Background
-
What are the health and well-being impacts of school gardens?
-
Are there different impacts for different age groups?
-
What are the effects on other family and community members?
-
What do school gardens mean to those who use them?
-
Are there any factors that help or hinder the successful development, use or sustainability of school gardens?
Methods
Search strategy
1 | school*.tw. |
2 | educat*.tw. |
3 | garden*.tw. |
4 | horticult*.tw. |
5 | (horticult* adj3 (school* or educat*)).tw. |
6 | (Food or fruit* or vegetable*).tw. |
7 | ((Food or fruit* or vegetable*) adj2 grow*).tw. |
8 | ((Food or fruit* or vegetable*) adj2 production).tw. |
9 | ((Food or fruit* or vegetable*) adj2 producing).tw. |
10 | ((Food or fruit* or vegetable*) adj2 plant*).tw. |
11 | 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 |
12 | exp Schools/ |
13 | exp Gardening/ |
14 | *"Child Nutrition Sciences"/ |
15 | 1 or 12 |
16 | 3 or 13 or 14 |
17 | 15 and 16 |
18 | 11 and 15 |
19 | (educat* adj3 garden*).tw. |
20 | 17 or 18 or 19 |
Inclusion criteria
-
Population: School children, school staff, family and community members (all ages) were included. Studies conducted in OECD countries and published in English were included.
-
Interventions: Studies were included if they reported the effects of participation in school gardening activities. The definition of ‘school’ included all educational settings up to 18 years, including special schools. The definition of ‘gardening’ included growing or cultivating any kind of plants (such as vegetables, fruits, trees, shrubs and flowers). Gardening activities included preparing the soil, planting, weeding, watering, harvesting and garden-related cooking and tasting activities. These gardening activities were either integrated into the curriculum, or conducted outside of lesson time (e.g. lunchtime clubs, after school clubs, school-organised trips to community allotments). Gardening activities for school-age children that did not involve schools were not included (e.g. summer holiday clubs or community youth interventions).
-
Comparators: Quantitative studies were only included if groups participating in school gardening activities were compared with control groups or groups participating in alternative activities (such as nutrition education without gardening activities). This criterion was not relevant for qualitative studies.
-
Outcomes: Studies were included if they reported quantitative or qualitative health and well-being outcomes including dietary intake; food-related knowledge, attitudes and preferences; physical, mental or emotional health; quality of life indicators. Qualitative findings also included themes, concepts and metaphors relating to the experience and meaning of school gardens, and any perceived factors that help or hinder their success. Additional outcomes, including adverse or unintended outcomes, were only considered where they were reported alongside health and well-being outcomes.
-
Study design: Suitable quantitative study designs included randomised controlled trials (RCT), non-randomised controlled trials, and other ‘controlled before and after’ studies. Suitable qualitative study designs included any recognised methods of data collection and analysis from any discipline or theoretical tradition. The types of data collection methods included (but were not limited to): focus groups, individual interviews, participant or systematic observation, documentary analysis, audio/visual/note collection. Methods of analysis included (but were not limited to): grounded theory, narrative analysis, thematic analysis, phenomenological analysis, discourse analysis.
Selection process
Data extraction
Quality appraisal
Data synthesis
Results
Search results
Study characteristics
First author (year) Publication type | Study design | Country | Type of schools | Sample size (baseline) | Sample characteristics | Intervention group (duration) | Comparison or control group | Outcomes (health and well-being only) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Block (2012)a [24] Journal paper | Non-randomised controlled | Australia | Primary | 764 children (reported as 770 in Block et al. 2009) 562 parents | 8–12 years 54 % girls | Stephanie Alexander Kitchen Garden Program (45–60 min in garden class & 90 min in kitchen class/week for 12+ mnths) | No intervention (but Gibbs et al. reported that some children were exposed to some gardening and cooking activities) | Child quality of life |
Block (2009)a [25] Report | Willingness to try new foods | |||||||
Gibbs (2013)a [26] Journal paper | Willingness to try new foods Food and beverage intakes including FV | |||||||
Brouwer (2013) [27] Journal paper | Cluster RCT | USA | Pre-school | 12 children | 3–5 years | Watch Me Grow (weekly activities for four months) | No intervention (delayed) | FV served and consumed |
Christian (2014) (1) [28] Journal paper: Trial 1 | Cluster RCT | UK | Primary | 1138 children (reported as 1256 in the journal paper) | For two groups respectively: Mean 8.2/8.1 year 50/51 % boys 30/35 % White British (diverse) | Royal Horticultural Society (RHS) led gardening activities (18 months with regular support visits and termly teacher training sessions from RHS) | Teacher led gardening activities (18 months with termly teacher training sessions from RHS) | Vegetable intake Fruit intake Food group and essential nutrient intakes |
Christian (2014) (2) [9] Report: Trial 1 | As above plus: FV knowledge Attitudes towards FV | |||||||
Christian (2014) (2) [10] Report: Trial 2 | Cluster RCT | UK | Primary | 1391 children | For two groups respectively: Mean 8.3/8.2 years 52/48 % boys 23/17 % White British (diverse) | Teacher led gardening activities (15 months with termly teacher training sessions from RHS) | No intervention | Vegetable intake Fruit intake Food group and essential nutrient intakes FV knowledge Attitudes towards FV |
Cotter (2013) [22] Journal paper | Cluster RCT | Portugal | NR | 155 | 10–12 years | Aromas school gardening club (2 h/week for 6 months) plus regular lectures on the dangers of high salt intake | Regular lectures on the dangers of high salt intake | Body Mass Index (BMI) Waist circumference Blood pressure (SBP/DBP) Urinary sodium Urinary creatinine Estimated salt intake |
Wells (2014) [23] Journal paper | Cluster RCT | USA | Elementary | 285 | 8–12 years | Healthy Gardens, Healthy Youth pilot program: gardening activities plus curriculum of 20 lessons (1 year) | No intervention (control group received gardens at the end of the study) | Physical activity |
Cotugna (2012) [27] Journal paper | Non-randomised controlled | USA | Elementary | 359 | Age or gender not reported; For A/B/C respectively: 73/41/37 % White 37/34/38 % low income | Gardening education program (duration unknown) first time in School B and second time in School C | No intervention (School A) | Students who chose salad for lunch |
Davis (2011) [28] Journal paper | Non-randomised controlled | USA | Elementary | 107 (reported as 104 in Davis et al. 2011) | 9–11 years 59 % overweight or obese For two groups respectively: Mean 9.7/9.9 years 38/59 % boys 97/93 % Latino | LA Sprouts: cooking and nutrition lessons plus gardening activities (90 min per week for 12 weeks) | No intervention | Body Mass Index (BMI) Waist circumference Total body fat Blood pressure (SBP/DBP) Vegetable intake Fruit intake Food group and macronutrient intakes |
Gatto (2012) [29] Journal paper | Motivation to eat FV Attitudes, preferences and perceptions relating to cooking FV | |||||||
Jaenke (2012) [15] Journal paper | Non-randomised controlled | Australia | Primary | 127 | Fifth and sixth grade students 11–12 years 54 % boys | Nutrition education: How do you grow? (3 h over 10 weeks) plus gardening: How does your garden grow? (180 min per week for 10 weeks) | Nutrition education only: How do you grow? (3 h over 10 weeks) No intervention | Willingness to taste vegetables Taste ratings of vegetables Fruit intake Vegetable intake |
Morgan (2010) [30] Journal paper | Fruit intake Vegetable intake Ability to identify vegetables Willingness to taste vegetables Taste ratings of vegetables FV knowledge Quality of school life | |||||||
McAleese (2007) [16] Journal paper | Non-randomised controlled | USA | Elementary | 122 | 10–13 years Mean 11.1 years 44 % boys | Nutrition education: Nutrition in the garden, plus gardening (12 weeks) | Nutrition education only: Nutrition in the garden (12 weeks) No intervention | Fruit intake Vegetable intake Vitamin A intake Vitamin C intake Fibre intake |
Meinen (2012) [31] Journal paper | Non-randomised controlled | USA | Elementary schools and early childhood sites | 404 youth 567 parents | 7–13 years 54 % boys For two groups respectively: Mean 9.9/10.1 years Majority/88 % White | Youth gardening program: Got Dirt? (4 months) | No intervention | Willingness to try new FV Like/dislike of FV Knowledge of FV FV consumption |
Morris (2001) [32] Journal paper | Non-randomised controlled | USA | Elementary | 97 | First grade students | Nutrition education plus gardening (8 months) | No intervention | Nutrition knowledge Willingness to taste vegetables Taste ratings of vegetables |
Morris (2002) (1) [33] Journal paper | Non-randomised controlled | USA | Upper elementary | 215 (reported as 213 in journal paper) | 9–10 years 8.4 % African American 3.0 % Asian American 17.2 % Hispanic 66.5 % White | In-class nutrition education including hands-on gardening activities (9 lessons over 17 weeks) | In-class nutrition education only (9 lessons over 17 weeks) No intervention | Nutrition knowledge Vegetable preference |
Morris (2002) (2) [34] Report | ||||||||
O’Brien (2006) [35] Journal paper | Non-randomised controlled | USA | Elementary | 38 | 9–10 years 50 % boys 71 % White | After school gardening club (8 lessons with 30 min gardening over 10 weeks) | No intervention | Nutrition knowledge FV preference FV consumption self-efficacy FV consumption expectations |
Parmer (2009) [37] Journal paper | Non-randomised controlled | USA | Elementary | 115 | 70 % boys For three groups mean respectively: 7.3/7.5/7.4 years 46/27/28 % girls | Nutrition education plus gardening (1 h alternating nutrition education and gardening for 28 weeks) | Nutrition education only (1 h every other week for 28 weeks) No intervention | FV knowledge FV preferences FV consumption |
Parmer (2007) [36] Dissertation | ||||||||
Ratcliffe (2011) [38] Journal paper | Non-randomised controlled | USA | Middle | 320 | 11–13 years 22 % African American 29 % Asian American 9 % Filipino American 30 % Latino 3 % Pacific Islander 7 % White or other 35 % overweight 64 % low income | Garden-based learning activities integrated into science class (20 min instruction and 40 min hands-on gardening per week for 4 months) | Covered the same health and science objectives but did not include a gardening program | Vegetable knowledge Vegetables preferences Willingness to taste Vegetable consumption |
Robinson (2005) [39] Journal paper | Non-randomised controlled | USA | Elementary | 281 | Third, fourth and fifth grade students (no further info) | School gardening curriculum: Texas Agricultural Extension Service (varied intensity over one school year) | No intervention (until after study period) | Life skills: working with groups; self-understanding; leadership; decision making; communication; volunteerism |
Waliczek (2001) [17] Journal paper | Non-randomised controlled | USA | Elementary and junior high | 589 | 8–15 years 43 % boys at post-test | Project GREEN school garden program (Spring semester) | No intervention | Interpersonal relationships |
First author (year) | Country | Sample characteristics | Aims | Sampling methods | Intervention | Data collection methods Analysis methods |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ahmed (2011) [40] | USA | Administrators (n = 2), teachers (n = 4) and garden staff (n = 3) at one rural middle school; school population 50 % Native Hawaiian; low socio-economic status | To examine perceptions of educators about the effects of school-based gardens on children's health and obesity | Snowball sampling starting with the school principle and garden leader | School garden program founded to prevent nutrition-related illness (with community involvement) | Semi structured interviews (4 years after garden established) Grounded Theory approach using descriptive, open coding; list of themes used to develop a conceptual model |
Alexander (1995) [41] | USA | Students (n = 52), teachers (n = 5), parents (n = 3), principal and Master Gardener at one inner city elementary school; students 70 % Hispanic; many from single parent homes | To identify the effects on school children participating in classroom gardens | NR | Master Gardeners’ Classroom Garden Project | Interviews (individual and group) and observation Constant comparative method; multiple sources of data evaluated for emerging themes |
Anderson (2011) [42] | USA | Students (n = 14) at one rural high school | To determine the impact of hydroponically grown vegetables on obesity indices | Purposely selected students twice during the two-year project | Hydroponic gardening system | Focus groups (n = 7 at each time point i.e. twice during the two-year project) |
Block (2012)a [24] | Australia | Six program schools and six comparison schools; all primary At program schools only: classroom teachers (n = 26), volunteers (n = 17), other parents (n = 20), children (n = 124), kitchen and garden specialist staff (n = 10) At all participating program and comparison schools: school principals (n = 12) | To explore participants' expectations and experiences of the program, changes in the school and home environment, highlights and areas for potential improvement | Convenience sampling (all adults invited to participate) and purposive sampling (teachers selected children with range of ages and program experience) | Stephanie Alexander Kitchen Garden Program | Focus groups, individual interviews, participant observation, field notes and researcher reflections (at various time points before, during and after the program) Inductive thematic content analysis to identify emerging themes and patterns, which were then further analysed according to their relationship with the existing evidence base and theoretical perspectives |
Block (2009)a [25] | ||||||
Gibbs (2013)a [26] | To evaluate the achievement of the program in increasing child appreciation of diverse, healthy food | |||||
Townsend (2014) [43] | To explore motivations for and impacts of volunteering with the gardening program | |||||
Bowker (2007) [44] | UK | Two classes from one primary school and one secondary school; 7–14 years | To gain an understanding of what the children themselves think about school gardening | Quota sampling to identify two schools; within each school a class unit was selected to further refine the sample; 12 children in each class were randomly selected for interviews | Gardens for Life (to support and extend learning in other curriculum areas) | Concept maps (n = 72) supported by contextual observation, semi-structured interviews (n = 24) (after 6 months) and children’s drawings Interpretive approach - broad concepts were identified and organised into categories; concept grids and depth scores used to look for patterns |
Chawla (2014) [11] | USA | Students (n = 52), teachers and school principals from four high schools; students 14–19 years; 60 % girls; European-American (n = 29); Hispanic (n = 19); Asian (n = 3); Pacific Islander (n = 1) | Research questions: How do students experience natural areas on their school grounds? What values do students find in these natural areas? | Purposive sampling to span the high school age range | Four different gardening programs at four high schools: gardening as school service (elected); agricultural biology class (elected); horticultural science class for teen mothers (required); after school and summer gardening program (voluntary) | Ethnographic observations recorded through field notes, video or photography, and open-ended, semi-structured interviews Data was repeatedly reviewed with attention to repetitive refrains, recurring patterns and resonant metaphors; triangulation of methods to identify similar themes and discordant data |
Chiumento (2012) [12] | UK | Students (n = 36) with signs of Behavioural, Emotional & Social Difficulties (BESD) from two primary and one secondary schools; 10–15 years; 61 % boys; mix of nationalities and ethnicities including children seeking asylum; deprived ward in Liverpool | NR | Students were referred by schools, providing pen profiles of current difficulties including potential behavioural risk factors | Haven of Greenspace (social and therapeutic horticulture); pupil led sessions using NFER five ways to well-being framework (monthly for 6 months) | Draw and write journals (children); closing semi-structured interviews (link teachers); reflective process diary by group therapists Thematic analysis of interview transcripts; random selection of journals analysed with quality checks |
Cutter-Macenzie (2009) [45] | Australia | Students (n = ?) from one city primary school; 6–12 years; all students participating in program (n = 70) had English as a second language and some were recent migrants | To assess the impact of the program against its objectives which included helping to develop strong local communities and school communities; and fostering healthy eating habits | NR | Multicultural school gardens program created to enable disadvantaged schools to establish a culturally focused gardening program (2 years) | Children as researchers including journals, photographs and peer interviews (n = 10); researcher’s field visits, observations and interviews with children and teachers (after 3 months) |
Hazzard (2011) [46] | USA | Administrators, teachers, parent and community volunteers and garden coordinators (n = ?) from 10 schools (elementary, middle and high schools) | To ascertain and report best practices for schools implementing or sustaining instructional school gardens | Stratified random sampling from list of all schools with exemplary instructional school gardens programs; principals selected individuals directly involved with the success of the gardens | California Instructional School Garden Program (CISGP) | Interviews with key members Constant comparative analysis; results used to create best practice models for schools in California and across the United States |
Henryks (2011) [47] | Australia | Parents of children enrolled at the school (n = 5) and another member of the wider community (n = 1) at one primary school | To explore the role played by the school kitchen garden in the lives of its associated volunteers | Purposive sampling by email invitation to volunteers | Stephanie Alexander Kitchen Garden Program | In-depth interviews Thematic analysis used to build a conceptual map of the experiences of the school kitchen garden volunteers, including the motivations, benefits and challenges that volunteers experienced; combination of inductive and deductive approaches |
Lakin (2008) [48] | UK | Head teacher, a governor, a teacher and groups of children in Year 3 (n = 5) and Year 6 (n = 5) at one semi-rural primary school; 7–11 years | NR | School B selected to represent example of good practice; children selected by the head teacher for their involvement in the innovations | Health Promoting Schools: Gloucestershire Food Strategy | Detailed interviews; observations; classroom display and classroom activities as exemplified by the children's workbooks (over 3 days of visits) |
Miller (2007) [49] | USA | Teachers (n = 19) and children (n = ?) from one early education setting: Dimensions Educational Research Foundation; 3–6 years | To examine the skills young children are developing when they are engaged in developmentally appropriate activities in the greenhouse and garden | NR | Dimensions outdoor classroom including garden and greenhouse areas (two small group activities a month) | Teachers’ documentation (nature notes) of children interacting with nature in the garden/greenhouse; children’s drawings and work from their garden/greenhouse experiences (n = ?); focus group interviews conducted with teachers (n = 19) on three occasions over two years. Teachers’ nature notes and children’s work were analysed using a systematic framework from prior data analysis of teachers’ visual notes; key themes identified from focus groups |
Ming Wei (2012) [13] | USA | Students (n = 20), teachers (n = 9), school principal, school counsellor, student services coordinator and parents/caregivers (n = 4) from one rural elementary school; students 55 % girls; from low to middle income families; native culture | To better understand the experience of student learning in the context of school garden-based education and to determine the relevance of school gardens as a site for learning making | Convenience sample of third, fourth and fifth grade Gifted and Talented students who spent two or more hours in the garden each week | The Discovery Garden: using an interdisciplinary standards-based school garden curriculum | Formal interviews and talk story (informal chats); field notes collected during the garden classes and garden-based activities (over one semester) Listened and looked for recurring patterns; constructed of a network of related and connected themes; content analysis using constant comparative methods |
Passy (2010) [50] | UK | Two samples (two stages) from 10 primary schools e.g. stage 1: senior leaders (n = 11), garden leads (n = 10), other members of teaching staff (n = 10), teaching assistants (n = 2), parent governors (n = 2), other parents (n = 2) and pupils (n = 43) | To assess the impact that using a school garden had on primary pupils’ learning, behaviour and health and wellbeing | Stratified random sampling from list of participating schools; weighted towards those with higher levels of benchmark achievement | Campaign for School Gardening (Royal Horticultural Society) | Case studies including interviews and observations (two stages over six months); schools were given disposable cameras and diaries in which to record activities |
Somerset (2005) [51] | Australia | Teachers responsible for vegetable gardens at 12 primary schools | To investigate the nature and extent of the use of school gardens in a defined region of eastern Australia | All schools with vegetable gardens (outdoor or greenhouse) as identified by telephone survey | Schools with vegetable gardens (no one intervention) | Open ended questionnaire; face-to-face interviews Data were then categorised thematically and analysed |
Viola (2006) [52] | Australia | Key informants from one primary school (n = 6) and one secondary school (n = 9); students in grades 4–9; Indigenous Australians; remote rural communities | To examine how effective school gardens are as a nutritional education tool in Indigenous Australian school settings | Schools selected by researcher; participating grades determined by school principals; key informants selected from each community advisory group | Outreach School Garden Project (incorporated formal nutrition and gardening education lessons into the core school curriculum | Semi-structured interviews; reflective journal; event log (over six months with outreach visits for 3–5 days every 6–8 weeks) Descriptive qualitative approach; triangulation of research methods and data sources |
First author (year) Multiple studies about the same intervention are grouped together. | Name of school gardening intervention | Gardening component | Cooking as key component | Nutrition education component | Integrated with wider curriculum | Produce used in school catering | Outdoors some or all of the time | Delivered by specialists | Delivered by teachers | Teachers trained by specialists | Community involvement | Theory-led intervention |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ahmed (2011) [40] | No name (school garden program founded to prevent nutrition-related illness) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||
Alexander (1995) [41] | Master Gardeners’ Classroom Garden Project | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||
Anderson (2011) | Hyrdoponic gardening system | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||
Block (2012) [24] Block (2009) [25] Gibbs (2013) [26] Henryks (2011) [47] Townsend (2014) [43] | Stephanie Alexander Kitchen Garden Program | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||
Bowker (2007) [44] | Gardens for Life | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||
Brouwer (2013) [21] | Watch Me Grow | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||
Chawla (2014) [11] | No name (four different gardening programs at four high schools) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||
Chiumento (2012) [12] | Haven of Greenspace (social and therapeutic horticulture) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||
Passy (2010) [50] | Royal Horticultural Society (RHS) Campaign for School Gardening | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||
Cotter (2013) [22] | Aromas school gardening club | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||
Cotugna (2012) [27] | Gardening education program | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||
Cutter-Macenzie (2009) [45] | Multicultural School Gardens Program | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||
Davis (2011) [28] Gatto (2012) [29] | LA Sprouts | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||
Hazzard (2011) [46] | California Instructional School Garden Program | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||
Jaenke (2012) [15] Morgan (2010) [30] | How do you grow?/How does your garden grow? | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
Lakin (2008) [48] | Health Promoting Schools: Gloucestershire Food Strategy | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||
McAleese (2007) [16] | Nutrition in the garden | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||
Meinen (2012) [31] | Youth gardening program: Got Dirt? | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||
Miller (2007) [49] | Dimensions outdoor classroom including garden and greenhouse areas | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||
Ming Wei (2012) [13] | The Discovery Garden | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||
Morris (2001) [32] Morris (2002) (1) [33] Morris (2002) (2) [34] | No name (nutrition education plus gardening) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||
O’Brien (2006) [35] | No name (based on Junior Master Gardener) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||
Parmer (2009) [37] Parmer (2007) [36] | No name (based on Pyramid Café/Health and Nutrition from the Garden) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||
Ratcliffe (2011) [38] | No name (garden-based learning activities) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||
Robinson (2005) [39] | No name (school gardening curriculum) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||
Somerset (2005) [51] | No name (schools with vegetable gardens) | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||
Viola (2006) [52] | Outreach School Garden Project | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||
Waliczek (2001) [17] | Project GREEN school garden program | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||
Wells (2014) [23] | Healthy Gardens, Healthy Youth | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Duplication and differences in reporting
Quality appraisal of included studies
First author (year) | EPHPP criteria for quantitative studies | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Selection bias | Study design | Confounders | Blinding | Data collection | Withdrawals and dropouts | Overall rating | |
Block (2012) [24] Block (2009) [25] Gibbs (2013) [26] | Weak | Strong | Weak | Moderate | Moderate | Strong | Weak |
Brouwer (2013) [21] | Weak | Strong | Weak | Moderate | Strong | Weak | Weak |
Weak | Strong | Moderate | Moderate | Moderate | Weak | Weak | |
Christian (2014) (2) Trial 2 [10] | Weak | Strong | Moderate | Moderate | Moderate | Moderate | Moderate |
Cotter (2012) [22] | Weak | Strong | Weak | Moderate | Strong | Strong | Weak |
Cotugna (2012) [27] | Moderate | Strong | Weak | Weak | Weak | Weak | Weak |
Davis (2011) [28] Gatto (2012) [29] | Moderate | Strong | Strong | Moderate | Strong | Strong | Moderate |
Jaenke (2012) [15] Morgan (2010) [30] | Moderate | Moderate | Strong | Moderate | Weak | Strong | Moderate |
McAleese (2007) [16] | Weak | Strong | Weak | Moderate | Moderate | Weak | Weak |
Meinen (2012) [31] | Moderate | Moderate | Weak | Weak | Weak | Moderate | Weak |
Morris (2001) [32] | Weak | Moderate | Weak | Moderate | Weak | Weak | Weak |
Morris (2002) (1) [33] Morris (2002) (2) [34] | Moderate | Weak | Weak | Moderate | Moderate | Strong | Weak |
O’Brien (2006) [35] | Weak | Weak | Weak | Moderate | Weak | Weak | Weak |
Parmer (2007) [36] Parmer (2009) [37] | Weak | Moderate | Weak | Moderate | Weak | Weak | Weak |
Ratcliffe (2011) [38] | Weak | Weak | Weak | Moderate | Moderate | Moderate | Weak |
Robinson (2005) [39] | Weak | Weak | Weak | Moderate | Weak | Weak | Weak |
Waliczek (2001) [17] | Weak | Weak | Weak | Moderate | Strong | Weak | Weak |
Wells (2014) [23] | Weak | Moderate | Moderate | Moderate | Moderate | Moderate | Moderate |
First author (year) | Wallace criteria | Total # Yes ratings | Overall rating | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 2b | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | |||
Ahmed (2011) [40] | Y | N | CT | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 10 | Moderate |
Alexander (1995) [41] | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | P | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | CT | 8 | Moderate |
Anderson (2011) [42] | Y | Y | CT | Y | Y | CT | P | P | N | N | P | Y | P | 5 | Weak |
Block (2012) [24] Block (2009) [25] Gibbs (2013) [26] Townsend (2014) [43] | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | P | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | NA | Y | 11 | Strong |
Bowker (2007) [44] | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | P | Y | Y | P | Y | Y | Y | P | 10 | Moderate |
Chawla (2014) [11] | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | P | Y | Y | Y | Y | P | Y | Y | 11 | Strong |
Chiumento (2012) [12] | Y | P | CT | Y | Y | P | P | P | Y | Y | N | NA | P | 5 | Weak |
Cutter-Mackenzie (2009) [45] | Y | N | CT | Y | Y | P | Y | P | N | Y | Y | Y | P | 7 | Moderate |
Hazzard (2011) [46] | Y | N | CT | Y | P | P | P | P | Y | P | N | N | P | 3 | Weak |
Henryks (2011) [47] | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | P | Y | Y | P | NA | P | 8 | Moderate |
Lakin (2008) [48] | Y | N | CT | Y | Y | P | Y | CT | N | P | N | Y | N | 5 | Weak |
Miller (2007) [49] | Y | N | CT | Y | Y | CT | Y | Y | P | P | N | N | N | 5 | Weak |
Ming Wei (2012) [13] | Y | Y | CT | Y | Y | P | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | NA | Y | 10 | Moderate |
Passy (2010) [50] | Y | N | CT | Y | Y | Y | Y | CT | N | Y | N | Y | P | 7 | Moderate |
Somerset (2005) [51] | Y | N | CT | Y | N | CT | N | P | P | Y | N | N | CT | 3 | Weak |
Viola (2006) [52] | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | P | Y | P | N | P | Y | Y | Y | 9 | Moderate |
Quantitative evidence for the health and well-being impacts of school gardening
Fruit and vegetable intakes
First author (year) Sample (n) | Outcome measures | Outcomes | Intervention group | Comparison group | Control group | Group x time results (adjusted, if reported) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Baseline Mean (SD) | Follow-up Mean (SD) | Baseline Mean (SD) | Follow-up Mean (SD) | Baseline Mean (SD) | Follow-up Mean (SD) | ||||
Brouwer (2013) [21]
n = 12 | Structured dietary assessment method for pre-school children (whilst in care) | V served (servings/day) V consumed (servings/day) F served (servings/day) F consumed (servings/day) Serving size = one cup FV; half cup dried fruit; FV juices not included (source: USDA MyPlate) | 1.42 (0.67) 0.80 (0.68) 1.55 (0.99) 1.00 (0.89) | 1.24 (0.57) 1.05 (0.67) 0.92 (0.56) 0.67 (0.22) | NA | NA | 1.13 (0.31) 0.80 (0.38) 0.59 (0.27) 0.32 (0.29) | 0.75 (0.21) 0.63 (0.28) 0.49 (0.40) 0.46 (0.43) | NR |
Christian (2014) (1) [9] Trial 1; n = 1256†
| CADET (115 items) | F intake (g/day) V intake (g/day) FV intake (g/day) | 201 (9.3)a
87 (4.4)a
269 (10.7)a
| 168 (11.8)a
89 (9.0)a
237 (14.5)a
| 214 (9.5)a
102 (4.3)a
300 (10.5)a
| 208 (11.5)a
118 (8.6)a
308 (14.0)a
| NA | NA | MD = −28 (16.4)a; p = 0.08 MD = −13 (12.8)a; p = 0.2 MD = −43 (22.8)a; p = 0.06 |
Christian (2014) (2) [10] Trial 1; n = 1138†
| |||||||||
Christian (2014) (2) [10] Trial 2; n = 1391 | CADET (115 items) | F intake (g/day) V intake (g/day) FV intake (g/day) | 206 (7.9) 95 (3.8) 299 (8.9) | 219 (17.6)a
111 (10.2)a
328.8 (23.0)a
| NA | NA | 193 (8.2) 100 (4.7) 296 (9.6) | 181 (17.1)a
122 (9.9)a
305 (22.4)a
| MD = −22 (24.3)a; p = 0.3 MD = −7 (14.2)a; p = 0.6 MD = 15 (32.0)a; p = 0.6 |
Cotugna (2012) [27]
n = 359 | Lunchtime observations | Students who chose salad for lunch (%) | 17.4 | 24.0 | 22.2 | NR due to scheduling issues | 22.1 | 20.3 | NR |
Davis (2011) [28]
n = 104 | Block Food Screener (41 items) | F intake (servings/day) V intake (servings/day) Serving size not reported | 4.0 (0.7) 1.6 (1.0) | 3.9 (0.8) 1.6 (1.0) | NA | NA | 4.1 (0.9) 1.9 (1.3) | 4.2 (0.8) 1.3 (1.0) |
p = 0.83
p = 0.11 |
Gibbs (2013) [26]
n = 764 | Parent questionnaire | F ≥ 2 servings/day (%) V ≥ 5 servings/day (%) Serving size = one apple or orange, two kiwis or apricots, one cup dried fruit | 84.2 7.7 | 79.8 7.3 | 74.6 5.9 | 72.5 9.5 | NA | NA | OR = 1.68 (0.90 to 3.14); p = 0.11 OR = 0.87 (0.54 to 1.42); p = 0.59 |
Jaenke (2012) [15]
n = 127 | 24 h recall x 2 | F intake (servings/day) V intake (servings/day) Serving size = 150 g fruit; 45 g dried fruit; 75 g vegetables | 1.2 (1.0) 2.0 (1.7) | Between group mean differences only | 1.5 (1.0) 1.9 (1.3) | Between group mean differences only | 1.0 (0.9) 2.1 (2.2) | Between group mean differences only |
p = 0.76
p = 0.06 |
Morgan (2010) [30]
n = 127 (some differences)a
| |||||||||
McAleese (2007) [16]
n = 122 | 24 h recall x 3 (workbook) | F intake (servings/day) V intake (servings/day) Serving size not reported | 0.8 (0.8) 1.2 (0.6) | 1.9 (1.4) 2.6 (1.7) | 0.3 (0.5) 1.8 (1.1) | 0.5 (0.7) 1.7 (1.0) | 0.7 (0.6) 1.7 (0.7) | 0.6 (0.7) 1.4 (0.7) | F = 10.98; p < 0.001 F = 15.00; p < 0.001 |
Meinen (2012) [31]
n = 404 | Parent survey | Child ate F yesterday (# times) Child ate V yesterday (# times) | 2.8 (0.85) 2.5 (0.79) | 3.0 (0.88) 2.7 (0.93) | NA | NA | 2.8 (0.78) 2.6 (0.79) | 2.9 (0.78) 2.6 (0.86) | NR |
Parmer (2009) [37]
n = 115 | Lunchroom observations | V consumption (0 = not eaten; 1 = eaten) | 0.70 (0.4) | 1.0 (0.0) | 0.64 (0.5) | 0.64 (0.5) | 0.83 (0.3) | 0.50 (0.5) | NR |
Parmer (2007) [36]
n = 115 | |||||||||
Ratcliffe (2011) [38]
n = 320 | Garden Vegetables Frequency Questionnaire (22 items) | V consumed more than once a month (# varieties) | NR | Change values only reported | NA | NA | NR | Change values only reported |
p = 0.001 |
Taste Test | |||||||||
V consumed at school |
p = 0.010 | ||||||||
V consumed at home |
p = 0.122 |
Nutrient intakes (and other dietary outcomes)
First author (year) Sample (n) | Outcome measures | Outcomes | Intervention group | Comparison group | Control group | Group x time results (adjusted, if reported) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Baseline Mean (SD) | Follow-up Mean (SD) | Baseline Mean (SD) | Follow-up Mean (SD) | Baseline Mean (SD) | Follow-up Mean (SD) | ||||
Christian (2014) (1) [9]
n = 1256†
| CADET (115 items) | Energy (kcal/day) Protein (g/day) Carbohydrates (g/day) Fibre (g/day) Total fat (g/day) Total sugars (g/day) Iron (μg/day) Sodium (mg/day) Folate (μg/day) Carotene (mg/day) Vitamin C (mg/day) | 2034 (39.4)a
75 (1.8)a
265 (4.4)a
13 (0.3)a
82 (2.3)a
132 (2.9)a
11 (0.2)a
2632 (76.3)a
227 (5.3)a
1956 (98.8)a
108 (3.7)a
| 1520 (178.2)a
58 (7.1)a
186 (21.5)a
10 (1.3)a
65 (8.2)a
90 (10.5)a
8 (1.0)a
2272 (286)a
169 (19.7)a
1995 (864)a
113 (31.7)a
| 1993 (34.1)a
73 (1.5)a
267 (4.3)a
13 (0.3)a
78 (1.7)a
134 (2.6)a
11 (0.2)a
2572 (57.6)a
224 (4.5)a
2352 (101.7)a
105 (3.5)a
| 1567 (168.4)a
64 (6.7)a
193 (20.6)a
11 (1.3)a
64 (7.7)a
99 (10.0)a
8 (0.9)a
2257 (267.7)a
180 (18.6)a
2164 (878)a
125 (31)a
| NA | NA | MD = −46-; p = 0.6 MD = −6; p = 0.2 MD = −7; p = 0.5 MD = −1; p = 0.1 MD = 1; p = 0.8 MD = −8; p = 0.1 MD = −0.4; p = 0.5 MD = 16; p = 0.9 MD = −11; p = 0.3 MD = 168; p = 0.5 MD = 13; p = 0.02 |
Christian (2014) (2) [10] Trial 1; n = 1138†
| |||||||||
Christian (2014) (2) [10] Trial 2; n = 1391 | CADET (115 items) | Total energy (kcal/day) Fat (g/day) Sodium (mg/day) Total sugars (g/day) Carotene (μg/day) Vitamin C (mg/day) Iron (μg/day) Fibre (g/day) Carbohydrates (g/day) Folate (μg/day) Protein (g/day) | 2039 (32.7) 82 (18.0) 2742 (58.4) 133 (2.3) 2024 (74.9) 118 (3.2) 11 (0.2) 13 (0.3) 267 (4.0) 235 (4.5) 75 (1.4) | 1845 (172) 76 (7.9) 2621 (259) 108 (11.4) 1841 (299) 75 (30.2) 10 (0.9) 12 (1.2) 227 (21.7) 192 (18.9) 70 (6.5) | NA | NA | 1932 (32.8) 78 (2.0) 2575 (64.2) 127 (2.4) 2089 (83.9) 118 (3.2) 11 (0.2) 12 (0.2) 254 (3.6) 220 (4.3) 69 (1.4) | 1836 (170) 77 (7.9) 2656 (257) 107 (11.3) 2168 (329) 73 (30) 10 (0.9) 11 (1.2) 225 (21.6) 188 (18.8) 68 (6.4) | MD = 9; p = 0.9 MD = −1; p = 0.8 MD = −34; p = 0.8 MD = 1; p = 0.8 MD = −327; p = 0.2 MD = 2; p = 0.7 MD = 0.1; p = 0.8 MD = 0.3; p = 0.6 MD = 2; p = 0.8 MD = 4; p = 0.6 MD = 2; p = 0.6 |
Cotter (2013) [22]
n = 155 | 24 h urine samples; flame photometry | Estimated salt intake (g/day) | 7.5 (2.4) | 6.4 (2.2) | 8.1 (3.0) | 7.5 (3.0) | 7.7 (2.0) | 7.4 (3.0) | NR |
Davis (2011) [28]
n = 104 | Block Food Screener (41 items) | Energy (kcal/day) Protein (g/day) Fat (g/day) Carbohydrates (g/day) Added sugar (tsp/day) Dietary fibre (g/day) Meat (servings/day) Dairy (servings/day) Whole grains (oz/day) | 2011.0 (1410.4) 85.4 (67.7) 79.8 (67.6) 244.2 (145.7) 11.8 (10.2) 16.1 (11.5) 2.1 (2.4) 2.1 (1.3) 0.8 (0.9) | 1639.5 (1046.5) 65.1 (43.0) 62.6 (49.6) 211.3 (122.3) 9.9 (9.4) 16.1 (8.6) 2.8 (2.5) 1.7 (1.2) 0.9 (0.7) | NA | NA | 1961.0 (1077.5) 81.6 (49.0) 73.3 (52.4) 252.2 (119.6) 11.5 (7.6) 18.7 (10.3) 2.0 (1.7) 2.1 (1.1) 0.7 (0.7) | 1535.2 (902.9) 58.3 (38.3) 57.8 (41.4) 202.8 (109.1) 11.2 (9.7) 13.3 (7.5) 2.5 (3.4) 1.7 (1.0) 0.6 (0.6) |
p = 0.85
p = 0.59
p = 0.92
p = 0.94
p = 0.15
p = 0.01
p = 0.68
p = 0.97
p = 0.13 |
Gibbs (2013) [26]
n = 764 | Parent questionnaire | No sweet drinks (%) | 74.1 | 75.6 | 76.2 | 68.1 | NA | NA | OR = 1.33 (0.70 to 2.5); p = 0.38 |
McAleese (2007) [16]
n = 122 | 24 h recall x 3 (workbook) | Vitamin A (μg/day RAE) Vitamin C (mg/day) Fibre (g/day) | 430.4 (244.1) 58.2 (62.2) 12.7 (4.6) | 612.4 (359.6) 143.4 (144.5) 16.9 (7.4) | 428.5 (247.9) 47.5 (48.5) 10.7 (5.2) | 358.8 (273.3) 60.8 (126.6) 9.9 (5.0) | 621.4 (294.1) 83.1 (115.6) 15.3 (6.0) | 549.5 (248.9) 76.2 (129.5) 12.6 (8.0) | F = 5.86; p = 0.004 F = 4.31; p = 0.016 F = 8.21; p = 0.001 |
Food preferences
First author (year) Sample (n) | Outcome measures | Outcomes | Intervention group | Comparison group | Control group | Group x time results (adjusted, if reported) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Baseline Mean (SD) | Follow-up Mean (SD) | Baseline Mean (SD) | Follow-up Mean (SD) | Baseline Mean (SD) | Follow-up Mean (SD) | ||||
Block (2009) [25]
n = 770 | SAKG child questionnaire (four point scale) | Always willing to try new foods if… | NA | NA | NR | ||||
Never tried it before (%) Cooked it (%) Grown it in the garden (%) | 26 32 26 | 39 51 39 | 35 39 35 | 23 34 23 | |||||
Gibbs (2013) [26]
n = 764 (some differences)a
| |||||||||
SAKG parent questionnaire | Child always willing to try new foods (%) | 27 | 33 | 24 | 27 | ||||
Gatto (2012) [29]
n = 107 | Motivation for Healthy Behaving (17 items) | Preference for fruits Preference for vegetables | NR | Change values only reported | NA | NA | NR | Change values only reported |
p = 0.9
p = 0.06 |
Combination of measures (13 items; seven point scale) | Fruit from the garden tastes better than fruit from the store (/7) Vegetables from the garden taste better than vegetables from the store (/7) | 4.9 (2.4) 4.4 (2.5) | 6.2 (1.4) 5.8 (1.8) | 4.8 (2.2) 4.2 (2.3) | 4.8 (2.2) 4.3 (2.2) | NS
p < 0.05 | |||
Jaenke (2012)
n = 127 [15] | Food preference assessment tool | Overall willingness to taste (/6) Overall taste rating (/30) Taste rating carrot (/5) Taste rating pea (/5) Taste rating tomato (/5) Taste rating broccoli (/5) Taste rating capsicum (/5) Taste rating lettuce (/5) | 4.54 (1.50) 18.5 (7.4) 3.7 (1.6) 2.9 (1.8) 2.9 (2.3) 2.6 (1.8) 2.4 (2.1) 4.1 (1.5) | Between group mean differences only | 4.50 (1.94) 18.1 (9.0) 3.7 (1.6) 2.8 (1.8) 2.4 (2.3) 2.8 (2.0) 3.0 (2.1) 3.7 (1.9) | Between group mean differences only | 3.93 (2.04) 15.5 (8.8) 3.5 (1.8) 2.0 (1.9) 2.5 (2.4) 2.1 (2.1) 2.1 (2.2) 3.3 (1.9) | Between group mean differences only |
p < 0.001
p < 0.001
p = 0.071
p < 0.001
p = 0.03
p < 0.001
p = 0.12
p = 0.02 |
Morgan (2010) [30]
n = 127 (some differences)a
| |||||||||
Reported in Morgan paper only: | |||||||||
Willingness to taste: Lettuce (proportion) Carrot (proportion) Capsicum (proportion) Broccoli (proportion) Tomato (proportion) Pea (proportion) | 0.94 0.89 0.60 0.71 0.60 0.69 | 0.97 0.92 0.74 0.93 0.76 0.77 | 0.83 0.89 0.77 0.74 0.56 0.74 | 0.85 0.88 0.64 0.61 0.48 0.76 | 0.77 0.82 0.51 0.58 0.60 0.63 | 0.61 0.70 0.35 0.36 0.40 0.41 | 0.24 0.14 0.04 0.01 <0.001 0.02 | ||
Would you eat this food as a snack? | |||||||||
Lettuce (proportion) Carrot (proportion) Capsicum (proportion) Broccoli (proportion) Tomato (proportion) Pea (proportion) | 0.60 0.67 0.22 0.06 0.46 0.21 | 0.68 0.60 0.43 0.40 0.48 0.61 | 0.54 0.64 0.26 0.18 0.48 0.24 | 0.69 0.60 0.29 0.18 0.32 0.32 | 0.39 0.63 0.23 0.19 0.42 0.25 | 0.30 0.61 0.29 0.06 0.34 0.11 | 0.15 0.89 0.39 <0.001 0.31 0.001 | ||
Meinen (2012) [31]
n = 404 | Student survey (three point scale) | Willingness to try fruits and vegetables: If given a new kind of fruit at home (/3) If given a new kind of fruit at school (/3) If given a new kind of vegetable at home (/3) If given a new kind of vegetable at school (/3) Would you choose fruit as a snack? (/3) Would you choose vegetables as a snack? (/3) | 2.5 (0.60) 2.2 (0.72) 2.2 (0.70) 2.1 (0.73) 2.4 (0.68) 1.8 (0.74) | 2.6 (0.59) 2.3 (0.72) 2.3 (0.70) 2.1 (0.78) 2.5 (0.63) 2.0 (0.73) | NA | NA | 2.6 (0.58) 2.3 (0.69) 2.3 (0.69) 2.0 (0.71) 2.5 (0.66) 1.9 (0.78) | 2.5 (0.65) 2.2 (0.69) 2.2 (0.71) 2.0 (0.75) 2.5 (0.64) 2.0 (0.75) | NR |
Parent survey (10 items; four point scale) | Like/dislike of fruits and vegetables: | ||||||||
Apples (/4) Watermelon (/4) Broccoli (/4) Tomatoes (/4) Spinach (/4) Swiss chard (/4) Zucchinis (/4) Cucumbers (/4) Green beans (/4) Peppers (/4) | 3.8 (0.45) 3.7 (0.58) 2.8 (1.05) 2.3 (1.12) 2.2 (0.99) 1.6 (0.82) 2.3 (0.99) 3.0 (0.99) 3.3 (0.89) 2.4 (1.13) | 3.7 (0.57) 3.6 (0.68) 2.9 (1.06) 2.5 (1.15) 2.4 (1.14) 2.0 (0.95) 2.4 (0.95) 3.0 (1.05) 3.4 (0.90) 2.6 (1.12) | 3.8 (0.46) 3.6 (0.74) 2.9 (1.02) 2.4 (1.13) 2.2 (1.06) 1.7 (0.96) 2.3 (1.11) 2.9 (1.13) 3.3 (0.95) 2.3 (1.17) | 3.8 (0.52) 3.6 (0.75) 2.8 (1.07) 2.5 (1.16) 2.1 (1.02) 1.7 (0.78) 2.3 (1.01) 3.1 (1.01) 3.4 (0.85) 2.3 (1.09) | |||||
Morris (2001) [32]
n = 97 | Student questionnaire (six items; five point scale) | Mean total tasting score indicating willingness to taste (/5) Vegetables tasted: spinach, carrots, peas, broccoli, zucchini and red bell pepper. | 4.07 (0.31)a
| 4.83 (0.23)a
| NA | NA | 3.90 (0.30)a
| 3.90 (0.29)a
|
p < 0.005 |
Morris (2002) [33] (1)
n = 213 | Vegetable preference survey (six items; five point scale) | Vegetable preference score at post-test: | NR | Post-test: | NR | Post-test: | NR | Post-test: | |
Broccoli (/5) Carrots (/5) Jicama (/5) Snow peas (/5) Spinach (/5) Zucchini (/5) | 3.8 (0.1)a
4.7 (0.1)a
3.9 (0.2)a
3.8 (0.2)a
3.0 (0.2)a
4.0 (0.2)a
| 3.8 (0.1)a
4.7 (0.1)a
3.8 (0.2)a
3.1 (0.2)a
3.2 (0.2)a
3.2 (0.1)a
| 3.2 (0.2)a
4.4 (0.1)a
3.6 (0.2)a
2.9 (0.2)a
3.1 (0.2)a
3.1 (0.2)a
| F = 4.840; p < 0.01 F = 5.768; p < 0.005 NR F = 7.657; p < 0.005 NR F = 10.012; p < 0.0005 | |||||
Vegetable preference score at 6 m follow up: | Follow up: | Follow up: | Follow up: | ||||||
Broccoli (/5) Carrots (/5) Jicama (/5) Snow peas (/5) Spinach (/5) Zucchini (/5) | 4.0 (0.1)a
4.6 (0.1)a
3.8 (0.2)a
3.7 (0.2)a
3.4 (0.1)a
4.0 (0.1)a
| 3.7 (0.1)a
4.7 (0.1)a
3.4 (0.2)a
3.0 (0.2)a
3.2 (0.1)a
3.4 (0.1)a
| 3.5 (0.2)a
4.4 (0.1)a
3.2 (0.2)a
3.0 (0.2)a
3.3 (0.2)a
3.2 (0.2)a
| NR NR NR NR NR NR | |||||
Morris (2002) [34] (2)
n = 215 | Vegetable preference survey (six items; yes/no/don’t know) | Vegetable preferences at post-test: Do you eat this food at home? (/6) Would you ask your family to buy this food? (/6) Would you eat this food as a snack? (/6) | NR | Post-test: 3.3 (0.1)a
2.9 (0.2)a
2.4 (0.2)a
| NR | Post-test: 3.1 (0.1)a
2.6 (0.2)a
2.2 (0.2)a
| NR | Post-test: 2.7 (0.2)a
1.9 (0.2)a
1.6 (0.2)a
| F = 4.165; p < 0.05 F = 7.181; p < 0.005 F = 5.239; p < 0.01 |
Vegetable preferences at 6 m follow up: | Follow up: | Follow up: | Follow up: | ||||||
Do you eat this food at home? (/6) Would you ask your family to buy this food? (/6) Would you eat this food as a snack? (/6) | 3.2 (0.1)a
2.6 (0.2)a
2.4 (0.2)a
| 3.1 (0.2)a
2.5 (0.2)a
1.9 (0.2)a
| 2.8 (0.2)a
2.4 (0.2)a
1.5 (0.2)a
| NR NR F = 6.152; p < 0.005 | |||||
O’Brien (2006) [35]
n = 38 | FV preference assessment (four point scale) | Total fruit preference (/8) Total vegetable preference (/16) Fruits and vegetables tasted unknown | 7.18 (0.31)a
10.94 (0.92)a
| 7.06 (0.34)a
11.24 (0.92)a
| NA | NA | 6.05 (0.33)a
8.81 (0.91)a
| 6.05 (0.33)a
9.05 (0.97)a
| NR |
Parmer (2009) [37]
n = 115 | FV preference questionnaire (six items; five point scale) | Willingness to taste (/6) Ratings of tasted fruits and vegetables (/5) Fruits and vegetables tasted: carrots, broccoli, spinach, zucchini, cabbage and blueberries. | 4.82 (1.6) 3.45 (0.9) | 5.50 (1.0) 4.38 (0.5) | 5.11 (1.1) 3.85 (0.8) | 5.33 (1.2) 4.15 (0.6) | 3.84 (2.1) 3.99 (0.7) | 4.23 (2.0) 3.82 (0.5) | F = 0.878; p = 0.42 F = 14.45; p < 0.001 |
Parmer (2007) [36]
n = 115 | |||||||||
FV preference survey (15 items; three point scale) | Fruit preference (/3) Vegetable preference (/3) | 2.59 (0.4) 2.08 (0.5) | 2.60 (0.3) 2.03 (0.5) | 2.70 (0.3) 2.20 (0.6) | 2.73 (0.3) 2.14 (0.6) | 2.59 (0.4) 2.10 (0.5) | 2.57 (0.3) 1.98 (0.5) | NR NR | |
Ratcliffe (2011) [38]
n = 320 | Taste test (five items; five point scale) | Willingness to taste vegetables (/5) Preference for vegetables (/5) Vegetables tasted: carrots, string beans, snow peas, broccoli and Swiss chard. | NR | Change values only reported | NA | NA | NR | Change values only reported | 0.286 0.279 |
Garden Vegetables Frequency Questionnaire (22 items plus two added) | Preference for vegetables: | ||||||||
all (24 items) grown in school garden (11 items) not grown in school garden (13 items) | 0.029 0.017 0.23 | ||||||||
Willingness to taste vegetables: | |||||||||
all (24 items) grown in school garden (11 items) not grown in school garden (13 items) | <0.001 <0.001 0.025 |
Knowledge and attitudes towards food
First author (year) Sample (n) | Outcome measures | Outcomes (data are means and SD unless otherwise stated) | Intervention group | Comparison group | Control group | Group x time results (adjusted, if reported) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Baseline Mean (SD) | Follow-up Mean (SD) | Baseline Mean (SD) | Follow-up Mean (SD) | Baseline Mean (SD) | Follow-up Mean (SD) | ||||
Child questionnaire: FV knowledge Attitudes towards FV | % of children who agreed: I enjoy eating fruit I like trying new fruits I try to eat lots of fruit I enjoy eating vegetables I like trying new vegetables I try to eat lots of vegetables Eating FV every day keeps me healthy | % agreed 94.5 78.0 83.0 65.6 58.9 64.6 93.5 | % agreed 91.8 76.3 81.3 64.7 58.0 70.9 94.1 | % agreed 96.4 83.3 86.7 66.9 61.0 66.7 94.1 | % agreed 96.2 86.6 90.1 65.9 60.0 69.6 97.2 | NA | NA | Odds ratio (95 % CI) OR = 0.4 (0.1 to 1.0) OR = 0.5 (0.2 to 0.9) OR = 0.4 (0.2 to 0.9) OR = 1.1 (0.6 to 1.9) OR = 1.0 (0.7 to 1.5) OR = 1.1 (0.7 to 1.7) OR = 0.6 (0.2 to 1.6) | |
There is usually lots of FV to eat at home | 89.2 | 89.8 | 87.6 | 94.1 | OR = 0.4 (0.2 to 0.9) | ||||
I'm good at preparing FV My family encourages me to eat FV % who knew that 5 FV per day are needed to stay healthy | 71.8 87.1 76.2 | 74.7 90.7 79.0 | 81.3 88.3 72.7 | 83.6 93.7 79.0 | OR = 0.6 (0.3 to 1.1) OR = 0.7 (0.3 to 1.5) OR = 0.9 (0.4 to 1.6) | ||||
% who had tasted their own FV at follow-up | 62.3 | 62.1 | 52.4 | 67.8 | OR = 0.8 (0.5 to 1.4) | ||||
Christian (2014) [10] Trial 2; n = 1391 | Child questionnaire: FV knowledge Attitudes towards FV | % of children who agreed: I enjoy eating fruit (% who agreed) I like trying new fruits I try to eat lots of fruit I enjoy eating vegetables I like trying new vegetables I try to eat lots of vegetables Eating FV every day keeps me healthy | % agreed 96.7 86.0 87.2 68.8 62.8 72.8 94.9 | % agreed 97.6 84.0 88.2 69.5 59.5 75.5 97.0 | NA | NA | % agreed 96.8 84.5 82.7 64.2 60.5 66.7 96.2 | % agreed 97.0 80.4 85.8 61.7 56.9 68.6 96.4 | Odds ratio (95 % CI) OR = 1.1 (0.4 to 2.9) OR = 1.2 (0.7 to 1.9) OR = 1.0 (0.6 to 1.6) OR = 1.2 (0.9 to 1.6) OR = 0.9 (0.7 to 1.2) OR = 1.2 (0.8 to 1.8) OR = 1.2 (0.5 to 2.8) |
There is usually lots of FV to eat at home | 89.6 | 92.8 | 88.9 | 89.5 | OR = 1.5 (0.9 to 2.5) | ||||
I'm good at preparing FV My family encourages me to eat FV % who knew that 5 FV per day are needed to stay healthy % who had tasted their own FV at follow-up | 79.3 89.9 73.6 60.1 | 78.1 92.8 79.1 66.4 | 77.9 87.7 67.3 56.0 | 79.3 91.9 67.5 58.1 | OR = 0.8 (0.6 to 1.1) OR = 0.9 (0.5 to 1.6) OR = 1.7 (1.1 to 2.5) OR = 1.4 (0.8 to 2.4) | ||||
Meinen (2012) [31] n = 404 | Knowledge of fruits and vegetables | Knowledge of recommended daily servings of FV (%) | 33 | 35 | 36 | 42 | NR | ||
Morgan (2010) [30] n = 127 | Gimme 5 questionnaire (eight multiple choice questions) | FV knowledge (/8) | 5.4 (1.4) | Between group mean differences only | 5.1 (1.3) | Between group mean differences only | 6.1 (1.8) | Between group mean differences only |
p = 0.02†
|
Food preference assessment tool | Ability to identify vegetables (/1) | 0.9 (0.1) | 0.9 (0.1) | 0.9 (0.1) |
p < 0.001†
| ||||
Morris (2001) [32] n = 97 | Food identification questionnaire (food groups/recommendations) | Nutrition knowledge score (/5) | 1.9 (0.2)a
| 2.5 (0.2)a
| NA | NA | 2.4 (0.2)a
| 2.5 (0.2)a
| NR |
Morris (2002) (1) [33] n = 213 | Nutrition knowledge questionnaire (30 multiple choice questions) | Nutrition knowledge score at post-test (/30): | NR | 20.8 (0.4)a
| NR | 20.5 (0.4)a
| NR | 17.1 (0.4)a
| F = 24.238, p < 0.0005 |
Nutrition knowledge score at 6 m follow up (/30): | 20.8 (0.4)a
| 21.2 (0.4)a
| 18 (0.4)a
| F = 18.270, p < 0.0005 | |||||
Morris (2002) (2) [34] n = 215 | Vegetable preference survey (six items) | Ability to correctly name vegetables at post-test (/6) | NR | 3.3 (0.1)a
| NR | 3.0 (0.1)a
| NR | 2.6 (0.1)a
| F = 9.795, p < 0.0005 |
Ability to correctly name vegetables at follow up (/6) | 3.2 (0.1)a
| 2.9 (0.1)a
| 2.8 (0.1)a
| NR | |||||
O’Brien (2006) [35] n = 38 | Nutrition knowledge questionnaire (derived from Family Nutrition Program evaluations) | Nutrition knowledge (/10) | 7.53 (0.34)a
| 7.18 (0.30)a
| NR | NR | 7.05 (0.29)a
| 7.38 (0.33)a
| NR |
Self-efficacy instrument (Domel et al. 1996) | FV consumption self-efficacy (/10) | 8.94 (0.29)a
| 9.06 (0.26)a
| 8.33 (0.33)a
| 8.67 (0.25)a
| ||||
Outcome expectations questionnaire (Domel et al. 1995) | FV consumption expectations (/6) | 5.76 (0.18)a
| 5.24 (0.27)a
| 5.29 (0.24)a
| 5.52 (0.16)a
| ||||
Parmer (2009) [37] n = 115 | Fruit and vegetable survey (adapted Struempler & Raby) | Food groups Nutrient-food associations Nutrient-job associations FV identification | 3.69 (1.8) 1.46 (1.1) 1.25 (1.0) 3.14 (0.7) | 5.20 (1.2) 3.56 (1.6) 2.97 (1.9) 4.89 (0.9) | 4.08 (1.7) 1.67 (1.5) 1.27 (1.3) 3.03 (0.6) | 4.75 (1.9) 3.70 (1.8) 2.64 (1.6) 3.44 (0.8) | 4.03 (1.8) 1.82 (1.4) 1.71 (1.2) 2.88 (0.9) | 4.46 (1.3) 1.92 (1.3) 1.46 (1.0) 2.96 (1.0) | NS F(2,122) = 11.84; p < 0.001 F(2,122) = 12.05; p < 0.001 F(2,78) = 28.08; p < 0.001 |
Parmer (2007) [36] n = 115 | |||||||||
Ratcliffe (2011) [38] n = 320 | Taste test | Ability to identify vegetables | NR | Change values only reported | NA | NA | NR | Change values only reported |
p = 0.002 |
Physical health and activity
First author (year) Sample (n) | Outcome measures | Outcomes | Intervention group | Comparison group | Control group | Group x time results (adjusted, if reported) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Baseline Mean (SD) | Follow-up Mean (SD) | Baseline Mean (SD) | Follow-up Mean (SD) | Baseline Mean (SD) | Follow-up Mean (SD) | ||||
Cotter (2013) [22]
n = 155 | Standard clinical measures | Waist circumference (cm) BMI (kg/m2) Systolic blood pressure (mmHg) Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) Urinary sodium (mmol/24 h) | 67.8 (8.2) 19.0 (2.7) 117.4 (9.9) 66.9 (8.0) 126.6 (40.5) | 68.6 (7.6) 19.3 (2.8) 113.9 (9.6) 66.2 (8.5) 108.2 (37.3) | 68.1 (9.0) 19.0 (3.2) 115.1 (14.8) 65.4 (8.2) 138.4 (50.7) | 69.9 (8.9) 19.0 (3.1) 111.3 (11.6) 64.8 (7.4) 128.2 (50.9) | 69.5 (8.6) 19.1 (3.2) 122.1 (14.1) 73.5 (9.6) 131.3 (34.9) | 71.5 (8.1) 19.1 (3.1) 113.9 (9.9) 67.0 (7.4) 125.3 (50.6) | NR |
Davis (2011) [28]
n = 104 | Standard clinical measures | BMI (kg/m2) Waist circumference (cm) Total fat (%) Systolic blood pressure (mmHg) Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) | 20.4 (4.2) 73.9 (13.3) 28.2 (12.6) 105.9 (8.20) 59.6 (8.4) | 20.4 (4.0) 74.9 (13.6) 26.8 (12.4) 101.9 (10.4) 56.5 (5.6) | NA | NA | 21.8 (5.1) 75.7 (13.2) 29.0 (9.8) 108.9 (8.9) 60.8 (8.0) | 22.0 (5.2) 77.3 (13.9) 27.6 (10.3) 104.5 (9.8) 58.7 (6.2) |
p = 0.14
p = 0.67
p = 0.59
p = 0.53
p = 0.04 |
Wells (2014) [23] | Physical activity | GEMS Activity Questionnaire: | Mean difference: | ||||||
n = 227 (or n = 124 for accelerometry data) | Activity - yesterday Activity - usually Sedentary - yesterday Sedentary - usually | 2.91 (0.19) 3.78 (0.18) 0.63 (0.04) 0.78 (0.05) | 2.48 (0.20) 3.43 (0.19) 0.51 (0.04) 0.68 (0.05) | NA | NA | 2.74 (0.17) 3.61 (0.16) 0.57 (0.04) 0.68 (0.04) | 2.51 (0.19) 3.63 (0.18) 0.54 (0.04) 0.77 (0.05) | −0.20; p = 0.312 −0.37; p = 0.083 −0.09; p = 0.064 −0.19; p = 0.001 | |
Accelerometry: | Mean difference: | ||||||||
Sedentary (%) Light PA (%) Moderate PA (%) Vigorous PA (%) MVPA (%) | 55.23 (1.71) 34.62 (1.00) 5.17 (0.54) 5.01 (0.58) 10.14 (1.03) | 55.00 (1.73) 33.17 (1.02) 5.62 (0.54) 6.24 (0.59) 11.82 (1.04) | 54.75 (1.59) 35.09 (0.92) 5.41 (0.50) 4.99 (0.54) 10.35 (0.95) | 56.11 (1.60) 33.07 (0.93) 5.28 (0.50) 5.78 (0.54) 11.03 (0.95) | −1.59; p = 0.144 +0.57; p = 0.492 +0.58; p = 0.010 +0.44; p = 0.213 +1.00; p = 0.044 |
Well-being
First author (year) Sample (n) | Outcome measures | Outcomes | Intervention group | Comparison group | Control group | Group x time results (adjusted, if reported) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Baseline Mean (SD) | Follow-up Mean (SD) | Baseline Mean (SD) | Follow-up Mean (SD) | Baseline Mean (SD) | Follow-up Mean (SD) | ||||
Block (2012) [24]
n = 764 | KIDSCREEN-10 | Child quality of life score | 48.9 (8.4) | 50.3 (8.1) | NA | NA | 48.2 (7.9) | 49.1 (7.3) | Adjusted statistic = 1.23 (0.7); p = 0.09 |
Teacher questionnaire | Teacher strongly agrees that: | ||||||||
Student social behaviour is good (%) | 41.9 | 48.9 | 41.9 | 53.8 |
p = 0.2 | ||||
Students cooperate well with other students (%) | 48.8 | 57.8 | 48.4 | 65.4 | Adjusted statistic = 0.51; p = 0.3 | ||||
Morgan (2010) [30]
n = 127 | Quality of school life instrument (40 items) | Quality of school life | 3.2 (0.2) | Between group mean differences only | 3.2 (0.3) | Between group mean differences only | 3.0 (0.4) | Between group mean differences only |
p = 0.98 |
Robinson (2005) [39]
n = 281 | Youth Life Skills Inventory (32 questions; three point scale) | Overall life skills score (/96) Working with groups Self-understanding Leadership Decision making Communication Volunteerism | 83.02 (7.95) 13.33 (1.74) 16.78 (1.96) 12.62 (2.05) 13.71 (1.64) 10.59 (1.55) 16.57 (1.77) | 84.51 (7.81) 14.09 (1.41) 18.02 (1.76) 12.63 (1.85) 13.72 (1.44) 10.42 (1.46) 16.23 (2.08) | NA | NA | 85.8 (6.14) NR NR NR NR NR NR | 86.49 (6.19) NR NR NR NR NR NR | NR |
Waliczek (2001) [17]
n = 589 | Self-Report of Personality Scale for children and adolescents | Interpersonal relationships | Means by age and gender only | Means by age and gender only | NA | NA | Means by age and gender only | Means by age and gender only | NR |
Qualitative evidence for the health and well-being impacts of school gardening
First author (year) | Quality | Health impacts | Well-being impacts | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Food/nutrition knowledge | Attitudes towards food | Healthier eating habits | Physical activity | Enjoyment | Achievement, satisfaction, pride | Confidence, self-esteem, ownership, responsibility | Relaxation, stress release | Express/manage emotions | Building relationships, belonging | Cultural awareness, cohesion | ||
Ahmed (2011) [40] | Moderate | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||
Alexander (1995) [41] | Moderate | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||
Anderson (2011) [42] | Weak | |||||||||||
Block (2009, 2012) [24;25] Gibbs (2013) [26] Townsend (2014) [43] | Strong | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
Bowker (2007) [44] | Moderate | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||
Chawla (2014) [11] | Strong | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||
Chiumento (2012) [12] | Weak | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||
Cutter-Mackenzie (2009) [45] | Moderate | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||
Hazzard (2011) [46] | Weak | |||||||||||
Henryks (2011) [47] | Moderate | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||
Lakin (2008) [48] | Weak | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||
Miller (2007) [49] | Weak | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||
Ming Wei (2012) [13] | Moderate | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||
Passy (2010) [50] | Moderate | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
Somerset (2005) [51] | Weak | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||
Viola (2006) [52] | Moderate | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
First author (year) | Educational impacts | Factors influencing success and sustainability | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Academic improvements | Student engagement, motivation | Environmental awareness | Development for staff/volunteers | Experiential learning style, curriculum integration | Supportive environment, inclusive, equal | Cultural relevance | Support from staff, volunteers community | Pressure on staff, volunteers, timetable | Fundraising, resources | |
Ahmed (2011) [40] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||
Alexander (1995) [41] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||
Anderson (2011) [42] | ||||||||||
Block (2009, 2012) [24;25] Gibbs (2013) [26] Townsend (2014) [43] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Bowker (2007) [44] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||
Chawla (2014) [11] | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||
Chiumento (2012) [12] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||
Cutter-Mackenzie (2009) [45] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||
Hazzard (2011) [46] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||
Henryks (2011) [47] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||
Lakin (2008) [48] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||
Miller (2007) [49] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||
Ming Wei (2012) [13] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||
Passy (2010) [50] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
Somerset (2005) [51] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||
Viola (2006) [52] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Health impacts
When I grow them [vegetables] I feel like I should always try it. And when I’ve grown them I like them better than the shop ones. – Child, primary school [50].
We’ve got to start with these kids now, so that when they become the grandparents, they’re modelling correctly for the kids. We’re probably not going to change the values of today’s elderly and today’s parents, but if we begin with the kids we’re going to have a chance over time to change the health and wellness of the population. – Administrator [40]
Well-being impacts
It makes me feel good inside, all fresh, good… I enjoy touching the soil, the plants. You can feel them…I feel part of them…Yes, it makes me feel that I can care more about things… Being more gentle, caring more, the plants are like people. – Student, age 17 [11].
A child who struggled and had learning disabilities … and just her confidence and her ability to outshine other kids, who have strengths in other areas was just amazing and she was just really comfortable, in her element. She knew exactly what she was doing, she was in control, she was starring while she was organising the other kids. The building of confidence was just amazing. – Teacher, primary school [25].
It's almost like meditation, like my body is present but my mind just kind of drifts off and goes someplace else, and thinks about things…It's brainless tasks most of the time, so it's also like zenful, so you get to listen to things…I think about stuff, so I don't have to go home and think about it right before bed, so instead I can just go to sleep and stuff. I just feel happier in a way, and more at peace. – Student, age 15 [11].
It really offended them that these students had done this damage to their garden…So then we talk about it and say, well, it made them feel very angry that these children had destroyed part of their garden…it was a positive experience that the children learn that doing what to those children must have been a fun thing to do to go tear up our garden, didn't make us feel good. They were on the receiving end of it and so even though it was a negative experience you can make it a positive one. – Teacher [41].
You have to work together….It’s not about individualism which is promoted in the school structure in some ways, but really communicat[ion], cooperation and ownership of something. – Garden staff [40].
Qualitative evidence for educational impacts of school gardening
I'm able to complete my homework faster, because I'm in a better place to do other things, because I just spent an hour not worrying about my homework and my grades and my timing for anything, because there's no deadline here. – High School Student with ADHD, age 17 [11]
Qualitative evidence for factors influencing the success and sustainability of school gardening programmes
We’ve done a lot of graphs, a lot of growth measurement. Planted seedlings, measured them and predicted at sixteen weeks, forecasting what size they will be. They are graphed and monitored every fortnight… And we’ve talked about sustainability, compost and everything just ties in…We’ve used maths, perimeter, and volume in the garden…Cubic metres…That would have been a really good one for the [grade] five/sixes, if they had actually bought the soil, found out the costing. A lot of things like that you think of in retrospect…There’s still more scope to have time in the regular curriculum and a more consistent approach, to have more of a strategic approach. – Teacher [25].
Doin’ the cook-up with Miss…was fun. We put a recipe book together for the tuckshop as well. We did this every week so that the tuckshop would have healthy food. – Student [52].
We have a whole bunch of young adults who know how to go to the shop or the market and pick up some vegetables and make themselves something delicious out of it…imagine uni students nourished on seasonal vegetables instead of two-minute noodles. – Volunteer [47].
I bring in a variety of people throughout the year to help with various facets of our garden … Last week we had someone come in and show us how to prune our fruit trees and so they get all different kinds of role models…some people are perhaps more patient, some people are less patient....they realize that not all men are the same, not all women are the same, and they get to see people who are not teachers. – Teacher.
The four of us especially have all realized they need some support for this kitchen garden program, being that our funding runs out at the end of this year. So we ran this bloody fair and that was six months of my life and that’s what I gave up to ensure that my children still have this program in their school. – Parent volunteer [43].
There is a lot of sharing that goes on within the gardening community, and I think it’s important to reach out beyond the school gardens and contact people in community gardens and local gardening clubs. I have also contacted all of the retailers in this area – all the big box stores, the local nursery stores if they have damaged goods – if they have goods that are unsalable in any way, if they’re just old seeds, I’ll take them. – Member of staff [46].