Search results

This paper describes how community gardens generate social capital, and with what potential implications for the health of gardeners and their communities.

This analysis draws on data from focus groups with gardeners from four community gardening programs, two each in Boston and Lynn, MA. The participants represent a diverse sample of community gardeners (n=32).

We identify four mechanisms through which community gardening increases social capital, with implications for individual and community health: (1) building social networks; (2) providing opportunities for resource sharing and social support; (3) preserving cultural knowledge and practice in diaspora; and (4) reflecting and reinforcing collective efficacy. We also describe gardeners’ perspectives on gardening itself as a political activity.

While much of the literature on social capital and health in community gardens comes from in-depth studies of single, relatively homogenous gardens, this analysis draws on data from focus group interviews with a diverse group of participants who garden in varied neighborhood settings. In contrast to studies that have suggested that the social capital generated in community gardens does not extend beyond the group of individuals actively involved in gardening, our study identifies multiple community level benefits. Consequently, this paper lends support to recent calls to consider community gardening as strategy for amplifying community assets in support of public health.

Metaphorically, the garden invokes a repertoire of skills, arts, and virtues that run counter to the act of confinement but are embedded in its disciplinary practice: spaces in punitive environments where care, growth, health, and cultivation are emphasized. Gardens and the force of law and labor are foregrounded in Judeo-Christian myths, in slavery, and in prison farms as spaces of expulsion and brutality. Yet as abandoned, fortress-style prisons dilapidate, and vines and weeds break through concrete, we can begin to ask, What might it mean to imagine the prison through the lens of the garden?

This study contributes to the understanding of the health effects of pesticides exposure and of how pesticides have been and should be regulated.

This study presents literature reviews for the period 2000–2013 on (i) the health effects of pesticides and on (ii) preference valuation of health risks related to pesticides, as well as a discussion of the role of benefit-cost analysis applied to pesticide regulatory measures.

This study indicates that the health literature has focused on individuals with direct exposure to pesticides, i.e. farmers, while the literature on preference valuation has focused on those with indirect exposure, i.e. consumers. The discussion highlights the need to clarify the rationale for regulating pesticides, the role of risk perceptions in benefit-cost analysis, and the importance of inter-disciplinary research in this area.

This study relates findings of different disciplines (health, economics, public policy) regarding pesticides, and identifies gaps for future research.

Each year, our university’s small community welcomes 200 refugees. Many refugee children’s schooling is interrupted due to long waits in refugee camps, so they need additional educational opportunities. Families from the refugee community and representatives from the Church World Services, a local refugee-resettlement agency, partnered with James Madison University to create a summer program that provides children from the refugee community with more support in English and reading. Creativity And Reading Education (CARE) is a summer program for Pre-K-3rd grade children in the refugee community that integrates creativity and English/literacy development by utilizing community-based field trips for real-world connections and applications. Pre-service teachers in this six-credit experience planned and facilitated morning meetings, integrated literacy/creativity activities, read aloud sessions, and vocabulary focused on field trips. We partnered with the schools and recruited 16 pre-service teachers, 30 children, and 10 parents to participate in the three-week program. This chapter explicates how CARE was conceptualized and implemented during its pilot year. We highlight our community partnerships, illuminate challenges and lessons learned, and explain next steps as the subsequent iteration of the CARE program that evolves to serve more students and families.

What insights might attending to the cyclical history of colonially imposed environmental change experienced by Indigenous peoples offer to critical intellectual projects concerned with race? How might our understanding of race shift if we took Indigenous peoples' concerns with the usurpation and transformation of land seriously? Motivated by these broader questions, in this chapter, I deploy an approach to the critical inquiry of race that I have tentatively been calling anticolonial environmental sociology. As a single iteration of the anticolonial environmental sociology of race, this chapter focuses on Native (American) perspectives on land and experiences with colonialism. I argue that thinking with Native conceptualizations of land forces us to confront the ecomateriality of race that so often escapes sight in conventional analyses. The chapter proceeds by first theorizing the ecomateriality of race by thinking with recent critical theorizing on colonial racialization, alongside Native conceptualizations of land. To further explicate this theoretical argument, I then turn to an historical excavation of the relations between settlers, Natives, and the land in Rhode Island that is organized according to spatiotemporal distinctions that punctuate Native land relations in this particular global region: the Reservation, the Plantation, and the Narragansett.

The authors are a finance professor and an administrator in a major suburban independent school district who minored in finance while working toward his doctorate in education. We have used the case of shell space to discover the different incentives non-profit administrators have in the acquisition, recognition, and rational exercise of real options by their organizations (compared with managers of for-profit businesses). Shell space is space within a new building that has been enclosed against the elements, but not yet finished for its intended future use. The shell space can be viewed as a set of complex options (along the lines of the Stulz–Johnson options to choose among a group of several possible finished outcomes with different costs of exercise). A business executive could be expected to make the acquisition decision based on the value drivers know to impact such options. In the not-for-profit arena, though, decisions about the acquisition and use of options are driven by incentives that arise from within the organization or emanate from the politically elected (or appointed) board of trustees.

Certain elements of Hayek’s work are prominent precursors to the modern field of complex adaptive systems, including his ideas on spontaneous order, his focus on market processes, his contrast between designing and gardening, and his own framing of complex systems. Conceptually, he was well ahead of his time, prescient in his formulation of novel ways to think about economies and societies. Technically, the fact that he did not mathematically formalize most of the notions he developed makes his insights hard to incorporate unambiguously into models. However, because so much of his work is divorced from the simplistic models proffered by early mathematical economics, it stands as fertile ground for complex systems researchers today. I suggest that Austrian economists can create a progressive research program by building models of these Hayekian ideas, and thereby gain traction within the economics profession. Instead of mathematical models the suite of techniques and tools known as agent-based computing seems particularly well-suited to addressing traditional Austrian topics like money, business cycles, coordination, market processes, and so on, while staying faithful to the methodological individualism and bottom-up perspective that underpin the entire school of thought.