Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Jul 3;16(13):2350.
doi: 10.3390/ijerph16132350.

Perspectives on Heavy Metal Soil Testing Among Community Gardeners in the United States: A Mixed Methods Approach

Candis M Hunter  1 , Dana H Z Williamson  2 , Matthew O Gribble  3   4 , Halle Bradshaw  3 , Melanie Pearson  3 , Eri Saikawa  3 , P Barry Ryan  3 , Michelle Kegler  3   2
Affiliations

Perspectives on Heavy Metal Soil Testing Among Community Gardeners in the United States: A Mixed Methods Approach

Candis M Hunter et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. .

Abstract

Community gardens offer numerous benefits, but there are also potential risks from exposure to chemical contaminants in the soil. Through the lens of the Theory of Planned Behavior, this mixed methods study examined community gardeners' beliefs and intentions to conduct heavy metal soil testing. The qualitative component involved five focus groups of community garden leaders in Atlanta, Georgia. Qualitative analysis of the focus group data revealed that heavy metal soil contamination was not frequently identified as a common gardening hazard and several barriers limited soil testing in community gardens. The focus group results informed the development of a questionnaire that was administered to 500 community gardeners across the United States. Logistic regression analysis revealed that the soil testing intention was associated with attitude (aOR = 2.46, 95% CI: 1.34, 4.53), subjective norms (aOR = 3.39 95% CI: 2.07, 5.57), and perceived behavioral control (aOR = 1.81, 95% CI: 1.10, 2.99). Study findings have implications for interventions involving community garden risk mitigation, particularly gardens that engage children and vulnerable populations.

Keywords: Theory of Planned Behavior; environmental psychology; risk perception; soil contaminants; urban agriculture.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Al-Delaimy W., Webb M. Community Gardens as Environmental Health Interventions: Benefits Versus Potential Risks. Curr. Environ. Health Rep. 2017;4:252–265. doi: 10.1007/s40572-017-0133-4. - DOI - PubMed
    1. National Gardening Association . Garden to Table: A 5-Year Look at Food Gardening in America. National Gardening Association; Williston, VT, USA: 2014.
    1. Palmer L. Urban agriculture growth in US cities. Nat. Sus. 2018;1:5–7. doi: 10.1038/s41893-017-0014-8. - DOI
    1. Horst M., McClintock N., Hoey L. The Intersection of Planning, Urban Agriculture, and Food Justice: A Review of the Literature. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 2017;83:277–295. doi: 10.1080/01944363.2017.1322914. - DOI
    1. Santo R., Palmer A. and Kim, B. Vacant Lots to Vibrant Plots: A Review of the Benefits and Limitations of Urban Agriculture. Johns Hopkins University; Baltimore, MD, USA: 2016.

Publication types