Table 1
Gardens by country (n = 51).
| Country | Number of gardens (n = 51) | Years of existence (mean) | Area size in m2 (mean) | Share of gardens with waiting list |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Germany | 10 | 9 | 6,920 | 20% |
| Austria | 9 | 6 | 2,856 | 67% |
| Switzerland | 8 | 5 | 3,315 | 0% |
| USA | 10 | 33 | 8,129 | 100% |
| Canada | 8 | 11 | 4,558 | 88% |
| UK | 6 | 10 | 3,258 | 33% |
Table 2
Variables for the cluster analysis (n = 51).
| Variables for cluster analysis | Sample (n = 51) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Garden group size | up to 40 members (n = 10) | 41–80 members (n = 9) | more than 80 members (n = 18) | no fixed number of members (n = 14) |
| Form of organisation | single non-governmental organisation (n = 34 gardens) | non-governmental nested organisation (n = 10) | governmental nested organisation (n = 4) | no formal structure (n = 3) |
| Garden area | mostly common area (n = 13) | individual plots and common areas (n = 34) | mostly individual plots (n = 4) | |
| Options for participation | membership agreement necessary (n = 29) | membership necessary for own plot, moreover participation also possible with out own plot or membership (n = 10) | participation without own plot or membership (n = 12) | |
| Fees | yes (n = 43) | no (n = 8) | ||
| Rules | codified regulations (n = 44) | only informal guidelines (n = 7) | ||
Table 3
Variables for the cross-analysis of different garden types (n = 51).
| Variables | Sample (n = 51 gardens allocated to three types) | |
|---|---|---|
| Garden age until 2017 | range from 3 to 74 years | |
| Garden size in m2 | range from 300 m2 to 28,300 m2 | |
| Garden access | garden separated from the surrounding area (n = 29) | open access to the garden (n = 22) |
| Waiting list | yes (n = 28) | no (n = 23) |
| Anglophone and German-speaking countries | CA, UK, USA (n = 24) | AT, CH, DE (n = 27) |
[i] CA = Canada, UK = United Kingdom, USA = United States of America, AT = Austria, CH = Switzerland, DE = Germany.
Table 4
Three garden types and their main characteristics (n = 51).
| Type 1 “participation gardens” | Type 2 “closed garden groups” | Type 3 “gardens with volunteers’ option” | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of gardens | n = 12 | n = 27 | n = 12 | |
| Options for participation | membership agreement (for own plot) necessary | 0 | 27 | 2 |
| membership necessary for own plot, moreover participation also possible without own plot or membership | 0 | 0 | 10 | |
| participation without own plot or membership | 12 | 0 | 0 | |
| Garden area | mostly common area | 8 | 5 | 0 |
| individual plots and common areas | 4 | 21 | 9 | |
| mostly individual plots | 0 | 1 | 3 | |
| Rules | codified regulations | 7 | 25 | 12 |
| only informal guidelines | 5 | 2 | 0 | |
| Form of organisation | single non-governmental organisation | 8 | 17 | 9 |
| non-governmental nested organisation | 2 | 6 | 2 | |
| governmental nested organisation | 0 | 4 | 0 | |
| no formal structure | 2 | 0 | 1 | |
| Fees | yes | 5 | 27 | 11 |
| no | 7 | 0 | 1 | |
| Garden group size | up to 40 | 0 | 9 | 1 |
| 41–80 | 0 | 7 | 2 | |
| more than 80 | 0 | 11 | 7 | |
| no fixed number | 12 | 0 | 2 |
Table 5
Evaluation of garden types’ differences (means and frequencies) (n = 51).
| Variables | Participation gardens (type 1, n = 12) | Closed garden groups (type 2, n = 27) | Gardens with volunteers’ option (type 3, n = 12) | Significant difference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Garden size* (in m2) | 4,025 | 4,442 | 7,541 | no |
| Garden age until 2017* (in years) | 6 | 12 | 22 | no |
| Waiting list** | no: 12 yes: 0 | no: 10 yes: 17 | no: 2 yes: 10 | yes (p > 0.001) |
| Garden access** | no: 6 yes: 6 | no: 15 yes: 12 | no: 3 yes: 9 | no |
| Anglophone and German speaking countries** | (2 AT, 2 CH, 5 DE), (3 UK) | (7 AT, 6 CH, 4 DE), (6 CA, 4 USA) | (1 DE), (2 CA, 3 UK, 6 USA) | no |
[i] * Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test.
** Cross tabulations – Pearson’s Chi-squared test.
Table 6
Ostrom’s design principles in community gardens.
| Design principles | Community garden organisations | Accordance |
|---|---|---|
| 1a. clearly defined social boundaries: resource access | types of access rules:
| high accordance for type 1, middle accordance for type 2, low accordance for type 3 |
| fees waiting list if all plots are taken regulations concerning residency for gardeners harvesting regulations in case of open access:
| context-specific accordance (e.g., high demand for gardens) | |
| 1b. clearly defined physical boundaries: garden entrance | garden boundaries: fences, walls, locks | high accordance in about 50% of the selected community gardens |
| 2. congruence between appropriation, provision rules and local conditions | strict rules in case of a high demand for plots harvesting rights depending on the amount of work, more rights for official garden members | high accordance high accordance |
| 3. collective-choice arrangements | level of collective choice arrangements:
| low accordance for type 1, middle accordance for type 2, high accordance for type 3 |
| 4. monitoring | forms of monitoring:
| high accordance is assumed (however lack of data on several cases) |
| 5. graduated sanctions | warning plot withdrawal exclusion from the garden | high accordance for most community gardens |
| 6. conflict-resolution mechanisms | regular meetings (opportunity for discussion and problem solving) contact persons responsible in case of conflict codes of conduct, guiding principles formalised arbitration targeted communication and mediation | high accordance |
| 7. minimal recognition of rights to organize | land use agreement on public land public subsidisation tolerance from public agencies | high accordance |
| 8. nested enterprises | governmental organisation overseeing several gardens single gardens within a bigger nested organisation (diverse forms, but no governmental organisation) | high accordance for some community gardens; however, the majority of gardens is fully self-organised and not part of a nested organisation |