Table 5.

Studies addressing community outcomes included in this review

First author, year	Country, setting	Study design	Sample characteristics (inclusion criteria, number, age and sex)	Aims	Sampling methods	Intervention / Community garden program	Data collection Analysis (including adjustments)	Outcomes	Results
Comstock et al. 2010 [61]	USA, CO, Denver	Cross-sectional survey of local neighborhood	N = 410 Inclusion criteria Living in area identified for sampling and ≥ 18 y	To compare people who participate in community and home gardening activities with people who do not garden	Area(block)-based probability sampling of general population (n = 1154), & list-based census of community gardeners (n = 300) 473 household respondents but 410 in analysis	No INT	Hierarchical linear models adjustment for: years living in neighborhood, own home, ethnicity, education, incivilities, safety, efficacy, gardener or not, local block characteristics (college degree, crime, collective efficacy, incivilities)	Neighborhood attachment 6 questions, 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 strongly disagree to 4 strongly agree	59% response rate (473 respondents/1454 households attempted to contact) 8% community gardeners (31/410 respondents) Neighborhood attachment (Standardised beta, no SD or CI reported) Community gardener compared with non-gardener β = 0.23, p < 0.05
Litt et al. 2015 [38]	USA, CO, Denver	Cross-sectional survey	= 469 Characteristics Age (mean): 46.1y (± 15.9) Female: 67.4% Education: 57.4% college educated Identified as gardeners: 59.3% Inclusion criteria English or Spanish speaking, ≥ 18yrs	To examine the direct and indirect pathways by which garden influence self-rated health	Area-based sample of general population n = 1154 randomly drawn from 40 block groups 13 gardens identified; List-based census of community gardeners n = 300	No intervention Individuals participating in community gardens compared with non-gardeners	Surveys interviewer administered Path analysis controlling for age, education, yrs in neighborhood, % college education in neighborhood, observed incivilities	Neighborhood aesthetics	Gardening predicted neighborhood aesthetics (β = 0.35, p < 0.001)
Machida 2019 [39]	Japan	Cross-sectional survey	Web-based survey limited to age 60–69 y, professional farmers excluded (1) Community gardeners n = 129 Male n (%): 87(67%) Age (mean ± SD): 64.1y ± 2.6 (2) Home gardeners n = 371 Male n (%):280 (76% Age (mean ± SD): 63.9y ± 2.7 (3) Non-gardeners n = 500 Male n (%): 327 (65%) Age (mean ± SD): 63.3y ± 2.5	To study the relationship between community or home gardening and health status or a healthy lifestyle	The survey was conducted by a marketing company with 4.2 million people registered across all 47 prefectures in Japan	NA	Odds Ratios adjusted for sex, age, family structure and employment status (not described)	Connection with neighbors (≥ moderate vs ≤ little)	Connection with neighbors (1) CG: 2.08 (1.53, 2.82) (2) Home gardeners: 2.03 (1.33, 3.09)
Mangadu et al. 2017 [40]	USA, NM, US-Mexico border areas	Cross-sectional study	Two CGs accessible by the public. (CG1, CG2) CG1 (n = 16) CG2 (n = 9) Characteristics % Male NR Age NR CG@ is a local government project comprising a neighborhood CG and a garden on a juvenile probation campus. Where possible, data from the probation campus are not extracted	To identify the best practices in implementing and increasing the potential or sustainability of community gardens	NR	NR	Descriptive statistics only. Not adjusted for anything	Single question: I am more involved in this neighborhood?	I am more involved in this neighborhood CG1: Yes, n = 16 (100%) CG2: yes, n = 4 (44%)
Roncarolo et al. 2015 [42]	Canada, Montreal	Cross-sectional study	Participants sampled from 16 traditional (e.g. food banks, n = 711) or 6 alternative (e.g. community gardens) venues (n = 113) Characteristics Female: 55% Age: 52% aged 30-49y	To compare outcomes between users of traditional versus alternative organizations	Sampled from food security organizations with ≥ 50 new members (traditional) or ≥ 30 new members (alternative)	Not precisely described but indicated as being organizations (gardens) that nurture solidarity, and have goals of reducing social inequalities	Multilevel logistic regression to account for clustering by study site. Adjusted for sex, country of birth, marital status, employment, education, income and number of people in the household	Civic participation (user / volunteer/ none)	Civic participation None = reference User ORadjusted = 1.17 (0.60, 2.25) Member ORadjusted = 2.21 (1.10, 4.45)
Soga et al. 2017 [50]	Japan, Tokyo, Nerima district in central Tokyo	Cross-sectional survey	Gardeners (n = 165) vs non-gardeners (n = 167) Characteristics Gardeners: Male: 68.1% Age (mean ± SD): 62 ± 17y Non-gardeners: Male: 42% Age (mean ± SD): 61 ± 16y	To quantify effects of allotment gardening on physical, psychological and social health	Gardeners located by face-to-face recruitment at allotment gardens (90% response rate). Non-gardeners recruited via a letter sent to 1000 Nerima households (20% response rate)	NR	Adjusted for sex, age, household income, employment, smoking, drinking, vegetable intake and PA (days per week of > 30 min/day of moderate activity)	Social cohesion using the Social Cohesion and Trust Scale (X items, 5-point scale)	Compared with non-gardeners, gardeners mean social cohesion scores (± SE) were 1.57 (0.57) higher (P < 0.001)
Veen et al. 2016 [47]	The Netherlands	Cross-sectional	7 gardens (6 completed questionnaire) N = 237 respondents Inclusion criteria NR	To investigate the extent to which community gardens influence the enhancement of social cohesion	Gardens selected to ensure homo- and heterogeneity in neighborhood, plot type and harvest consumption type Recruitment via newsletter and letter to CGs	No INT Membership at one of selected community gardens	F-statistic, generalized linear models, chi-square No adjustments	Social cohesion (importance of garden socially)	Individual gardeners vs communal gardeners at CGs; NS for social cohesion

Abbreviations: CG Community garden, CI Confidence interval, NR Not reported, OR Odds ratio, SD Standard deviation, SE Standard error