Can urban gardens improve food security, health, well-being and financial sustainability of households?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction An increased consumption of fresh fruit and vegetables is associated with health benefits [1 World Health Organization. Increasing fruit and vegetable consumption to reduce the risk of noncommunicable diseases. Available from: https://www.who.int/elena/titles/fruit_vegetables_ncds/en/ [Google Scholar],2 Hartley L, Igbinedion E, Holmes J, Flowers N, Thorogood M, Clarke A, Stranges S, Hooper L, Rees K. Increased consumption of fruit and vegetables for the primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;2013(6):CD009874,1--55. [Google Scholar]]. Including them in the daily diet can reduce the risk of noncommunicable diseases [2 Hartley L, Igbinedion E, Holmes J, Flowers N, Thorogood M, Clarke A, Stranges S, Hooper L, Rees K. Increased consumption of fruit and vegetables for the primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;2013(6):CD009874,1--55. [Google Scholar]]. Urban gardens (UG) can improve communities around them by allowing a supply of such products [3 Corrigan MP. Growing what you eat: developing community gardens in Baltimore, Maryland. Appl Geogr. 2011;31(4):1232–1241.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar],4 Litt JS, Soobader MJ, Turbin MS, et al. The influence of social involvement, neighborhood aesthetics, and community garden participation on fruit and vegetable consumption. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(8):1466–1473.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]], by contributing to conscious decisions about eating [4 Litt JS, Soobader MJ, Turbin MS, et al. The influence of social involvement, neighborhood aesthetics, and community garden participation on fruit and vegetable consumption. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(8):1466–1473.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]] and lessening the health costs of its populations [2–4 Hartley L, Igbinedion E, Holmes J, Flowers N, Thorogood M, Clarke A, Stranges S, Hooper L, Rees K. Increased consumption of fruit and vegetables for the primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;2013(6):CD009874,1--55. Corrigan MP. Growing what you eat: developing community gardens in Baltimore, Maryland. Appl Geogr. 2011;31(4):1232–1241. Litt JS, Soobader MJ, Turbin MS, et al. The influence of social involvement, neighborhood aesthetics, and community garden participation on fruit and vegetable consumption. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(8):1466–1473. ], by improving their participants self-esteem, and by helping in the development of competencies [4 Litt JS, Soobader MJ, Turbin MS, et al. The influence of social involvement, neighborhood aesthetics, and community garden participation on fruit and vegetable consumption. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(8):1466–1473.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]]. This preliminary study aimed to understand the parameters that could be evaluated on a greater scale future study, to assess the role of urban gardens in their participants health, nutrition knowledge and family budget.Materials and methods An UG in Setúbal, Portugal, was selected for this study. All data was collected in October, 2018 and included: demographic data from the gardeners (n = 133), a “Food and Nutrition Knowledge” validated questionnaire [5 Turrel G, Kavanaugh A. Socio-economic pathways to diet: modelling the association between socio-economic position and food purchasing behaviour. Public Health Nutr. 2005;9(3):375–383.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]] with 20 true and false questions (n = 6), and semi-structured interviews (n = 6). All interviewed gardeners understood the purpose and signed the informed consent.Results The UG had 138 plots with 133 in use. Most of the gardeners were men (59.9%) and under 65 years of age (74.4%). 30,5% had an income under (n = 133) 11,999€per year.Discussion and conclusions Our results meet those of recent studies that enhance the importance of UG in feeding populations, especially those with diminished food security and low access to fresh quality products [6–8 Bretzel F, Caudai C, Tassi E, et al. Culture and horticulture: protecting soil quality in urban gardening. Sci Total Environ. 2018;644:45–51. Wakefield S, Yeudall F, Taron C, et al. Growing urban health: community gardening in south-east Toronto. Health Promotion Int. 2007;22(2):92–101. Nova P, Pinto E, Chaves B, et al. Growing health and quality of life: benefits of urban organic community gardens. JNHFS. 2018;6(1):1–7. ]. Increased level of activity, higher fruit and vegetable consumption, along with savings in the family budget were referred by gardeners supporting the need for a more in-depth study. The UG is eligible for an observational study using the methods already stated. In addition, collection of anthropometric data and nutritional and cognitive screening tests would allow for a better view of the gardeners health.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.001 |
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".