Paper2

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Landscape and Urban Planning

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landurbplan

Research paper

Home-grown: Gardens, practices and motivations in urban domestic vegetable production

Jamie B. Kirkpatrick, Aidan Davison⁎

School of Land and Food, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 78 Hobart, 7001 Tasmania, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O

Keywords: Urban agriculture Domestic gardens Sustainability Vegetable Growing Self-provisioning Food

A B S T R A C T

Food production is of symbolic and practical importance in sustainable cities. Vegetable gardening in public spaces and community gardens is better understood than the same activity on private residential property. In suburbanised western cities most vegetable production is likely to be on private blocks. To increase vegetable production in cities, we need to understand private vegetable growing. We used a questionnaire administered in person with a diverse sample of 101 gardeners in Hobart, Tasmania, Australia to determine variation in gardens, gardening practices and gardener motivations, relationships between them, and potential for planning and other interventions to increase domestic vegetable production. Vegetable gardens varied from highly species-rich to species-poor and from staple production to expressions of culinary fashion. Gardening practices varied from integrated, organic and displayed, to strongly constructed and reliant on synthetic inputs. While all respondents were motivated to grow vegetables for pleasure, many were activists who wished to promote social change, while others wished to ensure affordable access to vegetables or to improve health. Activist gardeners used integrated organic or permacultural practices and produced highly complex garden outcomes. With the ex- ceptions of the activists and food fashionistas, garden type, gardening practice and gardener motivation were not strongly interlinked. A large majority of respondents identified family members as important sources of in- formation and inspiration. Gardeners without family role models were either influenced by new food cultures or were on low-incomes and wanted affordable access to vegetables. This latter group could be expanded through appropriate education and incentives.

1. Introduction

Urban agriculture, the production of food within the boundaries of cities and towns, is gaining increasing attention as a component of a sustainable economy, food security, ecosystem service provision, public health and community development (e.g. Ghosh, 2014; Landry & Chakraborty, 2009; Larder, Lyons, & Woolcock, 2014; Opitz, Berges, Piorr, & Krikser, 2016). Urban agriculture has always been central to the resilience of cities (Barthel & Isendhal, 2013). In wealthy societies, agricultural activities on land accessible to the wider community have been the focus of attention (Dobernig & Stagl, 2015; Martin, Clift, & Christie, 2016). This attention has recently extended to food production on and in buildings (Thomaier, Specht, Henckel, Dierich, Siebert, Freisinger, & Sawicka, 2015). While residential food self-provisioning in both rural and urban settings has been a focus of research in poor societies (Poulsen, McNab, Clayton, & Neff, 2015), home gardens have been neglected in discussion of urban sustainability in wealthy societies (Gray, Guzman, Glowa, & Drevno, 2014; Taylor & Lovell 2014;

Zainuddin & Mercer, 2014). As Taylor and Lovell (2014, 285) have recently argued: “While community gardens have sprouted across the landscape, home food gardens-arguably an ever-present, more durable form of urban agriculture-have been overlooked, understudied, and unsupported by non-governmental organizations, and academics.” This neglect is all the more puzzling in the context of the characteristically suburban cities of English-speaking societies in which private garden space is a major component of urban form (Ghosh, 2014; Loram, Tratalos, Warren, & Gaston, 2007), and likely to be a major component of urban agricultural production (Taylor and Lovell, 2012; Lovell, 2012, 2014).

Little is known about how many urban householders engage in food production. The limited research that has considered this question, however, indicates that this practice is widespread in many wealthy societies. For example, studies in the cities of Hobart, Australia and Barcelona, Spain indicate that 25% and 26% of households grow ve- getables (Daniels & Kirkpatrick, 2006; Kirkpatrick, Daniels, & Zagorski, 2007; Padullés Cubino, Kirkpatrick, & Subirós, 2017). National studies

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.09.023 Received 9 December 2016; Received in revised form 4 July 2017; Accepted 20 September 2017

⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J.B. Kirkpatrick), [email protected] (A. Davison).

Landscape and Urban Planning 170 (2018) 24–33

Available online 02 November 2017 0169-2046/ © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

T

in the United States (National Gardening Association, 2009) and Aus- tralia (Wise, 2014) found that 31% and 52% of households, respec- tively, participated in food production of some sort, findings that need to be placed in the context of the settlement histories of these suburban societies (Gaynor, 2006; Schupp & Sharp, 2012). Knowledge is also scant on the question of how much food is produced and consumed by urban households (CoDyre, Fraser, & Landman, 2015; Zainuddin & Mercer, 2014), although the potential for greatly increasing this pro- duction seems clear (Ghosh, 2014; McClintock, Cooper, & Khandeshi, 2013; Taylor, & Lovell, 2014). In Australia, a 1992 survey by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (1994) revealed that 5% of annual ve- getable production was grown in domestic gardens, across all settle- ment types.

A wide range of potential ecological, social, economic, political, psychological and medical benefits have been linked to urban food production (Gray et al., 2014; Guitart, Pickering, & Byrne, 2012; Hawkins, Mercer, Thirlaway, & Clayton, 2013; Opitz et al., 2016). Consequently, motivations for participation in urban home food pro- duction are highly diverse (Dobernig & Stagl, 2015; Kortright & Wakefield, 2011; Larder et al., 2014; Schupp & Sharp, 2012). For ex- ample, in reviewing available literature on this question in wealthy societies, Kortright and Wakefield (2011, 40) concluded “that many gardeners, even those with precarious levels of food security, seem to value the produce they grow as much or more for its social value than for its contribution to their and their families’ subsistence.”

The value-laden significance of food production is related to an often polarised and public debate on conventional versus alternative agri-food systems (Goodman, 2003; Jarosz, 2000). Distinctions between industrial and organic agriculture, global and local food chains, com- modity and craft food production, corporate and community ownership of food resources, and scientific and traditional food practices are common (Carolan, 2011, 2016; Paarlberg, 2013). These debates, which have become less polarised and more complex over the past fifteen years (Hinrichs, 2014), particularly in light of climate change (Vermeulen, Campbell, & Ingram, 2012), form a key element of wider debates about global capitalism and sustainable development (Gibson- Graham, 1996, 2006). In this context, urban agriculture, including domestic food production, is associated with an extraordinary array of environmental, social, cultural, economic and political concerns and aspirations.

Although domestic food production has not been widely studied, domestic gardens have attracted growing social (Bhatti & Church 2001; Freeman, Dickinson, Porter, & van Heezik, 2012; Head & Muir, 2007; Pearce, Davison, & Kirkpatrick, 2015) and biophysical (Loram et al., 2007; Thompson et al., 2003; Zagorski, Kirkpatrick, & Stratford, 2004) research over the past two decades. This research indicates that urban gardens and gardening practices are highly variegated. In Hobart, Tasmania, Kirkpatrick et al. (2007) identified 13 distinct floristic garden types, including two relating strongly to vegetable production, and a type lacking any cultivated plants they labelled as the ‘non- garden’. The relationship between social values and garden type is yet to be fully investigated. In Toronto, Canada, Kortright and Wakefield (2011) made a start by linking garden type with gardener motivation, using qualitative interviews. They identified the following 5 types- motives: 1) cook’s, where the gardener wanted high quality fresh pro- duce; 2) teaching, where the gardener initiated their young into the mysteries of the earth; 3) environmental, where the gardener wished to help save the planet; 4) hobby, where the gardener was motivated by the pleasure of growing food, rather than the outcome; and, 5) aesthetic, where the gardeners valued vegetables that they perceived as beautiful.

It cannot be assumed that expressed gardening motivation always relates to garden outcomes. For example, in the removal and planting of urban trees in Australia expressed motives are often poor indicators of behaviour (Kirkpatrick, Davison, & Daniels, 2012). We were curious to learn whether vegetable gardens, gardening practices and gardener motivations related to each other, and how these relationships may in

turn relate to socio-demographic characteristics. If domestic urban food production is to be part of a planned solution to any problem, it seems prudent to understand variation in gardens and gardeners, allowing any proposed incentives and regulations to be tailored to the diverse reality of food production in any urban context. We present findings from a social survey of 101 domestic vegetable gardeners in Hobart, capital city of Tasmania, Australia, to discriminate floristic vegetable garden types, practice syndromes and motivation sets. Tasmania has long been a site of polarised debate about environmental issues and was an origin point for contemporary ‘green’ politics (Rainbow, 1992). Tasmanian environmental debate encompasses issues of food production and al- ternative agri-food systems, with the Organic Gardening and Farming Society of Tasmania, formed in 1972, having “some claim to be Aus- tralia’s most successful organics advocacy society” (Paull, 2013, 55). It was in Tasmania in the 1970s also that the permaculture movement was founded (Mollison, 1988). Permaculture has become a powerful fra- mework for articulating and expressing alternatives to conventional modes of food production around the world (Ferguson & Lovell, 2015). In this context, we explore where nodes of variation in domestic ve- getable gardening sit on the continuum from radical to conservative social values, and determine the degree to which intent is expressed in behaviour and outcome. We seek indications of the groups of in- dividuals who might be motivated to grow food in cities, and the nature of their motivations. We wished to gain this understanding to inform planning and other action that might be directed to increasing or maintaining food production on private urban land, to address the lack of knowledge about domestic food production in urban agriculture re- search, and to enrich academic and public discussion about sustainable food futures.

2. Methods

All methods were approved by the Tasmanian Social Science Human Ethics Committee (H15367). Conditions of approval included main- taining the anonymity of respondents.

A printed questionnaire was developed to document vegetable varieties grown in the last five years, practices used to grow them, motivations and attitudes of the growers, extent, cost, time input and productivity of vegetable gardens as a proportion of household vege- table consumption, number of people in the household and the number gardening, use of different media to access gardening information, so- cial and demographic characteristics of the gardeners, and altitude, soil texture, slope and aspect of the vegetable garden. The questions on vegetable varieties, practices, motivations and use of media were yes/ no. These questions are recorded in abbreviated form in Tables 1–3. Some yes/no questions, such as that asking whether vegetable gar- dening was done ‘as an obsession’ or ‘for spiritual well-being’, enabled respondents to interpret multivalent concepts on their own terms. Most of the remaining variables were either class, as in the cases of house- hold income (< $25,000 $25-50,000 $50,000-75,000 $75-125,000 $125-175,000 $175-250,000 > $250,000), age (20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 years) and aspect (8 compass sectors filled in by interviewer), or continuous, as in the case of the percentage of household vegetable consumption produced in the garden, and the amount of time (hours) spent on vegetable gardening each month (both self-attributed by re- spondents). These questions are recorded in abbreviated form in Tables 1–3 below.

Two questions asked the respondent to write the name of any par- ticular method of vegetable growing or any particular dietary practice with which they identified. Three questions asked for short qualitative responses (one sentence), describing each of the personal benefits, so- cietal benefits and main challenges of vegetable gardening. A copy of the questionnaire can be provided on request to the authors.

The survey questionnaire was administered between December 2015 and February 2016 in person, enabling the researchers to record information, elaborate on questions, assist participants from non-

J.B. Kirkpatrick, A. Davison Landscape and Urban Planning 170 (2018) 24–33

25

English speaking backgrounds, observe homes and gardens and, in some cases, conduct surveys in gardens. The survey took around 40 min to complete, depending on the extent of dialogue initiated by re- spondents. Using the results of previous work (Kirkpatrick et al., 2007), we selected 15 suburbs of varying socio-economic status, distance and direction from the city centre and physical geography, ensuring a wide range in garden, social and demographic characteristics. The suburbs were Bellerive, Geilston Bay, Howrah, Clarendon Vale, Rokeby, Lutana, Goodwood, Berriedale, Glenorchy, Taroona, Sandy Bay, Kingston Beach, West Hobart, South Hobart and Moonah. Recruitment was done by a team of three research assistants via door knocking in the late- afternoon/early evening on weekdays and during weekends. House- holds with vegetable gardens visible from the street were initially se- lected in each suburb. Further recruitment relied on chain referral sampling (Heckathorn, 1997), with respondents asked to identify neighbours who might be vegetable gardeners, given that domestic vegetable growers effectively constitute a hidden population engaged in a private activity. This process ensured that we gained a wide variety of people and gardens in our sample. While our study did not focus on the prevalence of domestic food production, the ease of recruitment in most suburbs indicates that this practice was widespread. As we were in- terested in relational variation rather than statistical estimation, our sampling method was appropriate. The length of many interactions with interviewees, which often extended beyond filling in the survey and involved interviewers being offered gifts of garden produce and being introduced to other household members, was testament to the passion of many respondents for vegetable gardening.

Sixty-five percent of our 101 respondents were more than 50 years old, compared to 35% in Greater Hobart in the 2011 Census (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2013); 53% were female compared to 51%; 64% had tertiary educational qualifications compared to 16%; 80% were Australian born compared to 82%; and, the mean household income was $63,000 compared to $55,000.

We undertook three separate ordinations and classifications on the presence/absence data for vegetable varieties, gardening practices and gardener motivations. We used global non-metric multidimensional scaling in four dimensions for our ordinations, following the default options in DECODA (Minchin, 1990). This method avoids the distor- tions that can result from the use of any of the factor analysis family of ordination techniques on yes/no data (Minchin, 1987). The scores on the four axes were classified agglomeratively using Ward’s method with Euclidean distance. By averaging distances, rather than attributes, Ward’s method avoids chaining. We use the classificatory groups as repeatable descriptive devices, easier to understand than ordination scores, fully realising that classification outcomes can be labile in re- lation to the volume and kind of input. The classificatory groups and ordination axes were labelled on the basis of each group’s most dis- tinguishing characteristic. They are defined by the repeatable quanti- tative processes of classification and ordination, not by the subjective labels we give them for the purposes of reporting.

We used inferential statistics in Minitab17 (Minitab Inc., 2013) to determine the significance of relationships between ordination scores, groups of various kinds and individual variables. We used Chi2 where we were testing the coincidence of classes, one way analysis of variance with Tukeys test where we were determining whether continuous or interval variables differed between classes, and Pearson’s product mo- ment correlation coefficient where we wished to know the significance of a linear relationship between continuous/interval variables. We re- garded the null hypothesis to be confirmed if P > 0.05. We graphically examined relationships to ensure that they suited assumptions of the tests.

3. Results

3.1. Variation in vegetable gardens

The axes in the garden ordination can be characterised as: culinary herbs to other; high species richness to low species richness; common vegetables to unusual vegetables (relative to their prevalence in Australian society); and tubers to floriferous non-tubers. Based upon the

Table 1 Types of vegetable gardens based on species composition, showing percentage frequency by group and relationships with some other variables.

Garden Type Tr St SaH Co ToP P

N (31) (18) (20) (24) (8) Parsley 90.32 38.89 80.00 100.00 62.50 *** Broad bean 80.65 44.44 25.00 95.83 37.50 *** Snow peas 77.42 44.44 30.00 100.00 12.50 *** Zucchini 74.19 38.89 35.00 95.83 50.00 *** Spinach 74.19 27.78 25.00 91.67 0.00 *** Climbing bean 70.97 55.56 30.00 87.50 25.00 *** Garlic 67.74 44.44 35.00 100.00 12.50 *** Carrot 67.74 44.44 30.00 95.83 0.00 *** Sweet corn 61.29 50.00 10.00 95.83 12.50 *** Bush bean 64.52 33.33 10.00 79.17 25.00 *** Lettuce 96.77 33.33 70.00 95.83 12.50 *** Silverbeet 93.55 38.89 60.00 91.67 50.00 *** Basil 70.97 33.33 80.00 95.83 25.00 *** Rosemary 61.29 38.89 70.00 83.33 0.00 *** Pumpkin 67.74 77.78 10.00 83.33 25.00 *** Potato 54.84 88.89 55.00 95.83 0.00 *** Thyme 45.16 11.11 90.00 100.00 0.00 *** Chives 48.39 16.67 70.00 95.83 0.00 *** Sage 38.71 5.56 70.00 91.67 12.50 *** Coriander 51.61 16.67 45.00 100.00 12.50 *** Capsicums 35.48 22.22 15.00 95.83 0.00 *** Chilli 29.03 16.67 20.00 95.83 0.00 *** Broccoli 58.06 0.00 10.00 91.67 0.00 *** Beetroot 45.16 38.89 30.00 91.67 0.00 *** Rocket 45.16 5.56 5.00 87.50 0.00 *** Leeks 32.26 11.11 25.00 83.33 0.00 *** Radish 29.03 44.44 15.00 83.33 0.00 *** Cabbage 48.39 5.56 5.00 79.17 0.00 *** Pod peas 51.61 38.89 15.00 79.17 0.00 *** Celery 29.03 11.11 0.00 79.17 0.00 *** Kale 38.71 5.56 35.00 79.17 0.00 *** Dill 29.03 0.00 20.00 75.00 0.00 *** Cauliflower 35.48 5.56 5.00 75.00 0.00 *** Egg plant(auberguine) 16.13 0.00 10.00 70.83 0.00 *** Bok choi 51.61 11.11 10.00 70.83 0.00 *** Chard 38.7 0.0 0.0 62.5 0.0 *** Brussel sprouts 22.58 0.00 5.00 62.50 0.00 *** Onions 25.81 27.78 15.00 62.50 0.00 ** Squash 9.68 5.56 10.00 58.33 0.00 *** Globe artichoke 25.81 5.56 10.00 54.17 12.50 ** Tarragon 3.23 0.00 5.00 50.00 12.50 *** Chinese cabbage 9.68 5.56 0.00 50.00 0.00 *** Jerusalem artichoke 9.68 0.00 5.00 50.00 0.00 *** Parsnip 16.13 22.22 0.00 50.00 0.00 *** Mizuma 19.35 0.00 5.00 45.83 0.00 *** Melons 6.5 0.0 0.0 45.83 0.0 *** Fennel 29.03 0.00 5.00 41.67 0.00 *** Kohlrabi 16.1 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 ** Garden variables Species richness 24b 12cd 13c 43a 5d *** Area of garden (m2) 33ab 35ab 19b 68a 17ab * % vegetable diet produced 35ab 47a 20b 53a 27ab ** Attitudinal variable Organic/permaculture 29.03 16.67 15.00 45.83 0.00 * Demographic variables Non-university education 18.52 62.50 31.58 20.83 33.33 * Annual income ($’000) 74a 30b 68ab 68ab 77ab * (A)

Species are ordered by the similarity of their percentage frequency in groups. Tr = traditional, St = Staple, SaH = Salad and herb, Co = Complex, ToP = Tomato and parsley, P = probability (chi2), *** = < 0.001, ** = < 0.01, * = < 0.05, non-sig- nificant variation not shown, bold indicates highest value or a value > 59%.

J.B. Kirkpatrick, A. Davison Landscape and Urban Planning 170 (2018) 24–33

26

scores on these axes, five vegetable garden types were discriminated: (1) ‘traditional’, (2) ‘staple’, (3) ‘salad and herb’, (4) ‘complex’ and (5) ‘tomato and parsley’. These types varied greatly in the number of ve- getable varieties grown in the last five years, from an average of 43 in ‘complex’ gardens to an average of five in tomato and parsley gardens (Table 1). ‘Complex’ gardens contained all vegetables grown in other garden types, plus unusual vegetables largely not grown by others, like mizuma, celeriac, miners lettuce and sea spinach (Table 1). ‘Complex’ gardens were also the largest in terms of area and produced the highest volume of vegetables as a proportion of overall household vegetable consumption (53%), followed by the ‘staple’ and ‘traditional’ gardens (47%) (Table 1). ‘Tomato and parsley’ gardens had high frequencies of only the most popular of vegetables (i.e., those found in the majority of garden types in the study), including the ubiquitous tomato (note that the tables only show those variables that significantly vary between groups). ‘Traditional’ gardens (Fig. 1) had an intermediate mean species richness of 24 (Table 1), differing from ‘complex’ gardens in their low incidence of less commonly planted vegetables. ‘Salad and herb’ gar- dens had plantings that were strongly biased towards culinary herbs and traditional salad ingredients, whereas ‘staple’ gardens were char- acterised by the potato and pumpkin (Table 1). The tomato was the only vegetable in more than 50% of the gardens as a whole that did not significantly differ between groups: it was grown in 94% of gardens.

The average cost of vegetable garden purchases per month, as es- timated by respondents, was $25.00, or $300 per annum (Australian dollars). The average amount of time spent on the vegetable garden per month was 30 h, labour that produced an average of 38% of household vegetable consumption on an average of 37 m2 of garden, or an average of 40% of garden area on each block. There was high variability in inputs and outputs (Fig. 2).

University-educated respondents formed the highest proportion of the ‘complex’ and ‘traditional’ garden groups and were least common among the staple garden group. The income of people in the ‘tradi- tional’ garden group was higher than those in the ‘staple’ garden group (Table 1).

3.1.1. Variation in gardening practice The axes in the practice ordination can be characterised as: minimal

labour to heavy labour; import nutrients to produce soil; ‘natural’ practices to ‘chemical’ practices; and purchase to gathering. Based upon

these axes, five types of vegetable gardening were discriminated: (1) ‘integrated’, (2) ‘chemical’, (3) ‘informed consumer’, (4) ‘soil’ and (5) ‘economic’.

The most striking contrast between any of the practice groups was between ‘chemical’ gardening and the rest. Chemical gardening used inorganic pesticides and herbicides, with some in this group reporting their use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), despite a govern- ment moratorium on GMOs in Tasmania. Other gardeners abjured herbicides and largely avoided buying pesticides, particularly inorganic ones (Table 2). Those who practiced ‘integrated’ gardening avoided GMOs, bought non-hybrid seed, utilised chickens, worms and compost, gathered manure and organic material from the wider environment and engaged in bartering networks. They had the highest incidence of ve- getables in their front yards (Table 2). ‘Informed consumer’ gardening also involved the avoidance of chemicals and GMOs, but differed from integrated gardening in a high proportion of commercially purchased garden inputs, such as topsoil and blood and bone (Table 2). ‘Soil’ gardening involved practices that were intended to build soil quality, but were most distinctive in a lack of direct pest control (Table 2). ‘Economic’ gardening practitioners were the most likely to sell their produce and stock, have a walk-in greenhouse and have a simple compost pile where organic material is heaped to promote microbial decomposition (Fig. 3. With the exception of two thirds of the ‘in- tegrated’ gardening group, others preferred composting technologies, such as tumblers, to the simple compost pile (Table 2).

The following practices were adopted by more than half of the re- spondents, but did not vary significantly between practice groups: growing vegetables in back yards (89%), buying animal manures (72%), rotating crops (70%), mulching (68%), bartering produce (61%), buying blood and bone (60%), and fencing vegetable gardens (54%).

‘Integrated’ gardening practitioners were relatively young, tended to rent, tended to adopt organic or permacultural practices, had the highest number of species in their vegetable plots, tended to be Australian-born, and were highly-educated (Table 2). ‘Chemical’ prac- titioners were socio-economically and demographically distinct only in their relatively high proportion of mortgagees and lack of renters (Table 2). Those who practiced ‘informed consumer’ gardening tended to be home-owners with gardens of low species richness and who were older than the integrated gardeners (Table 2). Practitioners of ‘soil’

Fig. 1. A traditional vegetable garden (from Kirkpatrick, 2006).

J.B. Kirkpatrick, A. Davison Landscape and Urban Planning 170 (2018) 24–33

27

gardening fitted the same pattern as ‘informed consumer’ practitioners, but were distinct in spending the least time of any group in their plots. Those who undertook ‘economic’ gardening were also older property owners and most likely to be immigrants, least-educated, least likely to be organic gardeners/permaculturalists and spent the most time on their plots of any group (Table 2).

3.1.2. Variation in gardener motivations The axes in the motivation ordination can be characterised as:

strong to weak economic motivation; strong to weak social and family health motivation; high to low spiritual motivation; and high to low environmental motivation. Based upon these axes, five types of vege- table gardener motivation were discriminated: (1) activists, (2) spen- ders, (3) health-providers, (4) stewards, and (5) economisers.

Activists were distinct from all other motivation groups in their high propensities to regard vegetable gardening as good for all of social change, the environment, spiritual well-being and human health. Presenting vegetable growing as a way to promote positive social change, ‘activists’ also had the strongest dislike of supermarkets and the highest level of self-identification as organic growers/permaculturalists (Table 3). A smaller group of gardeners, ‘spenders’ were best dis- tinguished from other motivation groups by their opinion that vege- table gardening did not save them money (Table 3). They also thought, along with most other gardeners, that home vegetables taste better and are more nutritious than shop-bought produce, and that gardening is good for personal mental and physical health, which is presumably why they had continued doing it despite the cost. ‘Health-providers’, unlike most others, saw the major benefits of the activity to be in the health, education, socialisation and cost-effective feeding of their families (Table 3). ‘Stewards’ most valued vegetable gardening and gardens for their environmental and health benefits, but did not see any spiritual benefits (Table 3). ‘Economisers’ saw vegetable gardening as a way for them to be able to afford to eat vegetables (Table 3).

The following motivations were expressed by more than half of the respondents, but did not vary significantly between gardener groups: vegetable gardening is a pleasure (93%), home grown produce tastes better (90%), growing vegetables is good for the health of the gardener (86%), growing vegetables is a family tradition (81%), and home grown produce has more nutrients (80%). Unlike for garden types and garden practice groups, there was no socio-economic or demographic differ- entiation between motivation groups.

5004003002001000 20016012080400

20016012080400

0

5

30

15

0 1 0806040200

Area (square metres) Cost per month ($)

Time per month (hours) Percentage of consumption

Fig. 2. Garden, social and demographic diversity of survey re- spondents.

Table 2 Percentage frequency of practices by garden practice groups and other variables.

Gardener type Int Chem InfC Soil Econ P

N (32) (14) (20) (21) (14) Compost 100.00 85.71 65.00 76.19 92.86 ** Organic pest control 96.88 64.29 55.00 19.05 85.71 *** Buy seed 93.75 71.43 85.00 47.62 71.43 ** Use own seed 93.75 57.14 65.00 38.10 92.86 *** Avoid GMOs 87.50 35.71 75.00 33.33 21.43 *** Buy heirlooms 81.25 64.29 55.00 4.76 7.14 *** Compost tumbler 78.13 57.14 70.00 33.33 64.29 * Barter plants/seeds 65.63 42.86 30.00 9.52 50.00 ** Buy non-hybrid 59.38 35.71 30.00 33.33 0.00 ** In front yard 56.25 21.43 15.00 42.86 35.71 * Worm farm 59.38 21.43 15.00 14.29 14.29 *** Raised chickens 46.88 28.57 0.00 19.05 35.71 ** On balcony/verandah 46.88 7.14 10.00 28.57 7.14 ** Other greenhouse 34.38 7.14 10.00 9.52 7.14 * Buy pesticide 9.38 85.71 45.00 19.05 35.71 *** Buy herbicide 0.00 85.71 25.00 14.29 0.00 *** In side yards 40.63 78.57 10.00 33.33 50.00 ** Gather organic material 78.13 78.57 30.00 71.43 57.14 ** Buy hay 78.13 78.57 35.00 61.90 42.86 ** Non-organic pest control 12.50 71.43 20.00 19.05 21.43 ** Buy inorganic fertiliser 12.50 57.14 30.00 14.29 50.00 ** Buy seedlings 93.75 78.57 95.00 80.95 50.00 ** Raised beds 78.13 28.57 80.00 85.71 50.00 ** No pest control 3.13 14.29 25.00 52.38 7.14 *** Compost heap 68.75 50.00 15.00 52.38 85.71 *** Use self-seeded plants 78.13 57.14 30.00 52.38 85.71 ** Gather manure 62.50 57.14 15.00 28.57 64.29 ** Buy compost 12.50 28.57 45.00 14.29 50.00 * Walk in greenhouse 28.13 28.57 15.00 4.76 50.00 * Organic/permaculture 50.00 28.57 25.00 4.76 0.00 ** Socio-demographic variables Rental 40.63 0.00 16.67 9.52 16.67 * Mortgage 31.25 38.46 22.22 23.81 16.67 * Own outright 28.13 61.54 61.11 66.67 66.67 * Non-university education 12.50 25.00 22.22 42.11 81.82 *** Australian born 93.75 85.71 70.00 85.71 50.00 ** Time per month (hr) 37ab 27ab 18ab 13b 55a * Age 47b 59ab 63a 60a 68a ** Garden type variable Species richness 31a 25ab 20b 14b 17b ***

Practices are ordered by the similarity of their percentage frequencies in groups. Int = integrated, Chem = chemical, InfC = informed consumer, Soil = soil, Econ = economic, P = probability (chi2), *** = < 0.001, ** = < 0.01, * = < 0.05, attributes with non-significant variation not shown, bold indicates highest value or a value > 59%.

J.B. Kirkpatrick, A. Davison Landscape and Urban Planning 170 (2018) 24–33

28

3.1.3. Relationships between gardens, gardening practices and gardener motivations

Relationships between pairs of groups along different axes of ordi- nation were tested to identify any statistically significant relationships (Chi2). Six significant relationships between pairs of ordination axis scores were identified. First, those who had gardens rich in culinary herbs tended to collect organic material, and highly valued family and social health. Second, those who had species-rich gardens tended to spend the most time in their gardens, to adopt organic/permacultural practices, avoid commercial activity and to consider themselves to be spiritually inclined. Third, those who had staple gardens tended to spend the most time in their gardens, and those who spent the most time in their gardens highly valued family, the environment and social change. Fourth, those who imported a lot of nutrients and materials tended to think that gardening is costly. Fifth, those who valued en- vironmental/social change tend to prefer self-sustaining organic/per- macultural practices and avoid commercial practices. Sixth, those who

gathered a lot of materials tended to think that vegetable gardening saves money.

Only two sets of relationships were identified between the groups we identified for garden type, gardening practice and gardener moti- vation. ‘Complex’ gardens, ‘integrated’ gardening and ‘activist’ gar- deners were more coincident than could be expected by chance, as were ‘salad and herb’ gardens and ‘soil’ gardening, and ‘soil’ gardening and ‘spenders’ (Fig. 4).

3.1.4. Self-identification In response to an open, qualitative question asking respondents if

they followed any gardening approach, a quarter of respondents self- identified as either organic gardeners or, more rarely, as permacultur- alists. No other self-identification was prominent. This group of gar- deners had a preference for ‘chemical-free produce’, a dislike of GMOs, the belief that their gardening would ‘create positive social change’, the feeling that gardening contributed to their spiritual well-being, a dislike of supermarkets and a fondness for reading garden books (Table 4). The majority of these gardeners thus belonged to the ‘activist’ motivation group (Table 4).

Those who identified as organic/permaculture gardeners were more likely to have vegetables in their front garden, on a balcony or ver- andah, in a non-walk-in greenhouse and indoors than others, who were more likely to have vegetables only in their back gardens. Garden practices that were more prevalent among organic/permaculture gar- deners than others were the husbandry of poultry and worms, organic pest control, composting and mulching. Organic/permaculture gar- deners purchased seed, seedlings, hay, heirloom vegetables and non- hybrid vegetables more than the rest. Surprisingly, there was no dif- ference in other buying and cultivation practices between organic/ permaculture gardeners and the rest, even though some of these prac- tices, like herbicide purchase and use, would seem to violate broadly accepted principles of organic gardening and permaculture (Holmgren, 2010). Organic/permaculture gardeners were weakly concentrated in the group with complex gardens and had gardens with higher species richness than the rest (Table 4). They tended to rent, while the rest tended to own their homes. They had a lower average age and a higher proportion of people of Australian birth than the sample as a whole.

Fig. 3. A simple compost pile in a complex garden (from Kirkpatrick, 2006).

Table 3 Percentage frequency of motivations by gardener motivation group.

Gardener motivation Act Spen Hlth Stew Econ P

N (48) (18) (11) (20) (4) Do for mental health 97.92 88.89 90.91 10.00 0.00 *** Like chemical-free food 95.83 61.11 63.64 45.00 25.00 *** Good for social change 95.83 11.11 45.45 45.00 25.00 *** Good for environment 91.67 33.33 36.36 65.00 50.00 *** Improve family health 87.50 22.22 81.82 80.00 0.00 *** Spiritual wellbeing 81.25 50.00 45.45 5.00 0.00 *** Hate GMOs 78.13 64.29 70.00 42.86 50.00 *** More diverse varieties 0.83 16.67 27.27 50.00 25.00 ** Dislike supermarkets 64.58 0.00 9.09 30.00 25.00 *** Organic/permaculture 41.67 16.67 0.00 15.00 0.00 ** Like shopping for garden 64.58 38.89 81.82 5.00 0.00 *** Good for education 77.08 11.11 90.91 70.00 0.00 *** Good family activity 79.17 5.56 90.91 45.00 25.00 *** Saves money 72.92 16.67 90.91 40.00 100.00 *** Way to afford vegetables 45.83 0.00 27.27 30.00 100.00 *** Organic/permaculture 41.67 16.67 0.00 15.00 0.00 **

Attitudes are order by the similarity of their percentage frequency in groups. Act = activists, Spen = spenders, Hlth = Health providers, Stew = stewards, Econ = economisers, P = probability (chi2), *** = < 0.001, ** = < 0.01, * = < 0.05, non-significant variation not shown, bold indicates highest value or a value > 59%.

J.B. Kirkpatrick, A. Davison Landscape and Urban Planning 170 (2018) 24–33

29

4. Discussion

4.1. Variation in vegetable gardens

We extended existing research on the diversity of garden types in Hobart, Tasmania (Kirkpatrick et al., 2007), identifying five distinct types of vegetable garden in our sample. Gardeners with ‘complex’ vegetable gardens appeared to grow everything they could. Gardeners of the other four vegetable garden types grew subsets of this cornu- copia, with ‘traditional’ vegetable gardens having a large subset of the most popular of the complex garden vegetable varieties and ‘tomato and parsley’ gardens having a small subset of the most popular vege- table varieties among all gardeners. In contrast, the subsets of vegetable plants grown in ‘staple’, and ‘salad and herb’, gardens were not damped reflections of complex gardens, but rather seemed to relate to the dif- ferent goals of providing vegetable bulk in the diet and contributing to home-made cuisine.

The weak socio-economic and demographic differentiation between the vegetable floristic groups (Table 1) contrasts with the strong social differentiation shown both for overall garden floristic groups (Kirkpatrick et al., 2007) and the propensity to grow trees in gardens (Kirkpatrick et al., 2011).

4.2. Variation in gardening practices

Surprisingly, strong variation in gardening practice was not ne- cessarily reflected in garden characteristics, with very different prac- tices often resulting in similar vegetable species composition. All practice groups purchased some inputs, having no significant difference in their mean monthly expenditure, but the nature of their expenditure was very different. ‘Integrated’ gardening was associated with the buying of heirloom and non-hybrid plants and seeds, while ‘chemical’ gardening was associated with the purchase of pesticides and herbi- cides. ‘Economic’ gardening was associated with walk-in glasshouses, presumably for a cold season financial return when consumer prices for many vegetables peak, and the inexpensive compost pile. ‘Soil’ gar- dening was characterised by a lack of pest control practices. It is not clear whether people in this group had pest problems but were not motivated to engage in pest control for some reason or whether their explicit soil health practices ensured that pest control was not necessary to ensure adequate vegetable production.

While not observed between garden type groups, strong socio-eco- nomic and demographic variation was evident between gardening practice groups. ‘Integrated’ gardening practitioners were most likely to

be self-declared organic or permaculture gardeners, well-educated and young, Australian by birth, and cultivating rented gardens. In contrast, those involved in ‘economic’ gardening were most likely to be older and less-educated immigrants seeking a financial return from the significant amount of time they put into their substantial vegetable production infrastructure.

4.3. Variation in gardening motivations

Strong variation was also observed between the five motivation groups. ‘Activist’ gardeners believe their activity to be radical and world-saving. As one of these gardeners put it, in answer to an open- ended question about the social benefit of vegetable gardening, ‘if people are self-sufficient in using their own space, it will save the planet by reducing consumption and health’ (Australian-born female in her fifties). This group believed that they provided demonstrations of a sustainable future, which may be why these gardeners particularly like to showcase their vegetable production in their front gardens. Among our respondents as a whole, the feeling that vegetable gardening is good for both the environment and social change is more widespread than the feeling that gardens provide a spiritual benefit, a reluctance to ac- cord spiritual significance to urban nature that is also revealed in at- titudes to trees in Australian cities (Kirkpatrick et al., 2012, 2013).

While ‘activist’ gardeners appear to have similar attitudes to the ‘environmental’ gardeners identified in Canada by Kortright and Wakefield (2011), the motivations of ‘health providers’ were similar to those identified by these authors as linked to ‘teaching gardens’. To ‘economisers’, vegetable gardening was a way to ensure that they could afford to eat vegetables, while others, and mostly notably the ‘spen- ders’, believed that it cost them money.

These differences in motivations between groups should not be al- lowed to conceal the great personal rewards and importance that re- spondents attributed to growing vegetables. Almost all respondents agreed that vegetable gardening gave them pleasure, made them feel healthier and produced vegetables that tasted better than supermarket produce. In sentence-length qualitative responses to a question about ‘the main benefit you derive from vegetable gardening’, 15, 11, nine, and eight participants used the terms joy/enjoyment, satisfaction, pleasure and relaxation, respectively. The role of vegetable gardening in family life, as determined by questions relating to family activity and children’s education, was also important to many respondents and evident across all five motivation groups.

It was striking that four out of five respondents had a role model for vegetable gardening in their close family, suggesting generational

Fig. 4. Positive associations between garden type, gardening practice and gardener motivation groups tested using Chi2 at P < 0.05.

J.B. Kirkpatrick, A. Davison Landscape and Urban Planning 170 (2018) 24–33

30

propagation of motivation and skills. A large proportion of Australian families stopped growing vegetables in the post-war years between 1945 and 1975, an era characterised by the rise of middle-class mass- consumption (Gaynor, 2006; Wise, 2014). We infer from our data that it may be hard for those not brought up with vegetable gardens to develop the inclination and aptitude to resurrect the practice and to dedicate the time that is needed for success. The movement of women from domestic labour and into the paid workforce, and a shift towards higher levels of consumption of commercially prepared food and diets with a low proportion of vegetables (Zianudden & Mercer, 2014; Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2016), also may work against domestic vegetable gar- dening in Australia. Conversely, the emergence of gardening social movements, such as permaculture, community gardens and school gardens (Larder et al., 2014; Wise, 2014), as well a more general broadcasting of local, ecological and ethical food discourses in con- ventional and online media (Phillipov, 2016), encourage interest in, and the practice of, domestic food gardening in Australia. In our

sample, substantial proportions of respondents ‘regularly watch gar- dening programs on television’ and ‘regularly use gardening web sites’.

The lack of socio-economic and demographic variation between motivation groups indicates that ideas and social values related to do- mestic food production do not align with conventional social divisions, such as those based on wealth, education and housing tenure. This finding was unexpected, given the socio-economic and demographic differentiation of vegetable garden types and practice groups in our study, and the social stratification of environmental values in Australia more generally (Tranter, 2014).

4.4. Relationships between gardens, practices and motivations

The strong alignment of ‘complex’ vegetable gardens, ‘integrated’ gardening practices and ‘activist’ gardener motivations was striking (Fig. 4). There were 12 respondents, six of whom self-identified as or- ganic/permaculture gardeners, who had ‘complex’ gardens, engaged in ‘integrated’ practices and expressed ‘activist’ motivations. For these respondents, domestic vegetable gardening appears to be understood as a publically and practically important activity, rather than as an es- sentially private or symbolic preoccupation. They may be the radical vanguard who aspire to feed the future sustainable city (Carolan, 2016).

The connections between ‘salad and herb’ gardens and ‘soil’ gar- dening and between ‘soil’ gardening and ‘spenders’ (Fig. 4) may be a reflection of the strength of the new food culture, which has become manifest in mass and specialist media, and which is creating new alignments between food and representations of virtue linked to place, identity, tradition, craft and nature, among others. It may be, for ex- ample, that the cultivation of salad vegetables and herbs is an exercise in conspicuous consumption (Veblen, 1925), with products linked to social identity, distinction and status, and displayed at dinner parties and family gatherings.

4.5. Self-identification

Permaculture is a gardening ethos, and now a global social move- ment, that promotes food production systems that build ecological and social connectivity and capacity for regeneration (Mollison, 1988; Holmgren, 2010). Permaculture sits within the broader banner of or- ganic food growing which includes a wide diversity of social move- ments and agricultural practices. Organic gardening movements gained prominence in modern societies after the Second World War out of concern that industrial agricultural practices were destroying ecosys- tems, wasting resources, creating pollution, producing unhealthy food and concentrating control of food production systems (Kristiansen, Taji, & Reganold, 2006; Paull, 2013). Organic production systems, including permaculture, avoid the use of inorganic pesticides, most inorganic fertilisers, herbicides and genetically modified organisms. While certi- fication systems are common for commercial organic production, they do not apply to domestic gardeners. Nonetheless, as our sample de- monstrates, an identity as an organic gardener or a permaculturalist is important to many home food producers, and is more prevalent than other home food provisioning identities. More generally, it raises questions about the social reach of alternative food networks that challenge conventional food systems (Hinrichs, 2014), especially in cities (Mayes, 2014; Taylor & Lovell, 2014).

Organic and permaculture home gardening is associated with ra- dical social values that aim to subvert the dominant paradigm of in- dustrial production and capitalist consumption (Ferguson & Lovell, 2014; Larder et al., 2014). As one respondent noted, subverting our request for one sentence: ‘Every time you plant a vegetable you are resisting the oligarchy. It’s a political act’ (Australian-born male in his sixties).

Self-identification as an organic or permacultural gardener was generally consistent with the above attributes, with the self-identified falling in the ‘integrated’ practice group, and having ‘complex’ or

Table 4 Percentage frequency by garden, practice and motivation group for declared organic/ permaculture gardeners compared to the rest.

Declared gardening identity Organic/perm. Other P

N (26) (75) Species richness 31 20 *** (A) Garden type Traditional 29 29 Staple 17 20 Salad and herb 15 23 Complex 46 17 Tomato and parsley 0 11 * Practice type Integrated 62 21 Chemical 15 13 Informed consumer 19 20 Soil 4 27 Economic 0 19 ** Motivation type Activist 77 37 Spender 12 20 Health Provider 0 15 Steward 12 23 Economiser 0 5 ** Practices Buy seed 96 69 ** Buy seedlings 96 79 * Compost 96 81 * Organic pest control 85 60 * Mulch 85 63 * Buy hay 81 55 * Buy heirlooms 73 39 ** Front garden 65 28 ** Buy non-hybrid varieties 58 29 * Worm farm 50 23 ** Keep chickens 46 21 * Balcony/verandah 42 19 * Indoors 35 12 ** Other greenhouse 35 11 ** Back garden 77 93 * Motivations Like chemical-free food 100 64 *** Avoid GMOs 88 47 *** Good for social change 81 56 * Spiritual wellbeing 73 47 * Dislike supermarkets 62 31 ** Read garden books 38 19 * Socio-demographic variables Australian born 94 75 * Rental 40 14 ** Age 51 59 * Own outright 28 61 **

Perm. − = permaculture. P = probability (chi2, unless marked (A) for ANOVA), *** = < 0.001, ** = < 0.01, * = < 0.05, ns = not significant, − = does not satisfy assumptions of test, bold indicates highest value.

J.B. Kirkpatrick, A. Davison Landscape and Urban Planning 170 (2018) 24–33

31

‘traditional’ gardens with high species richness. However, a few of the respondents who declared themselves as organic/permacultural did not appear to fit within common understandings of these terms in that they have adopted some practices that are widely regarded as non-organic, such as the use of herbicides. Conversely, many gardeners who did not identify themselves as organic growers or permaculturalists had prac- tices that were consistent with these labels.

The self-identified organic/permacultural vegetable gardeners in the sample had a high propensity to garden in publically visible places, like front yards (65%) and balconies or verandas (42%), as opposed to the rest (28% and 19%, respectively). Given that 77% of organic/per- macultural gardeners conformed to the ‘activist’ motivation group, this propensity is consistent with a desire to propagate their garden practice through display and social interaction.

The expenditure on vegetable garden-related consumption of or- ganic/permacultural gardeners is as substantial as that made by others in our sample, although the items preferentially purchased are more likely to come from small local than large international businesses, thus being consistent with expressed radical social values. The proportion of vegetable consumption coming from domestic production was also no greater for organic/permacultural gardeners than for other vegetable gardeners.

4.6. Planning and management implications

An increase in the proportion of private land used for food pro- duction has been identified as an important component of future urban sustainability (Ghosh 2014; Taylor & Lovell 2014). Existing research, while limited (National Gardening Association, 2009; Wise 2014), suggests that a significant proportion of urban households in many wealthy societies are likely to be presently engaged in this activity. In keeping with this research, our study indicates that domestic food production encompasses diverse sets of socio-demographic character- istics, garden landscapes, gardening practices and value-based gardener motivations. Across this diversity, domestic food production was shown to constitute significant proportions of domestic vegetable consumption (38%), outdoor garden space (40%) and time (one hour per day). Al- though often marginalised in food policy and research as a pre- dominantly symbolic exercise, urban domestic vegetable growing de- serves consideration as a legitimate and substantial form of agricultural production.

Our results suggest that participation in domestic vegetable pro- duction is socio-economically diverse. Attempts to facilitate urban ve- getable gardening by urban land managers and planners need to be cognisant of this diversity and to craft regulatory, facilitative, educa- tional and infrastructural approaches accordingly. People grow vege- tables for diverse reasons and within diverse social networks, adopting different gardening practices and producing different garden land- scapes. Not all of these gardens, practices and motivations are aligned, or are even compatible, with the interpretation of urban sustainability that may guide and motivate planning and management frameworks. It is possible, that planning frameworks that implicitly assume wider environmental and social motivations may alienate some groups of urban vegetable grower.

Our study found that a significant proportion of urban vegetable gardeners have an activist intent that motivates them to display and advocate for their organic/permacultural practices. However, we found that most activist gardeners are young, Australian-born and well-edu- cated, and, importantly, have a family history of vegetable gardening, suggesting that the demographic base and appeal of this activism may be narrow. Our data suggest that people not currently involved in ve- getable gardening, and who have no family history of this activity, are more likely to drawn into this activity through processes of conspicuous consumption in the new food culture or because vegetable growing saves them the money they would otherwise have to spend on healthy food.

Those vegetable gardeners that are presently motivated by new forms of conspicuous food consumption access popular media and their associated advertising. These gardeners are not necessarily motivated by any wider concern with social and environmental sustainability, and may contribute to existing environmental and social problems.

Our study indicates that those currently motivated to grow vege- tables to save money are unlikely to play a key role in encouraging others to participate in vegetable growing. They are generally not motivated by a desire to display and proselytise their gardening prac- tices. Planned interventions could potentially facilitate vegetable pro- duction by those too poor to reliably afford supermarket produce. However, whatever the substantial collective benefits of domestic ve- getable production for environmental and social sustainability, wider political action, involving taxation and regulation that seeks to direct dietary choices away from highly processed and towards fresh foods is likely to be required to motivate many to consider the option of growing vegetables at home.

5. Conclusions

Vegetable gardeners in Hobart, Tasmania are diverse in the gardens they produce, the practices they adopt and the motivations they ex- press, at one extreme producing complex, species rich organic gardens with political intent, and, at the other extreme, producing gardens and vegetables for social display in processes of conspicuous consumption. An effective program to increase vegetable production by urban re- sidents might best facilitate and entice low-income groups to grow vegetables as part of enhancing economic independence and resilience, rather than demonstrate alternative futures. However, activist gar- dening might be critical for meeting the future challenges of urban sustainability.

Acknowledgements

We are most grateful to the respondents in this study, and to Stella Thomas, Caitlin Wilkinson and Daniel Haley who efficiently and ef- fectively recruited respondents, administered our questionnaire and entered the data. The project was funded by a small grant from the Institute of Social Change of the University of Tasmania.

References

Australian Bureau of Statistics (1994). Home production of selected foodstuffs, Australia, year ended in April 1992. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics [Catalogue No. 7110.0].

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2013). Australian health survey: Consumption of food groups from the Australian dietary guidelines, 2011–12. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics [Catalogue No. 4364.0.55.012].

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2016). 2011 Census QuickStats: Greater Hobart. Available at www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/quickstat/ 6GHOB?opendocument&navpos=220, Accessed 20, August 2016.

Barthel, S., & Isendhal, C. (2013). Urban gardens, agriculture, and water management: Sources of resilience for long-term food security in cities. Ecological Economics, 86, 224–234.

Bhatti, M., & Church, A. (2001). Cultivating natures: Homes and gardens in late moder- nity. Sociology, 35, 365–383.

Carolan, M. (2011). The real cost of cheap food. London: Earthscan. Carolan, M. (2016). Adventurous food futures: knowing about alternatives is not enough,

we need to feel them. Agriculture and Human Values, 33, 141–152. CoDyre, M., Fraser, E. D. G., & Landman, K. (2015). How does your garden grow? An

empirical evaluation of the costs and potential of urban gardening. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 14, 72–79.

Daniels, G. D., & Kirkpatrick, J. B. (2006). Comparing the characteristics of front and back domestic gardens in Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. Landscape and Urban Planning, 78, 344–352.

Dobernig, K., & Stagl, S. (2015). Growing a lifestyle movement? Exploring identity-work and lifestyle politics in urban food cultivation. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 39, 452–458.

Ferguson, R. S., & Lovell, S. T. (2015). Grassroots engagement with transition to sus- tainability: Diversity and modes of participation in the international permaculture movement. Ecology and Society, 20, 39–57.

Freeman, C., Dickinson, K., Porter, S., & van Heezik, Y. (2012). My garden is an ex- pression of me: Exploring householders' relationships with their gardens. Journal of

J.B. Kirkpatrick, A. Davison Landscape and Urban Planning 170 (2018) 24–33

32

Environmental Psychology, 32, 135–143. Gaynor, A. (2006). Harvest of the suburbs: An environmental history of growing food in

australian cities. Perth: University of Western Australia Press. Ghosh, S. (2014). Measuring sustainability performance of local food production in home

gardens. Local Environment, 19, 33–55. Gibson-Graham, J.-K. (1996). The end of capitalism (As we know it). Blackwell: Oxford. Gibson-Graham, J.-K. (2006). A postcapitalist politics. Minneapolis: University of

Minnesota Press. Goodman, D. (2003). The quality ‘turn’ and alternative food practices: Reflections and

agenda. Journal of Rural Studies, 19, 1–7. Gray, L., Guzman, P., Glowa, K. M., & Drevno, A. G. (2014). Can home gardens scale up

into movements for social change? The role of home gardens in providing food se- curity and community change in San Jose, California. Local Environment, 19, 187–203.

Guitart, D., Pickering, C., & Byrne, J. (2012). Past results and future directions in urban community gardens research. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 11, 364–373.

Hawkins, J. L., Mercer, J., Thirlaway, K. J., & Clayton, D. A. (2013). “Doing” gardening and “being” at the allotment Site: Exploring the benefits of allotment gardening for stress reduction and healthy aging. Ecopsychology, 5, 110–125.

Head, L., & Muir, P. (2007). Backyard: Nature and culture in suburban Australia. Wollongong: University of Wollongong Press.

Heckathorn, D. (1997). Respondent-driven sampling: A new approach to the study of hidden populations. Social Problems, 44, 174–199.

Hinrichs, C. C. (2014). Transitions to sustainability: A change in thinking about food systems change? Agriculture and Human Values, 31, 143–155.

Holmgren, D. (2010). Permaculture: Principles and pathways beyond sustainability. East Meon: Permanent Publications.

Jarosz, L. (2000). Understanding agri-food networks as social relations. Agriculture and Human Values, 17, 279–283.

Kirkpatrick, J. B. (2006). The ecologies of Paradise. Hobart: Pandani Press. Kirkpatrick, J. B., Daniels, G. D., & Zagorski, T. (2007). Explaining variation in front

gardens between suburbs of Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. Landscape and Urban Planning, 79, 314–322.

Kirkpatrick, J. B., Daniels, G. D., & Davison, A. (2011). Temporal and spatial variation in garden and street trees in six eastern Australian cities. Landscape and Urban Planning, 101, 242–252.

Kirkpatrick, J. B., Davison, A., & Daniels, G. D. (2012). Resident attitudes towards trees influence the planting and removal of different types of trees in eastern Australian cities. Landscape and Urban Planning, 107, 147–158.

Kirkpatrick, J. B., Davison, A., & Daniels, G. D. (2013). Sinners, scapegoats or fashion victims? Understanding the deaths of trees in the green city. Geoforum, 48, 165–176.

Kortright, R., & Wakefield, S. (2011). Edible backyards: A qualitative study of household food growing and its contributions to food security. Agriculture and Human Values, 28, 39–53.

Kristiansen, P., Taji, A., & Reganold, J. (2006). Organic agriculture: A global perspective. Collingwood: CSIRO Publishing.

Landry, S. M., & Chakraborty, J. (2009). Street trees and equity: Evaluating the spatial distribution of an urban amenity. Environment and Planning A, 41, 2651–2670.

Larder, N., Lyons, K., & Woolcock, G. (2014). Enacting food sovereignty: Values and meanings in the act of domestic food production in urban Australia. Local Environment, 19, 56–76.

Loram, A., Tratalos, J., Warren, P. H., & Gaston, K. J. (2007). Urban domestic gardens (X): The extent and structure of the resource in five major cities. Landscape Ecology, 22, 601–615.

Martin, G., Clift, R., & Christie, I. (2016). Urban cultivation and Its contributions to sustainability: Nibbles of food but oodles of social capital. Sustainability, 8, 409–428.

Mayes, C. (2014). An agrarian imaginary in urban life: Cultivating virtues and vices through a conflicted history. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 27, 265–286.

McClintock, N., Cooper, J., & Khandeshi, S. (2013). Assessing the potential contribution

of vacant land to urban vegetable production and consumption in Oakland, California. Landscape and Urban Planning, 111, 46–58.

Minchin, P. R. (1987). An evaluation of the relative robustness of techniques for ecolo- gical ordination. In I. C. Prentice, & E. van der Maarel (Eds.). Theories and models in vegetation science (pp. 89–107). Dortrecht: W. Junk.

Minchin, P. R. (1990). DECODA: Database for ecological and community data. Canberra: ANUTECH.

Minchin P.R., 2013. Minitab® 17.1.0. www.minitab.com. Mollison, B. (1988). Permaculture: A designer’s manual sisters creek. Tasmania, Australia:

Tagari. National Gardening Association (2009). The impact of home and community gardening in

america. South Burlington, VT: National Gardening Association. Opitz, I., Berges, R., Piorr, A., & Krikser, T. (2016). Contributing to food security in urban

areas: Differences between urban agriculture and peri-urban agriculture in the Global North. Agriculture and Human Values, 33, 341–358.

Paarlberg, R. (2013). Food politics: What everyone needs to know (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Padullés Cubino, J., Kirkpatrick, J. B., & Subirós, J. V. (2017). Do water requirements of Mediterranean gardens relate to socio-economic and demographic factors? Urban Water Journal, 14, 401–408.

Paull, J. (2013). A history of the organic agriculture movement in Australia. In B. Mascitelli, & A. Lobo (Eds.). Organics in the global food chain. Ballarat: Connor Court Publishing.

Pearce, L. M., Davison, A., & Kirkpatrick, J. B. (2015). Personal encounters with trees: The lived significance of the private urban forest. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 14, 1–7.

Phillipov, M. (2016). The new politics of food: Television and the media/food industries. Media International Australia, 158, 90–98.

Poulsen, M. N., McNab, P. R., Clayton, M. L., & Neff, R. A. (2015). A systematic review of urban agriculture and food security impacts in low-income countries. Food Policy, 55, 131–146.

Rainbow, S. L. (1992). Why did New Zealand and Tasmania spawn the world’s first green parties? Environmental Politics, 1, 321–346.

Schupp, J. L., & Sharp, J. S. (2012). Exploring the social bases of home gardening. Agriculture and Human Values, 29, 93–105.

Taylor, J. R., & Lovell, S. T. (2012). Mapping public and private spaces of urban agri- culture in Chicago through the analysis of high-resolution aerial images in Google Earth. Landscape and Urban Planning, 108, 57–70.

Taylor, J. R., & Lovell, S. T. (2014). Urban home food gardens in the Global North: Research traditions and future directions. Agriculture and Human Values, 31, 285–305.

Thomaier, S., Specht, K., Henckel, D., Dierich, A., Siebert, R., Freisinger, U. B., et al. (2015). Farming in and on urban buildings: Present practice and specific novelties of Zero-Acreage Farming (ZFarming). Renewable Agricultural Food Systems, 30, 43–54.

Thompson, K., Austin, K. C., Smith, R. H., Warren, P. H., Angold, P. G., & Gaston, K. J. (2003). Urban domestic gardens (I): Putting small-scale plant diversity in context. Journal of Vegetation Science, 14, 71–78.

Tranter, B. (2014). Social and political influences on environmentalism in Australia. Journal of Sociology, 50, 331–348.

Veblen, T. (1925). The theory of the leisure class: An economic study of institutions. London: George Allen & Unwin [1899].

Vermeulen, S. J., Campbell, B. M., & Ingram, J. S. (2012). Climate Change and food systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37, 195–222.

Wise, P. (2014). Grow your own: The potential value and impacts of residential and com- munity food gardening. The Australia Institute, Policy Brief 59.

Zagorski, T., Kirkpatrick, J. B., & Stratford, E. (2004). Gardens and the bush: gardeners attitudes: Garden types and invasives. Australian Geographical Studies, 42, 207–220.

Zainuddin, Z., & Mercer, D. (2014). Domestic residential garden food production in Melbourne, Australia: A fine-grained analysis and pilot study. Australian Geographer, 45, 465–484.

J.B. Kirkpatrick, A. Davison Landscape and Urban Planning 170 (2018) 24–33

33