McFarland, Amy (author), Waliczek, Tina M. (author), Etheredge, Coleman (author), Lillard Sommerfield, Aime J. (author), and Grand Valley State University
Texas State University
Mississippi State University
Format:
Journal article
Publication Date:
2018-06
Published:
United States: American Society for Horticultural Science
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 11 Document Number: D10336
7 pages., Via online journal., Although some benefits of gardening have been documented, motivations regarding participation in gardening are often considered based on anecdote. The purpose of this study was to use qualitative analysis to explore reasons gardeners from different genders and generations participate in gardening. The questions developed for this study were intentionally exploratory and left open-ended to gather a large variety of responses. Surveys were collected from 177 individuals between the ages of 7 and 94 years old. Responses were categorized into themes identified through the literature review, the pilot study, and through exploration of the data. Responses could fit into as many categories as were mentioned by the respondents and were categorized by three independent coders. Interrater reliability was assessed using a two-way mixed, absolute agreement, average measures intraclass correlation (ICC) and determined the degree to which coders provided consistency in their ratings across participants. Themes developed through this survey included “social interaction,” “aesthetics,” “food availability/health/nutrition,” “economics,” “therapeutic,” “environmental benefits,” “nostalgia,” and “personal productivity.” Themes of personal productivity and nostalgia are those which have not occurred in previous research. Statistically significant differences were found in comparisons among males and females with more males gardening for food/health/nutrition and for reasons regarding nostalgia. More females reported gardening for personal productivity when compared with males. No significant difference was identified in comparisons of gardeners from various age groups indicating that gardeners across generations have similar intentions and receive similar benefits.
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 187 Document Number: D00953
Notes:
PowerPoint presentation in the session, "Making locally grown food more available," of the Ag Outlook Forum, U.S. Department of Agriculture, February 2012. 33 pages.
Chrisinger, Benjamin W (author), Kallan, Michael J. (author), Whiteman, Eliza D. (author), Hillier, Amy (author), and Standford University
University of Pennsylvania
Format:
Online journal article
Publication Date:
2018-03-16
Published:
United States: Elsevier
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 133 Document Number: D11387
7 pages., via online journal, Food shopping decisions are pathways between food environment, diet and health outcomes, including chronic diseases such as diabetes and obesity. The choices of where to shop and what to buy are interrelated, though a better understanding of this dynamic is needed. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's nationally representative Food Acquisitions and Purchase Survey food-at-home dataset was joined with other databases of retailer characteristics and Healthy Eating Index-2010 (HEI) of purchases. We used linear regression models with general estimating equations to assess relationships between trip, store, and shopper characteristics with trip HEI scores. We examined HEI component scores for conventional supermarkets and discount/limited assortment retailers with descriptive statistics. Overall, 4962 shoppers made 11,472 shopping trips over one-week periods, 2012–2013. Trips to conventional supermarkets were the most common (53.6%), followed by supercenters (18.6%). Compared to conventional supermarkets, purchases at natural/gourmet stores had significantly higher HEI scores (β = 6.48, 95% CI = [4.45, 8.51], while those from “other” retailers (including corner and convenience stores) were significantly lower (−3.89, [−5.87, −1.92]). Older participants (versus younger) and women (versus men) made significantly healthier purchases (1.19, [0.29, 2.10]). Shoppers with less than some college education made significantly less-healthy purchases, versus shoppers with more education, as did households participating in SNAP, versus those with incomes above 185% of the Federal Poverty Level. Individual, trip, and store characteristics influenced the healthfulness of foods purchased. Interventions to encourage healthy purchasing should reflect these dynamics in terms of how, where, and for whom they are implemented.
