Entrepreneurial
Community
Gardens
Growing Food, Skills,
Jobs and Communities
------- Gail Feenstra, Sharyl McGrew
and David Campbell
University of California
Agriculture and Natural Resources
Publication 21587
Entrepreneurial
Community
Gardens
Growing Food, Skills,
Jobs and Communities
Gail Feenstra, _
Sharyl McGrew,
and
David Campbell
University of California
Agriculture and Natural Resources
Publication 21587
To order or obtain ANR publications and other products, visit the ANR Communi-
cation Services online catalog at http://anrcatalog.ucanr.edu/ or phone 1-800-994-
8849. Direct inquiries to
University of California
Agriculture and Natural Resources
Communication Services
2801 Second Street
Davis, CA 95618
Telephone 1-800-994-8849
E-mail: anrcatalog@ucanr.edu
©1999 The Regents of the University of California. This work is licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by-nc-nd/4.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, PO Box 1866, Mountain View,
CA 94042, USA.
Publication 21587
ISBN-13: 978-1-62711-075-4
The University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources (UC ANR) prohibits discrimination
against or harassment of any person in any of its programs or activities on the basis of race, color, national origin,
religion, sex, gender, gender expression, gender identity, pregnancy (which includes pregnancy, childbirth, and
medical conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth), physical or mental disability, medical condition (cancer-re-
lated or genetic characteristics), genetic information (including family medical history), ancestry, marital status, age,
sexual orientation, citizenship, status as a protected veteran or service in the uniformed services (as defined by the
Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 [USERRA]), as well as state military and
naval service.
UC ANR policy prohibits retaliation against any employee or person in any of its programs or activities for bringing
a complaint of discrimination or harassment. UC ANR policy also prohibits retaliation against a person who assists
someone with a complaint of discrimination or harassment, or participates in any manner in an investigation or
resolution of a complaint of discrimination or harassment. Retaliation includes threats, intimidation, reprisals, and/
or adverse actions related to any of its programs or activities.
UC ANR is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer. All qualified applicants will receive consideration
for employment and/or participation in any of its programs or activities without regard to race, color, religion, sex,
national origin, disability, age or protected veteran status.
University policy is intended to be consistent with the provisions of applicable State and Federal laws.
Inquiries regarding the University’s equal employment opportunity policies may be directed to: Affirmative Action
Contact and Title IX Officer, University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources, 2801 Second Street, Da-
vis, CA 95618, (530) 750-1397. Email: titleixdiscrimination@ucanr.edu. Website: http://ucanr.edu/sites/anrstaff/
Diversity/Affirmative_Action/.
An electronic copy of this publication can be found at the ANR Communication Services catalog website,
http://anrcatalog.ucanr.edu/.
web-4/19-SB/WS
ii
Table of Contents
Preface ................... ............... ........................ ............... .......................... ........... .......... v
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1
Methodology ................ ................................ ............ ..................... .............................. 5
.Results ........................................................................................................................ 7
Site ..................... ............... .............................................................................. 7
Production and Marketing Models ......... ......... ............. , ............................... 10
Targeted Participants and Employment.. ............. ..................... ........... ........ 14
Economic Self-sufficiency .................................. .................. ~ ............ .......... 16
Individual and Community Benefits ............................................................ 21
Discussion: Opportunities and Challenges ................................................................ 25
Land Tenure ................... ............................ ................. ........................... ...... 25
Production and Marketing Strategies ......... .................. .............. ............. ..... 26
Training, Employment and Economic Development.. ................................. 27
Financial and Management Strategies .......................................................... 30
Community Benefits ................................................ .... ·····························:···32
Conclusion .................................................................................................... 34
References ........................ ..................... .......................................... .......... ... 35
Case Studies
Introduction ........ ................................ .......................................................... 37
St. Mary's Youth Farm and Urban Herbals ........................................ .......... 39
Vets Garden ......... ............................... ................ ............................ .............. 48
Berkeley Youth Altematives ........................ ................ ............................ ... 54
The Homeless Garden Project and the Women's Organic
Flower Enterprise ................................................................................... 61
Food From the 'Hood ........................ ............ ............... ................................ 72
Recommendations for Entrepreneurial Gardens .................. .............. ..... ................... 79
Appendices
Appendix A: Contacts for Community Gardening and
Urban Agriculture ........... ........................... ............... .-............................ 81
Appendix B: Entrepreneurial Gardens in California ............ ............ ............ 85
Appendix C: National Entrepreneurial Gardens by Region ......................... 90
Appendix D: Interview Questions .............. ..................... .......... .......... ......... 97
Appendix E: Business Development Resources ....................... ............ ........ 99
About the Authors ..................................................... ................... ......................... .. 106
iii
..
Preface
In the smmner of 1996, the UC Davis campus formed a partnership with the Del
Paso Heights/Strawberry Manor community of Sacramento to develop an economic
development, community revitalization and educational project. Project YE'ES
(Youth Economic and Educational Sustainability) involved UC Davis, the Mutual
Assistance Network (MAN), the Grant Unified School District, the American River
Commmrity College and the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency in
forming a youth business enterprise program. The project sought to integrate urban
agriculture and community landscape design in order to promote higher education
for the community's youth.
The UC Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education Program agreed to
support this university-commmrity partnership through an applied research project
that would provide information about already existing entrepreneurial urban
agriculture projects-how they were started, what it takes to make them "work,"
how successful they have been in contnbuting to economic development, and what
lessons might be learned for potential new projects.
Commmrity gardeners, community organizers and entrepreneurs, personnel
from economic development organizations, nonprofits interested in urban
agriculture, Cooperative Extension and institutions of higher education, local
government and all those who work with entreprenemial garden groups will find
the results of this study useful.
We wish to thank the 27 garden projects and several dozen community
garden experts that graciously shared their time with us, providing valuable
information and insights about the development of entrepreneurial community
gardens. Their community-building work, their successes and their failures, have
laid the foundation for future projects.
This report is the result of our two-year study of these projects.
Preface V
Introduction
Community gardens have long been appreciated for their multiple social, aesthetic
and health benefits (Blair,et al., 1991; Malakoff, 1995; Nelson, 1996; Patel, 1991;
Tinker, et al., 1992). Recognized in developing countries as providing important
nutritional and economic advantages for households (Marsh, 1996; Moskow, 1997;
Smit, et al., 1992), comrmmity gardens in the U.S. are increasingly being viewed as
strategies for community economic development. As Funches (telephone interview,
12/15/98) points out, "Just as commercial agriculture has a 'ripple effect' on the
macroeconomic level, small scale food and specialty crop production have the
potential for the same effect on the micro, or community level." The pmpose of this
study is to objectively assess the ways in which "entrepreneurial" or "market"
gardens create a "ripple effect" or enhance economic development in their local
communities.
A few highly publicized success stories and the new funding made available
by the passage of the Community Food Security Act in the 1996 Farm Bill, have
boosted linkages between community gardens and economic development in
projects nationwide (Cook, 1997). Innovative projects are using gardens to create
jobs, provide job training, spawn value-added businesses and other economic
development activities. Welfare reform and reductions in the federal "safety net"
create additional incentives for low-income communities to "invest" in
entrepreneurial community gardens.
Quite apart from this recent history, economic development has been and
will remain a major concern facing most local communities (Ayres et al, 1990;
Fossum, 1993; Green, et al., 1994; Kinsley, 1992; Thomas, 1990). As an alternative
to the adoption of tax incentives, provision of financial incentives, new constructed
buildings and the other traditional ways in which local governments attempt to
attract jobs and generate income, many policymakers are encouraging connnunities
to promote growth through the use of local resources. This strategy allows
communities to retain local control of new enterprises and activities, limit
population loss, create jobs, recirculate money in the local community and make
communities less dependent on external organizations and agencies. Pablo Gutman,
director of the Centro de Estudios Urbanso y Regionales in Buenos Aires notes a
parallel sentiment about community gardens:
We have evaluated urban gardens in relation to other urban food programs
(price subsidies, ration distribution, food coupons). We concluded that,
although urban gardens cannot replace other types of strategies, they smpass
other programs of income redistribution because they generate income
independence, where others generate dependency . They make use of idle
resources, improve the quality of the family's and the neighborhood's
environment, increase the amount of available resources and create new
bonds between the urban and the natural environment, which seem
increasingly important for a city as a whole.
Introduction
Innovative
projects are
using gardens
to create jobs,
provide job
training, spawn
value-added
businesses and
other economic
development
activities.
2
The characteristics of the urban gardens make them an initiative that
meets much of the principles of a local development based on self-reliance
(Gutman, 1992, p . 22).
Entrepreneurial community gardens are recognized as a potential strategy
for meeting multiple community needs, addressing both food security and economic
development simultaneously . To date, little research has been done to gauge the
success of these new ''entrepreneurial" or "market" gardens, to describe the ·
conditions under which they prosper or fail, or to provide comparative data which
would help new projects judge their own capacities. Frohardt (1993) offers brief
profiles of five urban gardening programs in four states that have evolved to include
a revenue generating component. She finds that market gardens offer exciting
opportunities for economic retw-n, new training forums and attracting new program
partners, but their successful implementation presents significant challenges . Key
factors include: adequate start-up ftmding, and the choice of a product(s) that are .
geared to the skills and interests of community participants, growing conditions, and
available markets. She suggests that before pursuing entrepreneurial projects,
participants weigh the costs and benefits against a more traditional community
gardening program.
A sUIVey of 22 gardens nationwide conducted by Laura Lawson ( 1996) and
Marcia McNally (Lawson & McNally, 1995) provides some of the most thorough
analysis of commwiity gardens, focusing on economic, educational and training
opportunities, predominantly in low-income areas. Although operational budgets
ranged widely (for all gardens surveyed) from $10,000 (not including staff) to
$275,000 (staff included), most considered themselves financially insecure. Lawson
suggests that the people and organizations working with these entrepreneurial
gardens need to address three main issues: the long-term viability of the garden,
especially for those groups relying on strong staff leadership; marketability and the
business skills necessary to manage an entrepreneurial garden; and the
environmental, social and economic sustainability of these gardens. A key question
raised by the research is the need to reconcile a non-profit, social service perspective
with a business operations perspective focused on generating profits.
Our study focused specifically on entrepreneurial gardens, seeking to answer
the following questions:
• What products and marketing strategies have worked and wider which
conditions? Which have failed?
• How much income is being generated from these gardens?
• How many jobs ( full or part-time) have been created and at what levels of pay?
• What kind of training do these gardens provide and how effective is this training
in building job-readiness?
• How much land and capital are required for a successful entrepreneurial garden
and where does it come from?
Entrepreneurial Community Gardens
• What are the typical operating costs of such gardens? What are the overall
annual expenses?
• What percentage of the expenses can be covered by sales of products from the
garden? What is realistic? To what degree can these entrepreneurial community
gardens be self-sufficient?
In addition, we asked questions about the relationship of the garden to the
surrounding community:
• How widespread is community support and involvement in the project?
• What opposition exists?
• What evidence is there that the project has had beneficial effects on other
aspects of community life?
• What individual benefits do these gardens provide?
• How does the project sustain itself over time given the potential for staff
burnout, loss of initial enthusiasm and turnover of key personnel?
• Are there unique community contributions that make projects successful?
• What experiences and knowledge do local leaders bring to these projects to
make them successful?
Introduction 3
Methodology
Beginning in the fall of 1996, we used existing bibliographies and databases of
community gardens to identify potential entrepreneurial community gardens . We
focused on gardens in California but included those in other states as well . We also
contacted the American Community Gardening Association (ACGA), the
Appropriate Technology Transfer in Rural Areas Program (A TIRA) , Center for
Urban Education about Sustainable Agriculture (CUESA), the Community Food
Security Coalition, and community gardening experts nationwide to help us identify
specific gardens and critical questions related to entrepreneurial gardens. (See
Appendix A for general community gardening contacts). Our initial list comprised
about 25 potential California gardens and 42 potential gardens in other states . (See
Appendix B for a list of entrepreneurial gardens in California and Appendix C for a
list of entrepreneurial gardens across the United States). Each of these initial gardens
was called and asked to provide general information about the program, particularly
about efforts to enhance economic development in their communities. (See
Appendix D for a list of our interview questions.)
By February 1997, we had established criteria for our definition of
"entrepreneurial community garden." We defined "entrepreneurial community
garden" as any community-based garden that included a formal component in which
garden products were sold or community residents were employed, or both.
Our initial interviews indicated that community gardens were enhancing economic
development most directly by (1) selling some of their product, (2) by training and
employing community residents, or both. There were multiple innovative Variations
of these activities that will .be discussed in the next section. All but one of the
gardens were non-profit operations. We included one for-profit business, Kona Kai
in Berkeley , California, because it provided some interesting insights about some of
the key issues entrepreneurial gardens have to face. We selected entrepreneurial
gardens that had been "in business" for at least one year, preferably longer, so that
we lmew they had gone through at least one full growing season .
In March , 1997, we narrowed our list of gardens to 20 in California and 16
nationally that appeared to meet our criteria. Each of these gardens was contacted by
telephone for a more extensive interview. We gathered information on the following
variables :
• Site: size, number of sites, land tenure, facilities (greenhouses, etc .), start-up
funds required ;
• Production/marketing model: crops grown, facilities used, food sold fresh ,
amount sold/given to low-income population, markets , cooperative vs.
individual production, value-added production , sales, business plan;
• Targeted population ;
• Jobs/employment: number of employees, percent time, wages, number of staff,
percent time, wages;
Methodology 5
6
• Economic self-sufficiency: total operating expenses, payroll, total expenses ,
percent of total expenses covered by sales;
• Training: type, delivery of training;
• Fundraising: grants, donatjons, in-kind, other; and
• Benefits: individual, community
By June 1996, we determined that 15 California gardens (including five case
studies) and 12 gardens nationally fit our criteria, for a total of 27. All of these
received follow-up phone calls in the summer and fall of 1997 to fill in as much
quantitative data as possible. These 27 projects do not represent a comprehensive list
of the many innovative entrepreneurial garden projects nationwide. Since we began
om study, we have learned of other projects
