Exploring the co-benefits (and costs) of home gardening for biodiversity conservation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite growing evidence pointing to the multiple benefits of home gardening, few studies have considered the health and well-being benefits perceived by gardeners who are principally motivated by biodiversity conservation (i.e. home gardening for biodiversity conservation). This study explores the environmental, social and economic co-benefits (and costs) of home gardening for biodiversity conservation in the City of Winnipeg, Canada. A total of 42 semi-structured interviews (30–60 min each) were conducted with 50 home gardeners who were formally certified or locally recognised for undertaking multiple gardening activities that promote biodiversity conservation. Thematic analysis revealed that study participants self-reported a range of environmental, psychological, physiological and social outcomes associated with their home gardening experiences. Despite home gardening often being a solitary activity, most gardeners valued the multiple forms of social interaction that occurred during important social events in their garden, or when connecting with passers-by. Home gardeners also cited benefits related to connection to nature and place attachment; attention restoration; reduced stress and anxiety; improved mood; satisfaction and pride; increased self-esteem and courage to do things differently in life; and, important education or learning opportunities. However, conflicts relating to the nexus between biodiversity and perceived tidiness of gardens emerged, which raise important ethical and social justice issues for sustainability planning. We compare key insights to the benefits (and costs) of community gardening and make some recommendations for future research, including how to engage more disadvantaged groups in gardening for conservation.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".