Urban reflections through home gardening; Does Gender Matter?

Abstract

In the current global pandemic, actions are taken to prevent Covid-19 spread, residents are embracing small-scale gardening activities in their homes; especially in low to middle income communities, 3rd world countries as in Africa, depending on individual activities.

Despite that, there is a lack provided by literature review about home gardening, the paper then shifts to the exploration of the gender influence on home gardening, poses questions; how do gender roles influence home gardening habits, and how would such activities potentially benefit the gardeners, and are the benefits equally distributed or are they potentially skewed to one gender over the other?

Using an imperical quantitative approach through a survey, the results imply hypotheses and test them using WarpPLS, to verify their validity.

This paper highlight effects on the connection between gender, gardening activities, and their potential benefits. The findings can help urban authorities to create a fair and inclusive environment.

1. Introduction

Small and medium-sized cities in low and middle-income nations in Asia and Africa are expected to account for the majority of future urbanisation growth [1]; Although such fast-growing environments offer huge opportunities, there are also a gap related to the challenges risks linked with such growth; In light of the growing health, social and environmental issues in urban areas have led urban policymakers to shift towards urban farming to solve these issues. Urban farming refers to the growing, processing, and distribution of food through plant cultivation and seldom involves raising livestock in and around cities [2].

The main objective of this paper is to look into the different advantages of home gardening to urban farmers, whether they be in the form of personal (health and financial), social or environmental, additionally it aims to explore the differences between the genders, such as who enjoys more benefits when it comes to participating in the activity, this is done using an imperical quantitative approach through conducting an online survey [3], [4].

This research can be divided into two parts, the first is primarily made up of literature review that sheds light on what previous studies have previously stated regarding urban gardening activities as well as valuable insight that sheds light on the topic. The second, pertains to the imperical section of the research regarding the research and how it had been conducted, namely using a quantitative method of an online questionnaire survey to collect data from urban households which are involved in home gardening in both Egypt and Malaysia, followed by an indepth study utilizing WarpPLS 7.0, a partial least square structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) software was used to analyze the data and verify hypothesized results and test their validity.

Green technology promotes environmentally friendly growth, new environmentally friendly sectors, and the creation of jobs and technological advancements in order to ensure long-term sustainability [5]. Therefore it’s important to understand how to achieve green growth, it essentially requires an increase in investments and technologies that lay the groundwork for sustainable development and open new economic avenues for growth.

There must be an increase in investments and innovations in sustainable development, as well as new economic prospects, in order to achieve green growth. Green technologies that are both environmentally friendly and economically beneficial contribute significantly to a society that is both environmentally sound and prosperous [6].

Urban farming involves gardening activities that can easily be applied within cities and urban communities and activities have a positive effect on the economy and ecological system and benefit the urban social life [7]. In a trial to overcome the challenges linked to the rapid urban growth. Crop production is both emblematic and practical in sustainable cities; thus, to boost crop productivity in cities, we must first understand private crop growing attitudes and practises. [8].

Especially in the era of a global pandemic, implementing social distancing, self-isolation, and movement control orders to restrain the transmission of Covid-19, small-scale gardening activities within residential units have become one increasingly popular activity among the urban population [9], [10] An increase in food demand, food supply chain disruption with more people out of jobs during the pandemic further highlight the significance of home gardening [11]. Home gardening describes a mixed crop of food plants. Such as vegetables and fruits, and medicinal plants that are grown around the residential unit [12]. This type of gardening activity can be either in the form of indoor farming for example, inside the balcony of a residential unit or inside the unit itself, backyard, rooftop or farming located at the outdoor or rooftop space of a residential unit providing different types of crops utilized for different diverse functions such as, food production, lawns and green areas [9], [13], [14]. Plants are grown either in vegetable beds, containers, or in flower boxes utilising the available housing space [10].

Based on the authors’ findings, it can inferred that plant types have an association with both personal and societal benefits, which we will explore more in the Measurement model evaluation section. Gardening sources were also related to personal, social, and environmental advantages. Both genders' perspectives on home gardening have a major impact on the relationship between gardening sources and social benefits, which relates to the primary research purpose.

2. Literature review

2.1. Home gardening definitions:

According to [12], Home gardens are defined as a single or multi-story zone for various sorts of crops, as well as livestock and animals alongside these crops surrounding the property Home gardens are described as a single or multi-story zone that contains a wide assortment of crops, as well as cattle and other animals that live alongside the crop varieties, and from the environmental and ecological rewards, home gardens are a place for the management of various food crops and in addition to the environmental and ecological benefits, home gardens provide a space for managing a wide range of food crops. [15].

From [16] point of view the main concept of home gardening is to plant a small portion of the house balcony or at the backyard space of the house with different food crops for the purpose of meeting the family and household needs and reduction of the overall cost. According to the FAO, Home gardening is the combination of the social (people with each other), economic (income from farming), and environmental (Pollution reduction) [17], all in one farming system. Where this farming space can be used for several functions, not only farming, as it’s a place for living, recycling of household wastes, and food production.

Urban farming is considered a way to achieve sustainability in cities through its different disciplines as it integrates the three principles of sustainability together [18].

2.2. The main characteristics of home gardening:

Three attributes define home gardening:

-Location: Home gardens are installed alongside dwelling units and may take the shape of a rooftop or green wall, or they may be contained within the balcony.

-Diversity: As with the rest of the house, gardens contain a wide range of plants, depending on the demand and environment of the planted area.

Size: A minimal amount of area is required to plant food crops, depending on the irrigation method and soil type that is utilised to grow them [19].

2.3. Types of plants grown in home gardening in relation to functions of home gardening

The purpose of home gardening differs depending on whether it is for self-consumption or market production. As a result, the type of plants cultivated is impacted by whether they are for domestic use on a regular basis or have a significant economic value. As a result, home gardening plants might be categorised as medicinal, decorative, or miscellaneous [20].

Another aspect that influences plant selection is gender; some functional types of gardens have been demonstrated to be gendered. As it is determined by men's and women's societal obligations. Women are much more accountable for concerns related to the food supply, whereas males are accountable for matters dealing with the protection and healthcare. As a result, women own the majority of plants used within everyday food production, whereas males own the majority of plants used for more specialized purposes such as medicinal, decorative, and commercial value [20].

2.4. Different resources for home gardening

Prior to establishing gardening supplies, many procedures must be completed: selecting the placement and kind of soil, whether or not this is away from traffic, inspecting the soil, and installing raised beds.

Type of resources include: compost, mulch and hygiene [19].

Composting could be a viable source of organic waste for recycling because it improves soil quality and minimises waste as a recycling method. Composting also saves money on fertiliser and is seen as a sustainable method of recycling organic waste [19].

Mulching is an option for reducing waste in landfills since it controls soil temperature and may be decomposed to create nutrients. Mulching can also contribute to irrigation water conservation by lowering the quantity of water consumed for cleaning and fertilising [19].

2.5. Benefits of home gardening

Urban agriculture has been associated with a variety of possible environmental, social, economic, political, psychological, and curative advantages. As a result, the motivations for urban household food production are fairly diverse. For example, many gardeners, even those with precarious food security, appear to appreciate the crop they cultivate the same or more for its social worth as for its nutritional benefit for themselves and their family. Home gardens are viewed as a sort of integrated local food system that exists between residential units [8]. Benefits are most likely the consequence of four fundamental changes brought to neighbourhoods by urban farms: the development of public projects that encourage involvement, the physical rehabilitation of deteriorated areas, the production of local food, and the establishment of new businesses [21].

Home gardening has different benefits on different levels, on the social level: people get more engaged to each other, on the economical level: it offers a source of food which is feasible for everyone, some dwellers make it as a business for them and start to sell these crop or exchange their products with other products they need which are called economic exchange [22]. Farming in households’ results in the increase of urban food cultivation, which makes higher yields of land rather than making the backyard of green area, it also provides an affordable food source with direct access to it without being affected by exterior factors as pesticides and others. [18]. It also reduces the cost of the transportation of the products from the agricultural lands to the local markets and creates more job opportunities in the cities in the agriculture sector rather than it was only in the rural areas [23].

On the ecological level it provides different habitats for biodiversity [24]. It also provides air filtration through regulates the air temperature, resulting in the reduction of urban heat island effect and helps in the filtration of air, creates a better microclimate and less carbon in the air [25].

Additionally, it is used for solid waste management and recycling where solid wastes are composted and used as a fertiliser for the crops [14]. The same goes to water recycling as the filtered water could be used for irrigation of food crops and during rain, it’s used for rain water management and acting as basins for capturing rain.[26], it also contributes to the local biodiversity as it Promotes green areas in the existing built environment with more ecological and environmental services [14].

Moreover, home gardens have a social value as it makes people interact with nature, adding psychological benefit to the economic benefit to the dwellers. Additionally, it makes the access for fresh food and livestock easier, it also improves the public health of the society as it enhances the microenvironment around the family, households may also use plants for a medical issue as using medicinal herbs, source of vitamins and an opportunity for physical activity. Most urban farming studies centred on community gardening ranges from the concept of community gardening [27]–[29], and environmental or safe community gardening practices [19], [30], and the positive influence of community gardening on health [31], social capital [32], community-building [33], environmental behaviour [34] and food security [35].

Home gardening has a positive effect on the mental health of people; it helps people to be more connected to nature and more engaged with each other [36], [37]. Home gardening received less attention among researchers [38]–[40]. Many urban farms are not strictly food security and market-oriented, but instead employ agricultural production to fulfil social objectives, walking the line between business and community development [11], [21]Scholars envisaged the potential leisure, health, economic and environmental benefits of home gardening during pandemic and self-isolation [11], [41]. But there is a lack of empirical evidence for this assertion.

2.6. Urban gardening and gender:

While both men and women contribute significantly to home gardening, and this is universally recognised by both genders, some research suggest that women are more involved in home gardening and contribute more to small-scale farming [42]. According to [43] analysis, women are the main managers of home; Women gardeners enjoy environmental and economic benefits than men [14].

Additionally, the literature finds variation in gardening activity between men and women worldwide. Aging Maori women prioritised gardening as a regular pastime, whereas Maori males of the same age group did not [44]. Not only are the plants grown by urban gardeners are highly variegated [8], [11], women grow more varieties of plants than men [45], and women tend to grow food plants, and men grew medicinal plants [20], [46] A study on activities during pandemic reported an increase in gardening activities among adult women compared to men [47]. But not much is known whether gardening provides similar benefits to both men and women [48].

3. Research methodology

A questionnaire survey with five latent variables of 24 items was used to collect the data. All variables are reflective. The two exogenous variables - type of plants and green gardening sources represent home gardening practices with four items each, were measured using a five-point Likert scale, from 1 = never to 5 = always. The three endogenous variables of personal (8 items), environmental (5 items) and social (3 items) benefits of home gardening were measured using a five-point Likert scale, from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Table 1 presents the measurement items in the questionnaire and their sources.

Table 1.

questionnaire, its questions and answers, along with the sources.

	Variable	Item	Scale	Sources
1	Type of plants (TP)		1 = never 2 = rarely 3 = sometimes 4 = often 5 = always	[8], [20]
	TP1	I…. grow vegetables
	TP2	I…. grow medicinal plants
	TP3	I…. grow fruit trees
	TP4	I…. grow nonedible plants
2	Green gardening sources (GS)
	GS1	I …. bought seeds or plants from online stores		[8], [19]
	GS2	I ……got my seeds or plants from neighbours, relatives or friends
	GS3	I ……use organic fertilizer and pesticides in my home garden
	GS4	I ……use organic soil in my home garden
3	Personal benefits (PB)			[40], [11]
	PB1	healthy or fresh vegetables and fruits	1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = natural 4 = agree 5 = strongly agree
	PB2	greater fruits and vegetable consumption
	PB3	Solving the difficulty of acquiring food in the market
	PB4	Savings on food expenses
	PB5	Providing extra income
	PB6	means for physical activity
	PB7	Retreat from daily pressures
	PB8	create fun in everyday life
	PB9	freedom to choose plants I enjoy
4	Environmental benefit (EB)
	EB1	Connect with nature	1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = natural 4 = agree 5 = strongly agree	[53]
	EB2	Add an aesthetic touch to my house		[14]
	EB3	Value the importance of organic and no chemical food production
	EB4	Use fertilisers, medium etc that do not harm the environment
	EB5	Consider potential environmental impact of my gardening practices when making- decision		[54]
5	Social benefits (SB)
	SB1	sharing seeds and harvest with relatives/neighbours/friends	1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = natural 4 = agree 5 = strongly agree	[14]
	SB2	Enriching social ties among people with similar interests		[14], [40]
	SB3	Spending free time by engaging in leisure activities with family/friends/neighbours		[55]

A referral sampling was employed to collect data through on-line survey from urban households who involved in home gardening in Malaysia and Egypt. 177 usable responses were returned. We performed an inverse square root method to check the statistical power of 177 sample size conditions [49]. With 177 responses at a significant path coefficient of 0.197, significance level of 0.05, the study achieved 0.835 power level, surpassing [50] cut-off point.

Subsequently, a full collinearity test was performed to check for common method bias, since the study was cross-sectional [51]. The result revealed that the average full collinearity of the variance inflation factor (AFVIF) was 1.856, satisfying the threshold of 3.3 confirming that the study was free from common method bias.

The analysis started with the measurement model evaluation, followed by the structural model evaluation and the moderation analyses. WarpPLS 7.0, a partial least square structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) software, was employed to analyse the data. We used this software in the analysis for two reasons. First, the software provides advanced features that enable to check for multicollinearity, common-method bias, and predictive validity; tests that are important for reliability, validity and predictive level of the measurement and structural models.

Second, the software provides moderating relationship graph which makes the interpretation of moderating effect involving the exogenous, endogenous and moderating variables less complicated [52].

3.1. Survey

Based on the literature review, the survey questions were formulated in order to test for a set of variables, which the authors categorized into: Type of plants (TP), Green gardening sources (GS), Personal benefits (PB), Environmental benefits (EB) and Social benefits (SB), such categorization would help the survey results be cross referenced with hypotheses the author will establish following the survey results. The survey was circulated to a diverse pool of potential survey participants of various gender identities, ethnicities, age groups, education level, occupational status, and socioeconomic backgrounds who all had home gardening in common. It noted the participants’ favoured plantings, supply of seeds, soil type, and fertilizers and pesticides used.

The questionnaire survey contains five latent variables of 24 items, was used to collect the data using the referral sampling of 177 identified home gardeners in two developing countries, Egypt and Malaysia, the recorded data was analyzed using WarpPLS 7.0 software.

The survey did not hesitate to discuss the impact of Covid-19 on home gardening practices, as well as the benefits and drawbacks it imposed on the activities; it also examined the potential issues and benefits (environmental, social, and personal) that home gardening had on the participants. Lastly, the poll enquired about the candidates’ ability to sustain home gardening as a sustained activity and the feasibility of pursuing it as a genuine part-time activity rather than a pastime that fluctuates. The following table further elaborates on the imposed questionnaire, its questions and answers, along with the sources from which the participants were inspired to pose those questions.

The survey implies the following two hypothesis: that the vegetation type grown, and the supply of gardening are indeed the primary drivers of the personal, environmental, and societal advantages that impact the residential gardeners.

Hypothesis 1 (H1): Type of plants significantly influence personal, environmental and social benefits of home gardeners.

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Gardening sources significantly influence personal, environmental and social benefits of home gardeners.

Additionally, this paper bridge this knowledge gap by investigating whether home gardening provides personal (health and financial), social and environmental benefits to gardeners and whether the benefits of home gardening are the same between female and male home gardeners.

For women, the main benefits were social as communicating with the surrounding neighbours and sharing seeds with them. It also improves the social inclusion between the societies by providing more recreational spaces that would help people to communicate together.

The findings implied further two hypotheses:

Hypothesis 3 (H3): The relationship between type of plants and personal, environmental and social benefits of home gardening differ between female and male home gardeners.

Hypothesis 4 (H4): The relationship between gardening sources and personal, environmental and social benefits of home gardening differs between female and male home gardeners.

4. Measurement model evaluation

The five latent variables (type of plants, gardening sources, personal benefits, environmental benefits and social benefits) were tested for reliability and validity. Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability (CR) and Dijkstra-Henseler Rho_A were used to check the reliability of the variables. The thresholds for Cronbach’s alpha and Dijkstra-Henseler Rho_A are 0.5 and CR is between 0.70 and 0.90 [56]. Table 1 shows that Cronbach’s alpha, CR and Dijkstra-Henseler Rho_A were within the required limit, confirming the internal consistency of the variables. Indicators’ reliability was examined, and the results showed that the factor loadings surpassed 0.50 with p value ≤ 0.05. These results satisfied the reliability requirements of the latent variables.

Next, Heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT) and full collinearity VIFs were performed to check for the validity of the reflective variables. The values of HTMT should be lower than 0.90 [57] and the full collinearity VIFs must be lower than 3.3 [51]. Table 2 presents that the HTMT for each latent variable fulfilled [57]criterion and the full collinearity VIFs were lower than 3.3, confirming the discriminant validity of the reflective variables.

Table 2.

Reliability of Latent Variables.

Construct	Cronbach’s alpha	CR	Dijkstra-Henseler Rho_A	Factor loading	P value
Type of plants (TP)	0.645	0.790	0.699
TP1				(0.660)	< 0.001
TP2				(0.718)	< 0.001
TP3				(0.790)	< 0.001
TP4				(0.612)	< 0.001
Gardening sources	0.589	0.765	0.595
GS1				(0.590)	< 0.001
GS2				(0.629)	< 0.001
GS3				(0.763)	< 0.001
GS4				(0.689)	< 0.001
Personal benefits (PB)	0.862	0.892	0.890
PB1				(0.744)	< 0.001
PB2				(0.750)	< 0.001
PB3				(0.728)	< 0.001
PB4				(0.685)	< 0.001
PB5				(0.657)
PB6				(0.760)
PB7				(0.685)
PB8				(0.691)
Environmental benefits (EB)	0.866	0.904	0.874
EB1				(0.860)
EB2				(0.843)
EB3				(0.831)
EB4				(0.709)
EB5				(0.788)
Social benefits (SB)	0.818	0.892	0.833
SB1				(0.818)
SB2				(0.889)
SB3				(0.862)

4.1. Structural model evaluation

The structural model assessment involved testing for lateral collinearity, the significance and relevance of the structural model relationship and the coefficients of determination (R²) and predictive relevance (Q²) as per [58]. Specifically, lateral collinearity was assessed using average block variance inflation factor (AVIF) and average full collinearity VIF (AFVIF) values, which were 1.344 and 1.856, respectively; both values met the cut-off point of 3.3, showing that the study was free from collinearity issue [51]. The path coefficient was significant (p ≤ 0.05) with an R² of 0.382, 0.483 and 0.201 for personal, environmental and social benefits, respectively, suggesting acceptable levels of predictive accuracy [59]. Moreover, Stone–Geisser Q² is included as another predictive relevance evaluation measure (Hair et al. (2019)). The structural model recorded 0.381, 0.481 and 0.206 for Stone–Geisser Q² (cross‐validated redundancy), which were greater than zero, suggesting strong predictive power of the endogenous variables. The Simpson’s paradox ratio of the model was 0.833, surpassing [60] minimum requirement of 0.7. In addition, the model’s explanatory power was checked using Tenenhaus GoF index (GoF), whereby small >= 0.1, medium >= 0.25, large >= 0.36 [52]. The result showed that the model’s explanatory power is large (GoF = 0.509). These results indicated the fit, strong predictive and explanatory power of the structural model.

5. Research results

Most of the respondents were women 131 (74%) compared to men (46 or 26%). Majority of the respondents were full-time workers (95 or 53.7%), followed by students (29 or 16.4%), self-employed (21 or 11.9%), retiree and part-time workers (7 or 4%) respectively. The respondents lived in apartment (64 or 36.2%), detached house (53 or 30%), terrace or link house (30 or 17%), semi-detached house (19 or 10.7%) and cluster house (11 or 6%). Most of them were owners (139 or 78.5%) and only 38 (21.5%) were tenants. Sixty-two (35%) of the respondents have been involved in gardening from 1 to 5 years, 30 (17%) less than a year, 26 (14.6%) have been gardening since the start of COVID-19 and from 11 to 20 years respectively and the remaining have been involved in gardening for over 20 years. The home gardens are located in the backyard (58), balcony (50) front yard (36) and side yard (21) with 64 respondents have over one garden location.

5.1. Hypothesis testing for objective 1

To achieve Objective 1, direct effect analysis using WarpPLS 7.0 was performed on type of plants and gardening sources and personal, environmental and social benefits relationships.

The hypothesis was accepted if P ≤ 0.05, in a one-tailed P value hypothesis test and the T ratio was over 1.645 [49]. The Table 3 presents the results of the direct effects analysis Table 4

Table 3.

Discriminant Validity of Latent Variables.

HTMT ratios					Full collinearity VIFs
	TP	GS	PB	EB
TP					1.433
GS	0.785				2.089
PB	0.625	0.793			2.657
EB	0.562	0.959	0.861		3.062
SB	0.478	0.541	0.620	0.612	1.554

Table 4.

Results of Direct effects Analysis.

Hypothesis	Std. Beta	Standard Error	P value	T ratio	f2	Decision
H1A: TP->PB	0.229	0.072	<0.001	3.196	0.107	Support
H1B: TP->EB	0.119	0.073	0.054	1.615	0.050	Not supported
H1C: TP->SB	0.234	0.072	<0.001	3.270	0.080	Support
H2A: GS->PB	0.465	0.068	<0.001	6.798	0.268	Support
H2B: GS->EB	0.632	0.066	<0.001	9.574	0.434	Support
H2C: GS->SB	0.267	0.071	<0.001	3.746	0.100	Support

Note: p-value ≤ 0.05, t ratio ≥ 1.645 for the one-tailed test with a confidence level of 0.95.

Five paths were significant: TP->PB path was positive (β = 0.229) and significant (P ≤ 0.001 and T ratio ≥ ± 1.64), TP-> SB path was positive (β = 0.234) and significant (P ≤ 0.001 and T ratio ≥ ± 1.64), GS->PB path was positive (β = 0.465) and significant (P ≤ 0.001 and T ratio ≥ ± 1.64), GS->EB path was positive (β = 0.632) and significant (P ≤ 0.001 and T ratio ≥ ± 1.64), and GS-> SB path was positive (β = 0.267) and significant (P ≤ 0.001 and T ratio ≥ ± 1.64). The highest effects were obtained from GS->EB where f2 = 0.434, thereby signifying a large effect (Cohen (1988)). By contrast, the TP-> EB path was not significant with p value = 0.119, and T ratio was 1.615, which is below the 1.64 threshold. Therefore, H1A, H1C, H2A, H2B and H2C were supported.

5.2. Moderation analysis for objective 2

This study used full latent growth approach to calculate moderating effects as recommended by [52]. Without the presence of gender as a moderator, the explained variance (R²) is 0.377, 0.481 and 0.178, and the Stone–Geisser Q² are 0.376, 0.479 and 0.181 respectively for personal, environmental and social benefits. With the presence of gender as a moderator, the explained variance (R2) is 0.382, 0.483 and 0.201, and the Stone–Geisser Q2 are 0.381, 0.481 and 0.206 respectively for personal, environmental and social benefits. Therefore, there is a marked increase in R2 for social benefit by 13% (from 0.178 to 0.201) and an increase in the predictive relevance of the model by 13.8% (from 0.181 to 0.206) when gender is introduced, suggesting the presence of a moderating effect. Moderating effect is confirmed if p ≤ 0.05 and the T-ratio value meets the cut-off point of ± 1.645 [49], [61].

Table 5shows that only one path; G*GS->SB that was positive (β = 0.145) and significant (p ≤ 0.05 and T-ratio ≥ ±1.645). The result confirmed the presence of moderating effect of path G*GS->SB supporting H4C. Kenny’s (2018) effect size indicator was used to evaluate the strength of the moderating effect, whereby the f² value of 0.005 is small, 0.01 is medium and 0.025 is large. The effect size of the moderating effect was calculated using the following formula:

Table 5.

Results of Moderating Analysis.

Number	Hypothesis	Standard Beta	Standard Error	P value	T ratio	Decision
H3
H3A	G*TP->PB	0.010	0.075	0.447	0.134	Not supported
H3B	G*TP->EB	−0.042	0.075	0.286	0.568	Not supported
H3C	G*TP->SB	−0.008	0.075	0.458	0.106	Not supported
H4
H4A	G*GS->PB	−0.028	0.075	0.353	0.378	Not supported
H4B	G*GS->EB	0.015	0.075	0.421	0.199	Not supported
H4C	G*GS->SB	0.145	0.073	0.024	1.992	Supported

f² = (R² included moderator - R² excluded moderator)/ (1 - R² included moderator).

The result showed that the effect size of moderation G*GS->SB, where f² = 0.03, is large.

These an interaction graph was used to better explain the results.

Fig. 1 presents the relationship between gender on green gardening source and social benefit relationship (G*GS->SB). Fig. 1 demonstrates that male and female home gardeners exert distinct moderating effects on the relationship between gardening source and social benefits. Female home gardeners with a greener gardening source attained a greater social benefit than males.

Fig. 1.

Male and female home gardeners exert distinct moderating effects on the relationship between gardening source and social benefits.

The results show that type of plants have a positive and significant relationship with personal and social benefits with the greatest effect come from personal benefit, gardening sources have positive and significant relationships with all the three benefits, with the greatest benefit is from environmental benefit, and female gardeners got stronger relationships between green gardening source and social benefits than male gardeners.

6. Research discussion

This research aims to start an open research discussion which aims to take into account the gender perspective on urban gardening, that would encompass diverse regions with more variables to be taken into consideration.

Furthermore, based on the study, it has been highlighted that women seem to reap more benefits of home gardening than their male counterpart on numerous fronts, this could be an approach to overcome the gender gap, a front which has been a priority research topic across the world.

Additionally, the studies showed that to get the optimum benefits from home gardening, urban farming policy should be geared towards the type of plants and gardening sources utilized for the activity. Additionally, social benefits of female gardeners can be improved by ensuring a green source of home gardening.

7. Conclusion

As was expected home gardeners, both men and women, approach the relation between gardening activities and their possible benefits from different perspectives and in different ways. It is possible to use the insights to enable urban authorities determine the proper policy for home gardening in order to tackle urban health and economic challenges, as well as establishing a fair and inclusive environment for both sexes to benefit from urban farming.

The data shows that plant types have a positive and substantial link with personal and social advantages which was touched upon in the literature review section 2.3 and was proven to be true based on the testing of the validity of hypothesis 3, which could be seen in in the previously mentioned tables, with personal gains having the most influence. Gardening sources have a decent link with all three benefits, with environmental benefits having the most value. Most importantly to the research objective, namely the gender reflections on home gardening having distinct moderating effects on the relationship between gardening source and societal benefits. For instance female home gardeners with a greener gardening source benefitted more socially than males. The gender point of view on urban agriculture assists us in making the most of urban farming techniques, understanding how women and men’s behaviours toward urban farming methods change the universal urban agriculture paradigm, and challenging designers and urban planners to advantage both genders and promote fairness and inclusion through implementation and practice.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Biography

Dr. Samah El-Khateeb is an associate professor in Urban Design & Planning Department, Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University. She was the head of the Architecture Department in Effat College of Architecture and Design in Saudi Arabia for four years starting from fall 2014. She is the PI of the smart and future cities laboratory for sustainable urban solutions (SFCL) funded from STDF, and the PI of “the Cairo charter a framework for social and environmental justice-driven Urban AI in Cairo & beyond” funded from Facebook Research & HSRC. Additionally she is the CO-PI for project titled “Urban AI: Inspiring Smart Action for African Cities” funded from African cities lab . Also, she is the Co-PI for project titled ““Zero: Climate Numeracy as Narratives for Urban Resilience” funded from British council. Her research work is focusing on future & smart cities design and sustainable neighborhoods guidelines and eco urban design. She was the PI for many research projects since 2011 between Egypt, Germany like; Ezbet Project. On the practical level, Samah was the executive director of Prime engineering consultants from 2007 till 2013. Currently, she is a smart city consultant and Environmental consultant for many projects. She is also a member of the Urban AI think tank and she is the country representative of responsible AI network Africa (RAIN AFRICA)