Private gardens occupy a significant proportion of the total surface area of a Britishcity. For many people, the garden represents their only contact with nature and their chance toexpress themselves creatively. Yet relatively little research has been carried out on the role andvalue of such gardens to human well-being. We report in this paper on a major survey on therole of private, urban gardens in human well-being, conducted with a wide cross-section ofrandomly selected garden owners from the city of Sheffield, England, over the summer of1995. In particular, we discuss the perceived value that gardens have to the well-being ofpeople, both individually through the enjoyment of their own gardens and collectively throughthe contribution of city gardens to environmental enhancement. We relate these values to age,gender and social demographics.Urban private gardens in the UK can occupy a significant pro-portion of the total surface area of a city, often comprising anarea greater than that of all the parks and nature areas puttogether (Jeffcote, 1993). For example, in Sheffield, a typical city inthe north of England, gardens and allotments comprise 15.6% of thetotal surface area, giving them the highest greenspace land cover ofthe city.Gardens have been associated with human settlements throughouthistory. Gardening as an activity and the garden as a place produceaesthetic, spiritual and psychological benefits that extend well beyondthe simple growing of plants. The British market in plants and garden-related equipment and supplies is a multibillion pound market. Over10 million avid gardeners make gardening one of the most popularleisure activities in Britain. Private gardens are the most heavily usedtype of outdoor space and represent the most frequent contact withnature for most people. Such gardens have specific wildlife value andadd considerably to the biodiversity of urban areas.
41lJanuary–March 2000 10(1) • INTERNATIONAL HUMAN ISSUESIN HORTICULTUREFor all the public interest in pri-vate gardens, they have been the sub-ject of relatively little research. Onearea in particular which has been virtu-ally ignored is the broader social mean-ing and the value to human well-beingof popular gardens, i.e. the everydayresidential gardens of everyday people(Grampp, 1993). Despite the largeproportion of urban land which theyoccupy and their high value to mosthouseholders, they are the forgottenelements of many urban design andurban planning proposals, as comparedto parks, public gardens and wood-lands (Beer, 1991). It has been indi-cated that 90% of house owners/occu-piers desire private garden space. Infact, dissatisfaction with public hous-ing projects has been found to beparticularly due to a lack of gardenspace, resulting in lack of privacy, own-ership, and control of space (Kellet,1982).We report in this paper on a partof the findings of a major survey car-ried out on the role of residential gar-dens in developing greater environ-mental sustainability in cities, usingSheffield as an example. While muchof the work concerned the use of re-sources such as water, pesticides andherbicides, and the wildlife value ofgardens, part of the survey addressedthe practical, social and emotional val-ues that people ascribe to their gar-dens. We discuss the value of the pri-vate city garden to human well-being,both in terms of the direct health andsocial benefits to the individual owneror household, as well as to the widercommunity through their contribu-tion to a more sustainable city environ-ment.Materials and methodsOur objective in carrying out thissurvey was to obtain information onthe roles and values that people ascribeto gardens, and to distinguish any re-lationship between these values andsuch factors as age, gender, employ-ment, housing type and garden size. Inorder to achieve this we needed toobtain a balanced sample of urbangarden owners. The simplest way ofdoing this was to base the sample uponhousing-type (which in general termsis related to garden size and economicstatus). We chose a representative dis-trict of Sheffield in which to conductour survey, using a stratified-randommethod. The basic sampling unit wasthe individual street. Streets to besampled were selected by first dividingthe whole study area into broad units,each having a definite character basedupon housing type: whether predomi-nantly high, medium or low density(terraced, semidetached and detached,respectively) and of similar age andsize. Eight character units were de-fined and six streets randomly chosenfor sampling within these units. A totalof 850 reply-paid postal questionnaireswere distributed in the 48 streets (amaximum of 20 questionnaires wasassigned to each street, to randomlyselected houses) and 376 were re-turned: a response rate of 44%.The written questionnaire con-tained 25 questions, of which four arediscussed in detail here. Specifically,we asked the following questions.1) About how much time doyou spend working in the garden?Respondents were asked to estimatean average number of hours per weekspent in the garden.2) What do you particularly en-joy about your garden and gardening?Respondents were asked to choosefrom a list of enjoyment categories andalso to write down any not listed. Onecategory enabled respondents to saythey enjoyed nothing about the gar-den.3) How important is gardeningto you compared with other leisureactivities? Respondents were asked torank gardening in order of preferencewith their other four main leisure ac-tivities.4) Which practical, recreationaland domestic activities do you carryout in your garden? Respondents wereasked to mark activities from a list of 15and also to write down any not listed.In addition to investigating theperceived values of gardens to indi-vidual human well-being and enjoy-ment, we wished to establish the per-ceived value of gardens to collectivewell-being, i.e., the potential contri-bution of gardens to providing a ful-filling and sustainable urban environ-ment. We asked respondents on thewritten questionnaire if they were will-ing for us to visit for a detailed inter-view. As a result, we carried out 202detailed interviews in a structured for-mat. We report the findings of oneinterview question: “In what way doyou feel gardens contribute to thewider urban environment?”To ensure that we had obtained abalanced sample, questions were alsoasked about gender, age, housing, andoccupation. A breakdown of the sur-vey respondents is presented in Table1. Occupations were classified accord-ing to a modified form of the StandardOccupational Classification (Office ofPopulation, Census and Surveys,1991). Only a small number of peopleaged less than 25 replied to the writtenquestionnaire, and we have thereforeamalgamated this category with thoseunder 35 years of age.Table 1. Age, gender, housing, and occupational characteristics of respondentsby survey type (responses per category).DemographicCategoryQuestionnaireInterviewAge<34974735-44925445-54674255-644932>657128GenderMale15278Female224125Housing typeTerraced16976Detached5842Semidetached15685House ownershipOwner-occupied348194Rented379OccupationProfessional5035Managerial10563Manual8739Retired9242Unemployed1512Student91Housewife1711
42lJanuary–March 2000 10(1)Analysis of the written question-naire data was undertaken to establishwhether relations existed between pref-erences and demographic variables. Thechi square was used to test the signifi-cance of differences between the num-bers of observed responses with thosethat would be expected to occur bychance. Only those relations that weresignificant at P < 0.05 are discussedbelow. Relationships between answerson specific questions and respondent’stime spent in the garden, age, gender,housing type, employment, or gardensize were also investigated.ResultsTIMESPENTINTHEGARDEN. Therewas a very clear relation between ageand the amount of time spent in thegarden (Table 2). There was little in-volvement in gardening by youngeradults; on average, adults under 35years of age only spent up to 1 h a weekgardening, while 35 to 45-year-oldstypically spent 2 to 4 h. Adults over 55spent proportionately more hours, withretired people typically spending 5 h ormore a week gardening.ENJOYMENTOFGARDENSANDGAR-DENINGBYTHEINDIVIDUAL. In the writ-ten questionnaire we asked people todescribe those things that gave themenjoyment through their gardens orgardening. The two most popular as-pects of the garden: creation of a pleas-ant environment and promotion ofrelaxation, were chosen by over 75% ofall respondents (Fig. 1). Other factorslisted by over half of the respondentsincluded the satisfaction gainedthrough producing neatness andtidiness in the garden, the health valueof fresh air and exercise, and the posi-tive effects from the cultivation ofplants. A smaller proportion of respon-dents valued the chance to be creativeor express their personality. A quarterof respondents felt their gardens had asocial value in meeting and talkingwith others in the neighborhood. Thenumber of people who listed fruit andvegetable production as a benefit cor-responds to the number who had fruitor vegetables in their gardens. Around10% of the people in the survey valuednothing about the garden or garden-ing.RELATIONSHIPSBETWEENAGEANDTHEINDIVIDUAL’SENJOYMENTOFGAR-DENS. People in the age categories of55 to 65 and over 65 tended to valueneatness and tidiness, while this wasless important for the groups belowage 55 (data not shown). The ability tobe creative and to express one’s per-sonality was favored more by peoplebetween ages 35 to 44 and 45 to 54age groups than by younger or olderrespondents. The value of gardens forexercise and fresh air was favored moreby people over 55-year-olds and wasvalued least by the under 35-year-olds.The 45 to 54 age group tended tovalue the benefit of being close tonature and being in a pleasant environ-ment. When asked to rank gardeningas a leisure activity, there was a clearprogression with age: fewer peoplethan expected in the under 35-year-old group ranked it first, while manymore people over 65 than expectedput it top of their list.RELATIONSHIPSBETWEENTIMEINTHEGARDENANDTHEINDIVIDUAL’SENJOY-MENTOFGARDENS. People who spentmore time working in their gardenstended to be those who also valuedneatness and tidiness and also thechance to meet neighbors (data notshown). Conversely people who spentless than 1 h per week in the gardentended to be unconcerned about neat-ness and did not value the opportunitythat gardening gave them to be cre-ative. They tended to like nothingabout the garden or gardening. Thegroup that showed the highest prefer-ence for creativity (those spending 2 to4 h per week in the garden) was alsoleast likely to dislike anything aboutthe garden.RELATIONSHIPSBETWEENGENDERANDTHEINDIVIDUAL’SENJOYMENTOFGAR-DENS. Overall there were few signifi-cant differences between male and fe-male respondents (data not shown).Significantly more women than menvalued the opportunity to grow veg-etables, yet significantly more men thanwomen listed vegetable growing as anactivity they carried out. Men tendedto value neatness and tidiness morethan women did, while women tendedto value the opportunity to meet neigh-bors and make friends through thegarden more than men did. Womenspent more time in the garden overallthan men did, with around twice asmany women as men working in thegarden for shorter periods (less than 4h per week), while larger numbers ofmen than women tended to work forlonger periods.RELATIONSHIPSBETWEENHOUSINGTYPEANDTHEINDIVIDUAL’SENJOYMENTOFGARDENS. Among people who livedin semidetached houses, fewer thanwould be expected valued the oppor-tunity to be creative and to expresstheir personalities, while among thosewho lived in terraced houses, morethan expected did so (data not shown).Significantly more people who lived insemidetached houses and significantlyfewer who lived in detached housesvalued nothing about the garden.RELATIONSHIPSBETWEENEMPLOY-MENTANDTHEINDIVIDUAL’SENJOYMENTOFGARDENS. Significantly fewer people thanwould be expected in the professionaland managerial groups valued neatnessand tidiness, while more people thanexpected did so in the other groups(data not shown). Many more peoplethan expected in the professional groupvalued the opportunity to be creative,with this being less important for othergroups. When asked to rank gardeningas a leisure activity, significantly fewerpeople than expected in the professionalgroup ranked gardening as their firstleisure activity.Table 2. Number of hours per week that people in different age groups spend working in the garden (χ2 = 56.3P <0.001).Time gardeningPeople within an age group (years) who garden for the specified time (%)(h/week)<3535–4545–5555–65>65≤149372210142–44243494438≥5920294648N8986654864