Next Article in Journal
Ski Resort Closures and Opportunities for Sustainability in North America
Next Article in Special Issue
State of the Art Review on Land-Use Policy: Changes in Forests, Agricultural Lands and Renewable Energy of Japan
Previous Article in Journal
Borrowing Size and Urban Green Development Efficiency in the City Network of China: Impact Measures and Size Thresholds
Previous Article in Special Issue
Evaluating the Impact of Ecological Property Rights to Trigger Farmers’ Investment Behavior—An Example of Confluence Area of Heihe Reservoir, Shaanxi, China
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Land
Volume 11
Issue 4
10.3390/land11040492
land-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Urban Gardening and Wellbeing in Pandemic Era: Preliminary Results from a Socio-Environmental Factors Approach

by
Diana Harding
1,
Kevin Muhamad Lukman
2,
Matheus Jingga
3,
Yuta Uchiyama
4,
Jay Mar D. Quevedo
5 and
Ryo Kohsaka
5,*
1
Faculty of Psychology, Padjadjaran University, Jl. Raya Bandung Sumedang KM. 21, Sumedang 45363, Indonesia
2
LAMINA, Yayasan Lamun, Depok 16422, Indonesia
3
PT Nojorono Tobacco International, Kudus 58311, Indonesia
4
Graduate School of Human Development and Environment, Kobe University, Kobe City 657-8501, Japan
5
Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Nagoya University, Nagoya City 464-8601, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Land 2022, 11(4), 492; https://doi.org/10.3390/land11040492
Submission received: 3 March 2022 / Revised: 23 March 2022 / Accepted: 24 March 2022 / Published: 29 March 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Land Management and Ecosystem Services in Agroforestry Systems)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The nature and impacts of living in urban settings are gaining their saliences in developed and developing countries alike, particularly during the crisis of the COVID-19 pandemic. During the crisis, the wellbeing of urban society became intertwined with a so-called “new lifestyle”, which involved quarantine and working in a home environment. Facing such challenges, urban gardening is deemed as an alternative intervention to enhance residents’ wellbeing and the environmental sustainability of urban areas, including Indonesian cities. A preliminary study was conducted to monitor the wellbeing of urban gardening practitioners, as well as investigate the motivation and any association between gardening and wellbeing with the COVID-19 pandemic situation by analysing data from Indonesian metropolitan areas. The study utilized instruments of “satisfaction with life scale (SWLS)” and “scale of positive and negative experience (SPANE)” to investigate the subjective wellbeing of 67 respondents. Amongst others, we identified that urban gardening practitioners tend to be in positive moods and have better overall wellbeing; 52.24% of the respondents were highly satisfied with their life. Furthermore, we observed a variety of motivations to start gardening, with hobby and utilization of free space as prominent reasons, followed by other motivations such as environmental benefit and aesthetic. Integrating the environmental benefits of urban gardening and the implications for an individual’s wellbeing can be reflected for sustainable urban development and policies during the COVID-19 pandemic.

1. Introduction

Rapid urban expansions have generated a variety of issues such as poverty, socioeconomic gaps, and degradation of environmental quality through overconsumption of resources, water and air pollution, waste production, and the reduction in green spaces [1,2,3,4,5]. With half of the global human population living in urban areas, they are now increasingly disconnected from nature due to urbanization [6]. Furthermore, urban people often live in environments with low biodiversity, food insecurity, and social alienation [7], which can exacerbate the situation and cause a decline in wellbeing.
From the perspective of wellbeing, the rapid development in urban settings also poses a different set of challenges. For example, the population concentration in urban areas and changes in lifestyle have led to reduced opportunities for contact with nature in daily life, and the increased urbanization is associated with the stress of financial and health burdens, which have led to a demand for mental health enhancement strategies [8,9]. Reflecting on the current situation, there is the notion of creating cities that are more liveable and environmentally friendly, which is also reflected in the United Nation’s development framework of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) through the interaction of provisioning, environment, and wellbeing [10]. Based on the SDGs, there are several interrelated goals and targets. The third goal, for example, is related to “Good Health and Wellbeing”, which requires the cooperation of countries and societies [11]. In most cases, sustainable development emphasizes the reduction of environmental stress. For instance, in China, the effectiveness of urban development is measured by overall wellbeing, such as life satisfaction [12]. A critical view to alter urban lifestyles to decrease future energy demands and remove existing atmospheric carbon is also now being considered [13], with other approaches, such as the interaction between people and nature in urban areas, reported to have considerable impacts on environmental and life quality [14]. In another study, the importance of contact with nature in urban areas is highlighted in regard to mental wellbeing and health [15].
Furthermore, a study has shown that urban design and planning practices affect the psychological wellbeing of vulnerable groups [16]. For example, a study case from Scotland reported that living near a new motorway appeared to worsen residents’ wellbeing and had negative impacts on health [17]. This highlights how urban planning is connected to the notion of individual wellbeing. As cities seek to become more liveable and environmentally friendly, there is a consideration from cities to invest in infrastructures to enhance the quality of life, such as household gardening [10]. Nonetheless, urban consolidation and expansion can threaten both private and public green space access for residents, therefore urban policies and planning need to carefully consider the benefit of green spaces [7]. In addition, the situation of the COVID-19 pandemic has only added to the challenges for urban settings and an emphasis on the mental wellbeing of urban societies is becoming more prominent.
The global COVID-19 pandemic, since late 2019 (and ongoing as of 2021), is one of the severest health crises, which is affecting human behaviour and wellbeing, given the unprecedented scope of COVID-19 stressors and challenges [18,19]. The COVID-19 pandemic has a more significant effect on vulnerable populations such as young children and elderly citizens, in particular to the health, wellbeing, and quality of education worldwide [20]. There are ample causes for concern regarding the impact of COVID-19 on the wellbeing of the general population. For instance, through the course of the pandemic, many governments implemented (some are still implementing as of this writing) lockdown systems, which severely affected the mental health of the people [21,22]. As there are still uncertainties surrounding COVID-19, further studies are needed to understand its impact on behavioural health, for example prolonged loneliness and its effects on the mental health and wellbeing of the public [23,24]. The challenge in this pandemic, as highlighted by Jakovljevic et al. [25], is the need to study the psychiatric and psychological aspects of COVID-19 from the perspectives of public and global mental health.
Promoting mental health and wellbeing during the pandemic are now emphasised in scientific literatures. For instance, the study from Stieger et al. [26] stated that in regard to emotional wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic, being outdoors was associated with higher emotional wellbeing, while greater loneliness was associated with poorer wellbeing. Though the COVID-19 pandemic restricted people’s activities outdoors, with government-issued stay-at-home orders, outdoor interaction with green spaces such as gardening has been deemed important for mental health [27]. Gardening activities have been reported to be linked with improvements in human health and wellbeing [28]. In addition, urban greenery provides various ecosystem services, which play roles in the challenging context of urban deprivation and poverty [29], and networks of urban greenery can enhance urban biodiversity. Gardening activities in urban areas is also now becoming a trend towards more green areas in cities, which provide opportunities for regular contact with nature, physical activity, and allow people to consume homegrown fruit and vegetables, as well as reducing stress levels of gardeners, improving social cohesion and preventing health problems [15,30]. Considering the values of urban gardening spaces in the triple bottom lines, environment, society, and economy, they can be regarded as a catalyst to facilitate sustainable urban development.
The situation of the COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia has led to the implementation of policies such as social distancing, work from home (WFH), and the closing down of facilities [31], where experts also advise people to limit their physical activities and contacts [32]. However, policies such as WFH and social restriction have been linked with negative mental wellbeing and internet addiction, respectively, which implies the need to mitigate the psychological risks from COVID-19-related policy actions [33,34]. As mentioned earlier, gardening is linked with mental health, with various reports indicating an increased interest in home gardening during the COVID-19 pandemic [27]. In this vein, there is an opportunity to observe the situation in Indonesia regarding urban gardening as an alternative approach to promote wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic era. Urban gardening and urban farming activities in Indonesia are growing in cities such as Jakarta, Surabaya, Palu, and Bandung, with various influencing backgrounds such as to promote green areas, food security, and environmental awareness [1,2,35,36]. Initially, these activities started after the economic crises in 1997–1998 with the utilization of open backyard areas and the common plantation of vegetables, lettuce, spinach, tomato, and onion [3,37]. Studies have shown that gardening activities in Indonesia provide positive benefits in promoting environmental awareness, strengthening community, and as a coping mechanism for anxiety and stress during the COVID-19 pandemic [38,39,40].
However, there is a knowledge gap on how gardening activities can influence wellbeing, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the overall benefits provided in urban settings. In this preliminary study, we aim to observe the wellbeing of urban gardening practitioners to understand what motivates them, and whether practitioners associate gardening with their wellbeing or not. We also examined the starting times of the gardening to identify whether those aspects influence wellbeing, in addition to providing discussions and insights for the improvement in wellbeing during the pandemic. Further understanding of the influence of urban gardening on the wellbeing of people and their motivations can serve as future policy implementation for urban areas in regard to initiating greenery and gardening policies. The outline of the paper included an introduction (Section 1) and methodology (Section 2), where we explained the concept of subjective wellbeing and the instruments used in this study, respectively. The results of the study are presented in Section 3, followed by Section 4 with discussions on ecosystem services and the benefits of gardening activities in urban areas and the links between the pandemic and people’s wellbeing. In the last section, we present future studies and the general implications of this preliminary work on urban gardening and its influence on people’s wellbeing.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Subjective Wellbeing (SWB) Using Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS)

The empirical science of subjective wellbeing (SWB) has grown significantly in the past decade [41], where SWB is defined as life satisfaction and depends on an individual’s standards [42]. This study investigated SWB using the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) approach to explore overall life satisfaction [43,44]. SWLS is a widely used measure of life satisfaction and has been used across many socio-demographic groups [45]. The advantages of using SWLS are known due to the fast nature of the interview time, as a public domain, and reliability based on Cronbach alpha [46]. Environmental economists are interested in wellbeing or relational values beyond conventional monetary values [47]. Terms in psychology, such as happiness, are also analysed in the context of relationships with visitors and nature [48]. Thus, there are multi-disciplinary interests in SWB from psychology economics to environmental sciences.
The SWLS in this study consisted of five items, which were measured using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree) based on the cognitive components [43]. Utilizing this structure, the total scores of SWLS can range from 5 to 35. According to a study from Pavot and Diener [49], the total scores of 5 to 9 indicate that the respondent is extremely dissatisfied with life, whereas scores ranging between 31 and 35 indicate that the respondents are extremely satisfied with life. In this study, the results from the SWLS interview were categorized as per definition from Pamungkas et al. [50] with (a) total scores of 5 to 15 as low category, (b) total scores of 16 to 25 as medium category, and (c) total scores of 26 to 35 as high category.

2.2. Supporting Instrument with Scale of Positive and Negative Experience (SPANE)

To support the results of SWLS, this study also used the Scale of Positive and Negative Experience (SPANE) on people’s wellbeing. SPANE is a newly introduced instrument to measure positive–negative feelings and evaluate wellbeing [51], which consists of 12 items: 6 items for positive feeling (SPANE-P) and 6 items for negative feeling (SPANE-N). SPANE is stated as a valid and reliable scale to measure positive and negative experiences as a facet of wellbeing [52,53]. The results from the positive items were subtracted with the scores from negative items to obtain the balance score (SPANE-B), which was used to categorize the scale; (a) −24 to −8 scores of SPANE-B categorized as low, (b) −7 to 8 scores of SPANE-B categorized as medium, and (c) 9 to 24 scores of SPANE-B categorized as high, where if respondents are able to obtain a score of 24 (highest score), it can be interpreted that they never experience negative emotions.

2.3. Respondents and Questionnaire for Urban Gardening

The survey questionnaires, which were written in Bahasa, were initially broadcasted to gardening groups associated with the first-three authors using three platforms (Whatsapp, Line, and Instagram). The snowball sampling approach was then applied to spread the survey questionnaires to other related groups that were not necessarily associated with the authors. Initially, each of the respondents was asked for their agreement regarding the usage of the data and their confirmation of whether urban gardening influences their life satisfaction. All of the respondents agreed during this initial step. A total of 67 respondents were gathered from the 12 urban areas in Indonesia.
The survey questionnaire consisted of four sections, which included: (A) socio-demographic, (B) SWLS items, (C) SPANE items, and (D) wellbeing from gardening in the pandemic period. In section A, we asked respondents’ age, current address, civil status, the period when they started gardening (before or after COVID-19 pandemic started), how long they have been gardening and their motivations for gardening. In section B, the SWLS consisted of five items: (1) in most ways my life is close to my ideal, (2) the conditions of my life are excellent, (3) I am satisfied with my life, (4) so far, I have gotten the important things I want in life, and (5) if I could live my life over, I would change almost nothing. In section C, there were 12 items, which were equally divided into 6 positive and 6 negative emotions. These included (1) positive, (2) negative, (3) good, (4) bad, (5) pleasant, (6) unpleasant, (7) happy, (8) sad, (9) joyful, (10) afraid, (11) contented, and (12) angry. SPANE is one of the most popular instruments used to measure experiences worldwide with 12 items consisting of six positive (SPANE-P) and six negative experiences (SPANE-N), and measuring general and specific emotions encompassing a wide range of human experiences [54].”We instructed the respondents to fill out the SPANE instrument by reporting their experiences during the last four weeks, using a 5-point scale: 1 = “almost never”, 2 = “rarely”, 3 = “sometimes”, 4 = “often” and 5 = “almost every time”. In the last section, we asked their perceptions of whether gardening activities contributed to their wellbeing during the pandemic period or not. We also inquired about the reasons for their respective answers.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

The results of the questionnaires were analysed and presented using descriptive statistics, which included Cronbach’s alpha for the reliability test, mean scores, and standard deviations of SWLS and SPANE. In addition, Spearman’s rank correlation analysis was performed to examine the relationship among the variables: (1) when the respondents start gardening, (2) what motivates them to do gardening, (3) SWLS, and (4) SPANE. Correlation analysis between SWLS and SPANE was carried out to examine the validity with other measures, since it is necessary to take SWLS and SPANE into both considerations of affective and cognitive components [55]. For the correlation analysis, we assigned dummy variables to define the times respondents started gardening and their motivations; for example, the respondents who started gardening after the COVID-19 pandemic were coded as 0, and respondents who started gardening before the pandemic as 1.

3. Results

3.1. Socio-Demographic Profile

The summary of the socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents is reflected in Table 1. A total of 67 respondents from 12 urban areas in Indonesia were collected in this study (mean age = 50.87 years, SD = 8.65). All of them satisfied the criteria of living in urban areas, which in this study was defined based on the classification from Indonesia Regulation Law No. 26/2007 that states “areas that consist of population at least one million and connected by integrated infrastructure network systems [56]”. In terms of respondents’ occupation, 24 were private employees, 8 were government employees, and 10 were entrepreneurs. Seventy-three percent of the respondents engaged in gardening activities before the pandemic, while 24% started after the pandemic.

3.2. Motivations for Gardening

Respondents shared several reasons behind their motivation to engage in gardening activities. To present these motivations in a systematic way, we used codes, which were condensed into units from respondents’ statements. We derived eight codes, namely “Happiness,” “Environment,” “Hobby,” “Aesthetic,” “Health,” “Space,” “Exercise,” and “People.” Examples of statements and the coding process are shown in Table 2. In cases where a respondent’s statement generated multiple codes, we counted them separately (i.e., one respondent can include “Happiness,” “Environment,” and “Health”).
Amongst the eight motivations, “Hobby” was the most frequented motivation, with 34.3% (23) of the respondents (Figure 1). They related gardening as a hobby to eliminate boredom, stress relief activity, or just as another activity in their free time. The second most frequented motivation was “Space,” with 20 respondents motivated to utilize the empty space in their yard. This factor is related to the respondent’s aim to plant productive vegetables and fruits in their empty yard as an alternative livelihood or just for self-consumption. “Environment (13),” “Aesthetic (13),” and “Happiness (12)” were also among the most mentioned motivations. For “Environment,” the idea of gardening from several respondents was linked with various benefits, such as soil quality, water quality, air quality shading, temperature control, oxygen supply, and greenery. Meanwhile, statements pertaining to “Aesthetic” and “Happiness” did not differ much, which focused on the beautification of respondents’ yard, personal satisfaction, and happiness they felt through gardening activities. The least stated factors for gardening were “Health,” “Exercise,” and “People.” “Health” represented the idea that respondents felt that they can obtain positive health benefits from gardening (i.e., fresh air, planting medicinal plants). Meanwhile, “Exercise” is linked with gardening activities as a physical exercise, and “People” are derived from respondents’ interaction with other people or becoming inspired (or inspiring) from others, such as family or neighbours.

3.3. SWLS and SPANE-B Categories

The results of SWLS and SPANE-B from 67 respondents are shown in Figure 2. For SWLS, the three categories, low, medium, and high, generated varying results among the respondents. The low category included a total of five respondents, with total SWLS scores ranging from 7 to 14. Meanwhile, 27 and 35 respondents classified themselves into medium and high categories, respectively. In the high category, which had total scores ranging from 26 to 35, respondents showed that they are satisfied with their current life. Scores between 21 and 25 represented slightly satisfied, while 31 and 35 indicated that respondents are extremely satisfied with their lives [49]. A similar study of wellbeing with SWLS showed that respondents with a total score of SWLS within the medium category can shift into the high category after psychotherapy sessions [50]. For the results of SPANE-B, 83.6% (56) of the respondents were classified under the medium category, while 16.4% (11) were under the high category. A respondent with a very high score SPANE-B of 24 indicates that she or he rarely or never experiences any of the negative feelings, and very often or always has all of the positive feelings [57].
Overall, based on the SWLS, respondents are relatively satisfied with their lives (Table 3). The mean score of Items 1, 2, 3, and 4 is 5.104, 5.328, 5.418, and 5.448, respectively. For item 5, the average (4.0) was relatively lower than the first four items, suggesting that respondents are willing to change their lifestyle. The items listed under SWLS were fit and reliable based on Cronbach’s alpha (0.886) generated in this study. According to Silva et al. [58], the reliability of SWLS ranged from 0.70 to 0.90. The average scores of SPANE-P were relatively high (above 4.0) for items (1) positive, (3) good, (5) pleasant, (7) happy and (9) joyful (Table 3). In contrast, the items associated with (11) contented has lower mean scores of 3.970. The opposite results can be seen for SPANE-N, where all items have low mean scores ranging from 2.0 to 2.7. The reliability results from SPANE were divided for positive and negative items. In this study, the Cronbach’s alpha for positive affect is 0.58, and for negative affect is 0.71. We argue that the relatively low alpha scores can be due to the limited number of samples for this study. Despite the value of Cronbach’s Alpha, which is lower than 0.7 is questioned by some authors; this consideration should not be taken as a “golden rule”, in particular, an alpha that is too high could lead one to think that the items measure the same indicator of the construct [59].

3.4. Correlation Analysis

The results of the correlation analysis between the starting times of gardening, motivations, SWLS and SPANE are shown in Table 4. There were no significant correlations observed between the starting times of gardening, either before or during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, for the correlation with motivation, Exercise was correlated significantly with SPANE-B (r = 0.372; p ≤ 0.001). The other significant correlation we found is between SWLS and SPANE-B (r = 0.496; p ≤ 0.001). According to Prado-Gascó et al. [55], this positive correlation is expected since in measuring subjective wellbeing it is necessary to take into consideration the affective component measured by SPANE and the cognitive component measured by SWLS.

3.5. Wellbeing from Gardening during the Pandemic Period

The majority (97.0%) of the respondents shared that gardening positively influenced their wellbeing. Based on their statements, the idea of gardening, which can influence respondents’ wellbeing can be categorized into three reasons: (1) rewards received from gardening, (2) gardening as alternative activities during the pandemic period, and (3) positive psychological impact. For the first reason, gardening was perceived to give a variety of rewards and benefits, for example, source of food, beautification of the yard, alternative for physical exercise, and environmental benefits (i.e., temperature control). Meanwhile, for the second reason, due to restricted movements outside coupled with government-issued laws, the isolation and WFH situation of the respondents gave them more free time to try different things, such as gardening. They shared that gardening motivated them to be more productive and reduced their boredom caused by staying longer indoors. The third reason was directly linked with their feelings. For example, gardening is linked with the psychological benefit of relieving stress and anxiety, sense of growth from monitoring plant, personal satisfaction and wellbeing, as well as a sense of comfort.

4. Discussion

4.1. Ecosystem Services of Gardening in Urban Setting

The activities of community gardens, private home gardens, and ordinary urban farms are known to be part of the urban agriculture concept to utilize the benefit of existing ecosystem services for non-farmer societies and contribute to the increase in wellbeing of urban society [60]. The results of this study also prove that urban gardening activities contribute to wellbeing with the variety of ecosystem services provided. First, the provisioning service, which is linked with the productive plants, influences the initiative to start the gardening activity. The condition of an empty backyard may motivate one to start gardening, either for self-consumption or as an alternative livelihood. This phenomenon should be noted, as the issue of food security in urban areas could become more apparent in the future. With the increasing population and demand for food, the role of urban areas to provide the food supply through urban gardening and agriculture will be more relevant [61]. A case study in the city of Yogyakarta showed that despite the limitation of space, the utilization of a yard in home gardening can provide productive and sustainable results such as the benefit of provisioning services and alternative livelihood [62]. In the context of Indonesia, the movement of urban farming has a different background in regard to the issue of food sovereignty [63]. Such initiatives now exist, for example in Surabaya city, as part of the local government program to achieve the goal of nutritious food fulfilment for the low-income society [64]. Despite the relatively smaller-scale activities from urban gardening, government and local stakeholders should take note of the momentum of various similar programs in Indonesia, particularly focusing on the idea of food provisioning as one of the main benefits of small-scale home gardening. Furthermore, looking at the pandemic situation, there is also another perspective on how provisioning from gardening can increase urban resilience. The issue of hunger during disasters can be mitigated through local food production, for example from urban agriculture, gardens, and community gardens, where understanding the amount of food that can be generated is important in a pandemic context [65]. That being said, collective gardens as part of common-pool resources initiatives were reported to be increasing, and the risk of overexploitation should be noted [66].
Aside from food provisioning benefits, there are other ecosystem services provided related to gardening, for example, environment-related and aesthetic services. For environmental benefits, the vegetation in garden and green roofs can serve as habitats for many organisms, controlling the temperature, managing runoff water, mitigation of urban heat island effect, carbon sequestration, and reducing air pollution from CO2, NO2, PM10, and SO2 [67,68]. The observation from respondents’ statements showed that there were certain environmental benefits that were commonly noticed, such as controlling temperature through the existence of a garden. As more environmental issues become more relevant in urban settings, such as the phenomenon of the urban heat island effect, the awareness and understanding of the society will be more prominent. For the sustainability of a region, a holistic view is necessary to understand the dynamics of cities in which collaborations between government sectors and various stakeholders can be implemented for municipal biodiversity management [69,70,71]. The involvement of the community, as seen in Bandung city with the Bandung Gardening (Bandung Berkebun) community, is reflected to contribute to character-building oriented for the environment [36]. The implementation of productive gardening places, as part of the urban farming concept, aside from the function of controlling pollution also provides a comfortable healthy environment and increases aesthetic value [72]. The findings of this study also complement the notion of aesthetic as a prominent motivation to start gardening activities compared to other benefits such as health. In a study by Chalmin-Pui et al. [28], the health benefits were seen to be an important component of gardening; however, it is not the main motivating factor for gardening, with joy, pleasure, and aesthetics presented as greater drivers.
Another perspective taken from the findings of this study is that for the most part, motivation to engage in gardening activities on its own does not have any influence on wellbeing, nor on positive emotions, as seen with Exercise as the only significant correlation. However, we argue that motivation is a driver to initiate the involvement of people in urban gardening activities, and through active participation in gardening activities, the respondents then associate their happiness and wellbeing. Gardeners are motivated by various reasons, for example connecting with nature, improved food access, or enhancing time spent with family [7]. Thus, exploring the aspect of motivation for gardening in Indonesia can be essential to better understand how local government, stakeholders, and communities, can effectively widen the concept of gardening and increase participation through the engagement of motivating factors and interests of the urban society. In the case of Chile and Switzerland, the strongest motivating factor is linked with the health aspect. However, motivation to gardening is also often seen not as a positive factor, such as the need to keep the garden tidy and peer pressure [28]. Understanding the motivating factors in regard to the ecosystem services from gardening should also be considered to understand the behaviour mechanism of society, as these insights can be used to enhance gardening from other perspectives, such as increasing aesthetic and offering a variety of environmental supporting services in the limitation of an urban setting.

4.2. Gardening in Pandemic Situation and Link to the Wellbeing

In the Indonesian context, the abrupt changes caused by the pandemic to social restriction, remote working, and home-based learning for extended periods will potentially affect mental wellbeing [73]. In addition, the implication of the COVID-19 pandemic is not only to physical health, but also to economic situations, social relationships, and wellbeing [32]. One of the insights of this study is that respondents’ motivation to engage in gardening such as a hobby and the intention to try new experiences in their free time during the COVID-19 pandemic is associated with their wellbeing. Based on the results of SWLS and SPANE-B, the majority of the respondents who practiced urban gardening were within the high category, which indicated that they are satisfied with their lives and frequently experience positive emotions. Furthermore, the respondents also stated that practicing gardening has a positive influence on their wellbeing, with statements such as “gardening can be a stress-relieving activity”, “focusing attention to productive activity”, “eliminating boredom”, and “sense of fulfilment by observing the plant’s growth”. A study from Ambrose et al. [10] reported that the psychological benefits of gardening are more significant on personal and social wellbeing levels through being more connected to nature and community. On the other hand, our study showed that there were no significant correlations in people’s wellbeing between people who practiced gardening before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. The results might indicate that the pandemic itself is not an influencing factor for wellbeing, rather, the gardening activities themselves improve their wellbeing. One study highlighted that gardening on a frequent basis of at least 2–3 times a week corresponded with perceived benefits of health, which the pleasure of gardening drives as their motivation [28]. Insights gained from this study indicated policy implications; that urban people can contribute on the basis of ecosystem services benefit by gardening activities. Such an approach can provide multiple benefits to urban environment settings and the wellbeing of the people. Thus, local government should consider incorporating the contribution of urban people through individual gardening activities, as well as community gardening.
Comparing house gardening and community gardening, there is also the insight that community gardening is associated with higher health gains, resilience, and optimism, as well as an affordable and efficient way of promoting wellbeing in urban environments [5,9]. Visits to public green area facilities during the pandemic also gained salience; for instance, in Japan, visits to green areas during the COVID-19 pandemic are linked with socioeconomic attributes, where parks were mainly used by urban residents [74], and interaction with public green infrastructure in urbanized landscapes can enhance wellbeing and the urban liveability [75]. In addition, one study indicated that the high degree of participation of residents to visit parks or green spaces contributed to higher wellbeing, which showed that green spaces can have a very positive effect on people’s welfare [76]. Nonetheless, the practice of community gardening might be difficult in the COVID-19 pandemic, and such practice should be carried out by following proper health protocol. Moreover, the practice of community gardens also has its own challenge, for example in South Africa with the theft of garden infrastructure or produce issues, which can hinder motivation and engagement for urban community gardening [77]. Some alternatives include the utilization of empty yards in housing environments. The situation of new social distancing mandates will require a breakthrough approach of public health policies that will effectively utilize outdoor spaces in order to bring benefits in terms of population wellbeing [26]. We argue that in this study, the potential to enhance wellbeing with urban gardening should be explored further, in particular through the effective use of outdoor empty spaces in private housing. The insights gained from this study complement past studies in regard to how gardening can support wellbeing [7,10,28], and builds a further foundation of expanding the discussion on how gardening can benefit the environmental aspects of the urban setting itself. The challenge of limited spaces in an urban setting, environmental awareness, and supporting policies for urban gardening during the COVID-19 pandemic should be addressed in future studies. In addition to considering the differences in the scale of urban settings, such as that observed in Japanese municipalities, where larger cities tended to have more discussions on conservation moves, such as with Geoparks [78,79]. The various characteristics of different cultures and socio-demographics in many Indonesian cities can be another discussion point to promote active participation in activities, as previous studies have shown that engagement from residents, for instance, in management activities, can be influenced by these attributes [80,81,82].

5. Conclusions

The wellbeing of 67 respondents, who were urban gardening practitioners in Indonesia during the COVID-19 pandemic, was observed in this preliminary study. Overall, respondents’ wellbeing was categorized as satisfied with their current life and with positive emotions. Their motivations for engaging in urban gardening, as reflected in this work, included as a hobby, source of happiness, utilization of space, aesthetic, health benefits, environmental benefits, a form of exercise, and interacting with other people. Additionally, they considered urban gardening as positive and healthy for their wellbeing in the pandemic, particularly noting the benefits such as being productive, relieving stress, eliminating boredom, and interacting with family members during their free time and WFH policy.
In summary, this study is a preliminary in character; thus, the results cannot be used to generalize the entire urban population in Indonesia. However, despite the limited number of respondents, this study showed a general trend in understanding people’s wellbeing and the environmental benefits in urban settings. In urban areas, people will most likely have similar perceptions (positive or negative) if they shared common activities [83], which in this study is urban gardening. We observed that the activity contributed to respondents’ satisfaction with life, particularly in connection with the pandemic. Thus, future studies can consider addressing the topic of urban gardening for enhancing wellbeing during the pandemic in more specific contexts to better understand the influencing factors and to design a coping strategy for wellbeing, as well as expanding the scale and focusing on a certain region or site, for instance, in Jakarta and Indonesia. The COVID-19 crisis provided an unmatched opportunity of how collective behavioural change can help address it (i.e., travel restrictions, lockdowns), which can serve as an inspiration in fighting against climate change (the other global crisis) [84,85]. There is an opportunity for active participation from urban society members in gardening activities, where higher wellbeing can be achieved, and a variety of ecosystem services can be used as alternative intervention measures to various social and environmental issues in the urban setting. Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic has restricted people’s movements outdoors, which resulted in increased interest in home gardening [25]. Finally, combining urban gardening initiatives and other public policies is important for the sustainability of urban environments.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.H., K.M.L. and M.J.; methodology, D.H., K.M.L. and M.J.; validation, D.H., K.M.L., M.J., Y.U., J.M.D.Q. and R.K.; data curation, M.J.; writing—original draft preparation, D.H. and K.M.L.; writing—review and editing, D.H., K.M.L., Y.U., J.M.D.Q. and R.K.; supervision, D.H., Y.U., J.M.D.Q. and R.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study is supported and funded by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers JP21K18456; JP20K12398; JP17K02105; JP16KK0053; JST RISTEX Grant Number JPMJRX20B3; JST Grant Number JPMJPF2110; Heiwa Nakajima Foundation (2022); Asahi Group Foundation (2022); and Padjadjaran University.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the first and second author. The data are not publicly available since this study contained personal information.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Anggrayni, F.M.; Andrias, D.R.; Adriani, M. Ketahanan Pangan dan Coping Strategy Rumah Tangga Urban Farming Pertanian dan Perikanan Kota Surabaya. Media Gizi Indones. 2015, 10, 173–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Cahya, D.L. Analysis of urban agriculture sustainability in Metropolitan Jakarta (case study: Urban agriculture in Duri Kosambi). Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2016, 227, 95–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Fauzi, A.R.; Ichniarsyah, A.N.; Agustin, H. Urban Agriculture: Urgency, Role, and Best Practice. J. Agrotenol. 2016, 10, 49–62. [Google Scholar]
  4. Indraprahasta, G.S. The potential of urban agriculture development in Jakarta. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2013, 17, 11–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Lampert, T.; Costa, J.; Santos, O.; Sousa, J.; Ribeiro, T.; Freire, E. Evidence on the contribution of community gardens to promote physical and mental health and well-being of non-institutionalized individuals: A systematic review. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0255621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Davies, Z.G.; Fuller, R.A.; Loram, A.; Irvine, K.N.; Sims, V.; Gaston, K.J. A national scale inventory of resource provision for biodiversity within domestic gardens. Biol. Conserv. 2009, 142, 761–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Egerer, M.H.; Philpott, S.M.; Bichier, P.; Jha, S.; Liere, H.; Lin, B.B. Gardener Well-Being along Social and Biophysical Landscape Gradients. Sustainability 2018, 10, 96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Imai, H.; Nakashizuka, T.; Kohsaka, R. An analysis of 15 years of trends in children’s connection with nature and its relationship with residential environment. Ecosyst. Health Sustain. 2018, 4, 177–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Koay, W.I.; Dillon, D. Community Gardening: Stress, Well-Being, and Resilience Potentials. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 6740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ambrose, G.; Das, K.; Fan, Y.; Ramaswami, A. Is gardening associated with greater happiness of urban residents? A multi-activity, dynamic assessment in the Twin-Cities region, USA. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2020, 198, 103776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Guzel, A.E.; Arslan, U.; Acaravci, A. The impact of economic, social, and political globalization and democracy on life expectancy in low-income countries: Are sustainable development goals contradictory? Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 13508–13525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Long, L. Eco-efficiency and effectiveness evaluation toward sustainable urban development in China: A super efficiency SBM-DEA with undesirable outputs. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 14982–14997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Okvat, H.A.; Zautra, A.J. Community Gardening: A Parsimonious Path to Individual, Community, and Environmental Resilience. Am. J. Community Psychol. 2011, 47, 374–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Spano, G.; D’Este, M.; Giannico, V.; Carrus, G.; Elia, M.; Lafortezza, R.; Panno, A.; Sanesi, G. Are Community Gardening and Horticultural Interventions Beneficial for Psychosocial Well-Being? A Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 3584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Wood, C.J.; Pretty, J.; Griffin, M. A case-control study of the health and well-being benefits of allotment gardening. J. Public Health 2015, 38, e336–e344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Cassarino, M.; Shahab, S.; Biscaya, S. Envisioning Happy Places for All: A Systematic Review of the Impact of Transformations in the Urban Environment on the Wellbeing of Vulnerable Groups. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Foley, L.; Prins, R.; Crawford, F.; Humphreys, D.; Mitchell, R.; Sahlqvist, S.; Thomson, H.; Ogilvie, D. Effects of living near an urban motorway on the wellbeing of local residents in deprived areas: Natural experimental study. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0174882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Plohl, N.; Musil, B. Modeling compliance with COVID-19 prevention guidelines: The critical role of trust in science. Psychol. Health Med. 2020, 26, 35–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Volk, A.A.; Brazil, K.J.; Franklin-Luther, P.; Dane, A.V.; Vaillancourt, T. The influence of demographics and personality on COVID-19 coping in young adults. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2021, 168, 110398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Shammi, M.; Bodrud-Doza, M.; Islam, A.R.M.T.; Rahman, M.M. Strategic assessment of COVID-19 pandemic in Bangladesh: Comparative lockdown scenario analysis, public perception, and management for sustainability. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2020, 23, 6148–6191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Brodeur, A.; Clark, A.E.; Flèche, S.; Powdthavee, N. COVID-19, Lockdowns and Well-Being: Evidence from Google Trends. J. Public Econ. 2020, 193, 104346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Prime, H.; Wade, M.; Browne, D.T. Risk and Resilience in Family Well-Being During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Am. Psychol. 2020, 75, 631–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Saltzman, L.Y.; Hansel, T.C.; Bordnick, P.S. Loneliness, Isolation, and Social Support Factors in Post-COVID-19 Mental Health. Psychol. Trauma Theory Res. Pract. Policy 2020, 12, 55–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. White, R.G.; Van Der Boor, C. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and initial period of lockdown on the mental health and well-being of adults in the UK. BJPsych Open 2020, 6, e90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Jakovljevic, M.; Bjedov, S.; Jaksic, N.; Jakovljevic, I. COVID-19 Pandemia and Public and Global Mental Health from the Perspective of Global Health Security. Psychiatr. Danub. 2020, 32, 6–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Stieger, S.; Lewetz, D.; Swami, V. Emotional Well-Being Under Conditions of Lockdown: An Experience Sampling Study in Austria During the COVID-19 Pandemic. J. Happiness Stud. 2021, 22, 2703–2720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Dzhambov, A.M.; Lercher, P.; Browning, M.H.E.M.; Stoyanov, D.; Petrova, N.; Novakov, S.; Dimitrova, D.D. Does greenery experienced indoors and outdoors provide an escape and support mental health during the COVID-19 quarantine? Environ. Res. 2021, 196, 110420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Chalmin-Pui, L.S.; Griffiths, A.; Roe, J.; Heaton, T.; Cameron, R. Why garden?—Attitudes and the perceived health benefits of home gardening. Cities 2021, 112, 103118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Gopal, D.; Nagendra, H. Vegetation in Bangalore’s Slums: Boosting Livelihoods, Well-Being and Social Capital. Sustainability 2014, 6, 2459–2473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Schram-Bijkerk, D.; Otte, P.; Dirven, L.; Breure, A.M. Indicators to support healthy urban gardening in urban management. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 621, 863–871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Wiguna, T.; Anindyajati, G.; Kaligis, F.; Ismail, R.I.; Minayati, K.; Hanafi, E.; Murtani, B.J.; Wigantara, N.A.; Putra, A.A.; Pradana, K. Brief Research Report on Adolescent Mental Well-Being and School Closures During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Indonesia. Front. Psychiatry 2020, 11, 598756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Saud, M.; Ashfaq, A.; Abbas, A.; Ariadi, S.; Mahmood, Q.K. Social support through religion and psychological well-being: COVID-19 and coping strategies in Indonesia. J. Relig. Health 2021, 60, 3309–3325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Siste, K.; Hanafi, E.; Sen, L.T.; Murtani, B.J.; Christian, H.; Limawan, A.P.; Siswidiani, L.P. Implications of COVID-19 and Lockdown on Internet Addiction Among Adolescents: Data From a Developing Country. Front. Psychiatry 2021, 12, 665675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Sutarto, A.P.; Wardaningsih, S.; Putri, W.H. Work from home: Indonesian employees’ mental well-being and productivity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int. J. Workplace Health Manag. 2021, 14, 386–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Hamzens, W.P.S.; Moestopo, M.W. Pengembangan Potensi Pertanian Perkotaan di Kawasan Sungai Palu. J. Pengemb. Kota 2018, 6, 75–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Prasetiyo, W.H.; Budimansyah, D. Warga Negara dan Ekologi: Studi Kasus Pengembangan Warga Negara Peduli Lingkungan Dalam Komunitas Bandung Berkebun. J. Pendidik. Hum. 2016, 4, 177–186. [Google Scholar]
  37. Amir, H.M.; Saidin, S. Pengembangan Urban Farming Dalam Rangka Pemberdayaan Masyarakat di Kota Kendari. J. Neo Soc. 2020, 5, 227–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Marietta, A.D.; Darmawani, E.; Noverina, R. Meningkatkan Karakter Peduli Lingkungan Melalui Kegiatan Berkebun Kelompok B Di RA Perwanida 4 Jakabaring Palembang. PERNIK J. Pendidik. Anak Usia Dini 2019, 2, 52–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Prasetiyo, W.H.; Budimansyah, D.; Roslidah, N. Urban Farming as A Civic Virtue Development in The Environmental Field. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Educ. 2016, 11, 3139–3146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Vibriyanti, D. Society Mental Health: Managing Anxiety During Pandemic COVID-19. J. Kependud. Indones. 2020, 69–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Diener, E.; Oishi, S.; Tay, L. Advances in subjective well-being research. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2018, 2, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Diener, E. Subjective well-being. Psychol. Bull. 1984, 95, 542–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Diener, E. Assessing Well-Being, 1st ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  44. Wicaksana, S.A.; Novasari, E.P.; Nunanisa, N.; Asrunputri, A.P. Gambaran Subjective Well Being Pada Tenaga Kerja Generasi Y. JURISMA 2019, 9, 217–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Emerson, S.D.; Guhn, M.; Gadermann, A.M. Measurement invariance of the Satisfaction with Life Scale: Reviewing three decades of research. Qual. Life Res. 2017, 26, 2251–2264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Corrigan, J.D.; Kolakowsky-Hayner, S.; Wright, J.; Bellon, K.; Carufel, P. The Satisfaction With Life Scale. J. Head Trauma Rehabil. 2013, 28, 489–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. IPBES. IPBES guide on the production of assessment. In Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service; IPBES: Bonn, Germany, 2018; p. 44. [Google Scholar]
  48. Takahashi, T.; Uchida, Y.; Ishibashi, H.; Okuda, N. Subjective well-being as a potential policy indicator in the context of urbanization and forest restoration. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Pavot, W.; Diener, E. The Satisfaction with Life Scale and the emerging construct of life satisfaction. J. Posit. Psychol. 2008, 3, 137–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Pamungkas, C.; Wardhani, N.; Siswadi, A.G.P. The Effect of Positive Psychotherapy to Improve Subjective Well-Being of Early Adulthood Woman Who Hasn’t Had a Partner. J. Interv. Psikol. 2017, 9, 16–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Senol-Durak, E.; Durak, M. Psychometric properties of the Turkish version of the Flourishing Scale and the Scale of Positive and Negative Experience. Ment. Health Relig. Cult. 2019, 22, 1021–1032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. du Plessis, G.A.; Guse, T. Validation of the Scale of Positive and Negative Experience in a South African student sample. South Afr. J. Psychol. 2017, 47, 184–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Telef, B.B. The Scale of Positive and Negative Experience: A validity and reliability study for adolescents. Anatol. J. Psychiatry 2013, 14, 62–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Espejo, B.; Checa, I.; Perales-Puchalt, J.; Lisón, J.F. Validation and Measurement Invariance of the Scale of Positive and Negative Experience (SPANE) in a Spanish General Sample. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Prado-Gascó, V.; Romero-Reignier, V.; Mesa-Gresa, P.; Górriz, A.B. Subjective Well-Being in Spanish Adolescents: Psychometric Properties of the Scale of Positive and Negative Experiences. Sustainability 2021, 12, 4011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 26 Tahun 2007 Tentang Penataan Ruang. 2007. Available online: https://jdih.esdm.go.id/peraturan/uu-26-2007.pdf (accessed on 15 March 2022).
  57. Diener, E.; Wirtz, D.; Tov, W.; Kim-Prieto, C.; Choi, D.; Oishi, S.; Biswas-Diener, R. New Well-being Measures: Short Scales to Assess Flourishing and Positive and Negative Feelings. Soc. Indic. Res. 2010, 97, 143–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Silva, A.D.; Taveira, M.C.; Marques, C.; Gouveia, V.V. Satisfaction with Life Scale Among Adolescents and Young Adults in Portugal: Extending Evidence of Construct Validity. Soc. Indic. Res. 2015, 120, 309–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Velasco, M.; Constanza, S.; Pérez, L.; Castañeda, I.A. Validation of questionnaire dispositional optimism using item response theory. Divers. Perspect. Psicol. 2014, 10, 275–292. [Google Scholar]
  60. Hashimoto, S.; Sato, Y.; Morimoto, H. Public-private collaboration in allotment garden operation has the potential to provide ecosystem services to urban dwellers more efficiently. Paddy Water Environ. 2019, 17, 391–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. CoDyre, M.; Fraser, E.D.G.; Landman, K. How does your garden grow? An empirical evaluation of the costs and potential of urban gardening. Urban For. Urban Green. 2015, 14, 72–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Irwan, S.N.R.; Sarwadi, A. Productive Urban Landscape In Developing Home Garden In Yogyakarta City. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2017, 91, 012006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Nasution, Z. Indonesian Urban Farming Communities and Food Sovereignty. Master’s Dissertation, International Institute of Social Studies, The Hague, The Netherlands, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  64. Junainah, W.; Kanto, S.; Soenyono, S. Program Urban Farming Sebagai Model Penanggulangan Kemiskinan Masyarakat Perkotaan (Studi Kasus di Kelompok Tani Kelurahan Keputih Kecamatan Sukolilo Kota Surabaya). Wacana 2016, 19, 148–156. [Google Scholar]
  65. Huff, A.G.; Beyeler, W.E.; Kelley, N.S.; McNitt, J.A. How resilient is the United States’ food system to pandemics? J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 2015, 5, 337–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. van Klingeren, F.; de Graaf, N.D. Heterogeneity, trust and common-pool resource management. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 2021, 11, 37–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Li, W.C.; Yeung, K.K.A. A comprehensive study of green roof performance from environmental perspective. Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ. 2014, 3, 127–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Rahman, S.R.A.; Ahmad, H.; Mohammad, S.; Rosley, M.S.F. Perception of Green Roof as a Tool for Urban Regeneration in a Commercial Environment: The Secret Garden, Malaysia. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 170, 128–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Uchiyama, Y.; Kohsaka, R. Application of the City Biodiversity Index to populated cities in Japan: Influence of the social and ecological characteristics on indicator-based management. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 106, 105420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Kohsaka, R. Developing biodiversity indicators for cities: Applying the DPSIR model to Nagoya and integrating social and ecological aspects. Ecol. Res. 2010, 25, 925–936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Quevedo, J.M.D.; Uchiyama, Y.; Kohsaka, R. A blue carbon ecosystems qualitative assessment applying the DPSIR framework: Local perspective of global benefits and contributions. Mar. Policy 2021, 128, 104462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Surya, B.; Syafri, S.; Hadijah, H.; Baharuddin, B.; Fitriyah, A.T.; Sakti, H.H. Management of Slum-Based Urban Farming and Economic Empowerment of the Community of Makassar City, South Sulawesi, Indonesia. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Anindyajati, G.; Wiguna, T.; Murtani, B.J.; Christian, H.; Wigantara, N.A.; Putra, A.A.; Hanafi, E.; Minayati, K.; Ismail, R.I.; Kaligis, F.; et al. Anxiety and Its Associated Factors During the Initial Phase of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Indonesia. Front. Psychiatry 2021, 12, 634585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Uchiyama, Y.; Kohsaka, R. Access and Use of Green Areas during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Green Infrastructure Management in the “New Normal”. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Parker, J.; Simpson, G.D. Public Green Infrastructure Contributes to City Livability: A Systematic Quantitative Review. Land 2018, 7, 161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Ma, B.; Zhou, T.; Lei, S.; Wen, Y. Effects of urban green spaces on residents’ well-being. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2018, 21, 2793–2809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Roberts, S.; Shackleton, C. Temporal Dynamics and Motivaations for Urban Community Food Gardens in Medium-Sized Towns of the Eastern Cape, South Africa. Land 2018, 7, 146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Kohsaka, R.; Matsuoka, H. Analysis of Japanese Municipalities With Geopark, MAB, and GIAHS Certification: Quantitative Approach to Official Records With Text-Mining Methods. SAGE Open 2015, 5, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Kohsaka, R.; Matsuoka, H.; Uchiyama, Y.; Rogel, M. Regional management and biodiversity conservation in GIAHS: Text analysis of municipal strategy and tourism management. Ecosyst. Health Sustain. 2019, 5, 124–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Quevedo, J.M.D.; Uchiyama, Y.; Lukman, K.M.; Kohsaka, R. How blue carbon ecosystems are perceived by local communities in the coral triangle: Comparative and empirical examinations in the Philippines and Indonesia. Sustainability 2020, 13, 127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Lukman, K.M.; Uchiyama, Y.; Kohsaka, R. Sustainable aquaculture to ensure coexistence: Perceptions of aquaculture farmers in East Kalimantan, Indonesia. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2021, 213, 105839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Lukma, K.M.; Uchiyama, Y.; Quevedo, J.M.D.; Kohsaka, R. Local awareness as an instrument for management and conservation of seagrass ecosystem: Case of Berau Regency, Indonesia. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2021, 203, 105451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Quevedo, J.M.D.; Uchiyama, Y.; Kohsaka, R. Linking blue carbon ecosystems with sustainable tourism: Dichotomy of urban–rural local perspectives from the Philippines. Reg. Stud. Mar. Sci. 2021, 45, 101820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Fang, C.C. The case for environmental advocacy. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 2021, 11, 169–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Schmidt, R.C. Are there similarities between the Corona and the climate crisis? J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 2021, 11, 159–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Land 11 00492 g001 550
Figure 1. Frequency of the gardening motivation code across all 67 respondents.
Figure 1. Frequency of the gardening motivation code across all 67 respondents.
Land 11 00492 g001
Land 11 00492 g002 550
Figure 2. SWLS and SPANE-B results within three categories.
Figure 2. SWLS and SPANE-B results within three categories.
Land 11 00492 g002
Table
Table 1. Respondents’ socio-demographic profile.
Table 1. Respondents’ socio-demographic profile.
IndicatorsNumber of Respondents
Age Group
21–303 (4.5%)
31–403 (4.5%)
41–5017 (25.4%)
51–6039 (58.2%)
61–705 (7.5%)
Marital Status
Married64 (95.5%)
Single3 (4.5%)
Occupation
Government Employee8 (11.9%)
Private Employee24 (35.8%)
Housewife22 (32.8%)
Entrepreneur10 (14.9%)
Unemployed3 (4.5%)
Start Doing Gardening
Before Pandemic49 (73.1%)
After Pandemic18 (26.9%)
Table
Table 2. Coding frame for the statements of respondents’ motivation on gardening.
Table 2. Coding frame for the statements of respondents’ motivation on gardening.
CodeExample of Respondent’s Statements (Bahasa)
Happiness“Use leisure times joyfully” (“Menggunakan waktu kosong dengan sukacita”)
“Having fun” (“Bersenang-senang”); “Happy” (“Senang”)
Environment“To protect soil sustainability” (“Untuk menjaga kelestarian tanah”)
“For greenery” (“Penghijauan”); “For shade” (“Peneduh”)
Hobby“Stress reliever hobby” (“Hobi penghilang stres”)
“Activity for free time” (“Mengisi waktu luang”)
Aesthetic“To beautify the yard” (“Untuk memperindah pekarangan”)
“Love a beautiful yard” (“Menyukai pekarangan yang asri”)
Health“For medicinal plants” (“Untuk tanaman obat”)
“Creating fresh air” (“Menciptakan udara segar”)
Space“Utilize yard space” (“Memanfaatkan pekarangan”)
Exercise“Physical exercise” (“Olahraga”)
People“Inspiring neighbours” (“Menginspirasi tetangga”)
Table
Table 3. Item analysis for SWLS and SPANE.
Table 3. Item analysis for SWLS and SPANE.
SWLS ItemMeanStd. DeviationCronbach’s Alpha
Item 15.1041.3160.886
Item 25.3281.521
Item 35.4181.519
Item 45.4481.329
Item 54.0001.977
SPANE ItemMeanStd. DeviationCronbach’s Alpha
1-Positive4.3430.770SPANE-P = 0.580
SPANE-N = 0.713
2-Negative2.2690.750
3-Good4.4480.610
4-Bad2.0000.853
5-Pleasant4.1640.687
6-Unpleasant2.3580.847
7-Happy4.2240.623
8-Sad2.3430.827
9-Joyful4.1190.729
10-Afraid2.6121.058
11-Contented3.9700.717
12-Anger2.4630.785
Table
Table 4. Spearman’s rank correlation analysis between the starting times of gardening, motivations, SWLS, and SPANE.
Table 4. Spearman’s rank correlation analysis between the starting times of gardening, motivations, SWLS, and SPANE.
ItemsCorrelation
SWLSSPANE-B
Gardening before pandemic0.0370.037
Gardening after pandemic0.035−0.037
Happiness, Motivation0.0580.025
Environment, Motivation−0.085−0.068
Hobby, Motivation−0.0380.137
Aesthetic, Motivation0.031−0.220
Health, Motivation0.1870.067
Space, Motivation−0.2120.066
Exercise, Motivation0.1500.276 *
People, Motivation0.099−0.064
Number of Motivations0.0450.157
SWLS10.476 **
*, ** Indicate significant correlation at p-value < 0.05 and <0.001, respectively.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Harding, D.; Lukman, K.M.; Jingga, M.; Uchiyama, Y.; Quevedo, J.M.D.; Kohsaka, R. Urban Gardening and Wellbeing in Pandemic Era: Preliminary Results from a Socio-Environmental Factors Approach. Land 2022, 11, 492. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11040492

AMA Style

Harding D, Lukman KM, Jingga M, Uchiyama Y, Quevedo JMD, Kohsaka R. Urban Gardening and Wellbeing in Pandemic Era: Preliminary Results from a Socio-Environmental Factors Approach. Land. 2022; 11(4):492. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11040492

Chicago/Turabian Style

Harding, Diana, Kevin Muhamad Lukman, Matheus Jingga, Yuta Uchiyama, Jay Mar D. Quevedo, and Ryo Kohsaka. 2022. "Urban Gardening and Wellbeing in Pandemic Era: Preliminary Results from a Socio-Environmental Factors Approach" Land 11, no. 4: 492. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11040492

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop