Social Strengths

Urban green spaces can provide a neutral space within which people come together, social interactions occur (that include people from different backgrounds), and relationships or partnerships take form. While personal goals or desires are achieved, community building and increased social capital also emerge, particularly if people share work on a project or goal. Individual benefits, improved public health, and social resilience are potential positive outcomes.

Fast Facts

  • Physical features influence social contact among neighbors, and nature plays an important role in creating vital neighborhood spaces.1
  • A study in urban public housing found that the presence of well managed vegetation was very important feature in promoting the development of social ties within urban public housing.2
  • People prefer natural over hardscape settings, and preferences are predictors of the use of environments. A study found that urban residents dislike and fear treeless, empty common spaces. The addition of trees and grass dramatically changed their perceptions of those spaces.2
  • The presence, number, and location of trees strongly predicted the amount of time that inner-city residents actually spent in outdoor common spaces around urban public housing.3
  • More social activities were observed in public housing common spaces that had trees compared to treeless spaces of the same size.4
  • Older adults who have more exposure to green common spaces report a stronger sense of unity among residents within their local neighborhood, and experience a stronger sense of belonging to the neighborhood.5
  • Strong community relationships may result in individuals being more likely to work together to achieve common goals (e.g., cleaner and safer public spaces), to exchange information, and to maintain informal social controls (e.g., discouraging crime or other undesirable behaviors).6
  • These situations can influence public health. Communities where residents express high mutual trust and reciprocity have been linked with lower homicide rates. Neighborhoods lacking social cohesion and community wellness conversely, have been related to higher rates of social disorder, anxiety, and depression.7

cite: Wolf, K.L., and M.A. Rozance. 2013. Social Strengths - A Literature Review. In: Green Cities: Good Health (www.greenhealth.washington.edu). College of the Environment, University of Washington.




City parks, gardens, and open spaces are often filled with people of all ages and backgrounds looking for a brief respite from their bustling urban lifestyle. Public green spaces draw people for many reasons: to relax, find inspiration, exercise, and to gather with friends and family. While there, they inevitably interact with others, be it a smile in passing, joining in informal discussion, or play. These seemingly banal and unimportant social interactions can contribute substantially to community enhancement.

Researchers and social theorists have looked at the relationship between urban green spaces and community building. From casual interactions to organized events, urban green spaces can provide a neutral space within which people gather, people from different backgrounds come together and interact socially, and where relationships and partnerships take form. While personal goals or desires are pursued, community building and increased social capital also emerge, particularly if people share work on a project or goal. A sense of connectedness fosters greater trust and cooperation among individuals, potentially leading to greater community resilience in the face of adversity. These social dynamics help promote community wellness and social cohesion, critical components of a well-functioning society.

What is “Community?”

People regularly gather together to accomplish a goal, relax, recreate, or enjoy a physical space. It is through these different interactions that community is formed. Community can result from the creation or enhancement of a place shared by neighboring individuals (such as a physical neighborhood community) or it can arise from the creation of a club or association in which individuals share a common interest or activity. At the core of every community are individuals that share values, ethics, or beliefs.

Early on sociologists defined “community” as a group of people living and interacting within specific geographical boundaries. The definition has since expanded beyond geographical terms and can include a social group of any size sharing the same belief, values, interests, intentions, needs, or place and is encouraged by social exchanges.8

Some types of community are defined by the level of social cohesion or interrelatedness among individuals, whether residing near each other or not.9 Community may also form around purpose; it can be a collection of people with differing but harmonious views, skills, perceptions, and so on who can, with some outside stimulus (e.g., funding, professional advice, or associated groups), develop in a cooperative way to achieve valued outcomes.10 For example, a “business community” is a group of individuals that share economic interests; programs or actions define their connections.

The concept of community has many attributes and expressions, but key terms and processes are “social interaction,” “social cohesion,” and “social capital.”

Social Interaction

Social interaction is defined as formal or informal opportunity for people to attend to their interpersonal relationships. It includes neighborly, casual social encounters, community participation, and social support.11 Social exchanges can be as spontaneous as smiling at a stranger as one passes by or as casual as saying hello to a neighbor and asking about their family’s wellbeing. Such casual interactions in day-to-day life between people of different backgrounds are the starting point of interpersonal bonds and the basis of cohesion.12,13,14 Casual, informal contact helps individuals feel accepted by others within their community, leading to a sense of belonging.11

Public spaces offer opportunity for open interactions between people of different backgrounds.14,15 Some cultural theorists argue that interactions in public spaces are too informal to form a sense of shared values; others assert that such interactions can and do lead to social cohesion.16 Public spaces enable both incidental and brief interactions as well as intentional and lengthier interactions,17 and any level of interaction may serve to alleviate tensions in a neighborhood that can otherwise hinder a sense of community.14

Social Cohesion

Social cohesion is the interdependence between members of a community experienced as shared loyalties and solidarity. Social cohesion keeps a society in order.18 Extreme divisions between groups and/or individuals signal a lack of social cohesion. Sociologists have noted the importance of social cohesion in community formation and in maintaining a healthy society.19

Social Capital

Social capital is loosely defined as the “glue” that holds a community together.18 It emerges within networks of social relations that are characterized by norms of trust and reciprocity and in which there is a shared give-and-take in daily life.20 There are numerous theoretical perspectives on social capital. One focuses on the ability of a community to encourage participation, organization and interaction.18 Increasing a community’s social capital is believed to be a route to strengthening and enhancing community wellness. Theory of social capital also considers benefits to individuals. By enhancing social capital in their relationships, individuals can further their own goals.21,22 Social capital makes it possible to accomplish things that cannot be accomplished by individuals in its absence23 and supports conditions for mutual benefit.22

Decline of Community

Following the industrial revolution and modernization, cultural theorists recognized that the basis of community underwent a transformation.19 Toennies observed that the focus of community dynamics changed from kin and small group interpersonal loyalties (termed Gemeinschaft) to relationships that are chosen to promote individual self-interest (or Gesellschaft). The previous village-based social fabric was weakened due to cultural emphasis on capital and business efficiency.Durkheim held a more positive view on societal change, but was concerned about the onset of “anomie”: that social norms and values would be so weakened that individuals felt little moral guidance or ties to society.

In Bowling Alone, Robert Putman wrote about the ongoing decline of a sense of community in current times.23 Putman identified contemporary forces and patterns and ascribed decreasing rates of participation in social organizations or community activities to an increase in individualistic behavior. Decreases in time and money, increased suburbanization, generational changes, and electronic entertainments are conditions that he proposes have lead to reduced sense of community and lower social cohesion relative to previous decades.

Benefits of a Strong Community

Why is an analysis of community important? Why would community leaders be interesting in building more opportunities for interaction, cohesion, and thus increased social capital?

Social relationships are important to individuals in all cultures and at all times throughout their lives.5 Individuals and groups within communities with strong social cohesion and social capital experience many positive benefits as the result of community wellness. For example, neighborhood peers and family members can greatly affect youth behavior.24 Children and youth in close-knit communities are less likely to participate in health-threatening behaviors such as smoking, drinking, gang involvement, or drug use.7 Stronger neighborhood social ties provide more available adult guidance and role models for the community’s youth. Also, elderly individuals with strong social connections have lower rates of early mortality,25,26,27 reduced suicide rates,28,29 less fear of crime,30,31 and better physical health.5,32

Strong community relationships may prompt individuals to work together to achieve common goals (e.g., strive to create clean and safe public spaces), to exchange valuable information, and to maintain informal social controls (e.g., discourage crime or other undesirable behaviors), all of which can directly or indirectly influence personal health.6 Communities in which residents experience frequent interactions, high mutual trust, and social reciprocity have been linked with lower homicide rates33 and less crime.34,35 Conversely, neighborhoods lacking social cohesion and community wellness have been linked to social disorder, anxiety, and depression.36,37,38



Community Benefits of
Social Capital and Social Cohesion

adapted from Wood and Giles-Corti, 20088
 

*Lower mortality rates39,40
*Higher self-rated health41,42
*Lower prevalence of sexually transmitted disease43
*Lower prevalence of smoking44
*Less frequent teenage pregnancy45
*More social support46
*Lower incidence of crime,
including violent crime42,47
*Lower incidence of burglary42
*More trust in neighbors48
*Lower levels of neighborhood violence33
*Neighborly interactions49
*Positive impact on children’s well-being50

 

Nature & Vital Neighborhood Spaces

Well-managed vegetation may be one of the most important features that promote the development of social ties.5 Studies show that the presence of trees and grass is related to the rate of use of outdoor spaces, the amount of social activity that takes place within them, and the proportion of social to nonsocial activities they support. Physical features influence social contact among neighbors, and nature plays an important role in creating vital neighborhood spaces.1 Research explains why urban green areas may help promote social ties:

  • People prefer natural over hardscape settings, and preferences are predictors of the use of environments. A study found that urban residents dislike and fear treeless, empty common spaces. The addition of trees and grass dramatically changed their perceptions of those spaces.2
  • The presence, number, and location of trees strongly predict the amount of time that inner-city residents actually spent in outdoor common spaces.3
  • The presence of trees and grass in outdoor common spaces predict the amount of social activity that occurred within those spaces. A study found that more social activities were observed in inner city common spaces with trees than in treeless spaces of the same size.1,4
  • Inner-city residents living near green common spaces spend more time in that space than other residents with treeless common space.2 Additionally, the more time people spent in this common space, the better they knew their neighbors and the greater their sense of community.
  • Caring for trees is related to social ties among neighbors. Inner-city residents who spend time in outdoor common spaces caring for flowers, grass, or trees outside of their homes were more likely to have strong social networks with their neighbors.5,51
  • Results consistently indicate that natural landscaping encourages greater use of outdoor areas by residents. Spaces with trees attract larger groups of people—as well as more mixed groups of youth and adults—than did spaces devoid of natural elements. In addition, more dense groupings of trees and trees that are located close to public housing buildings attract larger groups of people.3
  • Older adults who have more exposure to green common spaces share a stronger sense of local community than those with less exposure to green common spaces. They report a stronger sense of unity among residents, experience a stronger sense of belonging to the neighborhood, and feel that neighbors are more supportive of one another than individuals who have less exposure to green common spaces.5
  • In the Netherlands, parks have helped create social cohesion. Ethnic groups mingle there, creating informal social ties.14

Having outdoor common space does not of itself promote social ties. Features of the urban physical environment, such as crowding, noise and pollution, and perceptions of negative conditions (especially threats to safety), all affect human behavior.51 Urban parks can facilitate social cohesion by creating space for social interactions; yet, outdoor common spaces also may be barren and uninviting.5,3

Public Health

The implications of urban green space for public health and epidemiology are a focus of recent research as it appears that social cohesion positively influences public health in multiple ways.39,52For instance, one study found higher risk of death during heart attack recovery in men who were socially isolated.53 Experiences of greenspace, and any associated well-being benefits, are mediated through people’s local social interactions. The associations between social relations and social health (as well as individual mental and physical health) are now being more thoroughly explored, including how greenspace can be planned and managed in ways that is more meaningful to different people and groups.54

Urban Nature and Social Resilience

Some communities experience disruptions (such as loss of a major job providing industry) or a catastrophic disaster (such as hurricane damage). Recent studies are exploring how community-based natural resource management is important to disaster relief and recovery.55 Humans, faced with a disaster, as individuals and as communities, often seek engagement with nature, working together to restore the built environment, including parks and memorials. Urgent biophilia refers to the purposeful contact with green space that supports human efforts to summon and demonstrate resilience in the face of a crisis.56 The affinity (or biophilia) that humans have for nature, the process of remembering that attraction, and the urge to express it through creation of restorative environments may confer resilience across multiple social scales, from individuals to neighborhoods and entire cities.

Social Aspects of Community Gardens:
A Case Study

Community gardens are often grass roots initiatives and can transform dilapidated vacant lots into usable garden spaces, turning community liabilities into assets. The gardens are often started through existing community networks and once created, continue to strengthen social ties.20,22,57 Studies of the social dynamics of community gardens illustrate the relationships between urban greening and community building.

History of Community Gardens in the U.S.

Thomas Jefferson promoted an agrarian vision of American society in which people worked together to grow food for sustenance and commerce. But in 1920, the U.S. Census revealed that, for the first time, more Americans lived in urban than rural settings.58 Urbanization brought new approaches to agriculture.59 During World Wars I and II and the Great Depression, victory gardens and relief gardens were established to ease the demand for food. Modern community gardens emerged in urban areas in the 1960s and 1970s, when urban areas began to decline, sparking interest in creating more green spaces.Vacant lots that had become incubators for crime were transformed into vegetable plots, sitting areas, and play areas.59,60

Places for Social Interaction

While the primary function of community gardens is to grow food, community gardens also serve as a place for people to get together and interact.59,62,63 Social and cultural events are often held in community gardens. Celebrations held there include weddings, birthday parties, religious events, and neighborhood block parties and fairs. In addition, gardeners view these spaces as informal gathering spaces. One gardener in a New York study remarked that community gardens are places where people “develop friendship, learn to share and help other people, exchange plants, [and] help each other.”59

Social Cohesion

As people express their mutual values within garden spaces, relationships are created and strengthened among different groups of people.59 Immigrant communities, such as Puerto Ricans in New York City, have strengthened community ties through a network of community gardens. Gardens can also serve as melting pots for mixed communities. An example is the Garden of Happiness in the Bronx, New York, where African-American and Dominican managers welcomed new Mexican immigrants.

Enhanced Social Capital

Community gardens benefit a community by enhancing relationships among people, increasing community pride, and sometimes serving as a launching point for broader community improvements.65 Within gardens, adults may mentor children, teaching them about horticulture and how to work together as a community to make improvements.66 One study of community gardening and beautification projects found perceptions of increased social capital amongst community members as people felt more connected with their neighbors and more able to depend on those connections.67 In Philadelphia, garden participants were more likely than a control group to consider their neighbors as friendly, a precursor for building social capital.68

Community Empowerment

Gardens can be an important catalyst for addressing community issues, facilitating community organizing and empowerment, thus increasing community capacity.64,69 In a study of community organizing, one garden participant stated: “the process of organizing this garden in the community, it helps people, it helps us to organize other programs that will . . . help us encourage each other.”70 A survey of 63 New York State garden programs found that gardens in low-income neighborhoods were highly likely to lead to other social and neighborhood issues being addressed.69

 

Project support was provided by the national Urban and Community Forestry program of the USDA Forest Service, State and Private Forestry. Summary prepared by Kathleen Wolf, Ph.D. and Mary Ann Rozance, M.S., May 20, 2013.

 

References

1. Sullivan,WC, FE Kuo, and S DePooter. 2004. The Fruit of Urban Nature: Vital Neighborhood Spaces. Environment and Behavior 36, 5:678-700.

2. Kuo, FE, WC Sullivan, RL Coley, and L Brunson. 1998. Fertile Ground for Community: Inner-City Neighborhood Common Spaces. American Journal of Community Psychology 26, 6: 823-851.

3. Coley, RL, FE Kuo, and WC Sullivan. 1997. Where Does Community Grow? The Social Context Created by Nature in Urban Public Housing. Environment and Behavior 29, 4:468-492.

4. Taylor, AF, A Wiley, FE Kuo, and WC Sullivan. 1998. Growing Up in the Inner City. Environment and Behavior 30, 1:3-27.

5. Kweon, BS, WC Sullivan, and R Angel. 1998. Green Common Spaces and the Social Integration of Inner-City Older Adults. Environment and Behavior 30, 6:832-858.

6. Sampson R, J Morenoff, and T Gannon-Rowley. 2002. Assessing "neighborhood effects": Social processes and new directions in research. Annual Review of Sociology 28:443-478.

7. Cubbin, C, S Egerter, P Braveman, and V Pedregon. 2008. Where We Live Matters for Our Health: Neighborhoods and Health. Issue Brief 3 of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Commission to Build a Healthier America, 11 pages.

8. Wood, L, and B Giles-Corti. 2008. Is There a Place for Social Capital in the Psychology of Health and Place? Journal of Environmental Psychology 28, 2:154-163.

9. McMillan, DW, and DM Chavis. 1986. Sense of Community: A Definition and Theory. Journal of Community Psychology 14:6-23.

10. Khan, NA.1999. Community Cooperation in a Voluntary Environmental Project: Some Lessons from Swansea, Wales. Community Development Journal 34, 3:205–218.

11. Kim, J, and R Kaplan. 2004. Physical and Psychological Factors in Sense of Community: New Urbanist Kentlands and Nearby Orchard Village. Environment and Behavior 36, 3:313-340.

12. Potapchuk, WR, JP Crocker, and WH Schechter Jr. 1997. Building Community with Social Capital: Chits and Chums or Chats with Change. National Civic Review 86, 2:129-139.

13. Marschall, MJ, and D Stolle. 2004. Race and the City: Neighborhood Context and the Development of Generalized Trust. Political Behavior 26, 2:125-153.

14. Peters, K, B Elands, and A Buijs. 2009. Social Interactions in Urban Parks: Stimulating Social Cohesion?" Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 9, 2:93-100.

15. Fainstein, SS. 2005. Cities and Diversity. Urban Affairs Review 41, 1: 3.

16. Kleinhans, R, H Priemus, and G Engbersen. 2007. Understanding Social Capital in Recently Restructured Urban Neighbourhoods: Two Case Studies in Rotterdam. Urban Studies 44, 5:1069-1091.

17. Lofland, LH. 1973. A World of Strangers: Order and Action in Urban Public Space. Basic Books, New York.

18. Stone, W, and J Hughes. 2002. Understanding Community Strengths: Can Existing Theories Provide An Overall Framework for Achieving and Identifying Strong Communities? Family Matters 62, 6:1-8.

19. Macionis, JJ, and LM Gerber. 2002. Sociology, Fourth Canadian Edition. Canada: Pearson.

20. Glover, TD. 2004. Social Capital in the Lived Experiences of Community Gardeners. Leisure Sciences 26, 2:143-162.

21. Coleman, JS. 1988. Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. American Journal of Sociology 94, 1:95-120.

22. Lin, N. 2002. Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action. Cambridge University Press.

23. Putnam, R. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster.

24. Case, AC, and LF Katz. 1991. The Company You Keep: The Effects of Family and Neighborhood on Disadvantaged Youths. NBER Working Paper 3705, National Bureau of Economic Research.

25. Sabin, EP. 1993. Social Relationships and Mortality Among the Elderly. Journal of Applied Gerontology 12, 1:44-61.

26. Engedal, K. 1996. Mortality in the Elderly: A 3-Year Follow-Up of An Elderly Community Sample. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 11, 5:467-471.

27. Steinbach, U. 1992. Social Networks, Institutionalization, and Mortality Among Elderly People in the United States. Journal of Gerontology 47, 4:S183-90.

28. Durkheim, E. 2002. Suicide: A Study in Sociology. New York: Psychology Press, 432 pages.

29. Lester, D, and F Moksony. 1994. The Social Correlates of Suicide in Hungary in the Elderly. European Psychiatry 9, 6:273-274.

30. Lee, GR. 1983. Integration and Fear of Crime Among Older Persons. Journal of Gerontology 38, 6:745-50.

31. Ross, CE, and SJ Jang. 2000. Neighborhood Disorder, Fear, and Mistrust: The Buffering Role of Social Ties With Neighbors. American Journal of Community Psychology 28:401-420.

32. Takano, T, K Nakamura, and M Watanabe. 2002. Urban Residential Environments and Senior Citizens’ Longevity in Megacity Areas: The Importance of Walkable Green Spaces. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 56, 12:913-16.

33. Sampson, RJ, SW Raudenbush and F Earls. 1997. Neighborhoods and Violent Crime: A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy. American Association for the Advancement of Science 277, 5328:918-924.

34. Bellair, PS. 1997. Social Interaction and Community Crime: Examining the Importance of Neighbor Networks. Criminology 35:677-704.

35. Hirschfield, A, and KJ Bowers. 1997. The Effect of Social Cohesion on Levels of Recorded Crime in Disadvantaged Areas. Urban Studies 34, 8:1275-1295.

36. Ross, CE. 2000. Neighborhood Disadvantage and Adult Depression. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 41, 2:177-187.

37. Cutrona, CE, DW Russell, RM Hessling, PA Brown, and V Murry. 2000. Direct and Moderating Effects of Community Context on the Well-Being of African American Women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79, 6:1088-1101.

38. Aneshenel, CS, and CA Sucoff. 1996. The Neighborhood Context of Adolescent Mental Health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 37:293-310.

39. Lochner, KA, I Kawachi, RT Brennan, and SL Buka. 2003. Social Capital and Neighborhood Mortality Rates in Chicago. Social Science & Medicine 56, 8:1797-805.

40. Veenstra, G. 2002. Social Capital and Health (Plus Wealth, Income Inequality and Regional Health Governance). Social Science & Medicine 54, 6:849-68.

41. Pollack, CE, and O von dem Knesebeck. 2004. Social Capital and Health Among the Aged: Comparisons Between the United States and Germany. Health & Place 10, 4:383-391.

42. Kawachi, I, BP Kennedy, and R Glass. 1999. Social Capital and Self-Rated Health: A Contextual Analysis. American Journal of Public Health 89, 8:1187.

43. Holtgrave, DR, and RA Crosby. 2003. Social Capital, Poverty, and Income Inequality As Predictors of Gonorrhoea, Syphilis, Chlamydia and AIDS Case Rates in the United States. Sexually Transmitted Infections 79, 1:62-4.

44. Bolin, K, B Lindgren, M Lindström, and P Nystedt. 2003. Investments in Social Capital-Implications of Social Interactions for the Production of Health. Social Science & Medicine 56, 12:2379-90.

45. Moffitt, TE, and E-Risk Study Team. 2002. Teen-Aged Mothers in Contemporary Britain. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines 43, 6:727-42.

46. Felton, BJ, and M Shinn. 1992. Social Integration and Social Support: Moving “Social Support” Beyond the Individual Level. Journal of Community Psychology 20, 2:103-115.

47. Kennedy, BP, and I Kawachi. 1998. The Role of Social Capital in the Russian Mortality Crisis. World Development 26, 11:2029-2043.

48. Ziersch, AM, FE Baum, C MacDougall, and C Putland. 2005. Neighborhood Life and Social Capital: The Implications for Health. Social Science & Medicine 60:71–86.

49. Halpern, D. 1995. Mental Health and the Built Environment: More Than Bricks and Mortar? London: Taylor & Francis.

50. Runyan, DK, WM Hunter, RRS Socolar, L Amaya-Jackson, D English, J Landsverk, H Dubowitz, DH Browne, SI Bangdiwala, and RM Mathew. 1998. Children Who Prosper in Unfavorable Environments: The Relationship to Social Capital. Pediatrics 101, 1:12-18.

51. Brunson, L, FE Kuo, and WC Sullivan. Sowing the Seeds of Community: Greening and Gardening in Inner-City Neighborhoods. unpublished manuscript, University of Illinois.

52. Lomas, J. 1998. Social Capital and Health: Implications for Public Health and Epidemiology. Social Science & Medicine 47, 9:1181-1188.

53. Ruberman, W, E Weinblatt, JD Goldberg, and BS Chaudhary. 1984. Psychosocial Influences on Mortality After Myocardial Infarction. New England Journal of Medicine 311, 9:552-59.

54. Dinnie, E, KM Brown, and S Morris. 2013. Community, Cooperation and Conflict: Negotiating the Social Well-being Benefits of Urban Greenspace Experiences. Landscape and Urban Planning 112:1-9.

55. Tidball, KG. 2010. Greening in the Red Zone: Green Space and Disaster Resistance, Recovery and Resilience. Anthropology News October:10-11.

56. Tidball, KG. 2012. Urgent Biophilia: Human-nature Interactions and Biological Attractions in Disaster Resilience. Ecology and Society 17, 2:5.

57. Jamison, MS. 2005. The Joys of Gardening: Collectivist and Bureaucratic Cultures in Conflict. Sociological Quarterly 26, 4:473-490.

58. Platt, RH. 2004. Land Use and Society: Geography, Law, and Public Policy. Washington DC, Island Press, 488 pages.

59. Saldivar-Tanaka, L, and ME Krasny. 2004. Culturing Community Development, Neighborhood Open Space, and Civic Agriculture: The Case of Latino Community Gardens in New York City. Agriculture and Human Values 21, 4:399-412.

60. Francis, M, L Cashdan, and L Paxson. 1984. Community Open Spaces: Greening Neighborhoods Through Community Action and Land Conservation. Washington D.C., Island Press.

61. Twiss, J, J Dickinson, S Duma, T Kleinman, H Paulsen, and L Rilveria. 2003. Community Gardens: Lessons Learned From California Healthy Cities and Communities. American Journal of Public Health 93, 9:1435-1438.

62. Malakoff, D. 1995. What Good Is Community Greening? Community Greening Review 5:4-11.

63. Bicho, AN. 1996. The Simple Power of Multicultural Community Gardening. Community Greening Review 6:2-11.

64. Schukoske, JE. 1999. Community Development Through Gardening: State and Local Policies Transforming Urban Open Space. Legislation and Public Policy 3:351-392.

65. Wakefield, S, F Yeudall, C Taron, J Reynolds, and A Skinner. 2007. Growing Urban Health: Community Gardening in South-East Toronto. Health Promotion International 22, 2:92-101.

66. Kurtz, H. 2002. Differentiating Multiple Meanings of Garden and Community. Urban Geography 22, 7:656-670.

67. Alaimo, K, TM Reischl, and JO Allen. 2010. Community Gardening, Neighborhood Meetings, and Social Capital. Journal of Community Psychology 38, 4:497-514.

68. Blair, D, CC Giesecke, and S Sherman. 1991. A Dietary, Social and Economic Evaluation of the Philadelphia Urban Gardening Project. Journal of Nutrition Education 23,4:161-167.

69. Armstrong, D. 2000. A Survey of Community Gardens in Upstate New York: Implications for Health Promotion and Community Development. Health and Place 6, 4:319-27.

70. Wakefield, SEL, SJ Elliott, and DC Cole. 2007. Social Capital, Environmental Health and Collective Action: A Hamilton, Ontario Case Study. Canadian Geographer 51, 4:428-443.

71. Krenichyn, K. 2004. Women and Physical Activity in An Urban Park: Enrichment and Support Through An Ethic of Care. Journal of Environmental Psychology 24, 1:117-130.

 

print summary


 

individuals and groups within communities with strong social cohesion and social capital experience many positive benefits

 

 

 

social and cultural events are often held in parks and gardens, providing opportunities for people to interact and develop social bonds
 
green spaces can be the neighborhood places that foster a greater sense of connectedness, trust, cooperation, and community resilience

 

 

 

adult guidance and modeling greatly influence youth behavior, so in a tighter-knit community additional neighborhood peers and mentors can guide young people
 
elderly individuals with strong social connections have lower rates of early mortality, less fear of crime, and better physical health

 

 

 

a study in New York's Prospect Park found that women who frequently exercised had a sense of familiarity with each other and therefore feel safer, and many women reported making new friends71

 
community gardens are places where people work grow food and build community

 

 

 

community gardens are informal gathering spaces, where people “develop friendships, learn to share and help other people, exchange plants, [and] help each other.”
 

The City of Seattle operates the “P-Patch” Community Gardening Program, founded through volunteer efforts in 1973. In 1975, the city first purchased land for community gardens. In 1992, the Seattle City Council recommended that gardens be included in the city’s comprehensive plan. There are now 73 P-Patches totaling 23 acres and serving 2,056 households: see www.cityofseattle.net/neighborhoods/ppatch/.

Social Strengths ready Local Economics ready Place Attachment & Meaning ready Crime &
Public Safety ready
Safe Streets ready Active Living ready Reduced Risk Stress, Wellness
& Physiology ready
Healing & Therapy ready Mental Health & Function ready Work & Learning Culture & Equity Lifecycle & Gender
Contact Us            © Copyright 2010-2014 University of Washington, College of the Environment