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
Meta-Analysis
. 2020 May 20;17(10):3584.
doi: 10.3390/ijerph17103584.

Are Community Gardening and Horticultural Interventions Beneficial for Psychosocial Well-Being? A Meta-Analysis

Giuseppina Spano  1 , Marina D'Este  1 , Vincenzo Giannico  1 , Giuseppe Carrus  2 , Mario Elia  1 , Raffaele Lafortezza  1   3 , Angelo Panno  4 , Giovanni Sanesi  1
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Are Community Gardening and Horticultural Interventions Beneficial for Psychosocial Well-Being? A Meta-Analysis

Giuseppina Spano et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. .

Abstract

Recent literature has revealed the positive effect of gardening on human health; however, empirical evidence on the effects of gardening-based programs on psychosocial well-being is scant. This meta-analysis aims to examine the scientific literature on the effect of community gardening or horticultural interventions on a variety of outcomes related to psychosocial well-being, such as social cohesion, networking, social support, and trust. From 383 bibliographic records retrieved (from 1975 to 2019), seven studies with a total of 22 effect sizes were selected on the basis of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Meta-analytic findings on 11 comparisons indicate a positive and moderate effect of horticultural or gardening interventions on psychosocial well-being. Moderation analysis shows a greater effect size in individualistic than collectivistic cultures. A greater effect size was also observed in studies involving community gardening compared to horticultural intervention. Nevertheless, an effect of publication bias and study heterogeneity has been detected. Despite the presence of a large number of qualitative studies on the effect of horticulture/gardening on psychosocial well-being, quantitative studies are lacking. There is a strong need to advance into further high-quality studies on this research topic given that gardening has promising applied implications for human health, the community, and sustainable city management.

Keywords: horticulture; human health–environment interaction; meta-analysis; neighborhood cohesion; psychosocial health; social support; well-being.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Systematic review flowchart detailing the literature search, number of abstracts screened, and full texts retrieved.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Forest plot showing the results of the meta-analysis on the effect sizes, including the 95% confidence interval effect size, of gardening and horticulture on social health outcomes for 11 comparisons. (* The scores of the “Revised University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Loneliness Scale” [42] were reversed, since a higher score indicated greater perceived loneliness, thus lower psychosocial well-being). SMD = Standardized Mean Difference; CI = Confidence Interval.
Figure 3
Figure 3
A funnel plot to assess potential publication bias. Measures of effect size (standardized mean differences) are represented on the x-axis and for study precision (the inverse of standard error) on the y-axis. The gray and white circles represent observed data (11 comparisons) and added data (5 studies), respectively.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Carrus G., Scopelliti M., Panno A., Lafortezza R., Colangelo G., Pirchio S., Ferrini F., Salbitano F., Agrimi M., Portoghesi L., et al. A different way to stay in touch with ‘urban nature’: The perceived restorative qualities of botanical gardens. Front. Psychol. 2017;8 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00914. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Carrus G., Scopelliti M., Lafortezza R., Colangelo G., Ferrini F., Salbitano F., Agrimi M., Portoghesi L., Semenzato P., Sanesi G. Go greener, feel better? The positive effects of biodiversity on the well-being of individuals visiting urban and peri-urban green areas. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015;134:221–228. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.10.022. - DOI
    1. Kaplan R., Kaplan S. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. CUP Archive; Cambridge, UK: 1989.
    1. Spano G., Giannico V., Elia M., Bosco A., Lafortezza R., Sanesi G. Human health–environment interaction science: An emerging research paradigm. Sci. Total Environ. 2020;704:135358. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135358. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Van den Berg M., Wendel-Vos W., van Poppel M., Kemper H., van Mechelen W., Maas J. Health benefits of green spaces in the living environment: A systematic review of epidemiological studies. Urban For. Urban Green. 2015;14:806–816. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2015.07.008. - DOI

Publication types