Framing Food Access: Do Community Gardens Inadvertently Reproduce Inequality?

Autor/inn/en	Butterfield, Katie L.; Ramírez, A. Susana
Titel	Framing Food Access: Do Community Gardens Inadvertently Reproduce Inequality?
Quelle	In: Health Education & Behavior, 48 (2021) 2, S.160-168 (9 Seiten) PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Zusatzinformation	ORCID (Butterfield, Katie L.) ORCID (Ramírez, A. Susana)
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	1090-1981
DOI	10.1177/1090198120950617
Schlagwörter	Food; Gardening; Community Resources; Community Programs; Social Class; Racial Bias; Hunger; Program Effectiveness; Inclusion; Social Bias; Working Class; Middle Class; Low Income Groups; Socioeconomic Status; African Americans; Hispanic Americans; Whites; Social Influences; Improvement; Community Needs; Altruism; Empowerment; Vocabulary; Minnesota + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Lebensmittel; Gartenarbeit; Social classes; Soziale Klasse; Racial discrimination; Rassismus; Inklusion; Arbeiterklasse; Mittelschicht; Socio-economic status; Sozioökonomischer Status; Afroamerikaner; Hispanic; Hispanoamerikaner; White; Weißer; Sozialer Einfluss; Qualitätssteigerung; Altruistic behavior; Altruismus; Wortschatz
Abstract	Background: Alternative food programs have been proposed as solutions to food insecurity and diet-related health issues. However, some of the most popular programs--farmers markets and community-supported agriculture--overwhelmingly serve White and upper-middle-class individuals, exacerbating food security and health disparities. One explanation for the mismatch is the way in which alternative food programs are framed: Language used to encourage participation may reflect priorities of upper-middle-class and White populations who create and run these programs while lacking resonance with food-insecure populations. This literature, however, lacks consideration of how lower-cost, more participatory programs--community gardens--are framed. We therefore explore the framing of community gardens through a quantitative content analysis of the descriptions, missions, and goals provided by community garden managers across Minnesota (N = 411). Results: Six frames were consistently present in the community garden statements: greater good, community orientation, healthy food access, food donation, self-empowerment, and symbolic food labels. Greater good and community orientation were significantly more likely to be used than any other frames. Conclusions: Taken together, our findings suggest that community gardens may be welcoming toward a diversity of participants but still have room to improve the inclusivity of their frames. The common use of a community orientation suggests the unique ability of community gardens among alternative food programs to benefit Black, Latino, and working-class populations. However, the most common frame observed was "greater good," suggesting one mechanism through which community gardens, like other types of alternative food programs, may be reproducing inequality through alienation of food-insecure populations. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: http://sagepub.com
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2024/1/01