, described the gardens becoming community centers, where different people, from different social groups and parts of town, came together to work on projects. This involved the local schools and enhanced the educational opportunities offered by the gardens. While coalition members hoped to increase involvement in the gardens moving forward, they noted an unintended success of developing new outdoor community gathering areas at the gardens. In addition, garden volunteers created informal distribution chains to disseminate produce throughout the communities, based on their local networks and social groups. Overall, the gardens were “a popular thing for people” within the counties (Stacy) and were a cause for the community to come together toward a common goal: healthier eating for all.

Several themes triangulated quantitative data. While coalition members positively perceived community gardens, they did not identify them as a primary food source. Several coalition members recognized the potential of the community gardens, however, as a catalyst for future PSE changes in the community (Roger and Donna). Survey results indicating 77.0% of respondents used grocery stores outside of their county corroborated food access and transportation issues in rural communities. Many participants discussed difficulty accessing fresh produce because their communities were far from food retail spaces, corroborating the grocery store survey findings.

DISCUSSION

Implementation

Community gardens operate across SEM levels to influence individual attitudes and beliefs about, modify social norms around, and increase availability and access to healthy eating. All HT counties successfully implemented community gardens that increased fresh produce access in rural settings, where obtaining affordable produce can be difficult, partly due to the large geographical distribution of residents and food outlets and transportation barriers, particularly for older adults (Barnidge et al., 2013). This study adds unique information most absent in previous literature on community garden reach and uptake in rural settings (Booth et al., 2018; Draper & Freedman, 2010; Lampert et al., 2021; Lanier et al., 2015; Sadeghzadeh et al., 2021). Reach and uptake varied across counties. The smallest county (Taliaferro) had the fewest gardens but focused on two larger gardens, whereas Calhoun chose to have more, yet smaller, gardens. Greater uptake in Stewart should be interpreted with caution due to the small sample size and coalition members integrally involved with the garden potentially being overrepresented. Notably, few participants reported community gardens as a food source, instead indicating they typically obtained food elsewhere (e.g., schools, dollar, and grocery stores). This finding adds to the literature, as few studies have quantitatively assessed community gardens’ role as food sources in rural communities (Barnidge et al., 2013; Draper & Freedman, 2010; Lampert et al., 2021) and most studies examined larger gardens in urban, densely populated areas (Draper & Freedman, 2010; Furness & Gallaher, 2018; Garcia et al., 2018; Lampert et al., 2021).

Food System Integration

Each garden location type posed benefits and challenges to implementation, reach, uptake, and potential food system maintenance and integration. Similar to previous findings (Draper & Freedman, 2010; Lanier et al., 2015), schools were popular garden locations. The community coalitions identified the potential for integration into agricultural education classes and the vital role of schools in rural communities as major employer, community center, and meal source. Schools limited broader community access during school hours. Nevertheless, community members upheld schools as valuable garden locations, envisioning broader food systems integration potential through school-supported food preservation (canning) for colder months.

Capacity and Infrastructure

Extension staff capacity to support installation, maintenance and potential integration of educational programs about gardening, food, and health made Extension offices popular community garden locations for HT, as observed by Lanier et al. (2015). However, this places the onus with Extension staff rather than the community. Individual residents (primarily coalition members) have assumed leadership of gardens situated on private property or other city- or county-owned land, demonstrating their personal commitment and role-modeling for others. Their personal involvement is vital to gardens’ sustainability, emphasizing that multilevel leadership is key for program infrastructure and capacity to help sustain initiatives (Lavinghouze et al., 2014). The high level of commitment required in the rural community garden model may be challenging to sustain.

Lessons Learned

Community coalition members reflected on garden challenges and opportunities within systems-level change to food access. Rural communities’ geographic spread posed challenges for residents accessing produce when coalitions chose a larger single garden location, confirming previous research findings (Barnidge et al., 2013). Therefore, ensuring residents who live farther away from gardens have access is critical, whether through multiple gardens or connecting gardens to gathering places, like senior or faith-based centers. Many HT counties distributed garden produce at schools, senior centers, childcare centers, health departments, food pantries, and GGCs at retail or government-owned locations. Garden integration into community food systems is building through a work in progress.

Community gardens illuminated the absence of healthy foods and the need for PSE changes that support broad infrastructure and social system connections in the community. Coalition members noted HT increased their connections to community members, many of whom they would not have otherwise interacted. This finding confirms the potential social benefits of community gardens (Booth et al., 2018; Draper & Freedman, 2010; Garcia et al., 2018; Sadeghzadeh et al., 2021). COVID-19 limited HT’s generative potential of social capital development.

Community gardens in these rural communities help PSE strategies feel more tangible. The gardens allowed individuals and organizations to attach collective ideas and make changes in the communities more visible, thus building social capital to catalyze broader, systems-level change toward a culture of health. These study results provide proof of concept in a rural, southern setting for community gardens as an entry point for future project development and PSE changes.

Strengths and Limitations

Efforts were made to make coalitions representative, but it is possible it did not reflect all perspectives as members were primarily older and white. In addition, the coalition members often held leadership or authority positions within the community. Our team is recruiting more diverse coalition members through personal invitations and changing meeting times and structure, such as involving committees that allow for limited commitment to individual projects. COVID-19 restrictions impeded reaching a more representative sample beyond coalition members, the primary interview, and focus group participants, which we mitigated with broader community survey data to triangulate qualitative findings. Still, coalition members’ reflections are valuable, given their role supporting core components of program infrastructure through networked partnerships and managed resources to mobilize people and resources (Lavinghouze et al., 2014). COVID-19 restrictions also limited survey participation. Recruitment was primarily by word-of-mouth respondents being mostly females and individuals who completed some higher education, compared to the general population. While survey respondents overall were racially representative of the counties and had similar participation in food assistance programs, statistical differences in reach and uptake across counties should be interpreted with caution. The study also had several strengths, including rich data from in-depth interviews with coalition members and mixed methods to explore research questions.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

With community gardens catalyzing other PSE changes, practitioners should focus on marketing gardens to the broader community to increase awareness and participation. Coalition members noted challenges in communicating garden activity and produce availability to all residents. Community events that incorporate garden produce in healthy recipes, combined with marketing materials could increase interest in consuming garden produce and encouraging garden maintenance. Community gardens could host youth-focused events, such as hay rides or pumpkin fests that would attract young families who may not usually visit the garden to help feed their family. Because the gardens generated excitement in the community, they could help leverage other project resources toward garden maintenance and broader systems change.

Rural garden implementation was difficult due to the long distances between community gardens, housing, and/or produce distribution sites. Lack of transportation also restricted residents’ ability to engage with gardens. Practitioners should strategically locate gardens in rural settings to optimize participation and produce distribution by reducing residents’ travel distance.

Schools are an opportune setting for maintenance during the school year but limit broader community participation during the school day. Cooperative Extension can be a key partner in rural community garden installation, maintenance, and integration in food and educational systems (Stluka et al., 2019). With its roots in agriculture and public service, Extension can educate community garden leaders to implement and sustain gardens (Buys & Rennekamp, 2020; Stluka et al., 2019; USDA, NIFA, 2014). Extension volunteer programs like the Master Gardener and 4-H youth development programs can provide labor and leadership for rural gardens, where human resources are limited (Stluka et al., 2019). Finally, Extension can integrate gardens and/or garden produce into health education programs. While a specific community may not have a master gardener program or Extension office, Extension reaches all 50 states and U.S. territories, so support is available in rural settings (Buys & Rennekamp, 2020; USDA, NIFA, 2014).

Despite limited participation and insufficiency as a primary food source, community gardens present a gateway for leveraging support for future policy and infrastructure changes, because they can increase awareness of the value of health and reveal current food system limitations. Practitioners should consider additional PSE approaches to comprehensively address food access in rural communities. Establishing farmers’ markets or connecting with food banks can increase rural access to healthy food options and take small steps toward addressing rural health disparities.

CONCLUSION

Rural communities face unique challenges associated with community garden implementation, reach, uptake, and maintenance. Community gardens may not provide a comprehensive solution in areas of high need with low access to healthy foods. However, community gardens (a) increased awareness of the value of healthy eating, (b) brought produce to communities where local agricultural products feed into commercial uses rather than the local community, (c) served as a source of cohesion toward common goals, and (d) served as a catalyst for greater community food systems change. Creating or improving a food system may seem daunting, but community gardens may serve as a foundational component to meeting that goal.

Supplementary Material

Supplement Note: This article is part of the Health Promotion Practice supplement, “Reducing Chronic Disease through Physical Activity and Nutrition: More Public Health Practice in the Field.” The purpose of the supplement is to showcase innovative, community-centered, public health actions of SPAN, REACH, and HOP programs to advance nutrition and physical activity among priority populations in various settings. The Society for Public Health Education is grateful to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity for providing support for the issue. The entire supplement issue is available open access at https://journals.sagepub.com/toc/hppa/24/1_suppl.