4.6 Article

The Influence of Social Involvement, Neighborhood Aesthetics, and Community Garden Participation on Fruit and Vegetable Consumption

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 101, 期 8, 页码 1466-1473

出版社

AMER PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOC INC
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2010.300111

关键词

-

资金

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Health Protection Research Initiative [EH-000066-03]
  2. National Institutes of Health (NIH)
  3. National Center for Research Resources (NCRR)
  4. Colorado Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute (CCTSI) [UL1RR025780]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives. We considered the relationship between an urban adult population's fruit and vegetable consumption and several selected social and psychological processes, beneficial aesthetic experiences, and garden participation. Methods. We conducted a population-based survey representing 436 residents across 58 block groups in Denver, Colorado, from 2006 to 2007. We used multilevel statistical models to evaluate the survey data. Results. Neighborhood aesthetics, social involvement, and community garden participation were significantly associated with fruit and vegetable intake. Community gardeners consumed fruits and vegetables 5.7 times per day, compared with home gardeners (4.6 times per day) and nongardeners (3.9 times per day). Moreover, 56% of community gardeners met national recommendations to consume fruits and vegetables at least 5 times per day, compared with 37% of home gardeners and 25% of nongardeners. Conclusions. Our study results shed light on neighborhood processes that affect food-related behaviors and provides insights about the potential of community gardens to affect these behaviors. The qualities intrinsic to community gardens make them a unique intervention that can narrow the divide between people and the places where food is grown and increase local opportunities to eat better. (Am J Public Health. 2011;101:1466-1473. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2010.300111)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据