Literature DB >> 29274067

Perceived Benefits of Participation and Risks of Soil Contamination in St. Louis Urban Community Gardens.

Roger Wong1, Leah Gable2, Zorimar Rivera-Núñez3.   

Abstract

Community gardens are credited for promoting health within neighborhoods, by increasing healthy food intake and exercise frequency. These benefits, however, are potentially undermined as urban soils are often contaminated from industrial legacies. The purpose of this study was to examine the perceived benefits of participation and risks of soil contamination within urban community gardens, and factors associated with soil contamination concerns. Ninety-three gardeners were interviewed across 20 community gardens in St. Louis, Missouri between June and August 2015. Surveys included questions on demographics, gardening practices, and perceptions of community gardening. Multilevel logistic models assessed how gardener demographics, gardening practices, and garden characteristics were associated with soil contamination concerns. Common perceived benefits of community gardening were community building (68.8%), healthy and fresh food (35.5%), and gardening education (18.3%). Most gardeners (62.4%) were not concerned about soil contamination, but nearly half (48.4%) stated concerns about heavy metals. Black race was significantly associated with soil contamination concerns (OR 5.47, 95% CI 1.00-30.15, p = .04). Community gardens offer numerous social and health benefits. Although most gardeners were not concerned about soil contamination, black gardeners were more likely to have concerns. Garden leaders should provide resources to gardeners to learn about soil contamination and methods to manage their risk, particularly in minority neighborhoods.

Keywords:  Benefit; Community garden; Risk; Soil contamination; Urban

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29274067     DOI: 10.1007/s10900-017-0459-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Community Health        ISSN: 0094-5145


  13 in total

1.  Heavy metals in urban soils of East St. Louis, IL, Part I: Total concentration of heavy metals in soils.

Authors:  M D Kaminski; S Landsberger
Journal:  J Air Waste Manag Assoc       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 2.235

2.  A survey of community gardens in upstate New York: implications for health promotion and community development.

Authors:  D Armstrong
Journal:  Health Place       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 4.078

3.  The effect of a community garden on HgA1c in diabetics of Marshallese descent.

Authors:  Ann M Weltin; Roberta P Lavin
Journal:  J Community Health Nurs       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 0.974

4.  Fruit and vegetable intake among urban community gardeners.

Authors:  Katherine Alaimo; Elizabeth Packnett; Richard A Miles; Daniel J Kruger
Journal:  J Nutr Educ Behav       Date:  2008 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.045

5.  Urban Gardens Grow Healthy Communities.

Authors:  David Lewellen
Journal:  Health Prog       Date:  2016 May-Jun

6.  Healthy food access for urban food desert residents: examination of the food environment, food purchasing practices, diet and BMI.

Authors:  Tamara Dubowitz; Shannon N Zenk; Bonnie Ghosh-Dastidar; Deborah A Cohen; Robin Beckman; Gerald Hunter; Elizabeth D Steiner; Rebecca L Collins
Journal:  Public Health Nutr       Date:  2014-12-05       Impact factor: 4.022

7.  LA Sprouts: a gardening, nutrition, and cooking intervention for Latino youth improves diet and reduces obesity.

Authors:  Jaimie N Davis; Emily E Ventura; Lauren T Cook; Lauren E Gyllenhammer; Nicole M Gatto
Journal:  J Am Diet Assoc       Date:  2011-08

8.  Association between community garden participation and fruit and vegetable consumption in rural Missouri.

Authors:  Ellen K Barnidge; Pamela R Hipp; Amy Estlund; Kathleen Duggan; Kathryn J Barnhart; Ross C Brownson
Journal:  Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act       Date:  2013-11-19       Impact factor: 6.457

9.  Urban community gardeners' knowledge and perceptions of soil contaminant risks.

Authors:  Brent F Kim; Melissa N Poulsen; Jared D Margulies; Katie L Dix; Anne M Palmer; Keeve E Nachman
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-02-06       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Urban gardening: managing the risks of contaminated soil.

Authors:  Rebecca Kessler
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2013 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 9.031

View more
  6 in total

1.  Safe Community Gardening Practices: Focus Groups with Garden Leaders in Atlanta, Georgia.

Authors:  Candis M Hunter; Dana Hz Williamson; Melanie Pearson; Eri Saikawa; Matthew O Gribble; Michelle Kegler
Journal:  Local Environ       Date:  2019-11-12

2.  Surveys of community garden affiliates and soils in Houston, Texas.

Authors:  Katie R Kirsch; Thomas J McDonald; Galen D Newman; Xiaohui Xu; Jennifer A Horney
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2022-04-06       Impact factor: 3.307

3.  The projected impacts of smart decline on urban runoff contamination levels.

Authors:  Rui Zhu; Galen Newman
Journal:  Comput Urban Sci       Date:  2021-03-29

4.  VegeSafe: a community science program generating a national residential garden soil metal(loid) database.

Authors:  Paul James Harvey; Phoebe Grace Peterson; Mark Patrick Taylor
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2018-10-01       Impact factor: 4.223

5.  Perspectives on Heavy Metal Soil Testing Among Community Gardeners in the United States: A Mixed Methods Approach.

Authors:  Candis M Hunter; Dana H Z Williamson; Matthew O Gribble; Halle Bradshaw; Melanie Pearson; Eri Saikawa; P Barry Ryan; Michelle Kegler
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2019-07-03       Impact factor: 4.614

6.  Atlanta Residents' Knowledge Regarding Heavy Metal Exposures and Remediation in Urban Agriculture.

Authors:  Lauren Balotin; Samantha Distler; Antoinette Williams; Samuel J W Peters; Candis M Hunter; Chris Theal; Gil Frank; Taranji Alvarado; Rosario Hernandez; Arthur Hines; Eri Saikawa
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-03-20       Impact factor: 3.390

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.