Sowing social inclusion for marginalised residents of a social housing development through a community garden
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ISSUE ADDRESSED: In addition to food, physical activity, mental health and environmental benefits, community gardens (CGs) provide opportunities for social inclusion and increased social capital. These are particularly important to the socially isolated residents of social housing developments (SHDs). This scoping study explored the feasibility of a CG program for tenants of SHD in inner eastern Melbourne by assessing their interest in, and requirements for, inclusively designed CGs. METHODS: In this phenomenological enquiry, focus group discussions, supported by photo-elicitation, were employed. Three focus groups (N = 19) were conducted with self-selected participants who consented to participate. Two focus groups were conducted with English-speaking tenants while a third focus group was conducted with Mandarin-speaking tenants. RESULTS: There was a demand for CGs by the English-speaking participants driven by desire for networking, social connectedness and inclusion; for improved access to fresh produce, connection with nature, physical activity and mental well-being. Participants expressed interest in a garden located near their SHD with supportive physical and social environments including disability access, plot autonomy, fencing, socio-cultural events, training programs and management opportunities. However, the Mandarin-speaking tenants maintained that age, language difficulty and neighbourhood insecurity posed significant barriers to their participation. CONCLUSION: Guided by the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion, social inclusion and community development theories, the study recommends that to establish socially inclusive CGs, a dynamic relationship of the design principles of a CG and the socio-ecological determinants of health should be established to address any barriers and successfully facilitate engagement. In addition, CG programs need to be guided by community development principles. Future research could employ community-based participatory research models in the implementation and evaluation of a CG program for socially isolated population groups.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".