1

Urban Produce Gardens and Maintenance of Nearby

Parcels

Allison M. Krusky, MPH, RD

Justin E. Heinze, PhD

Thomas M. Reischl, PhD

Sophie M. Aiyer, PhD

Susan Franzen, MS

Marc A. Zimmerman, PhD

This project is supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Grant Number 5U01CE001957-02.

2

INTERVENTION APPROACH

FOCUS OF INTERVENTION

INDIVIDUAL RELATIONS

HIP

COMMUNITY

UNIVERSAL Youth Empowerment

Solutions

Fathers & Sons Clean & GreenAdopt-a-Lot

HIGH RISK ED Brief Intervention Mentoring

Community Policing

3

6,137 Properties

Parcel Maintenance Observation Tool

Parcel Assessments

4

Fear of crime

Crime

Negative health and social impacts

Neighborhood Disorganization

5

Improved mental health

Reduced fear of crime

Reduced crime

Neighborhood Maintenance

6

Residential Lawn Maintenance

• Opportunity for social interaction

• Opportunity for surveillance

• Territorial marking

• Improved neighborhood aesthetics

7

Landscape Mimicry Proximity

Similar House Design

Opposing Side

Unique

8

Community garden participants

◦ Social Capital

◦ Neighborhood Norms and Values

Neighborhood Gardens

9

Residents

◦ Perceived as “safe areas”

◦ Connection to Nature

◦ Community Bond

◦ Empowerment

Parks and Gardens

10

Produce Gardens

• Sole purpose of parcel is to grow fruits and/or vegetables

• Ownership– LandBank Properties– Local residents:

Community garden– Individuals

11

Programs

◦ Clean and Green

◦ Adopt a Lot

◦ Land Lease

Genesee County Land Bank

12

1970◦ Population: 196,940◦ GM jobs: ~80,000

2010◦ Population: 102,434◦ GM jobs: <8,000

Population Decline in Flint

13

Abandoned Homes and Vacant Lots

14

Do urban produce gardens influence the lawn maintenance of nearby properties?

Research Question

15

Mowing and Weeding

Landscaping

Litter and Trash

Measure: Lawn Maintenance

16

17

18

19

Produce Gardens and Nearby Residential, Occupied Properties

20

Vacant Lots and Nearby Residential, Occupied Properties

21

Residential, Occupied Properties

22

Final Sample

23

Neighborhood Factors

• Census– Population Density– Percent Occupied

Households

• MI-YVPC Survey– Social Capital/ Cohesion– Neighborhood Disorder– Fear of Crime– Neighborhood

Participation

24

Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM)

Final Model:◦ Level 1: Parcel Characteristics

Near Produce Garden or not

◦ Level 2: Neighborhood Characteristics Social Capital/Cohesion Neighborhood Disorder Fear of Crime Neighborhood Participation Population Density Percent Owner-Occupied Households

Data Analysis

25

Results at 50 meters

Sample Predictor CoefficientResidential, Occupied properties within 50 meters a produce garden or vacant lot

Model 1aNear Produce Garden or not (1=Yes, 0=No) .25*

Intercept B01 -.06

Model 1bNear Produce Garden or not (1=Yes, 0=No) .19*

Intercept B0 -.38*

Population Density -.00Percent Owner Occupied Properties .01

Social Capital/Cohesion (z-score) 1.95**Neighborhood Disorder (z-score) 1.64**

Neighborhood Participation (z-score) -.48*Fear of Crime (z-score) .89

*p < 0.05, ** p< 0.01, μ0=n.s.

Table 1. Effect of living within 50 meters of a produce garden or vacant lot on mean lawn maintenance score(parcel n=399, census block group n=15)

26

Cautions about causal inference

Gardens not randomly placed

Generalizability

Limitations

27

Reduction of Urban Blight

Social Diffusion of Benefits

Flint has opportunities to invest in greening

Implications

28

LandBank◦ Clean and Green, Adopt a Lot

Greened Areas and Crime

Future Analyses

29

For more information please visit:

http://yvpc.sph.umich.edu/