Cargando…
A Systematic Review Protocol Investigating Community Gardening Impact Measures
Existing community gardening research has tended to be exploratory and descriptive, utilising qualitative or mixed methodologies to explore and understand community garden participation. While research on community gardening attracts growing interest, the empirical rigour of measurement scales and e...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6765939/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31527436 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16183430 |
_version_ | 1783454601284943872 |
---|---|
author | Kingsley, Jonathan Bailey, Aisling Torabi, Nooshin Zardo, Pauline Mavoa, Suzanne Gray, Tonia Tracey, Danielle Pettitt, Philip Zajac, Nicholas Foenander, Emily |
author_facet | Kingsley, Jonathan Bailey, Aisling Torabi, Nooshin Zardo, Pauline Mavoa, Suzanne Gray, Tonia Tracey, Danielle Pettitt, Philip Zajac, Nicholas Foenander, Emily |
author_sort | Kingsley, Jonathan |
collection | PubMed |
description | Existing community gardening research has tended to be exploratory and descriptive, utilising qualitative or mixed methodologies to explore and understand community garden participation. While research on community gardening attracts growing interest, the empirical rigour of measurement scales and embedded indicators has received comparatively less attention. Despite the extensive body of community gardening literature, a coherent narrative on valid, high quality approaches to the measurement of outcomes and impact across different cultural contexts is lacking and yet to be comprehensively examined. This is essential as cities are becoming hubs for cultural diversity. Systematic literature reviews that explore the multiple benefits of community gardening and other urban agriculture activities have been undertaken, however, a systematic review of the impact measures of community gardening is yet to be completed. This search protocol aims to address the following questions: (1) How are the health, wellbeing, social and environmental outcomes and impacts of community gardening measured? (2) What cultural diversity considerations have existing community garden measures taken into account? Demographic data will be collected along with clear domains/constructs of experiences, impacts and outcomes captured from previous literature to explore if evidence considers culturally heterogeneous and diverse populations. This will offer an understanding as to whether community gardening research is appropriately measuring this cross-cultural activity. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6765939 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-67659392019-09-30 A Systematic Review Protocol Investigating Community Gardening Impact Measures Kingsley, Jonathan Bailey, Aisling Torabi, Nooshin Zardo, Pauline Mavoa, Suzanne Gray, Tonia Tracey, Danielle Pettitt, Philip Zajac, Nicholas Foenander, Emily Int J Environ Res Public Health Protocol Existing community gardening research has tended to be exploratory and descriptive, utilising qualitative or mixed methodologies to explore and understand community garden participation. While research on community gardening attracts growing interest, the empirical rigour of measurement scales and embedded indicators has received comparatively less attention. Despite the extensive body of community gardening literature, a coherent narrative on valid, high quality approaches to the measurement of outcomes and impact across different cultural contexts is lacking and yet to be comprehensively examined. This is essential as cities are becoming hubs for cultural diversity. Systematic literature reviews that explore the multiple benefits of community gardening and other urban agriculture activities have been undertaken, however, a systematic review of the impact measures of community gardening is yet to be completed. This search protocol aims to address the following questions: (1) How are the health, wellbeing, social and environmental outcomes and impacts of community gardening measured? (2) What cultural diversity considerations have existing community garden measures taken into account? Demographic data will be collected along with clear domains/constructs of experiences, impacts and outcomes captured from previous literature to explore if evidence considers culturally heterogeneous and diverse populations. This will offer an understanding as to whether community gardening research is appropriately measuring this cross-cultural activity. MDPI 2019-09-16 2019-09 /pmc/articles/PMC6765939/ /pubmed/31527436 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16183430 Text en © 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Protocol Kingsley, Jonathan Bailey, Aisling Torabi, Nooshin Zardo, Pauline Mavoa, Suzanne Gray, Tonia Tracey, Danielle Pettitt, Philip Zajac, Nicholas Foenander, Emily A Systematic Review Protocol Investigating Community Gardening Impact Measures |
title | A Systematic Review Protocol Investigating Community Gardening Impact Measures |
title_full | A Systematic Review Protocol Investigating Community Gardening Impact Measures |
title_fullStr | A Systematic Review Protocol Investigating Community Gardening Impact Measures |
title_full_unstemmed | A Systematic Review Protocol Investigating Community Gardening Impact Measures |
title_short | A Systematic Review Protocol Investigating Community Gardening Impact Measures |
title_sort | systematic review protocol investigating community gardening impact measures |
topic | Protocol |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6765939/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31527436 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16183430 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kingsleyjonathan asystematicreviewprotocolinvestigatingcommunitygardeningimpactmeasures AT baileyaisling asystematicreviewprotocolinvestigatingcommunitygardeningimpactmeasures AT torabinooshin asystematicreviewprotocolinvestigatingcommunitygardeningimpactmeasures AT zardopauline asystematicreviewprotocolinvestigatingcommunitygardeningimpactmeasures AT mavoasuzanne asystematicreviewprotocolinvestigatingcommunitygardeningimpactmeasures AT graytonia asystematicreviewprotocolinvestigatingcommunitygardeningimpactmeasures AT traceydanielle asystematicreviewprotocolinvestigatingcommunitygardeningimpactmeasures AT pettittphilip asystematicreviewprotocolinvestigatingcommunitygardeningimpactmeasures AT zajacnicholas asystematicreviewprotocolinvestigatingcommunitygardeningimpactmeasures AT foenanderemily asystematicreviewprotocolinvestigatingcommunitygardeningimpactmeasures AT kingsleyjonathan systematicreviewprotocolinvestigatingcommunitygardeningimpactmeasures AT baileyaisling systematicreviewprotocolinvestigatingcommunitygardeningimpactmeasures AT torabinooshin systematicreviewprotocolinvestigatingcommunitygardeningimpactmeasures AT zardopauline systematicreviewprotocolinvestigatingcommunitygardeningimpactmeasures AT mavoasuzanne systematicreviewprotocolinvestigatingcommunitygardeningimpactmeasures AT graytonia systematicreviewprotocolinvestigatingcommunitygardeningimpactmeasures AT traceydanielle systematicreviewprotocolinvestigatingcommunitygardeningimpactmeasures AT pettittphilip systematicreviewprotocolinvestigatingcommunitygardeningimpactmeasures AT zajacnicholas systematicreviewprotocolinvestigatingcommunitygardeningimpactmeasures AT foenanderemily systematicreviewprotocolinvestigatingcommunitygardeningimpactmeasures |