IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jfpoli/v126y2024ics0306919224000605.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Who values urban community gardens and how much?

Author

Listed:
  • Li, Liqing
  • Long, Dede

Abstract

With the rising interest in urban agriculture (UA), community gardens have emerged as a common instrument in UA policies aimed at addressing issues related to food security, environmental sustainability, and equality in urban development. As an impure public good, they deliver both private benefits, such as fresh produce, and public benefits, including ecosystem services. However, there has been limited research estimating the value of various features of community gardens. Consequently, assessing the benefit–cost ratio of community garden development policies is a challenging task. Furthermore, many existing community gardens might have been established without a comprehensive understanding of public preferences. To address this gap, we adopt a discrete choice experiment to quantify residents’ willingness to contribute money and time to community gardens in Los Angeles County, California. Our findings indicate that while residents highly value the gardens’ private benefits, they are not inclined to contribute to their public benefits. Additionally, residents’ preferences for community gardens differ based on their socioeconomic status and level of accumulated gardening experience.

Suggested Citation

  • Li, Liqing & Long, Dede, 2024. "Who values urban community gardens and how much?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jfpoli:v:126:y:2024:i:c:s0306919224000605
    DOI: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2024.102649
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919224000605
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.foodpol.2024.102649?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ando, Amy W. & Cadavid, Catalina Londoño & Netusil, Noelwah R. & Parthum, Bryan, 2020. "Willingness-to-volunteer and stability of preferences between cities: Estimating the benefits of stormwater management," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    2. Hagedoorn, Liselotte C. & Koetse, Mark J. & van Beukering, Pieter J. H. & Brander, Luke M., 2020. "Time equals money? Valuing ecosystem-based adaptation in a developing country context," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(5), pages 482-508, October.
    3. Twiss, J. & Dickinson, J. & Duma, S. & Kleinman, T. & Paulsen, H. & Rilveria, L., 2003. "Community Gardens: Lessons Learned from California Healthy Cities and Communities," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 93(9), pages 1435-1438.
    4. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April.
    5. Muunda, Emmanuel & Mtimet, Nadhem & Schneider, Franziska & Wanyoike, Francis & Dominguez-Salas, Paula & Alonso, Silvia, 2021. "Could the new dairy policy affect milk allocation to infants in Kenya? A best-worst scaling approach," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    6. Liqing Li & Dede Long & Mani Rouhi Rad & Matthew R Sloggy, 2021. "Stay-at-home orders and the willingness to stay home during the COVID-19 pandemic: A stated-preference discrete choice experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(7), pages 1-20, July.
    7. Ioan Voicu & Vicki Been, 2008. "The Effect of Community Gardens on Neighboring Property Values," Real Estate Economics, American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association, vol. 36(2), pages 241-283, June.
    8. Train, K. & Weeks, M., 2004. "Discrete Choice Models in Preference Space and Willingness-to Pay Space," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 0443, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    9. Clark, Jill K. & Conley, Brian & Raja, Samina, 2021. "Essential, fragile, and invisible community food infrastructure: The role of urban governments in the United States," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    10. English, Eric & von Haefen, Roger H. & Herriges, Joseph & Leggett, Christopher & Lupi, Frank & McConnell, Kenneth & Welsh, Michael & Domanski, Adam & Meade, Norman, 2018. "Estimating the value of lost recreation days from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 26-45.
    11. Kahn, Matthew E., 2007. "Do greens drive Hummers or hybrids? Environmental ideology as a determinant of consumer choice," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 129-145, September.
    12. Caussade, Sebastián & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios & Rizzi, Luis I. & Hensher, David A., 2005. "Assessing the influence of design dimensions on stated choice experiment estimates," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 621-640, August.
    13. Carson, Richard T. & Czajkowski, Mikołaj, 2019. "A new baseline model for estimating willingness to pay from discrete choice models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 57-61.
    14. Scarpa, R. & Thiene, M. & Train, K., 2008. "Appendix to Utility in WTP space: a tool to address confounding random scale effects in destination choice to the Alps," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 1-9, January.
    15. Marc F. Bellemare & Vaneesha Dusoruth, 2021. "Who Participates in Urban Agriculture? An Empirical Analysis†," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(1), pages 430-442, March.
    16. Mikolaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley & Jacob LaRiviere, 2015. "The Effects of Experience on Preferences: Theory and Empirics for Environmental Public Goods," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 97(1), pages 333-351.
    17. Liqing Li & Amy W. Ando, 2023. "Early Exposure to Nature and Willingness to Pay for It: The Value of Tallgrass Prairie Grassland Restoration," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 99(4), pages 509-527.
    18. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, November.
    19. Mahbubur Meenar & Alfonso Morales & Leonard Bonarek, 2017. "Regulatory Practices of Urban Agriculture: A Connection to Planning and Policy," Journal of the American Planning Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 83(4), pages 389-403, October.
    20. Peter Boxall & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2002. "Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 421-446, December.
    21. Alana Siegner & Jennifer Sowerwine & Charisma Acey, 2018. "Does Urban Agriculture Improve Food Security? Examining the Nexus of Food Access and Distribution of Urban Produced Foods in the United States: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-27, August.
    22. Zezza, Alberto & Tasciotti, Luca, 2010. "Urban agriculture, poverty, and food security: Empirical evidence from a sample of developing countries," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 265-273, August.
    23. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2014. "Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 39-63.
    24. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2003. "A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 681-698, September.
    25. Bjorner, Thomas Bue & Hansen, L.G.Lars Garn & Russell, Clifford S., 2004. "Environmental labeling and consumers' choice--an empirical analysis of the effect of the Nordic Swan," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 411-434, May.
    26. Kevin Morgan & Roberta Sonnino, 2010. "The urban foodscape: world cities and the new food equation," Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 3(2), pages 209-224.
    27. Meginnis, Keila & Hanley, Nick & Mujumbusi, Lazaaro & Lamberton, Poppy H.L., 2020. "Non-monetary numeraires: Varying the payment vehicle in a choice experiment for health interventions in Uganda," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    28. Lusk, Jayson L. & Tonsor, Glynn T. & Schroeder, Ted C. & Hayes, Dermot J., 2018. "Effect of government quality grade labels on consumer demand for pork chops in the short and long run," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 91-102.
    29. Halvey, Madeline R. & Santo, Raychel E. & Lupolt, Sara N. & Dilka, Trent J. & Kim, Brent F. & Bachman, Grace H. & Clark, Jill K. & Nachman, Keeve E., 2021. "Beyond backyard chickens: A framework for understanding municipal urban agriculture policies in the United States," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    30. J. M. Gibson & D. Rigby & D. A. Polya & N. Russell, 2016. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Developing Countries: Willingness to Pay Versus Willingness to Work," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 65(4), pages 697-721, December.
    31. Rajesh K. Rai & Helen Scarborough, 2015. "Nonmarket valuation in developing countries: incorporating labour contributions in environmental benefits estimates," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 59(4), pages 479-498, October.
    32. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Olynk, Nicole J., 2011. "Modeling heterogeneity in consumer preferences for select food safety attributes in China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 318-324, April.
    33. Mark A. Andor & Manuel Frondel & Stephan Sommer, 2018. "Equity and the willingness to pay for green electricity in Germany," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 3(10), pages 876-881, October.
    34. Richard C. Ready & Patricia A. Champ & Jennifer L. Lawton, 2010. "Using Respondent Uncertainty to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias in a Stated Choice Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(2), pages 363-381.
    35. Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene & Kenneth Train, 2008. "Utility in Willingness to Pay Space: A Tool to Address Confounding Random Scale Effects in Destination Choice to the Alps," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 994-1010.
    36. Rai, Rajesh Kumar & Scarborough, Helen, 2013. "Economic value of mitigation of plant invaders in a subsistence economy: incorporating labour as a mode of payment," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(2), pages 225-244, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Broberg, Thomas & Daniel, Aemiro Melkamu & Persson, Lars, 2021. "Household preferences for load restrictions: Is there an effect of pro-environmental framing?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    2. Hagedoorn, Liselotte C. & Koetse, Mark J. & van Beukering, Pieter J.H. & Brander, Luke M., 2021. "Reducing the finance gap for nature-based solutions with time contributions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    3. Li, Liqing & Long, Dede, 2022. "Household Preference for Impure Public Goods - an Application of Community Gardens," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322142, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Christian Pfarr & Andreas Schmid & Morten Raun Mørkbak, 2018. "Modelling Heterogeneous Preferences for Income Redistribution–An Application of Continuous and Discrete Distributions," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 64(2), pages 270-294, June.
    5. Kassahun, Habtamu Tilahun & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Nicholson, Charles F., 2020. "Revisiting money and labor for valuing environmental goods and services in developing countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    6. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    7. Soliño, M. & Alía, R. & Agúndez, D., 2020. "Citizens' preferences for research programs on forest genetic resources: A case applied to Pinus pinaster Ait. in Spain," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    8. Vondolia, Godwin K. & Navrud, Ståle, 2019. "Are non-monetary payment modes more uncertain for stated preference elicitation in developing countries?," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 73-87.
    9. West, Grant H. & Snell, Heather & Kovacs, Kent & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2020. "Estimation of the preferences for the intertemporal services from groundwater," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304220, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. Sarrias, Mauricio & Daziano, Ricardo, 2017. "Multinomial Logit Models with Continuous and Discrete Individual Heterogeneity in R: The gmnl Package," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 79(i02).
    11. Bruno Lanz & Allan Provins, 2013. "Valuing Local Environmental Amenity with Discrete Choice Experiments: Spatial Scope Sensitivity and Heterogeneous Marginal Utility of Income," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(1), pages 105-130, September.
    12. Ladenburg, Jacob & Skotte, Maria, 2022. "Heterogeneity in willingness to pay for the location of offshore wind power development: An application of the willingness to pay space model," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 241(C).
    13. Krueger, Rico & Rashidi, Taha H. & Vij, Akshay, 2020. "A Dirichlet process mixture model of discrete choice: Comparisons and a case study on preferences for shared automated vehicles," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    14. Hagedoorn, L.C. & Bubeck, P. & Hudson, P. & Brander, L.M. & Pham, M. & Lasage, R., 2021. "Preferences of vulnerable social groups for ecosystem-based adaptation to flood risk in Central Vietnam," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    15. Pienaar, Elizabeth F. & Soto, José R. & Lai, John H. & Adams, Damian C., 2019. "Would County Residents Vote for an Increase in Their Taxes to Conserve Native Habitat and Ecosystem Services? Funding Conservation in Palm Beach County, Florida," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 24-34.
    16. Gillespie Rob & Kragt Marit E., 2012. "Accounting for Nonmarket Impacts in a Benefit-Cost Analysis of Underground Coal Mining in New South Wales, Australia," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 3(2), pages 1-29, May.
    17. Malte Welling & Ewa Zawojska & Julian Sagebiel, 2022. "Information, Consequentiality and Credibility in Stated Preference Surveys: A Choice Experiment on Climate Adaptation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 82(1), pages 257-283, May.
    18. Vidale, E & Pettenella, D & Gatto, P & Secco, L, 23. "What can we sell behind timber production?," Scandinavian Forest Economics: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Scandinavian Society of Forest Economics, Scandinavian Society of Forest Economics, issue 44, May.
    19. Penn, Jerrod & Hu, Wuyang, 2017. "The Presence of Hypothetical Bias within Spatial Decay and Charismatic Species: An Application of Monarch and Viceroy Butterflies," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258204, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Aravindakshan, Sreejith & Krupnik, Timothy J. & Amjath-Babu, T.S. & Speelman, Stijn & Tur-Cardona, Juan & Tittonell, Pablo & Groot, Jeroen C.J., 2021. "Quantifying farmers' preferences for cropping systems intensification: A choice experiment approach applied in coastal Bangladesh's risk prone farming systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Community gardens; Willingness to pay; Discrete choice experiment; Urban agriculture;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q18 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Policy; Food Policy; Animal Welfare Policy
    • Q24 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Land
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jfpoli:v:126:y:2024:i:c:s0306919224000605. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/foodpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.