THE AFFECT OF COMMUNITY GARDENS
ON RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD SATISFACTION
BY: TIFFANY CONKLIN
MARCH 22, 2016
RESEARCH PROPOSAL
RESEARCH DESIGN USP 630; FALL 2009
PROFESSOR LUTZENHISER
Table of Contents
SECTION I: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................3
OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH PROBLEM ..........................................................................................................................3
CRAFT OF RESEARCH FRAMEWORK ...........................................................................................................................4
SECTION II: LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................................................................5
BENEFITS OF COMMUNITY GARDENS ........................................................................................................................5
SUSTAINABILE PRACTICES.........................................................................................................................................5
PEOPLE-PLANT RELATIONSHIPS: THE EFFECTS OF NATURE ON THE INDIVIDUAL ......................................................6
THE EFFECTS OF COMMUNITY GARDENS AND GREEN SPACE ON COMMUNITIES .......................................................6
PLACE IDENTITY AND COMMUNITY SENTIMENT........................................................................................................7
NEIGHBORHOOD SATISFACTION ................................................................................................................................8
RECENT RESEARCH IN PORTLAND .............................................................................................................................8
SECTION III: METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................................... 10
SAMPLING FRAME ................................................................................................................................................... 11
SURVEY RESEARCH ................................................................................................................................................. 15
PHOTOVOICE ........................................................................................................................................................... 16
SECTION IV: ANALYSIS PLAN............................................................................................................................ 17
BRIEF NOTE ABOUT METHODOLOGIES NOT USED ................................................................................... 17
APPENDIX A: BASELINE NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY .................................................................................. 17
APPENDIX B: POST-GARDEN NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY ......................................................................... 27
2
SECTION I: INTRODUCTION
OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH PROBLEM
The ways in which humans interact with the natural environment has drastically changed in
the last century. The majority of the world’s population has shifted from a rural to an urban setting.
Humans have altered and adapted nature with such success that we sometimes find ourselves
completely encapsulated by man-made artifacts. This loss of connection to the natural world is not
a new concern. In the late 1800s, The ‘City Beautiful’ proponents began advocating for public parks
as a way to improve public health and combat urban problems. The desire to have a quick and easy
escape from the hectic city has prompted city officials and residents to create urban parks, gardens,
and open green spaces throughout much of history. One of many urban problems that still exists
today, although in a different form, is a deterioration of civic society. Urban life has imposed on its
residents a feeling of alienation from both nature and the people around them. Research suggests
that there is much to be gained from the restoration of human relationships to place, in terms of
health, social and economic development, and, most of all, sustainability.1 Our surroundings have a
profound impact on the way we construct our realities. The desires to enjoy a ‘sense of community’
and reconnect with nature are closely intertwined. This continual concern for the loss of
‘community’ stretches back to the earliest urban investigations.2
In order to understand the emerging urban experience, genuine investigations must be used
to recognize the ways in which identities and social relations bind with locales to produce
structurations of urban power.3 I believe community gardens can be just such a catalyst. The existing
literature shows that community gardens foster both unique identities and social relationships that
are attached to a meaningful place where more powerful individuals and communities are built.
American urban planner Kevin Lynch, sought to understand how people perceive their
environments and how planners and community activists can respond to the deepest human needs.4
In a similar light, this study aims to understand how a change in an environment effects residents’
perceptions and how a development such as a community garden may cater to some of our deepest
human needs.
Increasingly, localities are recognizing community gardening in their open space planning
process.5 Community gardens are open spaces managed and operated by members of the local
community for a variety of purposes.6 Portland, Oregon is just one of a handful of cities that have
undertaken extensive inventory of vacant lands for their potential to support community
agriculture.7 In 2004, Portland’s City Council passed a resolution which called for an inventory of
properties suitable for urban agriculture. The city enlisted the help of Portland State University’s
Urban and Regional Planning graduate students to coordinate and implement the “Diggable City”
inventory. They found 289 locations in Portland that would be suitable for the development of
gardens and other urban farming.8
One way to more fully understand how community gardens can encourage a reconnection
between urban residents and the places in which they live is by measuring neighborhood satisfaction.
The body of research on how community gardens affect the residents who live in the surrounding
area around a garden is weak at best. This study will analyze four neighborhoods in Portland,
Oregon before and after community gardens are established in each of them. In-person surveys and
qualitative anecdotal data will be collected from residents in order to understand if the introduction
of a nearby community garden affects their views towards their neighborhood. This research aims to
provide a glimpse into what, if any, social affects the establishment of a community garden has on
the surrounding area.
CRAFT OF RESEARCH FRAMEWORK
RESEARCH QUESTION: DOES THE INTRODUCTION OF A COMMUNITY GARDEN IN
A NEIGHBORHOOD AFFECT RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD SATISFACTION?
WARRANT
EVIDENCE
Community development
investments such as community
gardens, may lead to increased
neighborhood satisfaction among
residents.
Research has shown that
community gardens provide
neighborhoods and individuals
with various social and economic
benefits.
REASON
CLAIM/HYPOTHESES
The introduction of a community
garden will increase the level of
neighborhood satisfaction among
residents.
Community gardens will increase
neighborhood satisfaction because they
provide: nearby green space, neighborhood
beatification, opportunities to interact with
neighbors, participatory decision making, the
ability to grow local food supplies, and the
creation of unique neighborhood identities.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
There are many factors that contribute to one’s neighborhood satisfaction. A community garden’s
effect on neighborhood satisfaction level will be difficult to isolate from other contributing factors.
4
SECTION II: LITERATURE REVIEW
BENEFITS OF COMMUNITY GARDENS
Community gardens have the potential to make cities more socially and ecologically
sustainable.9 Urban agriculture provides numerous direct and indirect benefits. Some effects are
easier to recognize that others. By analyzing the array of benefits community gardens can contribute
to communities and cities; we can begin to enrich our understandings of how to plan for
environmentally and socially sustainable communities.10
SUSTAINABILE PRACTICES
Today, the processes of food production and consumption are detached from one another.
Historically, cities and their food systems have existed in close proximity to one another out of
necessity. In medieval Europe, every walled town had orchards and kitchen gardens.11 In times of
war and depression, community gardens grew out of the need for food security. Fewer than 2
percent of Americans farm for a living today, and only 17 percent of Americans live in rural areas.12
Struggling cities such as Detroit and New Orleans are experiencing an ‘urban agriculture revolution’
due to the desperate need for accessible and affordable food.13 14 In times of crisis, the disconnect
between the source of industrialized food supplies and the consumers becomes more apparent. In
the event of infrastructure collapse or a major oil crisis, our industrial agricultural system will surely
fail and food security will be among one of the top concerns governments will face in order to
support life in cities.15 Urban populations create tremendous resource needs for energy, food and
water. One strategy to manage demand is to search for ways to reduce the quantity required by the
population in the first place.16
Small-scale community supported agriculture is one of the ways to ensure that urban
populations can sustain themselves in times of need. Urban agriculture has been shown to support a
host of sustainability goals including: environmental protection, encouraging healthier diets, poverty
reduction, community capacity building, participatory decision making, social inclusion, community
economic development, reducing energy consumption and air pollution, and minimizing the urban
heat island effect.17 18 Using survey research and in-depth interviews, a researcher in the United
Kingdom concluded that community gardening could act as a model for the implementation of
social, economic and environmental policies at the local level.19 The concept of a ‘sustainable place’
argues that what can be produced and consumed locally, is preferable to systems of excessive
importing of goods and services, with the concomitant exporting or externalizing of the
environmental and other costs associated with this consumption.20
There is some evidence that urban agriculture is gaining attention in Portland and the United
States. Portland Parks and Recreation says that interest in community gardens is growing in Portland
as awareness about food issues are increasing throughout the country.21 The National Gardening
Association conducted a recent survey (n= 2,559) that estimated that 36 million households (31%)
of all U.S. households, participated in food gardening in 2008. This study projected that for 2009, 43
million households plan to grow their own food in a garden, a 19 percent increase from 2008.22 In
addition, 34 percent of those surveyed showed some interest in having a garden plot in a community
garden located near their home.23
5
PEOPLE-PLANT RELATIONSHIPS: THE EFFECTS OF NATURE ON THE INDIVIDUAL
Long before Homo sapiens first appeared, nature had cloaked the earth in a green mantle
that nurtured all existing forms of life as well as those yet to be.24 Today, only tattered remains of
this green planet exist and only where humans have allowed it to remain. Throughout human history
humans have been curious about plants, using them in countless ways to provide substance,
medicines, and basic raw materials.25 Although rigorous empirical studies are still rare, there is a
growing acceptance of the idea that gardening can have a therapeutic effect.26 The study of peopleplant relationships has uncovered that plants not only provide humans substance, they have the
power to effect people emotionally and psychologically. Work from early urban theorists, such as
Frederick Law Olmsted, stressed the importance of these connections between humans and nearby
nature. Olmsted believed that nature had a positive effect on the psyche and behavior and was
especially necessary where dwellings crowded together in large cities.27 An understanding of the
psychological, physiological and social responses of people to plants in their environment has the
potential to become a valuable tool in improving the physical and mental health of individuals and
communities.28 The field of environmental psychology has provided considerable information about
the restorative qualities of natural environments and both cognitive (reasoned) and evolutionary
(inherited) components may be present.29
Dr. Chellis Glendinning, a pioneer in field of ecopsychology, believes that Western culture
suffers from chronic anxiety, anger, and a sense of something essential missing from our lives that is
caused by the systematic removal of nature and natural cycles from our lives.30 Researchers have
begun to look more closely at how these positive relationships with nature develop through
opportunities to engage with natural processes in ecological restoration projects and community
gardens.31 32 33 Some of the most noted research on psychological benefits of gardening comes from
Dr. Rachel Kaplan, of the University of Michigan. Beginning in the early 1970s, Kaplan has focused
her life’s research on the multi-faceted significance of the natural environment to human well-being.
She believes that gardening is a close-at-hand form of connecting with nature, and increases the
potential role in an individual’s psychological economy by its very accessibility and frequency of
contact.34 In a mailed survey of participates (n=4,297) in the American Horticulture Society’s People
Plant Program, Kaplan discovered that the most beneficial aspect reported by respondents was an
inner sense of serenity when gardening.35 This therapeutic effect of plants upon humans is not a new
discovery, although it may be one that’s been forgotten in time. In ancient Egypt, physicians used to
prescribe walks in the garden for their disturbed patients. In the 19th century, patients in mental
institutions would participate in growing crops.36 Several studies also suggest that recovery times are
shorter for patients who have views of a natural setting from their hospital windows as opposed to
those without views of nature.37 38
THE EFFECTS OF COMMUNITY GARDENS AND GREEN SPACE ON COMMUNITIES
Community gardening projects have been recognized as a ‘tool’ for revitalization in
distressed urban neighborhoods. Some of the most documented studies of these effects have been
conducted in low-income communities because the benefits of gardening are more clearly seen in
impoverished environments that lack amenities.39 Dr. Mark Francis of University of California at
Davis, has carried out extensive studies of the community benefits and perceptions of parks and
gardens. He found that the gardens built and maintained by community members have unique social
and economic benefits. An activity such as community gardening can be used to combat isolation
and encourage residents to interact with one another. These shared public spaces provide
6
opportunities for neighborhood residents to develop and control part of their neighborhoods.40 A
sense of power is achieved and residents may realize that they can have a direct role in their
community’s future.
In 1962, the New York City Housing Authority initiated one of the first tenet gardening
programs.41 Showing immediate success, the gardens produced pride among residents and fostered a
learning environment where elderly African American tenets taught neighborhood children how to
grow plants such as cotton. After a few years, the garden continued to produce positive changes in
the housing complex. Tenets urged groundskeepers to take care of the nearby lawns. Instead of
vandalizing the garden, the neighborhood youth participated in its care. There was also a noticeable
decrease in the amount of trash in common areas.42 Another notable urban greening project is the
Philadelphia Green, the nation’s largest urban greening program. For over 30 years, this program has
used horticulture to build community and improve the quality of life in thousands of community
projects in the city’s struggling neighborhoods.43
Much of the research available focuses on the benefits reaped by active participates in
community gardens. There is some evidence that gardens can have positive effects on observers as
well. Two studies have shown that gardening is positively correlated with neighborhood satisfaction,
and the view of a garden increases community satisfaction, even if the garden belongs to someone
else.44 45 One of the pioneers of the study of gardens’ therapeutic value was Charles A. Lewis, a
researcher at the Morton Arboretum in Illinois. At the forefront of the new field of horticultural
therapy, Lewis wrote and spoke extensively about his research. His influence was perhaps greatest in
mobilizing diverse experts, including psychologists, city planners and landscape architects to develop
and use the new thinking in their fields.46 Lewis provided the following insight into the effects
gardens may have on viewers. “Though providing purely a visual experience, plants often evoke
subjective responses in the viewer… the interpretation of what we see is formed against our
background of knowledge and experience. Through this evaluation process, the observer is also
participating, mentally if not physically.” 47
Research has shown that the quality and appearance of a place directly effects ones outlook
on life and their surroundings. President Lyndon B. Johnson once said that what a person sees in
their neighborhood effects them; if it is attractive, it adds to the quality of their life, if it is ugly it can
demean their existence.48 In sum, the total physical condition of a community, its buildings, vacant
spaces, natural areas, and streets, makes an enormous difference in how members of that
community feel about themselves.49
PLACE IDENTITY AND COMMUNITY SENTIMENT
An important, but often under-recognized piece of the sustainability is the creation of
meaningful places. Just as sustainability seeks to protect, sustain, and restore the environment, it
should also strive to create livable, inspiring, enduring, and equitable places where the quality of life
and the long-term quality of human existence will be enhanced rather than degraded.50 The study of
humans’ feelings towards places is interdisciplinary and theoretically complex. The emotional bonds
of people to places arise from locales that are at once ecological, built, social and symbolic
environments.51 Generally, community sentiment can be divided into three approaches: community
satisfaction, community attachment, and identity and community life.52 Sociologist David Hummon
believes that community sentiment is the product of people’s perception of the local community,
their social position in both the local community and larger society, and the objective qualities of the
community, both as a built and social environment.53
7
I believe that community gardens are a means of creating place identity and unique
neighborhood character because of their physical features and symbolic significance. Community
gardens are places that may have meaning and significance to their users and perhaps, as this study
hopes to further illustrate, has meaning for those who live in the surrounding neighborhood. Studies
of place attachment have repeatedly shown that engagement with, and taking part in the shaping of a
place (i.e. neighborhood garden) are strongly indicated in care for, and later affectionate reflection
on a place.54 Results from a 2008 residential satisfaction survey in three major French cities, show
that an individual’s sense of identification with their neighborhood interacts primarily with the social
aspects of satisfaction.55 Other research has proposed that it is possible to work with ‘place’ as a tool
for sustainable development by analyzing place as a changing interplay between humans, society, and
nature in a way that makes ecological relationships visible and accountable.56
NEIGHBORHOOD SATISFACTION
Neighborhood satisfaction refers to residents’ overall evaluation of their neighborhood’s
environment.57 The study of neighborhood satisfaction is important to decision makers because of
the need to understand residents’ point of view of what are the positive and negative aspects of their
neighborhood. Neighborhood satisfaction can be attributed to a host of factors from crime, density,
affordability, amenities, and many others that are beyond the scope of this study. This review of
literature (and larger study) will focus on examining neighborhood satisfaction in relation to nearby
nature and green space.
Research has identified aesthetics as one of the most important factors contributing to
neighborhood satisfaction.58 59 60 61 62 Aesthetics does not mean just the quality or design of the built
environment, but can also include the inclusion or exclusion of natural elements. For instance,
studies have found natural vegetation as a principal component of neighborhood attachment.63
When this nature is a shared community space research has shown that this combination can be
particularly powerful in fostering a sense of community among residents.64 65 In urban housing
projects research shows that the presence of nearby nature contributes to better relations among
neighbors, decreased crime, and an overall increase in satisfaction with one’s home.66 It has also
been shown that shared access to nearby green space in inner-city neighborhoods in the United
States predicts strength of social ties and sense of community among older adults. 67 In Britain,
researchers found similar results indicating that the access and proximity of open spaces (parks,
community gardens, play and sports areas, village greens, river or canal banks, and beaches) was
relevant to older residents’ quality of life.68
8
RECENT RESEARCH IN PORTLAND
In Portland, Oregon a unique situation has occurred in the city due to its implementation of
the urban growth boundary. Large population inflows in the 1980s and 1990s resulted in the
development of almost all available land within the boundary, creating density but also raising
serious concerns about the decline of land serving as open space.69 70 Dr. Netusil of Reed College,
along with a professor from the University of California, undertook a study of the impact of open
spaces on property values in Portland. They found that the proximity to an open-space can have a
statistically significant effect on a home’s sale price.71
One of the most successful examples of community gardening projects in Portland is the
Janus Youth Program at Village Gardens. They have helped low-income public housing residents of
North Portland build an 85,000 square foot organic garden. This has resulted in an increased access
to healthy food, improved economic opportunities and built unity among community members. The
Janus program includes individual and family garden plots, employment opportunities for adults and
teens, after-school and summer activities for children, homework clubs, a mobile market shuttle and
a youth-run entrepreneurial business that grows specialty salad mixes to sell at local farmers
markets.72
The City of Portland recently released the 2009 results from their 19th annual community
survey. A mailed random household survey achieved a 35% response rate (n= 3,194).73 Portland’s
livability is rated highly by 83% of residents, an increase from 76% five years ago. The survey results
also indicate that 86% of residents rated Portland’s parks good or very good, and 77% felt good or
very good about the City’s recreation services. Commissioner Nick Fish stated that “the survey
results confirm how much the public values their park system, especially in these tough economic
times when more people are taking advantage of free or low cost activities close to home. They
recognize the vital role our parks and natural areas, as well as our community centers and recreation
programs, play in the quality of life we enjoy here in Portland.”74
A 2008 city-wide random telephone survey (n=1,234) conducted on behalf of Portland Parks
and Recreation (by the PSU Survey Research Lab) shows that respondents believed that community
gardens completely met their needs (25%), somewhat met their needs (29%), and did not met their
needs (14%). A large portion of residents (33%) stated that they do not have a need for community
gardens.75 It is unclear from the survey results if this lack of need is due to the need already being
met in other ways (home gardening) or if respondents had no interest in participating in community
gardening activities. Additionally, residents in Southeast Portland rated spending money on
community gardens higher than other areas surveyed. Portland community gardeners identify the
recreational aspect as the most important part of the experience.76
9
SECTION III: METHODOLOGY
To gather the data necessary to understand what affects a community garden has upon
neighborhood satisfaction among residents, a mixed methods approach is recommended. The
interdisciplinary nature of this research problem calls for a variety of methodological approaches to
be utilized. This study will draw upon the strengths of both qualitative and quantitative research.77
Considering the sampling frame, population, and research topic, face-to-face in-person survey
interviews will be conducted with residents in four Portland neighborhoods. There are several
advantages to this modality. First, this method typically produces a fairly high response rate and less
nonresponse error or bias.78 Postcards will be sent to the households within the designated study
areas a few days prior to each survey wave to notify them that a PSU researcher will be stopping by
to conduct a neighborhood satisfaction survey. Prior notification tends to increase response rates
and decrease refusal rates. Also, the topic of neighborhood satisfaction is something that most
people would be fairly interested in because it directly relates to them and their quality of life. Of
course, there are limitations to this method, including difficulty locating respondents who are not at
home. It will be necessary for interviewers to visit some households multiple times on different days
and hours in order to secure an interview. To minimize the number of "no contacts" and nonresponse bias, up to ten attempts within one month, if necessary, will be made to reach each
household in the sample.
Additional in-depth data will be gathered through a relatively new method called Photovoice.
Photovoice is a community-based participatory research methodology in which a collaborative
partnership is formed between the researcher and particular individuals.79 Willing respondents will
be provided disposable cameras to document the process of the community gardens being
established in their neighborhoods. Participants can then share and engage in a critical dialogue with
the researcher about the photos in order to capture information about personal and community
issues. Using photos in this manner can provide a vehicle for the presentation of participants’ direct
experiences.80 The photos provide a creative and effective way to record and shed light on the
variety of social and physical changes that may occur after a community garden has been established.
Residents who live in the neighborhood are more familiar with the day-to-day happenings, and may
be able to provide valuable insight into the changes that will hypothetically occur around the garden
study area. This rich quantitative data will provide further information about the neighborhood
changes that traditional survey research would not be able to capture.
These methodologies were selected due to the nature of the research question and the
sampling frame. First, the lack of existing data on the relationships between community gardens and
neighborhood satisfaction requires a survey to be conducted. Face-to-face interviewing has more
flexibility than a mail survey because of the ability to clarify and probe on unclear or vague
responses. In-person interviewing is also more effective than a telephone survey in this situation
because of the need to try to collect surveys from all households in the sampling area. The use of inperson surveys will hopefully provide the highest response rate possible. A similar in-person
neighborhood survey conducted in Portland about gentrification achieved a 76% response rate.81
However, a flaw of this research design is that all surveys will not be able to be administered during
the same time frame because the gardens will be established at different times in different
neighborhoods. To minimize this problem a multi-site data collection method has been
implemented. Gathering data from multiple sites will increase the reliability of the results because
trends across data can be indentified and variables isolated if needed. In addition, each survey wave
will be limited to data collection lasting up to one month.
10
SAMPLING FRAME
Four Portland neighborhoods will be sampled before and after community gardens are
integrated within each of them (see Table 1). Using the information presented by the “Diggable
City” Agricultural Inventory Report, the Portland Office of Sustainable Development identified a
handful of new community garden sites which are scheduled for development. The garden’s
proximity to residential areas was a key factor in the site selection process, as well as its designation
as a ‘definite’ site for future development. The sampling areas were identified for this research
project using Google Earth Pro software. A 1,500-square foot ring around the garden was marked
and a street overlay was placed upon the map. These maps will be used by the researchers to
identify which houses to include in the sample.
Table 1: Planned Community Garden Sites in Portland, OR
Property
Address
Neighborhood
Furey
SE 117th and Reedway
Powellhurst-Gilbert
Malden
SE 87th and Malden
Lents
Halsey
NE 148th and Halsey
Wilkes
SE 33rd and Sherrett St
Ardenwald
Sherrett
Identifying the impacts of a community garden is challenging, primarily due to the nonrandom selection of these locations of development. This is an underlying weakness of this
sampling method. For instance, the garden sites could be chosen by the city for development based
on a number of reasons such as availability of vacant or cheap land, the lack of other community
gardens in the vicinity (distribution), or the high demand for garden space in a particular
neighborhood.82
While constructing the sampling design, similar studies that have analyzed the effects of
community gardens and green space upon communities were taken into consideration. One study
investigated the influence of community gardens on neighboring property values in New York City
and used the sampling technique of surveying within 1,000 square feet of garden sites.83 A study on
the impact of open green spaces on property values in Portland, Oregon used the sampling
technique of surveying within 1,500 square feet of the site. Based on discussions with local park
officials, the Portland study hypothesized that the impacts of urban green space may extend up to
1500 feet. 84 Taking this information into consideration, survey attempts for this study will be made
at every household within the 1500-foot designated ring, shaded in green (see Figures 1-5).
11
Figure 1: Halsey Garden Site {NE 148th & Halsey}
Figure 2: Malden Garden Site {SE 87th & Malden}
12
Figure 3: Sherrett Garden Site {SE 33rd & Sherrett St}
Figure 4: Furey Garden Site {SE 117th & Reedway}
13
Figure 5: Garden Site Study Distribution
Apartments and multi-family homes will be included in the sample as separate household
units. Gaining access to secured, inner-access apartment buildings will be a possible barrier to this
methodology. In order to calculate the total sample size, a total count of the housing units in each
area will be collected. Residences with restricted access, “no soliciting” signs, “beware of dog” signs,
and “no trespassing” signs will be eliminated from the sample.
Respondents who live in close proximity to the garden sites (preferably with direct visual
contact from their homes) will be asked by the researcher if they would be willing to participate in
Photovoice research. The goal will be to include two Photovoice cases per garden site. This will
provide a total of eight in-depth data sets including photo documentation and follow-up interview
data. Given that these eight participates will be aware of the study details and will participate in a
different capacity than the larger population, their pre-and-post surveys will be removed from the
larger sample during analysis due to the bias caused by their involvement. Their data will instead be
used as case-study examples and thus examined separately.
14
SURVEY RESEARCH
In order to achieve the study aims, two structured survey instruments (see Appendix A) were
designed to evaluate perceived residential satisfaction. Once pre-testing is complete and any
necessary changes incorporated, the baseline survey will be administered in the four selected areas
prior to the construction of the community gardens. The survey instruments are designed to
preferably be read-aloud to the respondents and filled out by the interviewer. If needed, the
respondents could fill out the survey on their own, but this may be confusing for them without prior
training on skip patterns. The surveys will include introductory language to gather informed consent
from the respondent to meet Human Subject guidelines. The survey will only be continued if the
respondent has agreed to participation and the interviewer is confident that the respondent fully
understands the nature of their involvement. If a respondent is unable to understand the consent
information, they will be thanked for their time and that household will not be contacted again. The
first surveying wave will establish baseline data for comparison to the follow-up survey’s data.
The follow-up survey (see Appendix B) will be administered to the same area (same houses
if possible) after the gardens have been established for one year. The follow-up survey is identical to
the baseline survey, but will include three new questions regarding the community garden. These
questions will measure resident awareness and opinions of the new garden site. The follow-up data
will be used in analysis to show if there is a relationship between the community garden and
neighborhood satisfaction. It will be determined if there is an increase or decrease in neighborhood
satisfaction, and if so, the strength of this relationship. It is hypnotized that there will be a
statistically significant positive relationship between community gardens and neighborhood
satisfaction.
In part, these surveys incorporate questions that have been used in other neighborhood
satisfaction and gardening surveys. These questions have already been tested and their limitations
addressed. In addition, the use of existing questions is beneficial because they will allow for
comparison across these studies in order to estimate possible trends.85 To measure neighborhood
satisfaction, Likert scale questions will be used to gauge the level and intensity of satisfaction across a
variety of indicators. These indicators will then be used to create an index of neighborhood
satisfaction. The creation of a neighborhood satisfaction index will allow for more accuracy and
variability than if specific questions were analyzed independently.
The nature of this topic poses a common problem for survey writers because asking
respondents directly about things like their neighborhood satisfaction, even with a comprehensive
definition provided, may result in biased data because different people may consider different things
when rating their overall neighborhood satisfaction. Therefore, a series of somewhat indirect
questions asking about a variety of neighborhood qualities will be asked. These descriptive questions
illustrate the distribution of resident opinions and attitudes towards their neighborhoods before and
after community gardens are introduced into the settings. The survey data will also provide a glimpse
into the perceived problems that exist in neighborhoods, and resident views on sustainable practices
and their access to local food supply. Although these topics are not central to the research question,
there exists a possibility of a relationship emerging during analysis between these topics and
neighborhood satisfaction.
15
PHOTOVOICE
Potential respondents for Photovoice research will be identified during the baseline
surveying process. A question will be asked at the end of the interview to determine their
willingness to participate further. Once respondents are identified and have agreed to participate in
ongoing research, the researcher will arrange a follow-up meeting to provide additional details and
instruction on the Photovoice method. Participants will be instructed to take photographs of the
garden’s progress (if any), neighborhood activities, and any changes that they notice in the
surrounding neighborhood during the year after the community garden is planted. They will also be
asked to keep a diary with written narratives based on their experiences and observations. Quarterly
check-ins with participates and the researcher will be done to ensure the equipment is working
properly and to answer any questions participates may have. The researcher will then arrange a
follow-up meeting after one year (preferably at the same time as the follow-up survey research
surveys) with the Photovoice participates to collect the material that they have gathered and use
these materials to engage in a discussion and critical reflection about their experiences. This
interview will be an unstructured interview, but it will be guided by the trends highlighted during the
analysis of the data from the neighborhoods surveys.
16
SECTION IV: ANALYSIS PLAN
Following the completion of each data collection wave (baseline and follow- up surveys), the
researcher will begin the process of preparing the data for analysis. This will first involve reviewing
the collected data to ensure it is legible, complete, and is grammatically correct. Codes will then be
assigned to each response category. The cleaned data will then be entered into SPSS, which is
computer software that is used for statistical analysis. Following data entry, a data quality check
(which is sometimes referred to as a consistency check) will be performed by running frequencies
for all variables and checking to make sure the data and skip patterns are correct. For example, the
researcher needs to ensure that all respondents answered the correct questions. All errors that can be
fixed will be corrected, but some surveys may have to be eliminated from the analysis if an error will
have an effect on the quality of the data in a way that makes the survey invalid or incomparable to
other surveys. If there are long open-ended responses with reoccurring themes, these responses can
be recoded into newly created categories.
Once a data set is cleaned, statistical analysis can begin. The decision on what type of
analysis to use depends on what kind of information you would like to obtain. This study aims to
show that there is a relationship between the variables and that the direction of influence is from the
independent variable (presence of a community garden) to the dependent variable (neighborhood
satisfaction). Inferential statistical analysis will be preformed to test the hypothesis of community
gardens having a positive effect on neighborhood satisfaction levels. Significance tests will show
how likely the results could have occurred by chance and ‘effect size’ measurements will show the
strength of the relationship between the two variables being analyzed.
After the researcher has collected all Photovoice data, the content will be coded using
numbered variable categories. Depending on the amount of information needing to be coded, the
researcher will either code the data manually or use coding software such as NVivo. The purpose of
this coding is to uncover if any reoccurring themes or events appear in the data. However, the
Photovoice data is going to be used as anecdotal support. I believe this method is more beneficial
that traditional field research because it shows the world from the subject’s frame of reference rather
than the researcher’s. However, there are limitations to this approach. The researcher has no easy
way of testing the reliability of this type of antidotal data. Proper training and precautions will be
taken to ensure that participates understand the importance of the research and understand their
roles as observers in their neighborhood.
***BRIEF NOTE ABOUT METHODOLOGIES NOT USED***
Existing data on this specific topic is not believed to be available. Considering the sampling frame, population, and
research topic, face-to-face in-person interviews were the chosen modality because they typically produce a fairly high
response rate and less nonresponse error or bias. A phone survey was ruled out because of the difficultly attaining phone
numbers for all of the households in the designated survey areas. Also, not all households may have a telephone. A web
survey would have posed even more challenges, including attaining email address and high nonresponse error. In
addition, not all households may have internet access. Photovoice research was chosen to provide additional qualitative
data over traditional field research or observations for several reasons. It would be difficult for the researcher to be
present in these four neighborhoods over the entire study’s timeframe (1 year) to observe all the changes that may take
place. Additionally, residents may be more able to recognize subtle changes that occur due to their familiarity with the
area. Focus groups were a considered methodology and could provide beneficial data to contribute to this research;
however it is believed that the Photovoice data will be equally valuable. Additionally, Photovoice data will be more
reliable due to the privacy it allows.
17
Appendix A: Baseline Neighborhood Survey
Hi! My name is Tiffany. I am a graduate student from Portland State
University. I am conducting a brief survey to find out about residents’
satisfaction and opinions about the <community name> neighborhood.
Would you be willing to complete a survey today?
First, I need to verify that you are 18 years of age or older?
 No => TRY TO SPEAK TO ANOTHER HHM OVER 18
 Yes => CONTINUE SURVEY
For the purposes of this survey, “neighborhood” is whatever you define your neighborhood
area to be.
1) Please rate your neighborhood on the following aspects using a scale from 1 to 4, with 1
meaning Not at all Satisfied and 4 meaning Completely Satisfied. 86
Not at all Satisfied
1
2
3
Completely Satisfied
4
Don’t Know
Refused
Overall neighborhood appearance






Overall maintenance of properties (residential & business)






Access to daily needs (food, household items, etc)






Availability of the types of food you want to buy






Availability of fresh fruits and vegetables






Safety and Security






Amount of neighborhood noise and activity

 



2) Please rate your neighborhood on the following social aspects using a scale from 1 to 4,
with 1 meaning Not at all Satisfied and 4 meaning Completely Satisfied. 87
Not at all Satisfied
1
2
3
Completely Satisfied
4
Don’t Know
Refused
Neighborliness among residents






Amount of interaction with neighbors






Feeling like you belong to the community






Opportunities to interact with neighbors






Overall, ‘sense of community’ in your neighborhood

 



18
3) Please rate your neighborhood on the following environmental aspects using a scale from
1 to 4 with 1 meaning not at all satisfied and 4 meaning completely satisfied.
Not at all Satisfied
1
Access to nearby natural areas (i.e. pond, lake, open
space, trails, etc.)
Access to nearby developed outdoor areas (i.e. tennis
2
Completely Satisfied
4
3
Don’t Know
Refused

 




 



Opportunities to walk

 



Amount of open spaces in your neighborhood (i.e. fields,

 



View of nature from your home

 



courts, ball or soccer fields, playground, community gardens, etc.)
parks, woods, lakes, etc.)
4) Please tell me how often, if at all, you participate in any of the following activities in your
neighborhood.88
1
Never
2
Sometimes
3
Often
Refused
Not Applicable –
Absent in
Neighborhood
Organization related to your employment (i.e. trade unions,





Public bodies or committees concerned with community
affairs





Political organizations





Educational or training organizations





Churches or religious groups





Charitable organizations





Civic or community groups (i.e. rent-payers association, parent-










Community gardens





Crime-watch groups





business clubs, and professional associations.)
teacher association)
Social clubs (i.e. sports, dance, automobile, hobby,
fraternal)
Q5: How many people would you say you personally know who live in <community
name>?89 ____
 Don't know
 Refused
Q6: How many adult friends do you have who live within a ten minute walk from your
home? ____
 Don't know
 Refused
19
Q7: How many adult relatives or in-laws do you have who live within a ten minute
walk from your home? ____
 Don't know
 Refused
Q8: Thinking about all your adult friends that you have now, what proportion of them
would you say live in <community name>? (E.g. 50%) ____
 Don't know
 Refused
Q9: In your opinion, over the past five years, has this neighborhood gotten better,
worse or stayed the same?
 Better => Why? _______________________________
 Worse => Why?________________________________
 Stayed the Same
*****
 Don’t Know
 Refused
Interviewer Note (If R has not lived in the neighborhood at least 5 years): “Since you have lived in here,
has this neighborhood gotten better, worse, or stayed the same?”
Interviewer Note (if needed for clarification): “When weighing all of the positive and negative aspects, overall
in the past 5 years, do you believe this neighborhood has gotten better, gotten worse, or stayed about the same?”
Q10: In your opinion, over the next five years, will this neighborhood get better,
worse or will it stay about the same?
 Better
 Worse
 Stay about the same
*****
 Don’t Know
 Refused
Q11: Overall, how would you rate this neighborhood as a place to live? Excellent,
good, fair, or poor?
 Excellent
 Good
 Fair
 Poor
******
 Don’t know
 Refused
Q12: Do you expect to be living in this neighborhood five years from now?
 No =>Q12a
 Yes =>Q13
*****
 Don’t Know =>Q12a
 Refused =>Q13
20
Q12a: Why do you not expect to live in this neighborhood five years from now?
Enter Open-ended Response: ________________________________________________
*****
 Don’t Know
 Refused
Q13: Is there an area around here, where you are now living, which you would
say you belong to, and where you feel “at home?”
 No
 Yes
*****
 Don’t Know
 Refused
Q14: How interested are you to know what goes on in <community name>?
Not at all Interested
Somewhat Interested
Very Interested
*****
 Don’t Know
 Refused
Q15: Suppose that for some reason you had to move away from < community
name> would you be…90
Very Unhappy
Somewhat Unhappy
Somewhat Happy
Very Happy
*****
 Don’t Know
 Refused
Q16: What are the advantages of living in this neighborhood? What do you like
about living here?
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
*****
 Don’t Know
 Refused
21
Q17: What do you believe are the three main issues facing your neighborhood at
this time?
DO NOT READ OPTIONS; SELECT UP TO 3
Expense/Economy
 Too expensive (general)
 Housing affordability
 Affordability of services (grocery stores, restaurants, merchandise stores)
 Unemployment
 Not enough homeowners
Amenities
 Availability of services (presence of stores)
 Lack of recreation opportunities
 Lack of public transportation
 Lack of sidewalks
Quality of Life
 Nuisances (loud music, dogs barking, traffic)
 Lack of community gathering opportunities
 Tensions between different racial or ethnic groups
 Tensions between different economic groups
 Too trendy
 Lack of community feel
 Lack of communication between neighbors
Appearance
 Appearance of neighborhood (trash, vacant lots)
 Unmaintained properties (residential and commercial)
 Poor quality of schools
 Lack of green space (parks, gardens)
Safety/Crime
 Non-violent Crime (burglaries, thefts, prostitution, drug dealing, gangs)
 Violent Crime (assaults, muggings, murder, rapping)
 Vandalism and graffiti
 Speeding cars
 Lack of adequate street lighting
******
 Other (please specify): _________________________
 Not Applicable (No issues/problems)
Don’t know
Refused
Q18: Do you currently have a garden at your home? 91
Interviewer Note: If needed, this can include both edible and non-edible plant cultivation.
 No => Q20
 Yes => Q18a & Q18b
*****
 Don't know => Q20
 Refused => Q20
22
Q18a: In general, how many years have you been gardening? ______
 Don't know
 Refused
Q18b: Do you grow edible plants?
 No => Q20
 Yes => Q19
*****
 Don't know => Q20
 Refused => Q20
Q19: What percentage of your household’s food typically comes from the garden?
______%
 Don't know
 Refused
Q20: Do you currently garden at a community garden?
 No => Q20a
 Yes => Which garden? _________________________ =>Q20b & Q20c
*****
 Don't know => Q20a
 Refused => Q20a
Q20a: If a community garden plot were available to you, how likely would you be to use it?
 No => Why not? _________________________ =>Q21
 Yes => Q20b & Q20c
*****
 Don't know =>Q21
 Refused =>Q21
Q20b: What are the three main reasons that you (would like/do) to participate in a
community garden? 92 DO NOT READ OPTIONS; SELECT UP TO 3
Taste of home-grown food
Save money on food bills
Grow higher quality food
Grow food I know is safe
Feel more productive
Spend more time outdoors
Get back to basics
Have food to share with others
Live more locally or sustainable
Participate in a family activity
Participate in a neighborhood activity
 Meet other people in the neighborhood
 Meet other people interested in gardening
Teach my kids about gardening
*****
Other (please specify): _________________________
 Don't know
 Refused
23
Q20c: How much of a motivating factor is the current economic downturn in your desire to
participate in community gardening? 93
Very much
Somewhat
Not at all
*****
Don’t know
Refused
Q21: The following are statements people have made about the food in their household.
Please tell me how often each statement has been true for your household in the past 30
days.94
Always Often Sometimes Never Don’t Know Refused
We/You were not able to afford more food to eat.






We/You were not able to afford more of the kinds of
food we wanted to eat.






We/You were not able to afford to eat healthier meals.






Finally, I have just a few questions that are for demographic purposes
only.
D1: What is your gender?
 Male
 Female
 Other
D2: How many years have you lived in this home? ______ years
 Don't know
 Refused
D3: Which of the following age groups are you in?
18-24 years old
25-34 years old
35-44 years old
45-54 years old
55-64 years old
65 years of age or older
*****
Refused
24
D4: What is your marital status? Are you:
 Single, never married
 Married
 Living with a partner
 Separated
 Divorced
 Widowed
 Remarried
*****
 Refused
D5: Do you consider yourself either Hispanic or Latino/a?
 Yes
 No
*****
 Don’t Know
Refused
D6: Do you consider yourself…
READ OPTIONS 1-5
White or Caucasian
Black or African-American
American Indian or Alaska Native
Asian
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
*****
Other (Please specify)_____________
Don’t know
Refused
D7: Could you please tell me the highest level of education you have completed?
READ OPTIONS IF NEEDED
Grade school or less
Some high school
Graduated high school or GED
Some college (no degree)
Associate degree (AA or 2-year college)
College graduate (BA/BS)
Some graduate study
Graduate degree
*****
Don’t know
Refused
D8: Do you own or rent this home?
 Own
 Rent
*****
 Other (Please specify):_______________
 Refused
25
D9: How many people, including yourself, are currently living in your household? ____
 Don't know
 Refused
D10: What was your total annual household income before taxes, in 2008? Please stop me
when I reach the correct category.
Interviewer Note: Your best estimate is fine.
 Less than $10,000
 $10,000 to $14,999
 $15,000 to $24,999
 $25,000 to $34,999
 $35,000 to $49,999
 $50,000 to $74,999
 $75,000 to $99,999
 $100,000 to $149,999
*****
 Don't know
 Refused
END: That completes the survey! Is there anything you would like to add?
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
Great! Thank you so much for you time and have a nice day!
INTERVIEWER LOG
{SEPARATE FROM PAPER SURVEY - Staple to completed survey}
Date: ____________________
Time: ___________________
Location (Address):_________________________________________________
Notes: ___________________________________________________________________________________
26
Appendix B: Post-Garden Neighborhood Survey
<INSERT NEW QUESTIONS BEFORE Q18>
NEWQ1: Have you noticed the new <name> community garden in this neighborhood?
 Yes =>NEWQ2 & NEWQ3
 No => DEMOGRAPHICS
*****
 Don’t Know => DEMOGRAPHICS
Refused => DEMOGRAPHICS
NEW Q2: Since seeing the <name> community garden, have you become more aware or
interested in….?
READ OPTIONS 1-6; SELECT ALL THAT APPLY
Growing your own food
Sustainable living
Organic food
Farmers markets
Neighborhood activities
Neighborhood improvements
*****
Don’t know
Refused
Interviewer Note: Organic food can be defined as food that is farmed without the use of pesticides, antibiotics or genetically
altered organisms.
NEWQ3: What, if anything, do you think the <name> community garden adds to your
neighborhood?
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
*****
 Don’t Know
 Refused
1
Inger Birkeland, “Cultural Sustainability: Industrialism, Placelessness and the Re-animation of Place.” Ethics, Place and Environment 11 (2008),
283-297.
2 Simon Parker, Urban Theory and the Urban Experience: Encountering the City (New York, Routledge, 2004).
3
Parker, 175.
4 Richard T. LeGates and Frederic Stout eds., “Editors Note,” The City Reader (New York, Routledge, 2007) 438.
5 See, e.g. City of Berkeley, CA., Berkeley’s General Plan: A Framework for Public Decision-Making: 2000-2020 at 68 (1999); City of Seattle, WA.,
Towards a Sustainable Seattle: A Plan for Growth 1994-2014, at G74 (July 1994).
27
6
Leigh Holland, Diversity and Connections in Community Gardens: A Contribution to Local Sustainability, Local Environment, 9:3 (June 2004),
285.
7
See, e.g. Portland State University’s School of Urban Studies and Planning, The Diggable City: Making Urban Agriculture a Planning Priority
(June 2005); City of Vancouver, B.C., Canada, Department of Social Planning, Vancouver Food System Assessment, (2005)
8 Portland State University’s School of Urban Studies and Planning, The Diggable City: Making Urban Agriculture a Planning Priority (June 2005).
9 Wendy Mendes, Kevin Balmer, Terra Kaethler, and Amanda Rhoads, “Using Land Inventories to Plan for Urban Agriculture: Experiences from
Portland and Vancouver,” Journal of the American Planning Association 74:4 (2008), 435.
10 Ibid., 436.
11 Anne Whiston Sprin, The Granite Garden: Urban Nature and Human Design (New York, Basic Books, 1984).
12 “About us,” United States Department of Agriculture, National Institute on Food and Agriculture, access on November 29, 2009, available at
<http://www.csrees.usda.gov/qlinks/extension.html>
13 Sami Grover, “Self-Sufficient Detroit? Urban Food Revolution in Motor City,” TreeHugger: A Discovery Company, August 2009, accessed
November 27, 2009, available at < http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/08/self-sufficient-detroit.php>
14
Dayo Olopade, “Green Shoots in New Orleans,” The Nation, September 21, 2009, accessed November 20, 2009, available at <
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090921/olpade>
15 James Howard Kunstler, The Long Emergency: Surviving the End of Oil, Climate Change, and Other Converging Catastrophes of the TwentyFirst Century (New York, Grove Press, 2005).
16 Timothy Beatley and Kristy Manning, The Ecology of Place: Planning for Environment, Economy and Community, (Washington D.C., Island
Press, 1997), 90.
17 Mendes et al., 436.
18
The United State Environmental Protection Agency, Heat Island Effect: Green Roofs, February 9, 2009, accessed November 1, 2009, available
at <http://www.epa.gov/heatisland/mitigation/greenroofs.htm>
19
Holland, 285.
20 Timothy Beatley, Native to Nowhere: Sustaining Home and Community in a Global Age, (Washington D.C., Island Press, 2004), 151.
21
Grimwade, Robin, et al., “Community Gardens Technical Paper Draft,” Portland Park and Recreation Report (June 2008) 1.
22 National Gardening Association, “The Impact of Home and Community Gardening in America,” Executive Summary (January 2009) 4.
23 National Gardening Association, 4.
24 Charles A. Lewis, Green Nature Human Nature: The Meaning of Plants in Our Lives, (Urbana, University of Illinois Press, 1996) 1.
25 Lewis (1996), 4.
26 Health Council of the Netherlands, Nature and Health: The Influence of Nature on Social, Psychological, and Physical Well-Being (The Hague,
Health Council of the Netherlands and RMNO, 2004) available at <www.healthcouncil.nl>
27
Victoria Ranney, Olmsted in Chicago (Chicago: R.R. Connelley, 1972) 7.
28 Diane Relf, Forward to People-Plant Relationships: Setting Research Priorities edited by Joel Flagler and Raymond Poincelot (New York, Food
Products Press, 1994) xix.
29
Jo Aldridge and Joe Sempik, Social and Therapeutic Horticulture: Evidence and Messages from Research, Centre for Child and Family Research
at Loughborough University, CCFR Evidence Paper issue 6, December 2002.
30 Chellis Glendinning, Deep Ecology for the 21st Century: Readings on the Philosophy and Practice of the New Environmentalism, George
Sessions ed. (Boston, Shambhala, 1995) 37.
31
A. Light, “Restoration or Domination?” W. Throop ed. Environmental Restoration (New York, Humanity Books, 2000) 95-111.
32 A. Light, “The Urban Blindspot in Environmental Ethics,” Environmental Politics 10:1 (2001) 7-35.
33 A. Light and E. Katz, Environmental Pragmatism (New York, Routledge, 1996).
34
Rachel Kaplan, “Some Psychological Benefits of Gardening,” Environment and Behavior 5:2 (June 1973) 145.
35 Lewis (1996), 53.
36 Douglas Martin, “Charles Lewis, 79, Proponent of Therapeutic Value of Gardens,” The New York Times, January 11, 2004, accessed on
November 15, 2009, available at <http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/11/us/charles-lewis-79-proponent-of-therapeutic-value-of-gardens.html>
37
R.S. Ulrich, “View Though a Window May Influence Recovery from Surgery,” Science volume 224, 1984, 420-421.
38
J. Keep and M. Inman, “Windows in the Intensive Therapy Unit,” Anesthesia 35 (1980) 257-262.
39
Lewis (1996), 54.
40 David Malakoff, “What Good is Community Greening?” The American Community Gardening Association Community Greening Review, 20042005, accessed on October 30, 2009, available at
<http://7d8ca58ce9d1641c9251f63b606b91782998fa39.gripelements.com/docs/WhatGoodisCommunityGreening.pdf>
41 Charles A. Lewis, “Effects of Plants and Gardening in Creating Interpersonal and Community Well-Being,” in The Role of Horticulture in Human
Well-Being and Social Development, Diane Relf ed., (Portland, Oregon, Timber Press, 1992) 59.
42 Lewis (1992), 59.
43 About Philadelphia Green, The Pennsylvania Horticulture Society, 2009, accessed on October 30, 2009, available at
<http://www.pennsylvaniahorticulturalsociety.org/phlgreen/about.html>
44 R. Kaplan and S. Kaplan, The Experience if Nature: A Psychological Perspective, (New York, Cambridge University Press, 1989).
45 A.R. Kearney, “Residential Development Patterns and Neighborhood Satisfaction: Impacts of Density and Nearby Nature,” Environment and
Behavior (2006) 112-139.
46
Martin, 2004.
47 Lewis (1992), 57.
48 Lyndon B. Johnson, Beauty for America: Proceedings of the White House Conference on Natural Beauty (Washington DC, Government
Printing Office, 1965), 2.
49 Lewis (1992), 55.
28
50
Beatley (1997), 2.
David M. Hummon, “Community Attachment: Local Sentiment and Sense of Place” Irwin Altman and Setha Low eds. Place Attachment:
Human Behavior and Environment Advances in Theory and Research Vol. 12, 253.
52 S.A. Shumaker, and R.B. Taylor, “Toward a Clarification of People-Place Relationships: A model of Attachment to Place,” N.R. Feimer & E.S.
Geller eds., Environmental Psychology (New York, Prarger, 1983), 219-251.
53 Hummon, 261.
54
Marcus Cooper, “Environmental Memories,” in Altman, I. and Setha M. eds, Place Attachment (New York, Plenum Press, 1992) 87-112.
55 Ghozlane Fleury-Bahi, Marie-Line Félonneau, and Dorothée Marchand, “Processes of Place Identification and Residential Satisfaction,”
Environment and Behavior, 40 (2008) 669-682.
56 Birkeland, 292.
57 Misun Hur, Jack Nasar, and Bumseok Chun, “Neighborhood Satisfaction, Physical and Perceived Naturalness and Openness,” Journal of
Environmental Psychology (2009) 1.
58 G. Francescato, S. Weidemann, J.R. Anderson, and R. Chenoweth, “Residents’ Satisfaction in HUD-Assisted Housing: Design and Management
Factors,” (Washington D.C., U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1979).
59 R. Kaplan, “Nature at the Doorstep: Residential Satisfaction and the Nearby Environment,” Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 2
(1985) 115-127.
60 R. Kaplan, “The Nature of the View from Home: Psychological Benefits,” Environment and Behavior 33:4 (2001) 507-542.
61 Kearney (2006), 112-139.
62 M.J. Sirgy and T. Cornwell, “How Neighborhood Features Affect Quality of Life,” Social Indicators Research 59:1 (2002) 79-114.
63 M. Bonaiuto, F. Fornara and M. Bonnes, “Indexes of Perceived Residential Environment Quality and Neighborhood Attachment in Urban
Environments: A Conformation Study on the City of Rome, Landscape and Urban Planning, 65 (2003) 41-52.
64 M. Francis, P. Lindsey, and J.S. Rice eds., The Healing Dimensions of People-Plant Relations: Proceedings of the Research Symposium,
Department of Environmental Design (Davis, University of California, 1994).
65 R. Kaplan and S. Kaplan (1989).
66
Kearney (2006) 112-139.
67 Charlene A. Browne, “The Role of Nature for the Promotion of Well-Being of the Elderly,” in The Role of Horticulture in Human Well-Being and
Social Development, Diane Relf ed., (Portland, Oregon, Timber Press, 1992) 75.
68 Takemi Sugiyama, Catharine Ward Thompson, and Susana Alves, “Associations between Neighborhood Open Space Attributes and Quality of
Life for Older People in Britain,” Environment and Behavior 41:1 (2009) 3.
69 “Paradise Dimmed: City Planning” The Economist (1997) 344, 21.
70 J. Christ, “Newcomers are Nice, but Open Space is Missed,” The Oregonian, October 2, 1995, A6.
71
B. Bolitzer and N.R. Netusil, “The Impact of Open Spaces on Property Values in Portland Oregon,” Journal of Environmental Management 59
(2000) 185-193.
72 “Urban Agriculture Services,” Janus Youth Programs website, access November 21, 2009, available at <http://www.janusyouth.org/what-wedo/urban-agriculture-services.php>
73 “City of Portland 2009 Resident Survey Results Report,” Office of the City Auditor Portland, Oregon, available at <
http://www.portlandonline.com/auditor/index.cfm?c=49566&a=270760> 2.
74 “City Auditor’s annual community survey report gives Portland Parks & Recreation high marks,” News About Portland Parks & Recreation,
November 12, 2009, Portland Parks and Recreation website, accessed November 13, 2009, available at
<http://www.portlandonline.com/PARKS/index.cfm?c=40197#cid_271832>
75 Debi Elliott, Tara Horn, Amber Johnson, and Tiffany Conklin. “Recreation Needs Assessment: Results Report,” Portland Parks and Recreation
Department, August 2008.
76 Grimwade et al., 8.
77 Fogarty, Class notes, November 2009.
78 Royce Singleton and Bruce Straits, Approaches to Social Research (New York, Oxford University Press, 2005) 238.
79
Lisa Vaughn, Janet Forbes, and Britteny Howell, “Using Photovoice Methodology to Give “Voice” to those Typically Unheard,” Paper
presented to the Third National Conference on Interdisciplinary Social Sciences (July 2008) available at
<http://i08.cgpublisher.com/proposals/368/index_html>
80 Ibid.
81 Daniel M. Sullivan, Alberta Neighborhood Survey Final Report, Portland State University Department of Sociology (November 2004).
82 Grimwade et al., 18.
83 Vicki Been and Ioan Voicu, “The Effect of Community Gardens on Neighboring Property Values.” Working Paper New York University School
of Law (2006).
84 Bolitzer, 185.
85 Singleton, 277.
86 Kearney, 124.
87 Ibid.
88 John D. Kasarda and Morris Janowitz, “Community Attachment in Mass Society,” American Sociological Review, 39:3 (June 1974) 331.
89 Ibid.
90
Ibid.
91 Portland State University’s School of Urban Studies and Planning, The Diggable City: Making Urban Agriculture a Planning Priority: Gardening
and Urban Agriculture Survey (June 2005).
92 National Gardening Association (2009), 9.
93 Ibid.
51
29
94
“Community Food Project Evaluation Toolkit,” Community Food Security Coalition (National Research Center 2006)
30