Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nmvwc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-04T23:57:02.115Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Motivation and background of participants and providers of self-harvest gardens in Germany

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2018

Martin Gauder ,
Heinrich Hagel ,
Nadine Gollmann ,
Joachim Stängle ,
Reiner Doluschitz  and
Wilhelm Claupein
Martin Gauder*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Institute of Crop Science, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany
Heinrich Hagel
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Applications and Business Management in Agriculture, Institute of Farm Management, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany
Nadine Gollmann
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Applications and Business Management in Agriculture, Institute of Farm Management, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany
Joachim Stängle
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Applications and Business Management in Agriculture, Institute of Farm Management, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany
Reiner Doluschitz
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Applications and Business Management in Agriculture, Institute of Farm Management, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany
Wilhelm Claupein
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Institute of Crop Science, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany
*
Author for correspondence: Martin Gauder, gauder@uni-hohenheim.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Different forms of urban agriculture have gained increased interest and participation in Germany. One form of urban agriculture is self-harvest gardening where participants can lease a plot in a field with various vegetables. However, in Western Europe, little is known about self-harvest garden participants and providers or their motivation and social background. Therefore, in 2015 a survey was conducted with 173 participants and 34 providers from different regions and cities in Germany. The study aimed to compile a self-characterization of people engaged in this form of gardening on a national level. The outcome of the survey captures an emerging phenomenon. While many of the self-harvest gardens can be assigned as grassroot initiatives, participants generally characterized themselves as having a middle or high income, a sustainable lifestyle, high level of education and high nutritional awareness. Disproportionally often, females were engaged in self-harvest gardening. Providers were mainly farmers with a high affinity to organic agriculture. Often the farmers had synergistic effects with other activities like farm shops. Location of the garden area, good support by the providers, promotional marketing and social activities were identified as factors for successful self-harvest gardens. The main incentive for the participants seem to be their engagement in the production of local and healthy food, which can be taken into account by the providers when considering their future focus. On the other hand, problems with bad harvest, theft and vandalism were challenges for some self-harvest gardens. While, legal problems were not a major concern for the providers.

Keywords

Community gardeningquestionnairesurveyurban agricultureurban farmingurban gardening
Type
Research Paper
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 34 , Issue 6 , December 2019 , pp. 534 - 542
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adenegan, KO, Balogun, OL and Yusuf, TO (2016) Initial household assets and profitability of urban farming. International Journal of Vegetable Science 22, 153–160.Google Scholar
Adiprasetyo, T, Sukisno, S, Setyowati, N, Ginting, S and Handajaningsih, M (2015) The prospect of horticultural organic farming as sustainable agricultural practice for reducing poverty: the case in Bengkulu City, Indonesia. International Journal on Advanced Science, Engineering and Information Technology 5, 402–406.10.18517/ijaseit.5.6.595Google Scholar
Franz-Balsen, A (2014) Gender and (un)sustainability – can communication solve a conflict of norms? Sustainability 6, 1973–1991.Google Scholar
Barthel, S and Isendahl, C (2013) Urban gardens, agriculture, and water management: sources of resilience for long-term food security in cities. Ecological Economics 86, 224–234.Google Scholar
Bauer, UC (2014) Solidary agriculture – model for the farm of the future? In an interview with: Elmar Schulte-Tigges, qualified geographer and operator of the ‘Schulte-Tigges Educational Farm’ and the ‘Kümper Heide collective of producers and consumers’. Standort 38, 198–202.10.1007/s00548-014-0362-9Google Scholar
Bell, S, Fox-Kämper, R, Keshavarz, N, Benson, M, Caputo, S, Noori, S, Voigt, A. (eds.) (2016) Urban Allotment Gardens in Europe. New York, USA: Routledge.10.4324/9781315686608Google Scholar
Bendt, P, Barthel, S and Colding, J (2013) Civic greening and environmental learning in public-access community gardens in Berlin. Landscape and Urban Planning 109, 18–30.10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.10.003Google Scholar
Drake, L and Lawson, LJ (2015) Results of a US and Canada community garden survey: shared challenges in garden management amid diverse geographical and organizational contexts. Agriculture and Human Values 32, 241–254.10.1007/s10460-014-9558-7Google Scholar
Fuchs, R, Herold, M, Verburg, PH, Clevers, JGPW and Eberle, J (2015) Gross changes in reconstructions of historic land cover/use for Europe between 1900 and 2010. Global Change Biology 21, 299–313.10.1111/gcb.12714Google Scholar
Ghose, R and Pettygrove, M (2014) Actors and networks in urban community garden development. Geoforum 53, 93–103.Google Scholar
Gläser, J and Laudel, G (2010) Experteninterviews und Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer-Verlag.10.1007/978-3-531-91538-8Google Scholar
Goeb, R, McCollin, C and Ramalhoto, MF (2007) Ordinal methodology in the analysis of Likert scales. Quality & Quantity 41, 601–626.10.1007/s11135-007-9089-zGoogle Scholar
Harrison, J and Klotz, L (2010) Women as sustainability leaders in engineering: evidence from industry and academia. International Journal of Engineering Education 26, 727–734.Google Scholar
Hirsch, DD, Meyer, CH, Klement, J, Hamer, M and Terlau, W (2016) Urban agriculture and food systems dynamics in the German Bonn/Rhein-Sieg Region. International Journal on Food System Dynamics 7, 341, 341–359; 359.Google Scholar
Howard Schutzbank, M and Riseman, A (2013) Entrepreneurial urban farms: an urban farming census of Vancouver, British Columbia. International Journal of Environmental Sustainability 8, 131–163.Google Scholar
Lawal, MO and Aliu, IR (2012) Operational pattern and contribution of urban farming in an emerging megacity: evidence from Lagos, Nigeria. Bulletin of Geography 17, 87–97.Google Scholar
Lovell, ST (2010) Multifunctional urban agriculture for sustainable land Use planning in the United States. Sustainability 2, 2500–2503.10.3390/su2082499Google Scholar
Mayring, P (2010) Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. In: Mey, G., Mruck, K. (eds) Handbuch Qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, Germany.Google Scholar
Mikulec, P, Diduck, AP, Froese, B, Unger, H and MacKenzie, K (2013) Legal and policy barriers to community gardening in Winnipeg, Canada. Canadian Journal of Urban Research 22, 69–89.Google Scholar
Norman, G (2010) Likert scales, levels of measurement and the ‘laws’ of statistics. Advances in Health Sciences Education 15, 625–632.Google Scholar
Opitz, I, Specht, K, Piorr, A, Siebert, R and Zasada, I (2017) Effects of consumer-producer interactions in alternative food networks on consumers’ learning about food and agriculture. Moravian Geographical Reports 25, 181–191.Google Scholar
Prasetiyo, WH, Budimansyah, D and Roslidah, N (2016) Urban farming as a civic virtue development in the environmental field. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education 11, 3139–3146.Google Scholar
Rosol, M (2006) Gemeinschaftsgarten in Berlin: eine qualitative Untersuchung zu Potenzialen und Risiken burgerschaftlichen Engagements im Grunflachenbereich vor dem Hintergrund des Wandels von Staat und Planung (Doctoral dissertation, Zugl.: Berlin, Humboldt-Univ.).Google Scholar
Schreier, M (2014) Qualitative content analysis. In Flick, U. (Ed.). The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis. pp. 170–182. Sage. London, GB.10.4135/9781446282243.n12Google Scholar
Statista (2017) Volume of sales of discounters in the food retailing in Germany 2016. https://de.statista.com/ last visited 05.10.2017.Google Scholar
Statistisches Bundesamt (2014) Zensus 2011. Wiesbaden, Germany. Available at https://ergebnisse.zensus2011.de/?locale=en# last visited 6.10.2017.Google Scholar
Surls, R, Feenstra, G, Golden, S, Galt, R, Hardesty, S, Napawan, C and Wilen, C (2015) Gearing up to support urban farming in California: preliminary results of a needs assessment. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 30, 33–42.10.1017/S1742170514000052Google Scholar
Van Averbeke, W (2007) Urban farming in the informal settlements of Atteridgeville, Pretoria, South Africa. Water SA 33, 337–342.10.4314/wsa.v33i3.180591Google Scholar
Viljoen, A and Wiskerke, JS (2012) Sustainable Food Planning: Evolving Theory and Practice. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Vogl, CR, Axmann, P and Vogl-Lukasser, B (2004) Urban organic farming in Austria with the concept of Selbsternte (‘self-harvest’): an agronomic and socio-economic analysis. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 19, 67–79.10.1079/RAFS200062Google Scholar