https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9602-7416
Figures
Abstract
Introduction
There has been growing interest in community gardens as an effective and affordable health promotion strategy. However, most available evidence is derived from qualitative studies, whereas quantitative research on this subject is limited.
Objectives
To synthetize the literature about physical and mental health outcomes associated with community gardening. Two main questions were addressed: a) is there evidence, from quantitative studies, that community gardening is associated to physical and mental health and well-being of non-institutionalized individuals? b) Does community gardening provokes any discomfort in terms of physical health, i.e., bodily pain, to their beneficiaries?
Methods
A systematic review of the literature was carried out following PRISMA guidelines by searching relevant electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science). Empirical, quantitative studies published in English with no restrictions concerning the date of publication were considered eligible. The quality of the evidence was appraised using the tool developed by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies.
Results
Overall, 8 studies were considered eligible, of which seven studies were rated as having good methodological quality (one scored as fair). Community gardeners had significantly better health outcomes than their neighbours not engaged in gardening activities in terms of life satisfaction, happiness, general health, mental health, and social cohesion.
Conclusion
Community gardens are associated to health gains for their users, irrespective of age, being an affordable and efficient way of promoting physical and mental health and well-being. To encourage the design, maintenance, and prospective evaluation of supportive urban environments promoting healthy and, at the same time, sustainable lifestyles, is essential to achieve public health gains and environmental sustainability.
Citation: Lampert T, Costa J, Santos O, Sousa J, Ribeiro T, Freire E (2021) Evidence on the contribution of community gardens to promote physical and mental health and well-being of non-institutionalized individuals: A systematic review. PLoS ONE 16(8): e0255621. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255621
Editor: Marcel Pikhart, University of Hradec Kralove: Univerzita Hradec Kralove, CZECH REPUBLIC
Received: February 9, 2021; Accepted: July 20, 2021; Published: August 6, 2021
Copyright: © 2021 Lampert et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: This literature review was funded by the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia and by the Empresa Municipal de Ambiente de Cascais through a doctoral grant to the first author of this paper (PDE/BDE/122672/2016). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: We declare that the Author OS is the CEO of the company Unbreakable Idea Research, which is a for-profit organization in the areas of health services, health-related training and applied health research. This affiliation does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. We also declare that the company does not have any direct benefit from the involvement of its CEO in this project.
Introduction
The global burden of mental illness is considerable, and it encompasses individual, family, social and economic impacts [1]. At the individual level, people suffering from (transient or chronic) mental illness also experience impaired quality of life characterized by distress-related feelings, lack of control, low self-esteem and confidence, among others [2, 3]. This condition strongly affects their everyday living [4], including their social interactions [5] and performance at the workplace [6]. Moreover, stigma and discrimination towards people with mental illness still prevails. with negative consequences for those mentally ill [7], who might refrain from seeking professional help [8].
A recently published literature review concluded that the global burden of mental illness in terms of years lived with disabilities (YLDs) has been underestimated, and placed mental illness at the top of the list accounting for 32.4% of YLDs [1]. Concerning disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), mental illness is at the same level as cardiovascular and circulatory diseases, accounting for 13.0% of DALYs [1]. These pictures call for action against the high burden of mental illness and gain urgency in the context of the current COVID-19 pandemic. The available literature addressing the impact of COVID-19 on mental health supports psychological suffering (e.g., anxiety, depression, post-traumatic disorder, psychological distress) from lockdowns, social distancing measures, being diagnosed with COVID-19 or being a health professional working at the frontline [9–11]. Now more than ever before, mental health promotion should be the main avenue to tackle the burden of mental illness.
Human contact with nature has been highly valued in health promotion over the last years. As such, there has been a growing interest on the health benefits from greenspace exposure, i.e., parks, gardens and forests, with evidence in favour of positive health outcomes (e.g. [12–17]). Interestingly, some authors argue that the mental health benefits arising from the contact with nature should embody the list of services provided by the natural ecosystems [13], which include crop pollination and climate regulation, among others. Empirical evidence supports the beneficial influence of greenspace exposure on several health outcomes. These include physical and general health [18]; disease prevention [19–21]; restoration of the individuals’ psychological resources by providing them with an environment free from physical and social stressors [22]; and improvement of the cognitive function, including memory, attention, concentration and impulse inhibition [23].
Contact with nature in urban areas is challenging, because outdoor greenspaces are much reduced compared to non-urban, rural areas. Cox et al. (2017) investigated which natural characteristics of selected neighbourhoods in British urban areas contributed the most for mental health gains of the nearby residents. These authors concluded that vegetation cover and the abundance of birds in the afternoon were the most relevant factors contributing for mental health benefits measured as decreased prevalence of depression, anxiety, and stress. Another study concluded that the prevalence of mental health conditions can be reduced if minimum values of vegetation cover are maintained [20]. Thus, green spaces can also function as a promotion strategy for mental health [24]. These findings are highly relevant to inform strategic public health interventions and support urban planning solutions that ease the interaction between city dwellers and nature [25].
In 2019, approximately 57% of the world population lived in cities [26] and spent the great majority of the time indoors (e.g., at home, school, workplace); pre-COVID-19 pandemic estimates pointed out that humans spend, on average, 85–90% of their time indoors [27]. Then, the great challenge is to integrate nature within the urban infrastructure. One avenue to tackle this issue is by promoting citizens’ participation in community gardens [28]. Community gardens are also known as urban gardens, allotment gardens, allotments, community agriculture, agricultural allotments, roof top gardens, roof top agriculture, roof top farms, all these terms referring to a greenspace located in an urban area, where community residents mainly grow vegetables for their own consumption, although border flower beds are also commonly grown, while profiting from it in the company of other members from the neighbourhood and/or their family with no imposed frequency schedule [29]. Community gardens serve various relevant functions at multiple levels. At the environmental level, they can add to climate change mitigation by sequestrating atmospheric carbon, thus contributing for reducing the amount of greenhouse gases [30]. As previously mentioned, community gardens are also considered a sustainable way to improve the quality of life of city dwellers [31, 32], namely by providing citizens with the opportunity to be in close contact with nature [33, 34] while supporting healthy lifestyles [35].
Horticultural therapy, i.e., the engagement of individuals in horticultural activities with live plants to improve their health and well-being [36], has produced health benefits on people with various mental health conditions in different settings (e.g., [37–39]. However, less is known about the mental health outcomes for non-clinical populations engaging in gardening activities. A study carried out in The Netherlands provided support for a positive effect of gardening activities on relief from acute stress [40]. In another study, community gardeners were induced some stress and randomly assigned to a 30-min outdoors gardening session or indoors reading. The levels of stress measured as salivary cortisol and self-reported positive mood were significantly lower in those assigned to gardening activities versus the reading group [40]. There is also some evidence that engaging in community gardening improves well-being by encouraging healthy behaviours, such as physical activity [41] and the consumption of locally grown healthy foods [42, 43]. Moreover, a qualitative study conducted in the United States pointed out that gardening is considered a moderate intensity activity that can provide older adults with the health benefits of regular moderate intensity physical activity [44]. On the other hand, some body positions during gardening can be uncomfortable or even cause pain when the target audience is the elderly [44].
Despite increased attention that community gardening has received in recent years, most available evidence on health and well-being promotion comes from qualitative studies [45, 46]. As such, this study aims to review quantitative evidence about physical and mental health outcomes of community gardening. More specifically, this literature review addresses two main questions. First, is there evidence, from quantitative studies, that community gardening contributes to increased physical and mental health and well-being of non-institutionalized individuals? Second, does community gardening provokes any discomfort in terms of physical health, i.e., bodily pain, to their users? To answer these questions, a systematic literature review following PRISMA guidelines [47] was conducted.
Methods
Search strategy and inclusion criteria
A systematic literature review was performed following PRISMA guidelines [47] through a search of studies contained in PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science electronic databases with no restrictions concerning publication date (PRISMA Checklist is provided as S1 Checklist). The search was conducted on July 2–4, 2019, and updated on November 17–19, 2020, by using a pairwise combination of two blocks of both free-text and medical subject headings (MeSH) terms. The search strategy followed for PubMed is provided as S1 File. The following keywords were used as alternatives: (“Community garden*” OR “Urban garden*” OR “Allotment garden*” OR Allotment OR “Community agriculture” OR “Agricultural allotment” OR “Roof*top garden*” OR “Roof*top agriculture” OR “Roof*top farm*”) AND (“Mental health” OR “Quality of life” OR *happiness OR “Well*being” OR “Life satisfaction” OR “Satisfaction with life” OR “Psychological well*being” OR “Subjective well*being” OR Depression OR Anxiety OR Dysthymia OR Loneliness OR “Musculoskeletal injur*” OR “Musculoskeletal condition*” OR “Osteo*articular injur*” OR “Osteo*articular disease*”).
Citations retrieved were downloaded, duplicates were removed, titles and abstracts were independently screened for eligibility by two authors of this review (TL and JC). In case of disagreement, a third researcher (OS) independently assessed the article for eligibility. Articles were assessed for eligibility based on the following criteria: a) empirical cross-sectional quantitative studies; b) community-based studies; c) data on subjective or psychological well-being and/or physical well-being reported in the study; d) the gardens referred to in the studies were exclusively community gardens; and e) full texts available in English. Documents reporting data from studies conducted in home gardens, also referred to as household gardens, as well as qualitative studies, literature reviews and grey literature were excluded.
Data extraction and analysis
Data were independently extracted by two authors of this review (TL and JC) into a standardized table, and a third researcher (OS) checked data for consensus. Data extracted from each article were as follows: authors, year of publication, title of the paper, country of data collection, setting (rural versus urban), target population, sample size of the participants, sample size of gardens, inclusion criteria, exclusion criteria, characteristics of the gardens (e.g., area, number of plots), motivation(s) for selecting those gardens, health outcomes under study (i.e., subjective or psychological well-being and/or physical well-being), instruments of data collection, main conclusions, and direction of the association between community gardening and health outcomes.
Quality assessment
The quality of the evidence was appraised using the tool by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies [48]. This was done independently by two authors of the paper (TL and JC); in case of disagreement, an independent evaluation was made by a third researcher (OS).
Results
Fig 1 depicts the selection process of articles included in this systematic literature review. Eight articles were considered eligible from the initial list of 262 potentially relevant titles. Main methodological characteristics of the articles are summarized in Table 1. Studies included in this literature review were conducted in the United States of America (n = 3), United Kingdom (n = 1), the Netherlands (n = 1), Japan (n = 1), Singapore (n = 1), and Portugal (n = 1). All studies were conducted in an urban setting and had a cross-sectional design; one of them used a mixed-methods approach by combining cross-sectional quantitative data collection and qualitative semi-structured interviews [49]. Target population was composed of adult gardeners and non-gardeners residing in the cities where the studies were carried out; one study targeted Bhutanese refugees living in the United States [49]. In all studies, outcomes of interest were compared between gardeners and non-gardeners. With regard to inclusion and exclusion criteria, these were generally not provided in the articles, with three exceptions in which specific inclusion criteria for the target population were defined: a) individuals aged 50+ years [50], b) Nepali Bhutanese Refugees [49], and c) gardeners from the urban organic allotment garden at Devesa Park, Portugal [51]. Only the study carried out in Singapore referred to exclusion criteria: participants who did not complete the survey; individuals under the age of 18 and over the age of 100; and residents who engaged in physical activities outdoors, alone and not in a group, were excluded from the study [52]. The number of community gardens analyzed in the studies ranged from 1 to 64; however, not all studies reported this information. Community gardens were variable in terms of their characteristics, including size and facilities offered to gardeners. Detailed information regarding garden characteristics was generally not provided in the papers (Table 1).
Characterization of the participants
Characterization of the participants (gardeners and non-gardeners) and data on the association between gardening and mental and physical well-being are provided in Table 2. The sample size of community gardeners ranged from 16 [53] to 165 [19], whereas the number of participants enrolled in the studies who were not engaged in gardening activities ranged from 28 [49, 52] to 167 [19]. One study considered two groups of participants, i.e., regular and occasional gardeners, based on the frequency they engaged in gardening activities [53]. Two studies also included a group of people who performed their gardening activities within their home gardens [50, 52]. With regard to non-gardeners, one study addressed community gardening and other leisure activities for stress reduction, and the latter group included home gardeners, walkers and people who engaged in physical activity indoors [50].
No study targeted only men or women, though gender representation within groups (gardeners versus non-gardeners) was highly variable among studies (Table 2). Only two studies indicated the range of participants’ age: 50+ years old [50] and between 18 and 100 years old [52]. The remaining studies provided the average age of the participants, usually above 40 years old for both gardeners and non-gardeners (Table 2).
Community gardens and mental and physical well-being
Studies included in this literature review addressed two types of outcomes: physical and mental health and well-being. These were measured by asking participants to fill in specific questionnaires (Table 2). All studies assessed mental health and well-being, whereas physical health and well-being was covered in five out of the eight studies. Regarding physical health and well-being, respondents were generally asked to rate their general health status [19, 40, 49–51, 53, 54]. In one study, they were also asked about chronic conditions [40]. No study investigated musculoskeletal or osteoarticular injuries related to community gardening. Concerning mental health and well-being, gardeners and non-gardeners where asked about life satisfaction [40, 51, 53, 54], perceived stress [40, 50, 52], anxiety symptoms [49], depression symptoms [49], perceived social support [49, 50], health-related quality of life [50], and social contacts [19, 40]. The study conducted in Singapore also assessed connection with nature, resilience, subjective well-being, self-esteem, optimism and openness [52]. One study targeted Bhutanese refugees living in the USA and asked participants about posttraumatic stress and adjustment to the new country [49].
According to our quality assessment criteria, seven studies included in this literature review were rated as “good” and only one scored “fair” (Fig 2). Regarding the article scored as "fair", its results pointed out to a positive association between community gardens and physical and mental well-being [51]. Overall, a positive association between engaging in community gardening and physical and mental health and well-being was found in all studies included in this literature. A study addressing the mental health outcomes of community gardening among Nepali Bhutanese refugees living in the United States found perceived social support to be higher among gardeners than non-gardeners. However, no significant effect of community gardening on symptoms of depression, anxiety, somatic complains and adjustment to life in a new country was detected among these participants [49].
Discussion
Main findings
In this study, quantitative evidence on physical and mental health outcomes arising from engaging in community gardening was reviewed. Despite only eight studies met our inclusion criteria, their conclusions support the association between community gardening and positive physical (general health) and mental health (life satisfaction, happiness, mental health and social cohesion) outcomes among non-institutionalized individuals. No data about physical injuries (i.e., osteoarticular and/or musculoskeletal injuries) associated with engaging in community gardening activities were retrieved in the literature search.
Positive health outcomes associated to community gardening activity
Overall, results here in provide evidence on the association between community gardening and positive health outcomes, irrespectively of participants’ gender, age, ethnicity, and country of residence. With regard to physical health, gardeners perceived their general health status to be better than community dwellers not involved in gardening activities [19, 40]. This might be due to the influence of gardening in health behaviors, namely regular physical activity [55], which is associated to a risk reduction for chronic conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, hypertension, cancer, obesity, but also to a reduction in the risk of premature death [56]. Indeed, gardening is considered to be a moderate intensity activity [41, 57], involving low to moderate intensity tasks [58] that proved sufficient for older adults to meet the recommendations on 30 minutes moderate intensity physical activity sessions, five (or more) days a week, if regularly undertaken [59]. Interestingly, one study included in this literature review reported differences in health outcomes between gardeners and non-gardeners only for those aged 62+ years—gardeners scored significantly better than non-gardeners, whereas no statistically significant differences were detected between younger gardeners and non-gardeners [40]. In a world getting older and characterized by an inverted age pyramid [60], community gardening seems a promising avenue to tackle age-related disability and promote healthy aging [61].
Apart from likely influencing health behaviors through increased physical activity, community gardening potentially impacts diet via increased consumption of fruit and vegetables [29, 62, 63]. Four studies included in this literature review provided data on the frequency of fruit and/or vegetable intake, which was higher for gardeners compared to non-gardeners [19, 40, 53, 54]. Moreover, growing vegetables for own consumption rated second concerning the motivations of Japanese community dwellers to engage in community gardening [19]. By successfully improving nutrition, community gardens not only contribute to reduce the risk of chronic diseases, such as cardiovascular disease and some cancers [64], but are also highly relevant to reduce inequalities in urban food systems [65]. As such, there has been growing interest in the role of these green spaces to increase access to nutritious food in the so-called ‘food deserts’, i.e., areas with limited access to affordable and nutritious food [29, 66, 67]. Evidence available from Rockford, Illinois, shows that community gardens also encompass diet benefits for non-gardeners because these individuals also have increased access to fruit and vegetables via shared production surplus from individual plots [66, 68]. Moreover, production from the cultivation of communal plots by volunteers engaged in local neighbourhood networks is also donated to social service organisations and deprived families, thus contributing to increase their access to nutritious food and reduce food inequalities [66].
All studies included in this literature review support a positive association between community gardening and mental health and well-being among non-institutionalized individuals. Overall, gardeners reported higher levels of life satisfaction [40, 51, 54], less perceived stress [40, 50], increased perceived social support [49] and social contacts [19, 40] than non-gardeners. Interestingly, perceived stress and social contacts were moderated by age among Dutch gardeners: community dwellers aged 62+ years engaged in gardening activities reported significantly lower stress levels and increased social contacts than non-gardeners (same age range), whereas no differences were found between younger gardeners and non-gardeners (62+ years) [40]. This finding is highly relevant under the context of healthy aging. As people age, their social network becomes narrower due to the combined effects of their reliance on stable and close relationships plus a decline in the establishment of new relationships [69]. As such, increased social contact by active participation in activities within the local neighbourhood, such as community gardening, has the potential to reduce loneliness feelings and increase mental health and well-being of older adults, although not restricted to this age group [30, 61, 70]. Community gardens provide a place for individuals to interact with other gardeners, neighbours, friends and family, thus contributing for broadening and strengthening of individual social networks, sometimes promoting intergenerational contacts [71] and social cohesion [72]. This encompasses positive impacts for mental health and well-being [73], in particular for vulnerable populations, such as older people [74] as previously considered. One study included in this literature review addressed the experiences of Bhutanese refugees during resettlement in the United States, by investigating and comparing several indicators of mental health and well-being between gardeners and non-gardeners [49]. Despite the two groups did not differ in levels of self-reported distress, symptoms of depression, anxiety and somatic complaints, gardeners reported significantly greater social support than non-gardeners [49]. Increased social support has been previously reported by refugees engaged in community gardening [75, 76], although only a few studies have been conducted up to now [74]. By gathering to grow vegetables and fruits, refugees interact with individuals with the same cultural background, which allows them to maintain ties to their culture of origin, but they are also provided with the opportunity for a smoothly inclusion process in the country of arrival by interacting with natives who also gather to gardening [75–77]. Interestingly, no differences for self-reported social support between community gardeners and home gardeners were found in one study included in this literature review (50). Further understanding on the association between engaging in community gardening versus home gardening and self-perceived social support will benefit from future comparative studies of these two activities.
Findings from this literature review are especially relevant given the current COVID-19 pandemic situation. The rapid spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus brought a sudden change in the routine of the world population, and the year 2020 was characterized by lockdowns in several countries, as well as social containment and restrictions to mobility. Such abrupt disruptions in everyday life might negatively impact physical and mental health and well-being [78]. During periods of social isolation, easily accessible natural environments, such as community gardens, provide an adequate environment for individuals to engage in physical activity while relaxing [79, 80]. Outdoor green spaces in the neighbourhood where individuals can go, in a safer manner and complying with the recommendations from the health authorities, for time slots of 30–40 min everyday have an enormous potential to help build resilience and maintain physical and mental health and well-being [78]. Moreover, their role in complementing food shortages during crisis, such as during the World War II, is well known [81]. As such, community gardens potentially play a role in improving food security during the COVID-19 pandemic, which undoubtedly affected food systems [82].
Community gardening-related physical injuries
No study assessing and/or reporting community gardening-related physical injuries, namely musculoskeletal and osteoarticular injuries, was retrieved in our literature search. This finding is quite striking given the large body of evidence available in the literature concerning physical injuries associated to agricultural practices and farming (e.g., [83–86]). For example, a systematic literature review addressing the prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders among farmers found that low back pain was the most frequently reported musculoskeletal disorder [87]. Injuries caused by hand tools manipulation, such as finger cuts, have also been frequently reported among farmers [86, 88]. Except for machinery, the types of hand tools used in farming and community gardening are potentially the same, e.g., shovel and sickle, which suggests that community gardeners might be exposed to the same types of injuries that farmers are. More research in this area is needed to disentangle between the physical health benefits versus potential risks of community gardening.
Community gardens: A sustainable health promotion strategy
Human development and urbanization have generated a series of environmental problems, such as overconsumption of natural resources, water and air pollution, waste production [89, 90], and reduction of green spaces [89, 91]. These encompass major challenges and threats to human health and environmental sustainability [92–94]. Community gardening has the potential to contribute to achieve gains in human health and environmental sustainability, as pointed out in a growing body of literature (e.g., [95, 96] and also supported by results herein. By creating urban spaces where community dwellers gather to grow fruits and vegetables, public authorities are empowering the local communities and providing them with safer, enjoyable, all-inclusive settings that ease healthier choices, while fostering active participation in health and promoting the contact with nature in a sustainable manner, as envisaged in the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion [97].
At the European level, one of the various actions under the European Green Deal, an action plan by the European Commission aimed at making the EU’s economy sustainable, is to ensure more sustainable food systems [98].To accomplish this, the creation of supportive food environments making easier to choose healthy and sustainable diets is central to achieve human health gains, thus reducing the economic burden of disease and the environmental impacts from food production [99]. This “Farm to Fork Strategy” establishes key goals to improve healthy lifestyles, health, and the environment by building a food chain that benefits both the consumer and the environment. Indeed, the recommendations under this H2020 Green Deal initiative aims at stimulating sustainable food production and processing practices; reducing the distance of the power chain between the source and the consumer; and increasing organic food production and food safety [99]. Under this context, community gardens potentially add valuable contributes to a more sustainable Europe concerning food system with focus in production and consumption.
Community gardens are an affordable and efficient, yet challenging, way to bring nature back to cities and potentially contribute to the provision of ecosystem services [100]. As green spaces, community gardens serve as a habitat for fauna and flora [101], being considered a potential reservoir of urban biodiversity [31, 102]. They also contribute to increase the proportion of permeable soil surface [103], filtering and storing water from the rain, thus contributing for floods’ prevention (Quayle, 2008). In addition, community gardens promote environmental education in urban areas [31, 100], offering a hands-on experience on ecological processes [104]. Thus, it is not surprising that interest in these green spaces has boomed in recent years, which often leaves community dwellers in waiting lists for a couple of years before being provided with a patch for them to cultivate [105]. Therefore, a great challenge in urban planning is now to increase the availability of these spaces. However, this cannot be done without considering the motivations that lead community dwellers to engage in community gardening [106], as well as to design and equip these green spaces with the infrastructures and tools that are needed for users to successfully profit from it [106].
Strengths and limitations
This manuscript reviews quantitative evidence from cross-sectional studies on the association between community gardens and physical and mental health and well-being of the non-institutionalized population. However, given the cross-sectional study designs no causality relations can be ascertained.
To our knowledge, musculoskeletal and osteoarticular injuries have not been previously addressed in literature reviews. Despite no data was obtained on community gardening-related injuries, this is a relevant finding and indicates that more research in this realm is needed. However, since only a few articles were retrieved and are not representative of community gardening from any specific geographic region, any conclusions and generalizations should be taken cautiously. The few articles retrieved might be due to the language filter used—only studies published in English were considered. Nevertheless, considering that the great majority of the scientific peer-reviewed journals are published in English, we are confident that this methodological option did not significantly affect our results.
Supporting information
S1 File. Strategy to search for studies that investigate the evidence that community gardening contributes to increased physical and mental health and well-being of non-institutionalized persons.
Details are provided only for one (PubMed) of the three databases surveyed (Web of Science and SCOPUS). The same search strategy was used for the remaining databases, and to meet the search requirements of each database required, some modifications were necessary in relation to the field tags.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255621.s002
(DOCX)
Acknowledgments
The Authors thank Instituto de Saúde Ambiental for providing the required support for this investigation, in particular to Dr. Ana Virgolino for logistical and administrative support, and to Professor António Vaz Carneiro, for his support and encouragement.
References
- 1. Vigo D, Thornicroft G, Atun R. Estimating the true global burden of mental illness. The Lancet Psychiatry. 2016;3: 171–178. pmid:26851330
- 2. Choo CC, Chew PKH, Ho CS, Ho RC. Quality of Life in Patients With a Major Mental Disorder in Singapore. Front Psychiatry 9727. 2019;9: 1–7. pmid:30713508
- 3. Connell J, Brazier J, Cathain AO, Lloyd-jones M, Paisley S. Quality of life of people with mental health problems: a synthesis of qualitative research. Heal Qual Life Outcomes 2012, 10138. 2012; 1–16. pmid:23173689
- 4. Gould A, Desouza S, Rebeiro-gruhl KL. And then I Lost that Life: a Shared Narrative of Four Young Men with Schizophrenia. Br J Occup Ther Oct 2005 68(10. 2005;68: 1–7.
- 5. Jao Y, Loken E, Macandrew M, Van Haitsma K, Loken E, Macandrew M, et al. Association between social interaction and affect in nursing home residents with dementia. Aging Ment Health. 2017;7863. pmid:28332405
- 6. Follmer KB. Mental Illness in the Workplace: An Interdisciplinary Review and Organizational Research Agenda. J Manag / Mon XXXX. 2017;XX: 1–27.
- 7. Oexle N, Hum B, Corrigan PW, Psy D. Understanding Mental Illness Stigma Toward Persons With Multiple Stigmatized Conditions: Implications of Intersectionality Theory. PS Adv. 2018; 1–3. pmid:29385960
- 8. Rössler W. The stigma of mental disorders A millennia-long history of social exclusion and prejudices. EMBO reports Vol 17 |No 9 | 2016. 2016;17: 1250–1253. pmid:27470237
- 9. Holmes EA, Connor RCO, Perry VH, Tracey I, Wessely S, Arseneault L, et al. Position Paper Multidisciplinary research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemic: a call for action for mental health science. In: The Lancet Psychiatry [Internet]. Elsevier Ltd; 2020 pp. 1–14. pmid:32304649
- 10. Xiong J, Lipsitz O, Nasri F, Lui LMW, Gill H, Phan L. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on mental health in the general population: A systematic review. J Affect Disord 277 55–64 Contents. 2020. pmid:32799105
- 11. Pfefferbaum B., & North CS. Mental Health and the Covid-19 Pandemic. N Engl J Med. 2020; 2020–2022. pmid:32283003
- 12. Tzoulas K., Korpela K., Venn S., Yli-Pelkonen V., Kaźmierczak A., Niemela J., et al. Promoting Ecosystem and Human Health in Urban Areas using Green Infrastructure: A Literature Review. Landsc Urban Plan 81 167–178 2. 2007; 1–46.
- 13. Bratman GN, Anderson CB, Berman MG, Cochran B, Lindahl T, Meyer-lindenberg A, et al. Nature and mental health: An ecosystem service perspective. Sci Adv 2019; 5 eaax0903. 2019. pmid:31355340
- 14. Markevych I, Schoierer J, Hartig T, Chudnovsky A, Hystad P, Dzhambov AM, et al. Exploring pathways linking greenspace to health: Theoretical and methodological guidance. Environ Res. 2017;158: 301–317. pmid:28672128
- 15. Rojas-rueda D, Nieuwenhuijsen MJ, Gascon M, Perez-leon D, Mudu P. Articles Green spaces and mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. Lancet Planet Heal. 2019;3: e469–e477. pmid:31777338
- 16. Thompson CW, Elizalde A, Cummins S, Leyland AH, Botha W, Briggs A, et al. Enhancing Health Through Access to Nature: How E ff ective are Interventions in Woodlands in Deprived Urban Communities? A Quasi-experimental Study in Scotland, UK. Sustain 2019, 11, 3317. 2019.
- 17. Twohig-bennett C, Jones A. The health bene fi ts of the great outdoors: A systematic review and meta- analysis of greenspace exposure and health outcomes. Environ Res. 2018;166: 628–637. pmid:29982151
- 18. Kunpeuk W, Spence W, Phulkerd S, Suphanchaimat R, Pitayarangsarit S. The impact of gardening on nutrition and physical health outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Heal Promot Int 2019, 1–12. 2019; 1–12. pmid:30982073
- 19. Soga M, Cox DTC, Yamaura Y, Gaston KJ, Kurisu K. Health Benefits of Urban Allotment Gardening: Improved Physical and Psychological Well-Being and Social Integration. Int J Environ Res Public Heal 2017, 14, 71; 2017. pmid:28085098
- 20. Cox DTC, Shanahan DF, Hudson HL, Plummer KE, Siriwardena GM, Fuller RA, et al. Doses of Neighborhood Nature: The Benefits for Mental Health of Living with Nature. Biosci • Febr 2017 / Vol 67 No 2. 2017;67: 147–155.
- 21. Shanahan DF, Bush R, Gaston KJ, Lin BB, Dean J, Barber E, et al. Health Benefits from Nature Experiences Depend on Dose. Nat Publ Gr. 2016; 1–10. pmid:27334040
- 22.
Hartig T, Mitchell R, Vries S De, Frumkin H. Nature and Health. Nat Heal Terry Hartig,1 Richard Mitchell,2 Sjerp Vries,3 Howard Frumkin4 1Institute Hous Urban Res Uppsala Univ SE-75120 Uppsala, Sweden; email terry.hartig@ibf.uu.se 2Centre Res Environ Soc an. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182443
- 23. Bratman GN, Hamilton JP, Daily GC. The impacts of nature experience on human cognitive function and mental health. Ann NY Acad Sci 1249 118–136 c? 2012 New York Acad Sci. 2012;1249: 118–136. pmid:22320203
- 24. Wood L, Hooper P, Foster S, Bull F. Health & Place Public green spaces and positive mental health–investigating the relationship between access, quantity and types of parks and mental wellbeing. Health Place. 2017;48: 63–71. pmid:28942343
- 25.
World Health Organization (WHO). Espaços Verde Urbanos. Um Manual para a Ação. 2017.
- 26.
The world Bank Group. Urban population (% of total population). In: The world Bank Group. 2020 pp. 1–4.
- 27.
European Commission. Indoor air pollution: new EU research reveals higher risks than previously thought. 2020 pp. 1–6.
- 28. Soga Masahi, Kevin J. Gaston YY. Gardening is beneficial for health_ A meta-analysis _ Elsevier Enhanced Reader. Prev Med reports, 5, 92–99. 2017.
- 29. Egli V, Oliver M, Tautolo E. The development of a model of community garden bene fi ts to wellbeing. PMEDR. 2016;3: 348–352. pmid:27419035
- 30. Okvat HA, Zautra AJ. Community Gardening: A Parsimonious Path to Individual, Community, and Environmental Resilience. Am J Community Psychol. 2011;47: 374–387. pmid:21222153
- 31. Dubová L. Improving the quality of life in cities using community gardens: from benefits for members to benefits for all local residents. GeoScape 13(1)—2019 68–78 2019; 68–78.
- 32.
Thompson S, Corkery L, Judd B. The Role of Community Gardens in Sustaining Healthy Communities. ISBN 978-0-646-48194-4. 2007; 161–171.
- 33. Lin BB, Egerer MH. Global social and environmental change drives the management and delivery of ecosystem services from urban gardens: A case study from Central Coast, California. Glob Environ Chang. 2020;60: 102006.
- 34. Baur J. Campus community gardens and student health: A case study of a campus garden and student well- being. J Am Coll Heal. 2020;0: 1–8. pmid:32369715
- 35. Eng S, Khun T. Healthy Lifestyle Through Home Gardening: The Art of Sharing. Am J Lifestyle Med. 2019. pmid:31285714
- 36. Relf D, Dorn S. of Special Populations. HortTechnology 5(2) 94–103. 1995.
- 37.
Yasukawa M. International Handbook of Occupational Therapy Interventions. Springer NY, editor. 2009.
- 38. Cipriani J, Benz A, Holmgren A, Kinter D, Rufino G, Cipriani J, et al. A Systematic Review of the Effects of Horticultural Therapy on Persons with Mental Health Conditions. Occup Ther Ment Heal. 2017;0: 1–23.
- 39. Gonzalez MT, Hartig T, Patil G, Martinsen EW. Therapeutic horticulture in clinical depression: A prospective study of active components. J Adv Nurs 66(9), 2002–2013. 2010. pmid:20626473
- 40. Van Den Berg AE, Winsum-westra M Van, Vries S De, Dillen SME Van. Allotment gardening and health: a comparative survey among allotment gardeners and their neighbors without an allotment. Environ Heal 2010,. 2010; 1–12. pmid:21092248
- 41. Park S, Shoemaker C, Haub M. Can Older Gardeners Meet the Physical Activity Recommendation through Gardening? HortTechnology, 18(4), 639–643. 2008;18.
- 42. Hanbazaza MA, Triador L, Ball GDC, Farmer A, Maximova K, Nationd AF, et al. The impact of school gardening on cree children’s knowledge and attitudes toward vegetables and fruit. Can J Diet Pract Res. 2015;76: 133–139. pmid:26280793
- 43. Zick CD, Smith KR, Kowaleski-Jones L, Uno C, Merrill BJ. Harvesting more than vegetables: The potential weight control benefits of community gardening. Am J Public Health. 2013;103: 1110–1115. pmid:23597347
- 44. Park S, Shoemaker CA. Observing Body Position of Older Adults While Gardening for Health Benefits and Risks Observing Body Position of Older Adults While. Act Adapt Aging, 3331–38, 2009. 2009; 37–41.
- 45. Draper C, Freedman D, Draper C. Review and Analysis of the Benefits, Purposes, and Motivations Associated with Community Gardening in the United States and Motivations Associated with Community. J ofCommunity Pract 18458–492. 2010;5422.
- 46. Kingsley J, Foenander E, Bailey A. “You feel like you ‘ re part of something bigger”: exploring motivations for community garden participation in Melbourne, Australia. Kingsley al BMC Public Heal 19745. 2019; 1–12.
- 47. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group TP. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 6(7) e1000097. 2009;6. pmid:19621072
- 48.
US National Heart L and BIQAT for OC and C-SSA online: https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/study-quality-assessment-tool. Study Quality Assessment Tools. 2020 pp. 1–58.
- 49. Gerber MM, Callahan JL, Moyer DN, Connally ML, Holtz PM, Janis BM. Nepali bhutanese refugees reap support through community gardening. Int Perspect Psychol Res Pract Consult. 2017;6: 17–31.
- 50. Hawkins JL, Thirlaway KJ, Backx K, Clayton DA. Allotment Gardening and Other Leisure Activities for Stress Reduction and Healthy Aging. HortTechnology Oct 2011 21(5). 2011;21: 577–585.
- 51. Mourão I, Moreira MC, Almeida TC, Brito LM. Perceived changes in well-being and happiness with gardening in urban organic allotments in Portugal. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol. 2019;26: 79–89.
- 52. Koay WI, Dillon D. Community Gardening: Stress, Well-Being, and Resilience Potentials. Int J Environ Res Public Heal 2020, 17, 6740;
- 53. Booth JM, Chapman D, Ohmer ML, Wei K. Examining the Relationship Between Level of Participation in Community Gardens and their Multiple Functions. J Community Pract. 2018;26: 5–22.
- 54. Blair D, Giesecke CC, Sherman S. A dietary, social and economic evaluation of the Philadelphia urban gardening project. J Nutr Educ. 1991;23: 161–167.
- 55. Alaimo Katherine & Beavers Alyssa W. & Crawford2 Caroline, EHS Litt4& JS. Amplifying Health Through Community Gardens: A Framework for Advancing Amplifying Health Through Community Gardens: A Framework for Advancing Multicomponent, Behaviorally Based Neighborhood Interventions. Curr Environ Heal Reports. 2016. pmid:27379424
- 56.
Warburton DER, Nicol CW, Bredin SSD. Review Health benefits of physical activity: the evidence. C • March 14, 2006 • 174(6) | 801 © 2006 C Media Inc or its Licens. 2006.
- 57. Park S, Lee K, Son K. Determining Exercise Intensities of Gardening Tasks as a Physical Activity Using Metabolic Equivalents in Older Adults. Hortscience 46(12)1706–1710 2011. 2011;46: 1706–1710.
- 58. Park S. A., Shoemaker C. A., & Haub MD. A preliminary investigation on exercise intensities of gardening tasks in older adults. Perceptztnl andlMotor Ski 2008, 107 9i3-980. 2008. pmid:19235426
- 59. Park S, Hall T, Shoemaker CA, Hall T, Haub MD. Physical and Psychological Health Conditions of Older Adults Classified as Gardeners or Nongardeners. 2009;44: 206–210.
- 60. Serrano JP. Spain: Promoting the Welfare of Older Adults in the Context of Population Aging. Gerontol Cite J as Gerontol Vol 54, No 5, 733–740 2014;54: 733–740. pmid:24632624
- 61. Scott TL, Masser BM, Pachana NA. Positive aging benefits of home and community gardening activities: Older adults report enhanced self-esteem, productive endeavours, social engagement and exercise. SAGE Open Med Creat. 2020. pmid:32030127
- 62. Barnidge EK, Hipp PR, Estlund A, Duggan K, Barnhart KJ, Brownson RC. Association between community garden participation and fruit and vegetable consumption in rural Missouri. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2013;10: 128. pmid:24252563
- 63. Castro DC, Samuels M, Harman AE. Growing Healthy Kids. AMEPRE. 2013;44: S193–S199. pmid:23415183
- 64. Mccormack LA, Laska MN, Larson NI, Story M. Farmers ‘ Markets and Community Gardens: J amreican Diet Assoc. 2010;110: 399–408. pmid:20184990
- 65. Ilieva RT. Urban Food Systems Strategies: A Promising Tool for Implementing the SDGs in Practice †. Sustain 2017, 9, 1707; 2017.
- 66. Furness WW, Gallaher CM, Furness WW. Food access, food security and community gardens in Rockford, IL Food access, food security and community gardens in Rockford, IL. Local Environ. 2018;0: 1–17.
- 67. Wang H, Qiu F, Swallow B. Can community gardens and farmers’ markets relieve food desert problems? A study of Edmonton, Canada. Appl Geogr. 2014;55: 127–137.
- 68. Ober J, Mph A, Alaimo K, Elam D, Perry E, Ober J, et al. Growing Vegetables and Values: Benefits of Neighborhood-Based Community Gardens for Youth Development and Nutrition Growing Vegetables and Values: Benefits of Neighborhood-Based Community Gardens for Youth Development and Nutrition. J Hunger Environ Nutr ISSN. 2008;0248.
- 69. Carstensen LL. Social and Emotional Patterns in Adulthood: Support for Socioemotional Selectivity Theory. Psychol Aging 1992 Vol 7, No 3, 331–33. 1992;7: 331–338. pmid:1388852
- 70. Wang D, Macmillan T. The Benefits of Gardening for Older Adults: A Systematic Review of the Literature The Benefits of Gardening for Older Adults: Act Adapt Aging ISSN. 2013;4788.
- 71. Porter R, Mcilvaine-newsad H. Gardening in green space for environmental justice: food security, leisure and social capital. Leisure/Loisir. 2014;37: 379–395.
- 72. Veen EJ, Bock BB, Berg W Van Den, Visser AJ, Wiskerke JSC, Bock BB, et al. Community gardening and social cohesion: different designs, different motivations. Local Environ Int J Justice Sustain ISSN. 2016;9839.
- 73. Genter C, Roberts A, Richardson J, Sheaff M. The contribution of allotment gardening to health and wellbeing: A systematic review of the literature. Br J Occup Ther 78(10). 2015.
- 74. Dyg PM, Christensen S, Peterson CJ. Community gardens and wellbeing amongst vulnerable populations: a thematic review. Heal Promot Int 2019, 1–14 2019; 1–14. pmid:31369084
- 75. Harris N, Minniss FR, Somerset S. Refugees connecting with a new country through community food gardening. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014;11: 9202–9216. pmid:25198684
- 76. Hartwig KA, Mason M. Community Gardens for Refugee and Immigrant Communities as a Means of Health Promotion. J Community Health. 2016. pmid:27085720
- 77. Cummings D., Rowe F., Harris N., & Somerset S. Quality of Life and Community Gardens: African refugees and the Griffith University Community Food Garden. Proc Popul Heal Congr Brisbane, Aust (pp 6–9). 2008.
- 78. Samuelsson K, Barthel S, Colding J, Macassa G, Giusti M. Urban nature as a source of resilience during social distancing amidst the coronavirus pandemic. 2020.
- 79. Mccunn LJ. The importance of nature to city living during the COVID-19 pandemic: Considerations and goals from environmental psychology Considerations and goals from environmental psychology. Cities Heal. 2020;00: 1–4.
- 80. Ugolini F, Massetti L, Calaza-martínez P, Cari P, Dobbs C, Ostoi SK, et al. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the use and perceptions of urban green space: An international exploratory study. Urban For Urban Green 56 126888 Contents. 2020;56. pmid:33100944
- 81. Ginn F. Dig for Victory! New histories of wartime gardening in Britain. J Hist Geogr. 2012;38: 294–305.
- 82. Chenarides L, Printezis I, Lusk JL. Who practices urban agriculture? An empirical analysis of participation before and during the COVID ‐ 19 pandemic. Agribusiness 2020;1–18. 2020; 1–18. pmid:33362336
- 83. Xiang H, Wang Z, Stallones L, Keefe TJ, Huang X, Fu X. Agricultural Work-Related Injuries Among Farmers in Hubei, People ‘ s Republic of China. Am J Public Heal 1269. 2000;90: 1269–1276.
- 84. Solomon C. Accidental injuries in agriculture in the UK. Occup Med Vol 52, 2002. 2002;52: 461–466. pmid:12488516
- 85. Mccurdy SA, Carroll DJ. Agricultural Injury. Am J Ind Med 38463±480. 2000;480: 463–480. pmid:10982988
- 86. Bhattarai D, Singh SB, Baral D, Sah RB, Budhathoki SS, Pokharel PK. Work-related injuries among farmers: a cross-sectional study from rural Nepal. J Occup Med Toxicol. 2016; 1–7. pmid:26759602
- 87. Osborne A, Blake ÃC, Fullen BM, Meredith D, Phelan J, Mcnamara J, et al. Prevalence of Musculoskeletal Disorders Among Farmers: A Systematic Review. Am J Ind Med 38463±480 55143–158. 2012;158: 143–158. pmid:22069159
- 88. Das B. Agricultural work related injuries among the farmers of West Bengal, India. Int J Inj Contr Saf Promot. 2014;21: 205–215. pmid:23672621
- 89. Moore M, Gould P, Keary BS. Global urbanization and impact on health. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2003;278. pmid:12971682
- 90. Huang S, Yeh C, Chang L. The transition to an urbanizing world and the demand for natural resources. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 2010;2: 136–143.
- 91. Wolch JR, Byrne J, Newell JP. Landscape and Urban Planning Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities ‘ just green enough.’ Landsc Urban Plan. 2014;125: 234–244.
- 92. Bugliarello G. Urban sustainability: Dilemmas, challenges and paradigms. Technol Soc 28 19–26. 2006;28: 19–26.
- 93. Mcmichael AJ. Population health as the ‘bottom line’ of sustainability: a contemporary challenge for public health researchers. Eur J Public Heal Vol 16, No 6, 579–582. 2006;16: 579–581. pmid:16857691
- 94. Verma P, Raghubanshi AS. Urban sustainability indicators: Challenges and opportunities. Ecol Indic 93 282–291 Contents. 2018;93: 282–291.
- 95. Hoffman AJ, Wright L. Stewardship, Volunteerism and “Green” Sustainable Programs: Core Values of Community Psychology. Glob J Community Psychol Pract. 2020;11: 1–15.
- 96. Nova P, Pinto E, Chaves B, Silva M. Urban organic community gardening to promote environmental sustainability practices and increase fruit, vegetables and organic food consumption. Gac Sanit 2020;34(1)4–9 Orig. 2020;34: 4–9. pmid:30471837
- 97.
Ottawa. A promoção da saúde a carta de Ottawa. World Heal Organ Ottawa Chart Heal Promot Proc First Int Conf Heal Promot Ottawa, ON, Canada, 21 Novemb 1986. 1986.
- 98.
European Commission. A European Green Deal Striving to be the first climate-neutral continent. 2020.
- 99.
European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the regions. A Farm to Fork Strategy for a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system. 2020.
- 100. Middle I, Dzidic P, Buckley A, Bennett D, Tye M, Jones R. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening Integrating community gardens into public parks: An innovative approach for providing ecosystem services in urban areas. Urban For Urban Green. 2014;13: 638–645.
- 101.
Duží B, Tóth A, Bihuňová M SR. Challenges of Urban Agriculture: Highlights on the Czech and Slovak Republic Specific. In: Vávra J, Lapka M, Cudlínová E (eds.) Current Challenges of Central Europe: Society and Environment,. 2014.
- 102.
Lorraine Weller Clarke; G. Darrel Jenerette. Biodiversity and direct ecosystem service regulation in the community gardens of Los Angeles, CA. Landsc Ecol 30637–653. 2015; 637–653. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-014-0143-7
- 103. Cabral I, Keim J, Engelmann R, Kraemer R, Siebert J. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening Ecosystem services of allotment and community gardens: A Leipzig, Germany case study. Urban For Urban Green. 2017;23: 44–53.
- 104. Bendt P, Barthel S, Colding J. Landscape and Urban Planning Civic greening and environmental learning in public-access community gardens in Berlin. Landsc Urban Plan. 2013;109: 18–30.
- 105. Nordh H, Wiklund KT, Koppang KE, Nordh H, Wiklund KT, Koppang KE, et al. Norwegian allotment gardens—a study of motives and benefits Norwegian allotment gardens—a study of motives and benefits. Landsc Res. 2016;6397: 1–16.
- 106. Lee JH, Matarrita-cascante D. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening The influence of emotional and conditional motivations on gardeners ‘ participation in community (allotment) gardens. Urban For Urban Green. 2019;42: 21–30.