ArticleLocal environment2020
Safe Community Gardening Practices: Focus Groups with Garden Leaders in Atlanta, Georgia.
Article in Local environment, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Community Perspectives on the Cumulative Impacts of Chemical and Non-Chemical Stressors in Southeastern Pennsylvania.Environmental justice (Print) · 2025Article
- Polymers Use as Mulch Films in Agriculture-A Review of History, Problems and Current Trends.Polymers · 2022Review
- Recovery of Banana Waste-Loss from Production and Processing: A Contribution to a Circular Economy.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- On the Doorstep, Rodents in Homesteads and Kitchen Gardens.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2020Article
- Atlanta Residents' Knowledge Regarding Heavy Metal Exposures and Remediation in Urban Agriculture.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- "Atlanta Is Like Wakanda … but With Real Big, Big Issues": A Focus Group Study of Community Strengths and Health Issues in Diverse Groups in Atlanta, Georgia.Family & community healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Although best management practices have been recommended by government agencies and non-profit organizations to reduce community gardeners' potential exposure to soil contaminants such as lead, some gardeners do not perform these practices. Understanding gardeners' beliefs and motivations is critical for effective promotion of safer gardening practices. This study, grounded in the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), employed five focus groups to investigate Atlanta community garden leaders' perspectives concerning three gardening practices: composting, hygiene behaviors, and mulching. These general practices are also considered safe gardening practices in that they can reduce exposure to toxicants in urban gardens. Qualitative analysis identified advantages and disadvantages; supporters and non-supporters; and barriers and facilitators that might influence gardeners' opinions regarding these behaviors. Gardeners expressed that more funding, volunteers, and training are needed to promote these behaviors. Gardeners noted that mulch and compost provided advantages such as improving soil quality, but a primary barrier was concern about contamination of source materials. Focus group participants did not directly associate composting and mulching with reduction of exposure to soil contaminants. Behavioral challenges related to hygiene included concerns about decreased exposure to salubrious bacteria, inadequate access to potable water, and limited availability of gloves and wipes. These study findings characterize factors that community garden stakeholders should consider when promoting safe gardening practices and interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.