Growing third places: A qualitative study of experiences and perceived benefits of a campus community garden as a nature-based health intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explored the experiences and perceived health and wellbeing benefits of participating in a campus community garden among university staff, students, and faculty. Community gardens are increasingly recognized for their potential to positively impact physical, mental, and emotional health, as well as increase social connection. Their impact within university settings, specifically in Canadian post-secondary contexts, remains underexplored. This qualitative study was conducted at a large Canadian university. Fourteen participants affiliated with the campus community garden (including students, staff, and faculty) participated in semi-structured, in-depth interviews. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Four key themes emerged: (1) the garden as a "third place", (2) deepened connection to nature, (3) empowerment through knowledge and ability to grow food, and (4) community building. Findings suggest that campus community gardens offer a cost-effective and accessible approach to supporting mental wellbeing, food security, and connectedness to nature in post-secondary settings. By functioning as a third place and fostering engagement with nature, campus community gardens may provide students and staff with meaningful opportunities for community integration, improved wellbeing and personal growth. These findings support integrating community gardens into campus wellness strategies and sustainability initiatives.
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".