Transformation Labs as a Sustainability Intervention to Leverage the
Human Factor of Social-Ecological Change in the Escalante Community
Garden
Author:
Chair:
Committee:

Marley Halter
David Manuel-Navarrete
Scott Cloutier
Hallie Eakin

Abstract
While we often see community gardens as material spaces managed by organizations,
resources and institutional arrangements do not fully define a community garden or ensure its
success. Understanding the “human factor” is key to implementing interventions at the
subjective level that allow gardens to thrive. The Escalante Community Garden in Tempe,
Arizona is a transforming social-ecological system wherein volunteers exhibiting collective
efficacy are a crucial component. To keep this undergoing transformation on a positive
pathway, I leveraged a sustainability intervention, a transformation lab, using a set of replicable
participatory tools to support personal and interpersonal dynamics beyond an organizational
perspective. Results suggest that the transformation lab process fostered self-reflection and
collective agency, developing and strengthening the garden’s human factor.

Introduction
Community gardens often fail despite all the potential benefits for cities and people
(American Community Gardening Association, 1998; Lawson & Drake, 2013). One identified
cause of failure is the misalignment between the gardens’ formal organization, and the needs
and desires of the community (Bleasdale, Crouch, & Harlan, 2011). Another is the “tragedy-ofthe-commons” mentality where many people harvest communal garden spaces, while the
difficult chores and responsibilities fall to a precious few dedicated, often resentful, community
members (Charles, 2012). I propose that failing to cultivate meaningful interpersonal relations
that create collective agency between garden volunteers is another key, although less explored,
reason for failure. Yet, collective agency is precisely the focus of social innovation labs, and
some organizational theories such as Peter Senge’s “Learning Organization” and Otto
Scharmer’s “Theory U” (Hassan, 2014; Mezirow, 2000; Senge, 1990; Scharmer, 2016).
A deliberate process to build collective agency organized as a transformation lab (t-lab)
could be instrumental in building stronger and more successful interpersonal relations in the
garden volunteer community. T-labs have been proposed by the STEPS (Social, Technological
and Environmental Pathways to Sustainability) Center at the University of Sussex to promote

1

transformations by changing the way in which people relate to the social-ecological systems of
which they are part (STEPS Centre, 2016). I frame community gardens as social-ecological
systems, undergoing (transformational) change. This framing allows us to view the garden
community as a complex system made up of several factors, including the material factor, the
organizational factor, and the critical, but often unaddressed, human factor. I chose the term
“factor”—as opposed to “subsystem” or “component”—because of the integrated, dependent,
and dynamic nature of the term. The organizational factor represents the governance system,
or the organizations and structures who make the rules and enforce them within a socialecological system. The material factor represents the physical boundaries and resources that
make up the material aspects of a system. The phrase “human factor” is used in sustainability
and psychology literature to describe the unpredictability of human interactions with and
within systems, as well as framing the use of human and social capital in community
development (Luthans & Youssef, 2004; Luthans et al, 2004; Pfeffer, 2010). Social capital (i.e.
the sense of community, sense of place, social networks, trust and reciprocity) is a key element
to community garden volunteering that can affect participants’ level of participation and
engagement (Kingsley & Townsend, 2006). When we view the garden through the lens of all
three factors (material, organizational, and human), we can tailor interventions to target
multiple leveraging points in the system simultaneously and facilitate long-term garden success.
Furthermore, the link between individual/collective agency and community garden success is
under-researched (Glover, 2004). T-labs are proposed as a method to explore this link, as well
as address the need for more “rigorous, evaluative studies of community garden interventions”
(Draper & Freedman, 2010, p. 488).
I build on literature on deliberate transformative processes (e.g., O’Brien, 2012; O’Brien,
2015) to explore imaginative and creative tools and solutions that are beyond the scope of
conventional participatory deliberative processes (Van der Walt et al, 2009; Gryszkiewicz et al,
2016). Activities that could smooth the way for the creation of these solutions in a t-lab include
arts-based community building and trust building activities that urge participants to be
vulnerable and embrace the uncertainty inherent in transformative change. By looking at
community gardens as social-ecological systems, this study pulls away from the typical view of
community gardens as organizations and argues that community garden research can instead
contribute to literature on deliberate transformation of social-ecological systems (O’Brien 2012;
Manuel-Navarrete & Pelling 2015).
This paper reports on a t-lab experiment conducted by the author in Escalante
Community Garden (ECG) in Tempe, Arizona. This community garden has existed for six years,
and it faces problems that are typical of community gardens elsewhere, such as volunteer
retention, insecure land tenure, data management, funding, and cohesive leadership (Guitart,
Pickering, & Byrne, 2012). Yet this community garden in particular is rich in institutional support
and material resources thanks to support from the City of Tempe and from donors through the

2

Tempe Community Action Agency (TCAA). It became evident that despite abundant resources
in the material and organizational factors, the garden volunteer community still faces
significant challenges within the human factor of my social-ecological system framework (Figure
1). Preliminary fieldwork included volunteering in the garden and building interpersonal
relationships with the garden volunteer community. My time spent in the community revealed
a distinction between two types of volunteers, what I came to call the “core” and the
“periphery”, based on the volunteers’ level of personal commitment to the garden. Core
volunteers show higher levels of personal commitment to both the garden’s physical space
(based on the amount of time spent at the garden) and to the social community (based on the
amount of responsibility they assume). These observations (discussed in more detail later in the
paper) resulted in a series of research questions which drove this research:
RQ 1. Can volunteers be classified as either “core” or “peripheral” volunteers based on
their level of commitment to the garden?
RQ 2. Can a t-lab contribute to movement across the two groups (specifically from
periphery to core)?
RQ 3. Do core volunteers value different aspects of the garden than periphery
volunteers and can value trends be drawn across the two groups?
RQ 4. Will participating in the t-lab change the way volunteers value the garden
community?
After reviewing literature on social-ecological system thinking and transformation in
community gardens, I overview community gardening in the Phoenix metropolitan area, with a
particular focus on Tempe and the Escalante neighborhood. The methods and research design
section presents the t-lab design and process implemented at Escalante. Results suggest that
the t-lab process fostered self-reflection and collective agency, developing and strengthening
the garden’s human factor. Finally, I discuss study limitations, potential for replication, and
address some far-reaching results of t-lab interventions for not only this community garden but
others as well.
Figure 1. Escalante Community Garden Social-Ecological System Framework

3

Deliberate Transformation of Community Gardens as Social-Ecological Systems
Social-ecological systems (SES) are “composed of multiple subsystems and internal
variables within these subsystems at multiple levels” that are interconnected and contain
various positive and negative feedback loops among different levels of the system, ultimately
affecting the behavior of the system as a whole (Ostrom, 2009). Because of their complexity
and being in a state of constant change, SES are often plagued by seemingly impossible to solve
problems—wicked problems—that are the focus of sustainability science. In recent years, some
attention is directed to the subjective or human component of social-ecological organization
(Manuel-Navarrete 2015, Stedman 2016). Human subjectivities are particularly important to
understand intentional change in SES. O’Brien’s (2012) “deliberate transformation” defines
transformation as one of many potential solutions to sustainability problems. Deliberate
transformation does not happen to actors in a system, but rather manifests as pathways that
actors can collectively promote or resist, potentially yielding unique solutions (O'Brien, 2012).
Community gardens, most simply defined as “open spaces which are managed and
operated by members of the local community in which food or flowers are cultivated”, have
rarely been studied as SESs (Guitart, Pickering, & Byrne, 2012, p. 364). When so, they are
typically seen as components of the larger urban SES, and playing roles such as increasing
resilience through the provision of ecosystem services or human and ecological health (Barthel,
4

Folke, & Colding, 2010; Cilliars, et al., 2017). In some instances, the social and ecological
benefits of community gardens are addressed within a social-ecological systems framework; for
example, King (2008) includes community gardens as one of several “alternative approaches to
food production,” which the paper reviews “in relation to key concepts from ecological systems
thinking” (King, 2008, p. 111). Most often, when researchers focus on human relationships
within the context of a community garden, they take on an organizational perspective,
particularly when addressing volunteer recruitment and retention (Barnes & Sharpe, 2009).
Typically, community gardens are seen as part of a larger organization that works within the
community, where volunteers act simply as an extension of a nonprofit or other organization
(Twiss, et al., 2003; Chalker-Scott & Collman, 2006; Lanier, Schumacher, & Calvert, 2015). Even
in some cases where community gardens are framed as “citizen-based”, there is no discussion
of the social (or other) implications of the garden being run by volunteer community members
as opposed to nonprofit or government organizations (Asah & Blahna, 2012; Asah, Lenentine, &
Blahna, 2014). This is not always the case; for example, the work of Ghose and Pettygrove
investigate issues of social transformation and agency through a case study of a citizen-based
garden, similar in structure to the ECG, located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin (Ghose & Pettygrove,
2014). Because of the material resources required to maintain a garden (i.e. land, water, seeds
and plants, gardening tools, fences, the money to buy these things, etc.) and because most, if
not all, of the workers in such a garden are unpaid volunteers, most gardens need at least
minimal organizational support that comes from a nonprofit, city program, private company, or
similar entity (Armstrong, 2000).
Even with organizational support and abundant resources, gardens still fail regularly,
and that is because one key aspect, the volunteers, is often neglected. Despite the noted lack of
research into effective management of volunteer resources, there is a robust body of literature
surrounding the current state of volunteer recruitment efforts (and to a lesser extent, volunteer
retention efforts) on the institutional level, particularly in community sports organizations
(Cuskelly, Taylor, Hoye, & Darcy, 2006; Mcbride & Lee, 2012). Because the ECG volunteer group
is primarily self-organizing and managed on a grassroots level (with only minor support from
the garden’s governing non-profit, TCAA), most of the volunteer retention practices that are
addressed in this body of literature do not apply to the social system within the ECG. Likewise,
much of the community development literature includes methods for building social capital and
community cohesion through a “top-down” approach (Cloutier & Pfeiffer, 2015; Connelly,
Markey, & Roseland, 2011). While both “top-down” and “bottom-up” mobilization are
important for community garden sustainabilty and transfromation, including volunteer
retention (Isidiho & Sabran, 2016), the current social dynamics of the ECG led me to believe
that focusing on a “bottom-up” approach would be most effective in this context.
The garden volunteers and their interpersonal relations and shared culture, i.e. the
“human factor”, represents one facet of a complex, social-ecological system that makes up the

5

ECG. The fact that the system is “complex” means that it is fluid and constantly changing, yet
simultaneously self-organized by the actions (both individual and collective) of the volunteers
who work in the garden (Holling, 2001). The ECG SES is not static but currently undergoing a
transformational change (as defined primarily by Manuel-Navarrete & Pelling (2015) and
O’Brien (2012)), one in which the volunteers are taking ownership of the garden and making
decisions as a cohesive unit, also known as “collective efficacy”, or collective agency (Teig, et
al., 2009). Despite the theme of transformation present across the history of community
gardening in the US (Pudup, 2008), scholars have argued that actions of “citizenship practice,”
such as participating in community gardens, are not inherently transformative or empowering
(Ghose & Pettygrove, 2014). Therefore, the goal of this research is to understand and support
the current transformational momentum in the ECG volunteer community by testing the
potential leveraging effects of a sustainability intervention, a t-lab, and its effect on the human
factor of the ECG SES.
Transformation of SES are characterized by diversity and uncertainty in the pathways
that change can take (Leach, Scoones, & Stirling, 2007; Fazey, et al., 2015). Some pathways are
desirable, leading to a sustainable and thriving garden community, but undesirable pathways
are always possible, including transformation back to the garden’s original state of vacant land.
There are, of course, many other potential pathways that the garden can and probably will take
during its lifetime, and it is important to realize that many pathways of change are
interconnected and happening simultaneously at different scales within a given system (Fazey,
et al., 2015). But for the current actors within the ECG system, there is a clear desire to take a
pathway that leads to a stronger, more cohesive state in the social-ecological system, as
evidenced by the time, effort, money, and other personal and professional resources dedicated
so far and the degree of collective efficacy shown by core volunteers (Scott, 2003). High levels
of volunteer engagement (e.g. spending time at the garden and with other volunteers, planning
and attending garden activities, and “taking action” in the garden) improve supportive social
connections and strengthen social norms, which leads to greater collective efficacy in
community gardens (Teig, et al., 2009). If the goal is to see community gardens thrive, we need
to look at community gardens as SESs that rely on not only having material resources and
organizational oversight, but a human component that relies on personal, voluntary
commitment to the success of the garden and to collective efficacy in the volunteer
community. Taking the lens of the SES allows us to look at all three facets of successful
community gardens under one framework, to explore their interactions and focus on
developing the necessary human and social capital without losing sight of the other important
aspects that make up the garden (Manuel-Navarrete & Pelling, 2015).

6

Benefits of Community Gardens in the US
Community gardens have been popular in the US since the 19th Century, fluctuating in
times of war and economic crisis, but never disappearing. Even today, according to the
American Community Gardening Association (ACGA), there are an estimated 18,000 community
gardens in the US and Canada (American Community Gardening Association, n.d.). The United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has a lot of information on urban farming and
farmer’s markets, but very little information on community garden prevalence, operations, and
success. A 2014 study by the National Gardening Association is one of the more accessible and
recent sources of community garden statistics available. According to this study, 35% of all US
households (which equates to about 42 million people) participated in food gardening in 2013,
whether in private gardens or community gardens, 21% of all food gardening households in
2013, about 9 million people, lived in urban areas, and millions of new people participate in
community gardens each year, following a continuous upward trend (The National Gardening
Association, 2014).
Research has described many benefits of participating in community gardens. For youth,
garden programs provide opportunities for “constructive activities, contributions to the
community, relationship and interpersonal skill development, informal social control, exploring
cognitive and behavioral competence, and improved nutrition” (Ober Allen, Alaimo, Elam, &
Perry , 2008, p. 419). Urban community gardens allow for, particularly among low-income
populations, increased consumption of fruits and vegetables, which leads to better nutrition in
both children and adults (Dibsdall, Lambert, Bobbin, & Frewer, 2002), as well as increased
physical and mental health from having access to outdoor green space (Van Den Berg &
Custers, 2011; Wakefield, Yeudall, Taron, Reynolds, & Skinner, 2007). They increase community
cohesion and the development of social capital (which can foster positive social processes like
mutual trust and reciprocity), which not only can have mental health benefits for low-income
communities but also can lead to other issues in the neighborhood being addressed due to
increased community organizing (Armstrong, 2000; Draper & Freedman, 2010; Glover, 2004;
Liamputtong & Sanchez, 2017; Teig, et al., 2009). Urban green spaces like gardens can be
particularly important for older, more industrial cities and those with large amounts of vacant
land, such as the Phoenix metropolitan area, because they beautify areas, increase property
values, build a sense of community among neighbors, abate criminal activity in or near vacant
lots, and prevent trash accumulation, illegal dumping, and littering (Schukoske, 2000). This is
not to mention the numerous ecological benefits of having urban gardens, such as more
equitable and consistent delivery of ecosystem services, increased biodiversity, improved
biogeochemical flows, healthier pollinator populations, reduced transportation-related
pollution and costs, and the role they can play in climate change mitigation (Knizhnik, 2012;
Okvat & Zautra, 2011).

7

Community Gardens in the Phoenix Valley, AZ
Figure 2. Map of Arizona showing Maricopa County and Phoenix Metropolitan Area. Red star
denotes location of the Escalante Community Garden within the city of Tempe.

Interest in community gardening has become more prevalent for the Phoenix
metropolitan area over the past two decades. Much of the farmland in Maricopa County has
been lost in recent years due to suburban and commercial development on the fringes of the
city (Musacchio, Crewe, Steiner, & Schmidt, 2003; Redman & Kinzig, 2008). The Phoenix metro
region is particularly known for its high rates of vacant land; 43 percent of land in Phoenix was
reported as vacant in 2000, with more recent reports putting the percentage even higher
(Pagano & Bowman, 2000; Reagor, 2016). Chronic issues with land vacancy and the recognition
of food deserts has led to dozens of urban gardening projects throughout the Valley, often
spearheaded by nonprofit organizations, like Tiger Mountain Foundation and the International
Rescue Committee, and cities, such as the PHX Renews in Phoenix and the City of Mesa
Community Garden Initiative.
Despite obvious interest in these gardens by various organizations, cities, and residents,
actual community member involvement in the gardens continues to be sporadic and low overall
(Bleasdale T. , 2015, p. 175). Gardens in the Phoenix metro area often experience a high
turnover of both community gardeners and leaders/organizers, which can lead to garden failure
and abandonment (Bleasdale, Crouch, & Harlan, 2011). According to researchers who’ve
studied urban gardens in Phoenix, the main reason why community gardens have not
succeeded in the past is that organizers have failed to align their programs and the mission of
the gardens with the needs and desires of the community (Bleasdale, Crouch, & Harlan, 2011).
8

Another reason community gardens fail is due to a sort of tragedy-of-the-commons mentality
or lack of a commons culture where unclear rules cause that the garden gets harvested by
many people, while the difficult tasks and responsibilities fall to a precious few dedicated, over
time often resentful, community members (Charles, 2012).
Regardless of the perceived burdens of gardening and very low community involvement
rates in most current community gardens in the Valley, there are indications that residents
want community gardens in their neighborhoods (Bleasdale, Crouch, & Harlan, 2011). Not only
do residents value community and other local gardens for the perceived superior quality of the
produce, but also for the “therapy” and personal growth, community building, connection to
morally “good” principles such as hard work and manual labor, intergenerational cultural
transmission, and education (Bleasdale T., 2015). Residents in Tempe have identified
community gardens as important to meeting the sustainability goals of the city (City of Tempe,
Arizona, 2016). There are about fifty-six active community gardens registered in Maricopa
County, with about twenty-five registered gardens classified as either inactive or “status
unknown” (City of Phoenix, 2016). Some community gardens may not want their information
publicized, and so may or may not chose to be listed on a registry.
I examined several potential case studies of community gardens in the Phoenix
metropolitan area for this research. I ultimately chose Escalante Community garden because it
was clear to me after several site visits that the garden had an active volunteer community,
organizational support from TCAA, and abundant material resources, but that the volunteer
community was interested in growing their numbers and collective efficacy to support long
term success of the garden. ECG is unique in that it doesn’t have a paid staff member from
TCAA that works in the garden, while at the same time adhering to a completely communal
garden model (both features that set it apart from other community gardens in the area). The
garden was also conveniently located close to my home, and the volunteer community was
open and enthusiastic toward my involvement as a researcher.

Methods & Research Design
Figure 3. Research phases interactions and knowledge flows

9

Research methods ultimately included five phases: (1) building rapport with the garden
community through participant observation, (2) surveying volunteers, (3) conducting interviews
to triangulate survey results, (4) conducting the t-lab, and (5) administering a post t-lab survey
(Figure 3). The first phase started in 2016, and lasted 18 months. I became a community garden
volunteer and member of the Escalante Community Garden Council (“the council”), during
which time I was gradually given more garden maintenance responsibilities. Data collection
included journaling, self-reflection, and informal, unstructured “interviews” with volunteers
(Ortlipp, 2008; Kawulich, 2005; Dearnley, 2005). I selected these methods to identify patterns
among volunteers at the garden, and to document my own journey as a ECG volunteer. I coded
all written notes and journal entries from this phase using methods from The Coding Manual
for Qualitative Researchers to inform future phases (Saldaña, 2015). Codes were translated into
eight categories that influenced the survey questions on values in phase II, and include: (1)
Connection to other people/community, (2) Connection to nature, (3) Teaching/learning/new
knowledge/new ways of knowing, (4) Food, (5) Spirituality, (6) Personal feelings/obligation to
self, (7) Administrative responsibility/obligation to others, and (8) Physical Health.
In phase 2, I conducted a survey of community garden volunteers, with a goal of
answering three specific questions: (1) Are there “core” and a “peripheral” volunteer groups?;
(2) Are the people in the periphery valuing the garden in the same ways as the core?; and (3) If
the periphery volunteers do value the garden, what is keeping them from being more
10

committed? Data and contact information about volunteers was obtained from the TCAA
volunteer database (Shipka, personal communication, 2017). I developed the survey based on
phase 1 observations and previous studies on community gardens (Draper & Freedman, 2010;
Scheromm, 2015). The survey aimed for volunteers to identify: (1) whether they belonged in
the core or periphery volunteer group with respect to their level of commitment to the physical
garden space and the social garden community, (2) values and motivations associated with
participating at ECG, and (3) challenges to being more committed to the garden. I administered
the 17-question survey over the course of one month through two means: (1) Qualtrics, an
online survey tool available to ASU students, and (2) printed copies that I left in the garden.
Because copies of the survey were left unattended in the garden for one month, I am not sure
how many people encountered the survey, so I don’t have accurate distribution numbers.
The literature is not very specific regarding how to measure community garden
participation levels (Booth, Chapman, Ohmer, & Wei, 2017); it varies from study to study. For
my case study, I defined volunteer commitment as both the amount of time volunteers spent
working in the garden, and number of responsibilities volunteers have at the garden as selfidentified by each volunteer. These criteria were chosen based on observations I made during
phase 1 of the differentiating factors between core and peripheral volunteers in ECG. Based on
my observations, I established that volunteering less than once per week in any capacity
denotes peripheral volunteer status at the ECG. I hypothesized that volunteers who were at the
garden more often (i.e. core volunteers) would have more responsibilities on average than
peripheral volunteers. Higher levels of participation in general in individual community
gardeners are associated with higher levels of well-being and community empowerment, with
regular garden participants experiencing a greater sense of community and organizational
empowerment (Booth, Chapman, Ohmer, & Wei, 2017). Therefore, it is important to encourage
an increase in commitment of ECG gardeners who self-identify as peripheral volunteers to build
social capital within the garden community.
I also differentiated between values that reflected how participants “feel” when at the
garden (“associated values”) and benefits that participants enjoy or appreciate through their
volunteerism at the garden (“positive aspects/benefits”) (Table 1). These two values categories
reflect different ways of conceptualizing volunteer motivations for gardening as observed
during phase 1 conversations with ECG volunteers. Values chosen for inclusion in the survey
were also influenced by studies done on community gardener motivations (Clayton, 2007;
Draper & Freedman, 2010; Scheromm, 2015). Despite significant overlap, I included both values
categories in the survey with the goal of increasing the likelihood that values from one category
or the other might resonate more with some participants based on wording (wording on
surveys can have major effects on participant response, as evidenced in Rasinski (1989)). I
measured associated values through a Likert scale (Boone Jr. & Boone, 2012). Studies show that
the inclusion of a neutral option in opinion questions significantly increases the number of

11

people falsely stating that they have no opinion, so I did not include a “no opinion” option in
any of the survey’s opinion questions (Bishop, 1987; Johns, 2005; Kalton, Roberts, & Holt, 1980;
Krosnick et al., 2002; Nowlis, Kahn, & Dhar, 2002). I measured positive aspects/benefits through
a simple list selection.
Table 1. Two different ways of conceptualizing values of the community garden volunteers.

Associated values
Happy and/or content
Connected with nature
Like I’m part of a community
Like a better citizen
More autonomous
More sustainable
More spiritually connected
Closer to my home, family, or
ancestors
Like my life has meaning or
purpose
Hopeful

Positive aspects/benefits
Spending time outside/ in a natural setting.
Spending time in the garden is a calming or spiritual
experience.
The act of gardening / doing physical labor.
Getting free produce.
Spending time with other volunteers.
Making friends / getting to know my neighbors.
Feeling like I’m part of a community of like-minded people.
Teaching others.
Facilitating connections between other volunteers and
community members.
Getting to put my knowledge and/or skills to use.
Feeling useful, needed, and/or important.
I get a feeling of personal accomplishment when I work in
the garden.
Feeling healthy.
Spending my time in a productive way.
Learning about gardening.
Other

Challenges to volunteering are universal across most sectors of the volunteer industry,
including nonprofits and community gardens. An important aspect to volunteer recruitment
and retention includes knowing the “Who (characteristics of volunteers)”, “What (definition)”,
“Where (context)”, and “Why (motivation)” (or, in this case, “why not”) of their volunteer
population (Bussell & Forbes, 2002). The challenges that informed the survey administered in
ECG were identified from both the literature and information gathered in the participant
observation phase (Table 2).
Table 2. Challenges to spending more time in the garden as presented in the survey.

Challenges to participating in the garden
I don’t have enough time
I don’t know enough people there.
12

My family and/or friends don’t go there.
The garden is not high on my priority list.
I would rather be doing something else.
Work or school.
I don’t know what I’m doing when I’m at the garden.
I don’t feel welcome there.
The garden doesn’t grow the food that I like.
I don’t feel like I understand the other volunteers.
Other
I conducted seven semi-structured, qualitative interviews with survey participants for
phase 3. The goal was to uncover reasons why some people in the volunteer community were
more active and built more social relationships in the garden than others. Four of the
interviewees were peripheral volunteers; three were core volunteers. Phases 1 and 2 results
informed interview questions, as did a community garden case study that also used qualitative
interviews (Liamputtong & Sanchez, 2017). I modified the eight original codes from phase 1 to
reflect the four different ways people interact with, and in, community garden spaces:
intellectually, emotionally, physically, and spiritually (Kingsley, Townsend, & Henderson-Wilson,
Cultivating health and wellbeing: members' perceptions of the health benefits of a Port
Melbourne community garden, 2009). I created additional codes for time/convenience/money
(labeled as “other”) and interviewee-identified personal challenges. I also noted when
interviewees spoke negatively about the garden (based on language and tone). Guiding
interview questions can be seen in Table 3.
Table 3. Questions used to guide semi-structured interviews in phase 3.

General
questions
(all
participants)

Core
volunteer
specific
questions

•
•
•
•
•
•

How did you start getting involved in the garden?
How has your involvement changed over time?
What does your participation in the garden mean for you?
What is your main motivation to participate in the garden?
What initially drew you in and made you want to be a part of the garden?
In a perfect world, what would volunteering at the garden look like for you
and how could that be accomplished?
• What do you think are the biggest challenges that prevent people from
volunteering more at the garden?
• What are some examples of activities in the garden you have participated in
that have especially moved you or made you want to deepen your
participation in the garden?

13

Peripheral
volunteer
specific
questions

•
•

If your challenges to volunteering were removed, would this mean you would
volunteer more at the garden? What are some ways those challenges could
be removed?
Is there anything that you or anyone else could do that might help you feel
more connected to the garden and/or other volunteers?

Phase 4 consisted of designing, organizing, and implementing a four-hour T-lab in the
Escalante Community Center in the evening of February 6, 2018. The hypothesis of the T-lab
was that it would facilitate movement from the periphery volunteer group to the core
volunteer group (ultimately increasing the number of core volunteers) by strengthening the
bonds between peripheral and core group members through arts-based activities focused on
place-based values. I based the t-lab design partially on examples from the STEPS Centre, which
identifies “three core principles” that “are essential to a t-lab: the challenge being addressed by
the group must be complex and preferably social-ecological in nature, the convened group
should be diverse (how diverse is a still up for debate), and there should be an action-oriented
outcome to the process that leaves participants energised to drive change” (STEPS Centre,
2016). Participants were invited to attend through word-of-mouth and email correspondence.
To encourage attendance, I provided free food and childcare to all participants during the
duration of the t-lab. I developed and conducted t-lab activities based on results from phases 2
and 3, as well as volunteer feedback. The workshop was broken up into four one-hour activities.
Activities were structured around the four interaction types: physical, intellectual, spiritual,
emotional, and content was based on volunteer interest (gathered during phase 3) and
feasibility. Participants were encouraged to attend one or more activities based on their
interest level and time allowance. Activities included building a bench (physical), making a fall
planting calendar (intellectual), mindful seed planting and vegetable eating (spiritual), and a
group improvisational performance (emotional) (Table 4). These types of arts-based community
building exercises are commonly used in sustainability settings (Heras & Tabara, 2014;
Richardson, 2016; Dieleman, 2008). They build trust, organizational capacity, and social capital
among participants, spur participants to further collective action, and increase sense of
community (Skippington & Davis, 2016). Each activity consisted of five minutes of activity and
participant introductions, forty minutes of doing the activity, and ended with fifteen minutes of
a facilitated talking circle (Winters, n.d.). After the talking circle, participants were also provided
with one or two “Keep it going!” assignments, designed to give participants ideas on how to
stay in engaged with the garden following the activities. Another researcher and I observed tlab activities, taking notes on general participation, willingness to engage, and observable
changes in participants throughout the process. I coded t-Lab results in accordance with the
modified qualitative codes established in phase 3.
Table 4. Summary of t-lab activities.
14

Activity
order
1

Name of activity
Bench building

Interaction
type
Physical

Description of activity

Materials used

Volunteers were expected to read and
interpret printed instructions as a
team to assemble, secure, and stain a
bench intended for outdoor use. Preplanning included picking the bench
design, buying materials, and precutting the wood.

•
•
•
•
•
•

2

Making a fall
planting
calendar

Intellectual

Volunteers had to pick 1 or 2 plants of
their choice (from a predetermined
list of potential fall garden crops),
research the growth preferences of
their chosen plant, and choose a
location in the garden for planting.
They were encouraged to think about
the activity from the plant’s point of
view.

•
•
•
•

•
•

3

4

Mindful seed
planting/mindful
eating

Group improv
performance

Spiritual

Emotional

Volunteers were led in a series of
mindfulness exercises, including
planting a seed in a pot of dirt,
watching a video of the plant growing
from seed to fruit, and eating the fruit,
with a mind toward embracing the
energy and emotions of all the living
organisms that the plant may
encounter during its lifetime from
garden to digestion.

•

Clearing an open space in the middle
of the room, volunteers were told to
choose one of two roles to play:
gardener/human or a “character” in
the garden (sun, soil, tool, plant, etc.).
The gardener would enter the garden
and present a problem or a challenge.
Then the garden characters would
give wisdom or support to the
gardener from the point of view of
their character. Volunteers were
asked to see things through their
characters’ eyes without passing
judgement, offering advice, or
answering from their own perspective.

•

•
•
•
•

Wood (pre-cut to specified
demensions)
Screws
Power drills
Instructions with written and
visual directions
Measuring tape and carpentry
pencil
Water sealer/outdoor wood
stain, brushes, & tarp
Protective masks and glasses
Reference books on planting in
the desert
Printed materials from the
Maricopa County Master
Gardeners extension service
Computers and cell phones with
access to the internet for
research purposes
Large laminated map of the
garden with markers
Several smaller maps of the
garden with writing utensils
5-minute video showing the
entire lifecycle of a pepper plant
from germination to fruit
ripening
Script on being mindful during
the planting and eating activities
Dirt, small flower pots, and
pepper seeds
Whole pepper (for observation)
Chopped pepper with seeds and
stem removed (for eating)
No materials required besides
participants themselves

“Keep it going!”
assignment
Come back on the
following volunteer work
day to finish the bench
project.
Brainstorm bench
placement in the garden.

Come back the following
week to participate in
finalizing the fall planting
calendar.
Think about any plants you
might like to see in the
garden that weren’t
included on the list
provided for the activity.

Take your pepper plant
home, try to grow it and
be mindful of the
experience of growing the
plant in the same way we
were in the activity.
If people so desire, once
the seeds sprout and grow
a few inches they can
bring their seedlings to the
garden to plant them.
Connect with the people
in your improv group at
least once over the next
month, whether that be at
the next garden work day,
in the garden other than
the work day, or outside of
the garden completely.

Phase 5 consisted of re-administering the survey one month after the conclusion of the
t-lab, with the goal to measure any changes in participants’ commitment to the garden, as well
as their values. I included additional questions in this survey to allow participants to provide
feedback on the t-lab experience and associated activities. I administered the survey via
Qualtrics to all t-lab participants and garden volunteers. I also distributed printed copies of the
survey to volunteers present at the garden on one volunteer day, and left surveys at the garden

15

to be collected a week later. I obtained an updated list of volunteer contact information from
the TCAA and ECG volunteer databases (McKenzie, personal communication, 2018).
All survey, interview, and t-lab participants read participation information statements
and signed consent forms during each phase of the research. All activities, written materials,
and consent documents were approved the ASU Institutional Review Board (IRB) human
subjects assessment.

Results & Discussion
T-labs are similar to an experiment, but much less controlled and not exclusively
designed for data collection, confirmation of hypotheses, or generation of knowledge
propositions. T-labs are necessarily adaptive and co-produced, relying heavily on the reciprocal
relationship between participants (e.g., garden volunteers) and researchers. The results
presented and discussed in this section rely on qualitative and quantitative data from
observation, surveys and interviews collected to document personal and collective changes that
occurred in the volunteer population throughout the 5-phase process, particularly those that
can be reasonably attributed to the t-lab. Results are presented as they address each of the
research questions.

Identifying and Understanding the “Core” and “Periphery”
During phase 1, I noticed a distinction between the council members and “other”
volunteers, based on several observations: (1) that council members were taking on more
responsibilities and spent more time in the garden, indicating a higher level of personal
commitment to the garden than the other volunteers, and (2), that the council members
communicated effectively and worked as a team (“the council”) to achieve goals (such as
completing garden projects, ordering supplies, and applying for grants), while other volunteers
may have been active participants but shifted in and out of, or never took on, leadership roles
in the garden. I came to call these two groups “core” and “peripheral” volunteers, respectively,
and this became the basis for my study and informed my research questions.
Phase 2 survey received 56 total responses: 47 online and 9 paper. After accounting for
unusable responses, 46 total responses were left for analysis. Demographic information was
also gathered during the survey. Survey results indicated that the instruments was useful to
distinguish between core and peripheral groups in the garden volunteer community based on
level of commitment to the garden. 34 respondents (73.91%) identified as peripheral
volunteers based on time spent in the garden; those respondents also indicated that they held
a total of 54 garden responsibilities, an average of 1.6 responsibilities per volunteer. The 12
respondents (26.09%) who identified as core volunteers indicated that they held a total of 62
garden responsibilities, an average of 5.2 responsibilities per volunteer. This data suggests that
people who spend more time at the garden also take on more responsibilities, supporting the

16

hypothesis that there are core and peripheral volunteer groups present in the garden volunteer
community. 14 peripheral respondents indicated that they wanted to volunteer at the garden
more often than they already were, with 9 peripheral respondents indicating they would like to
volunteer as frequently as core volunteers. No core volunteers indicated that they wanted to
volunteer less frequently than they already were. The difference in level of responsibility
between the two groups was also not due to lack of interest on the part of peripheral
volunteers, with a total of 102 responses representing responsibilities they were willing to take
on in the garden in the future, an average of 3 responsibilities per volunteer, almost double the
amount they currently had. Core volunteers answered with 59 (avg. 4.9 per volunteer) total
responsibilities they were willing to take on in the future.
During phase 3 qualitative interviews, I asked interviewees to reflect on why they are
involved in the garden, how their involvement has changed over time, and what we could do to
help them or others feel more committed to the garden. Core volunteers were more frequently
talked about emotional, intellectual, and spiritual connections to the garden, while peripheral
volunteers more frequently talked about time, money, and convenience as related to their
volunteerism, as well as personal challenges that kept them from participating more often.
Both groups were equally as likely to talk about the physical space or physical aspects of the
garden (such as performing manual labor, the barrier represented by the fence, harvesting or
eating the produce, etc.). Core volunteers were more likely to speak negatively about the
garden, whether that be the physical space, volunteer community, or the volunteers’
relationship with TCAA.

The Transformation Lab as a Catalyst for Social Movement
The research process of a t-lab resembles the action research cycle of planning,
implementing, observing, and reflecting using small, practicable, inclusive, and reiterative steps
(University of Warwick Learning and Development Centre (LDC), 2012). Therefore, analysis of
the t-lab included reflecting on planning and implementation of the activities, using
observations from the t-lab to code patterns in the types of language participants used and how
they interacted during each activity.
During the planning phase of the t-lab, I worked closely with volunteers (both core and
peripheral) to plan activities and purchase supplies. Volunteers were supportive of the
workshop from the beginning, offering their services to help me prepare for the activities. I
made it clear to volunteers from the beginning of the planning process that the goal was
building a sustained and successful volunteer community. A total of 12 garden volunteers (5
core and 7 peripheral) attended the t-lab. I analyzed the effectiveness of each of the four
activities using observational data collected during the t-lab and phase 5 survey responses.
Before beginning the T-lab, I asked the student researcher who was observing to look for
different types of verbal and nonverbal cues (also called “immediacy behaviors”) that showed

17

evidence of strong interpersonal ties between participants (Rovai, 2000; Swan & Shea, 2005).
Examples of verbal cues include giving praise, soliciting viewpoints, humor, and self-disclosure,
while examples of nonverbal cues include physical proximity, touch, eye-contact, facial
expressions, and gestures (Swan & Shea, 2005). I believe all four of the activities were
successful in engaging volunteers; participants were outspoken throughout the t-lab—and in
post-t-lab survey feedback questions—about the positive aspects of the activities, commenting
several times specifically on the bonds the activities created among them. Volunteers appeared
to grow closer to each other as the t-lab progressed; participants that stayed for multiple (three
or more) activities appeared to be much closer to the other volunteers than those who only
took part in one activity.
Volunteer connection was observed through expression of many immediacy behaviors,
including sharing knowledge and learning, active listening, sharing personal stories, verbal
expressions of appreciation, giving praise, smiling, laughing, touching hands during activities
that required tool sharing, and hugging. Volunteers who took part in the final activity seemed
the most intimately connected as compared to participants in other activities. I believe this was
due in part to the specifics of the final activity, the group improvisational performance. Because
participants were playing characters, and specifically encouraged to access their emotional
connections to the garden and to each other, they could experiment with different types of
behavior and take themselves less seriously than participants in the first two activities, which
focused on achieving a goal. This resulted in increased vulnerability and many more examples
of emotional expression (including several expressions of “love” among participants) than the
previous activities. If the t-lab had started with this activity, instead of leaving it for last,
perhaps examples of this emotional connection would have persisted throughout the other
activities as well.
There were no incidents or specific points during the t-lab in which participants were
observed growing apart or expressing negativity towards each other or the activities. Two
times, once during the mindfulness activity and once during the group improvisation activity, a
participant set themselves apart from the others or refused to participate in some aspect.
Observations from these activities showed that in both these instances, the volunteers
continued to be engaged in what other participants were doing, while respectfully setting
boundaries for their own comfort. As facilitator, I encouraged participants who withdrew from
activities to consider joining us, but didn’t push the matter if they refused.
The most difficult activity to coordinate was the bench building activity, simply because I
have no prior experience with carpentry, and it required much more work leading up to the tlab than expected. It was also the first activity of the t-lab, so it took a while to settle into my
concurrent roles of facilitator—keeping the activity running smoothly and encouraging dialogue
between volunteers—and of participant. This activity was also the most technically difficult,
which meant greater frustration amongst participants who were forced to work together to

18

interpret the bench building instructions, earning it the most criticism from participants in the
post-t-lab survey. It was generally considered by respondents to have gotten off to a slow start,
compounded by the frustration of having “confusing” instructions and working in a group
setting where most participants did not have experience with building. I was not expecting the
level of disappointment that participants felt in not completing the project during the allotted
time, but I was able to invite them back to complete the project on the following volunteer
work day. The bench was eventually completed with the help of garden volunteers.
The mindfulness activity had the most participants, but it also lasted the least amount of
time of all the activities, ending well before the intended time. It also had a rough start as we
experienced technical difficulties and some of the participants had brought children who were
loud and distracting during the first few minutes of the activity. Unfortunately, the parents left
the activity early, as they were unable to calm their children down. Because there were many
participants, and a good mix of peripheral and core volunteers, we filled the extra time at the
end of the activity with a robust talking circle and allowed time for participants to eat dinner
and chat amongst themselves; many introductions were made between volunteers who had
not previously met. The only point of criticism this activity received during the post-t-lab survey
was that it didn’t leave participants with tools to practice mindfulness on their own. The
planting calendar activity was criticized as being “chaotic”, which I believe was beneficial as it
forced participants to figure out how to effectively communicate with each other to create
something useful for the garden. The completion of the activity brought the volunteers closer in
that it “allowed everyone to be on the same page” and it created a “needed tool”. Lastly, the
group improvisational activity received no negative feedback.
Several points of criticism that the t-lab activities received could actually have been
strengths when it came to building connections between participants. The bench building
activity received the most negative feedback of the four activities, but it also provided some of
the most meaningful experiences for participants. It brought volunteers to work together in
ways that were described as “useful”, “empowering”, “a reminder of accomplishment”, and
fostered a “great sense of community”. It also had the most visible lasting impacts for the
volunteers, as it attracted many volunteers who had not participated in the t-lab to help
complete the project during subsequent garden work days, and it was the only activity that was
explicitly mentioned to have been talked about among volunteers after the completion of the tlab.
There were 20 total responses to the post-t-lab survey (phase 5): 20 online responses and
no paper responses. After accounting for unusable responses, 14 total responses were left for
analysis. Of the ten (71.43%) respondents that identified as peripheral volunteers, four
remained in the periphery from the pre-t-lab survey, one switched from core to periphery, and
five are unknown. The one volunteer that moved from core to periphery was previously a very
strong core volunteer but had to leave the country for work frequently over the past few

19

months of the study, prompting him to answer as a periphery volunteer in the post-t-lab
survey. Outliers like this, which in the short term can skew data, could be accounted for with a
longer-term study. Of the four (28.57%) respondents that identified as core volunteers, all
previously identified as core volunteers. These findings show no shift from the peripheral
volunteer group to the core volunteer group after the conclusion of the t-lab. The findings could
be skewed by a lack of time between the conclusion of the t-lab and the administration of the
post-survey. One month is most likely not enough time to witness a long-term social change,
especially when the shift from periphery to core relies heavily on volunteers being able to make
time in their schedules to increase volunteer time and the number of responsibilities held at the
garden. There may not have been enough time to allow for participants to show
reprioritization. There were also only two volunteer work days that took place in the interim
between the t-lab and the post-survey. While three t-lab participants did say that they shared
their experiences in the t-lab with other volunteers after the conclusion of the t-lab, more time
may have presented the opportunity for participants to share their experiences and encourage
other volunteers—or even people who had never volunteered at the garden before—to engage
in new or different ways with the garden and/or the volunteer community. Without further
study, the effects of more time on the potential long term impacts of the t-lab in building social
capital and facilitating social movement are impossible to determine.
Regardless of the evidence of higher levels of social capital in the ECG volunteer
community post-t-lab, there wasn’t any evidence that supported the hypothesis that changed
values or increased social capital would facilitate movement from periphery to core. This could
be explained by the failure of the labels “core” and “periphery” to accurately describe the
volunteer community in the ECG volunteer community. While I believed they would be useful
constructs for the purposes of this research, these static labels fail to capture the dynamism of
the garden volunteer community, or of the human factor in any SES. In future research, it may
be useful to define labels that more accurately reflect the range of volunteer commitment and
diversity of social roles played in the garden SES.
There are also other reasons besides values that volunteers may not experience
periphery to core movement. While peripheral volunteers did identify challenges around not
feeling a strong sense of community (“I don’t know enough people there” & “My family and/or
friends don’t go there”) and a lack of knowledge (“I don’t know what I’m doing when I’m at the
garden”), the major challenges (with four to five times the response rate of other challenges)
centered around time and convenience (“I don’t have enough time”, “Work or school”, “The
garden is not high on my priority list”, and write-in answers regarding distance from home,
traveling on weekends, and having small children). Lack of time and inconvenience were cited
as the most difficult challenges for both core and peripheral volunteers.
Age and sociocultural profile of the community gardener can affect volunteer
commitment as well (Scheromm, 2015). Information collected during the survey showed

20

interesting demographic differences between core and peripheral volunteers (see Table 5 for a
summary). Based on these findings, peripheral volunteers were mainly young, white women
who live further from the garden than most core volunteers. No trends were visible in their
income levels or the number of hours they worked per week. The core volunteer group was
much more diverse, with a mix of ages, genders, and ethnicities, who mostly live close or very
close to the garden. Core volunteers are mostly lower income people who work full time
outside of the garden. These results might be explained by two things: one, that many of the
volunteers who come for volunteer days once per month are from Arizona State University,
which shows student demographics as being mostly white and about half women (women are
also more likely than men to volunteer) (United States Department of Labor, 2016; Arizona
State University, 2017); and two, that the neighborhood directly surrounding the ECG is very
demographically diverse (United States Census Bureau, 2013), so if most core volunteers live
near the garden, it follows that they would be representative of the community. Another factor
that could affect volunteer availability but was not addressed in this study was the presence of
children and/or a spouse. Because core volunteers work more hours per week on average than
peripheral volunteers, and because both groups identified lack of time and inconvenience as
the major limiting factors for spending more time at the garden, I believe that despite
peripheral volunteer perceptions that these challenges keep them from being able to volunteer
as much as core volunteers, this is probably false.
Table 5. Summary of demographic profile of ECG volunteers.

General

Age

Gender

Race/Ethnicity

Distance
traveled
to garden

Even
distribution

60% more
women than
men or other

Mostly white

65% live
near the
garden

Even
distribution

Mostly white &
Latinx with a
more even
distribution of
other ethnicities

80% live
near the
garden

Mostly fulltime
(40+
hours/week)

Mostly lower
income

Mostly white

50% live
near the
garden

Even
distribution

Even
distribution

Core

Mostly 36 or
older

Even
distribution

Periphery

Mostly 35 or
younger

50% more
women than
men or other

Hours worked
per week

Annual
Household
Income
Visible trend
from lower
income to
higher income

Value Trends Among Core and Peripheral Volunteers
Pre-t-lab survey responses (phase 2) around values indicated that, overall, core and
periphery volunteers held similar values when it came to the garden. Statistical analysis of
differences in values between the two groups was run through a "N-1" chi-squared test

21

(MedCalc Software, Ostend, Belgium) as recommended by Campbell (2007) and Richardson
(2011), and a similar test was used in another community garden study (Booth, Chapman,
Ohmer, & Wei, 2017). Using the statistical analysis, only the value of “spending time in the
garden is a calming or spiritual experience” was significantly different between the two groups,
with a P value of 0.0496. Other differences—determined by at least a 10 percent difference or
higher between response rates of the two groups—were still useful in comparing values
between core and peripheral volunteers for the purposes of developing the t-lab. Notable
trends in the associated values included core volunteers feeling “hopeful” and like they are
“part of a community” more often than peripheral volunteers (Figure 5 and Figure 6). In valuing
the positive aspects/benefits of the garden, core volunteers valued spirituality, “spending time
with other volunteers”, “teaching others”, and “facilitating connections between other
volunteers and community members” more, while periphery volunteers valued “feeling
healthy” and productivity more (Figure 7).
Figure 5. Percentage of core volunteer survey respondents with associated values.

Figure 6. Percentage of peripheral volunteer survey respondents with associated values.

22

Figure 7. Percentages of each group who value “positive aspects/benefits” of the garden.

23

The Transformation Lab as a Catalyst for Value Change
With such a small sample size in the post-t-lab survey, and with only about half of the
survey respondents having attended the t-lab, it is hard to say if there was any definitive
change in the way volunteers valued the garden after participating in the t-lab. All findings
regarding values identified in the post-t-lab survey should be viewed as anecdotal, reflecting
the feelings of only a small percentage of the overall volunteer population. Nevertheless, the
survey revealed some interesting trends. In associated values, core volunteers answered more
positively overall than they did on the pre-t-lab survey, with increases in the percentage of
respondents who said they felt “like a better citizen”, “more autonomous”, “more spiritually
connected”, “closer to my home, family, or ancestors”, and “like my life has purpose or
meaning”. Peripheral volunteers, in comparison to their pre-t-lab survey answers, continued to
feel “happy/content”, “connected with nature”, “like a better citizen”, and “more sustainable”,
but decreased in the amount that they felt “more autonomous”, “more spiritually connected”,
and “like my life has purpose or meaning”.
In valuing positive aspects/benefits of the garden, there were also noticeable
differences in both groups from the pre-t-lab survey. Core volunteers continued to value
spirituality, “spending time with other volunteers”, and “facilitating connections between
volunteers” more than peripheral volunteers, with the addition of values such as “making
friends/getting to know my neighbors” and “feeling like I’m part of a community of like-minded
people”. In comparison with their pre-t-lab survey responses, core volunteers increased in the
amount they valued “feeling healthy” and “spending my time in a productive way” by almost 50
percent, but saw a decrease in the amount they valued “teaching others”. Peripheral
volunteers, on the other hand, saw much different shifts as compared to their pre-t-lab survey
responses, with an overall decrease in the amount they valued “spending time outside” and
“feeling like I’m part of a community of like-minded people”, but an increase in the amount
they valued “teaching others”.
The most encouraging thing to note from this data is the overall increase in positive
emotions and values that core volunteers felt toward the garden after the t-lab. The only
negative shift in values from the core volunteers was in the value of “teaching others”
(accompanied by the increase in peripheral volunteers valuing “teaching others”) which could
be a sign that the peripheral and core volunteers are beginning to see each other on more
equal terms, and less in a teacher/student or leader/follower relationship. Many volunteers,
both core and peripheral, pointed out they felt this dynamic during pre-t-lab interviews, so
seeing a shift toward more reciprocity and collaboration between volunteers is extremely
encouraging.
Another interesting finding is that before the t-lab, peripheral volunteers valued health
and productivity more than core volunteers, but after the t-lab, these values became equally as

24

important to both volunteer groups. I think this illustrates an important aspect of social
transformation and intervention research: that building social capital and all its elements (trust,
reciprocity, etc.) requires the active participation of and affects everyone involved. Even though
the “goal” of the t-lab was to facilitate movement of ECG volunteers from the periphery to the
core, the more important outcome turned out to be knowledge sharing and value sharing
across the two groups. When I had been planning the t-lab, if I had not included activities that
addressed values important to the peripheral group as well as the core, or vice versa, there
would not have been as active engagement from both groups, and therefore not as much
emotional vulnerability and openness to change.

Conclusions & Directions for Future Research
Despite the lack of illustrative data from the post-t-lab survey showing social movement
from periphery to core in the ECG volunteer community, there is much evidence that supports
the conclusion that the transformation lab was successful in fostering self-reflection and
collective agency among garden volunteers, developing and strengthening the garden’s human
factor. From before to after the t-lab, volunteers from both groups began to view core and
peripheral volunteers on more equal terms in the garden social community, erasing the
constructs of “leader” and “follower” that had previously defined and divided them. Volunteers
who participated in the t-lab reacted overwhelmingly positively in feedback about the overall
experience and individual activities, and survey results demonstrated an increase in overall
positivity towards the garden community (specifically from core volunteers). Both the presence
of verbal and nonverbal cues recorded during the duration of the t-lab indicated that
volunteers felt more closely bonded and emotionally invested in the volunteer community after
participating in the t-lab. Results also indicated that volunteers were more willing to work
together to problem-solve and achieve common goals. Criticism of the t-lab revealed what was
important to volunteers (e.g. the knowledge and use of applicable skills) and revealed volunteer
needs (e.g. structure and clearly-defined expectations), which can now be used to improve the
overall volunteer experience in future garden projects.
Another important finding was the relationship between volunteer commitment to the
garden and the types of volunteer engagement. Peripheral volunteers overall were more
interested in engaging in the garden in ways that they felt wouldn’t interfere with other
priorities, such as school and work, while core volunteers were much more interested in forms
of engagement that facilitated emotional and spiritual connections to the garden. Lack of time,
while an important perceived barrier among peripheral volunteers, was shown to be a nonreason for lower commitment levels. This finding, along with the evidence that peripheral
volunteers actually want to be more committed in the garden (both in time and level of
responsibility), justifies the need for more opportunities for volunteer engagement consistent
with the t-lab activities, as well as the tools and knowledge to get peripheral volunteers

25

engaged in these ways. The t-lab activities were successful in involving participants in the
physical, intellectual, emotional, and spiritual aspects of the garden, but were not successful in
the ways needed to facilitate movement from periphery to core. This failure could be due to
the isolated nature of the intervention—a series of t-labs over a longer period of time may have
been more successful—or the structural and demographic barriers that peripheral volunteers
face. In this case, it appears a single t-lab intervention could not provide enough of a push to
overcome even minor barriers by those peripheral volunteers who were willing and able.
While I asked participants about the challenges they faced that kept them from being
more committed to the garden, no part of the t-lab design focused on addressing or
overcoming practical challenges to volunteering. A potential area of future research could be
altering the t-lab design to include open discussion on the challenges faced by all volunteers,
showing that peripheral volunteers are not alone in their experiences of major challenges. T-lab
activities could focus on ways to overcome said challenges, exposing new and creative ways to
participate in the garden community and cultivate personal commitment. Rather than focusing
solely on building social capital through shared values, overcoming challenges collectively could
be a very effective way to build social capital among volunteers, initiating social movement
from periphery to core.
The most important lesson I learned was that the design and implementation of a t-lab
must be done within the context of a specific community, and must involve the community as
much as possible if you want it to be even remotely successful. I was fortunate in that I had the
time and opportunity to embed myself in the ECG volunteer community and form many
sustained and successful relationships with the volunteers. These relationships and my very
involvement with the community as a researcher and volunteer sparked changes beyond just
those of the t-lab. Delving into research on the importance of the human factor to the success
of the ECG SES highlighted the role of strength of bonds between volunteers within and among
various stakeholder groups in the garden (core volunteers, peripheral volunteers, and TCAA
liaisons). While these bonds existed long before I came, now they are more in the forefront of
volunteers’ minds, particularly those in the council, and can be further examined and
manipulated to benefit the garden.
While the implementation and results of this research are extremely specific to the
Escalante Community Garden, tools and methods from this study could be used to initiate or
supplement deliberate social transformation in other contexts, especially in other community
gardens. While research around deliberate transformation in social-ecological systems is rare,
the tools to understand and create such transformation can be found in bodies of academic
literature around social learning, organizational theory, complex adaptive systems, pathways
approaches, transformation, community development, volunteer retention, and community
arts, among others. Examples of adaptable tools used in this study are the framework for

26

analyzing social-ecological systems, art-based community building exercises, and survey and
interview structures.
Demand for societally impactful intervention research is growing, particularly in the field
of sustainability (Sannino & Engestrom, 2017). For community gardens, systems-level
transformation can mean the difference between a thriving community built on trust and
reciprocity—with the potential for feeding people, improving physical and mental health, and
providing valuable ecosystem services to the surrounding city—and nonexistence. T-lab
interventions have the potential to act as a catalyst and guide for transformation in gardens
across the US, with the context-specific, people-oriented, place-based approach that allows
solutions to be organic and long-lasting. It is clear that a longer-term study would need to be
done to show a positive shift in volunteer commitment to the Escalante Community Garden
over time due to increased social capital created during a transformation lab or series of
transformation labs. There was, however, evidence of increased social capital in the ECG, not
only after the t-lab intervention, but over the full course of my eighteen-month involvement at
ECG. This garden, like many others across the US and the world, has a volunteer community
currently undergoing a transformative social change. Without the relationships I built at ECG in
the months leading up to the intervention, I do not believe the t-lab could have been
successful. Now, I believe ECG volunteers have the knowledge and means to continue the work
of deliberate social transformation beyond my involvement, continuing to expand the human
factor of the ECG SES, supporting the longevity of the garden, and allowing the garden
community to thrive.

27

References
American Community Gardening Association. (1998, June). National Community Gardening
Survey: 1996. Retrieved from https://communitygarden.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/12/CGsurvey96part1.pdf
American Community Gardening Association. (n.d.). FAQ: Get answers to some frequently asked
questions about community gardening! Retrieved from ACGA: American Community
Gardening Association: https://communitygarden.org/resources/faq/
Arizona State University . (2017). A Ten-Year Review of Students, Faculty, and Staff. Arizona
State University , Office of Institutional Analysis, Tempe.
Armstrong, D. (2000). A survey of community gardens in upstate New York: Implications for
health promotion and community development. Health & Place, 6, 319-327.
Asah, S. T., & Blahna, D. J. (2012, December). Motivational functionalism and urban
conservation stewardship: implications for volunteer involvement. Conservation Letters,
5(6), 470-477.
Asah, S. T., Lenentine, M. M., & Blahna, D. J. (2014, March). Benefits of urban landscape ecovolunteerism: Mixed methods segmentation analysis and implications for volunteer
retention. Landscape and Urban Planning, 123, 108-113.
Barnes, M. L., & Sharpe, E. K. (2009, March 10). Looking Beyond Traditional Volunteer
Management: A Case Study of an Alternative Approach to Volunteer Engagement in
Parks and Recreation. Voluntas, 20, 169-187.
Barthel, S., Folke, C., & Colding, J. (2010, May). Social–ecological memory in urban gardens—
Retaining the capacity for management of ecosystem services. Global Environmental
Change, 20(2), 255-265.
Bishop, G. F. (1987). Experiments With the Middle Response Alternative in Survey Questions.
The Public Opinion Quarterly, 51(2), 220-232.
Bleasdale, T. (2015, May). Gardens of Justice: Food-Based Social Movements in Underserved,
Minority Communities. Dissertation. Tempe, AZ, USA: Arizona State University.
Bleasdale, T., Crouch, C., & Harlan, S. L. (2011, May). Community gardening in disadvantaged
neighborhoods in Phoenix, Arizona: Aligning programs with perceptions. Journal of
Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development.
Boone Jr., H. N., & Boone, D. A. (2012, April). Analyzing Likert Data. Journal of Extension, 50(2).
Booth, J. M., Chapman, D., Ohmer, M. L., & Wei, K. (2017, December 19). Examining the
Relationship Between Level of Participation in Community Gardens and their Multiple
Functions. Journal of Community Practice.
Bussell, H., & Forbes, D. (2002). Understanding the volunteer market: The what, where, who
and why of volunteering. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Marketing, 7(3), 244-257.
Campbell, I. (2007, Feb 21). Chi-squared and Fisher–Irwin tests of two-by-two tables with small
sample recommendations. Statistics in Medicine, 26(19), 3661–3675.
Chalker-Scott, L., & Collman, S. J. (2006, March 9). Washington State’s Master Gardener
Program: 30 years of leadership in university-sponsored, volunteer-coordinated,
sustainable community horticulture. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14, 988-993.

28

Charles, D. (2012, Mar 20). All Things Considered: At The Community Garden, It's Community
That's The Hard Part. Retrieved from National Public Radio:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/03/20/148999066/at-the-communitygarden-its-community-thats-the-hard-part
Cilliars, S., Siebert, S., Du Toit, M., Barthel, S., Mishra, S., Cornelius, S., & Davoren, E. (2017,
January ). Garden ecosystem services of Sub-Saharan Africa and the role ofhealth clinic
gardens as social-ecological systems. Landscape and Urban Planning.
City of Phoenix. (2016, Oct 22). Maricopa County Community Garden Register.
City of Tempe, Arizona. (2016, January 14). Apache: Placemaking Principles & Design
Guidelines. Character Area Plan. Tempe, Az, USA: Tempe City Council.
Clayton, S. (2007). Domesticated nature: Motivations for gardening and perceptions of
environmental impact. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27, 215-224.
Cloutier, S., & Pfeiffer, D. (2015). Sustainability Through Happiness: A Framework for
Sustainable Development. Sustainable Development, 23, 317–327.
Connelly, S., Markey, S., & Roseland, M. (2011). Bridging sustainability and the social economy:
Achieving community transformation through local food initiatives. Critical Social Policy,
31(2), 308-324.
Cuskelly, G., Taylor, T., Hoye, R., & Darcy, S. (2006). Volunteer Management Practices and
Volunteer Retention: A Human Resource Management Approach. Sport Management
Review, 9, 141-163.
Dibsdall, L., Lambert, N., Bobbin, R., & Frewer, L. (2002). Low-income consumers’ attitudes and
behavior towards access availability and motivation to eat fruit and vegetables. Public
Health Nutrition, 6(2), 159-168.
Dieleman, H. (2008). Sustainability, Art and Relexivity: why artists and designers may become
key change agents in sustainability. In S. Kagan, & V. (. Kirchberg, Sustainablity: a new
frontier for the arts and cultures (pp. 108-146). Germany: Niedersachsisches
Ministerium fur Wissenschaft und Kultur.
Draper, C., & Freedman, D. (2010). Review and Analysis of the Benefits, Purposes, and
Motivations Associated with Community Gardening in the United States. Journal of
Community Practice, 18(4), 458 – 492.
Eisler, R. (2015, June). A Conversation with Peter Senge: Transforming Organizational Cultures.
Interdisciplinary Journal of Partnership Studies, 2(1), 1-13.
Fazey, I., Russel, M., Lyon, C., Campeanu, C., Moug, P., & Davies, T. E. (2015). Past and future
adaptation pathways. Climate and Development.
Ghose, R., & Pettygrove, M. (2014). Urban Community Gardens as Spaces of Citizenship.
Antipode, 46(4), 1092-1112.
Glover, T. D. (2004). Social Capital in the Lived Experiences of Community Gardeners. Leisure
Sciences, 26(2), 143-162.
Gryszkiewicz, L., Lykourentzou, I., & Toivonen, T. (2016, April 8). Innovation Labs: Leveraging
Openness for Radical Innovation?
Guitart, D., Pickering, C., & Byrne, J. (2012). Past results and future directions in urban
community gardens research. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 11, 364-373.
Hassan, Z. (2014). The social labs revolution: a new approach to solving our most complex
challenges. San Francisco, CA, USA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
29

Heras, M., & Tabara, J. D. (2014). Let's play transformations! Performative methods for
sustianability . Sustainability Science, 9, 379-398.
Holling, C. (2001). Understanding the Complexity of Economic, Ecological, and Social Systems.
Ecosystems, 4, 390-405.
Isidiho, A. O., & Sabran, M. S. (2016, July). Evaluating the Top-Bottom and Bottom-Up
Community Development Approaches: Mixed Method Approach as Alternative for Rural
Un-Educated Communities in Developing Countries. Mediterranean Journal of Social
Sciences, 7(4), 266-273.
Johns, R. (2005). One Size Doesn’t Fit All: Selecting Response Scales For Attitude Items. Journal
of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 15(2), 237-264.
Kalton, G., Roberts, J., & Holt, D. (1980, March). The Effects of Offering a Middle Response
Option with Opinion Questions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 29(1), 65-78.
King, C. A. (2008). Community Resilience and Contemporary Agri-Ecological Systems:
Reconnecting People and Food, and People with People. Systems Research and
Behavioral Science, 25, 111-124.
Kingsley, J. '., & Townsend, M. (2006, December). ‘Dig In’ to Social Capital: Community Gardens
as Mechanisms for Growing Urban Social Connectedness. Urban Policy and Research,
24(4), 525-537.
Kingsley, J. '., Townsend, M., & Henderson-Wilson, C. (2009, April). Cultivating health and
wellbeing: members' perceptions of the health benefits of a Port Melbourne community
garden. Leisure Studies, 28(2), 207-219.
Knizhnik, H. L. (2012). The Environmental Benefits of Urban Agriculture on Unused,
Impermeable and Semi-Permeable Spaces in Major Cities With a Focus on Philadelphia,
PA. Master of Environmental Studies Capstone Projects, 46. University of Pennsylvania
Scholarly Commons.
Krosnick, J. A., Holbrook, A. L., Berent, M. K., Carson, R. T., Hanemann, W. M., Kopp, R. J., . . .
Conaway, M. (2002). THE IMPACT OF "NO OPINION" RESPONSE OPTIONS ON DATA
QUALITY. Public Opinion Quarterly, 66(3), 371-403.
Laney, D. (2017, Mar 18). personal communication. (M. Halter, Interviewer)
Lanier, J., Schumacher, J., & Calvert, K. (2015). Cultivating Community Collaboration and
Community Health Through Community Gardens. Journal of Community Practice, 23,
492-507.
Lawson, L., & Drake, L. (2013). Community Garden Organization Survey 2011-2012. 18, 20-41.
Columbus, OH: A joint report from the American Community Garden Association and
Rutgers School of Environmental and Biological Sciences.
Leach, M., Scoones, I., & Stirling, A. (2007). Pathways to Sustainability: an overview of the STEPS
Centre approach. STEPS Approach Paper, 1-20.
Liamputtong, P., & Sanchez, E. L. (2017, Dec 11). Cultivating Community: Perceptions of
Community Garden and Reasons for Participating in a Rural Victorian Town. Activities,
Adaptation & Aging, 1-19.
Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2004). Human, Social, and Now Positive Psychological Capital
Management: Investing in People for Competitive Advantage. Organizational Dynamics,
33(2), 143–160.

30

Luthans, F., Luthans, K. W., & Luthans, B. C. (2004). Positive psychological capital: Beyond
human and social capital. Business Horizons, 47(1), 45–50.
Manuel-Navarrete, D., & Pelling, M. (2015, September). Subjectivity and the politics of
transformation in response to development and environmental change. Global
Environmental Change, 35, 58-569.
Mcbride, A. M., & Lee, Y. (2012). Institutional Predictors of Volunteer Retention. Administration
& Society, 44(3), 343-366.
McKenzie, T. (2018, March 8). Email thread titled "RE: ECG student research". (M. Halter,
Interviewer)
MedCalc. (2018). Free statistical calculators: Comparison of proportions calculator. Ostend,
Belgium.
Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning as Transformation (Vol. 1). Jossey-Bass.
Musacchio, L., Crewe, K., Steiner, F., & Schmidt, J. (2003). The Future of Argicultural Landscape
Preservation in the Phoenix Metropolitan Region. Landscape Journal, 21(1-03), 140-154.
Nowlis, S. M., Kahn, B. E., & Dahr, R. (2002, December). Coping with Ambivalence: The Effect of
Removing a Neutral Option on Consumer Attitude and Preference Judgments. Journal of
Consumer Research, 29(3), 319-334.
Ober Allen, J., Alaimo, K., Elam, D., & Perry , E. (2008). Growing Vegetables and Values: Benefits
of Neighborhood-Based Community Gardens for Youth Development and Nutrition.
Journal of Hunger and Environmental Nutrition, 3(4), 418 – 439.
O'Brien, K. (2012). Global environmental change II: From adaptation to deliberate
transformation. Progress in Human Geography, 36(5), 667-676.
O'Brien, K. (2015, Dec 4). Political agency: The key to tackling climate change. Science,
350(6265), pp. 1170-1171.
Okvat, H. A., & Zautra, A. J. (2011). Community Gardening: A Parsimonious Path to Individual,
Community, and Environmental Resilience. American Journal of Community Psychology ,
47, 374-387.
Ostrom, E. (2009, July 24). A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological
Systems. Science, 325, pp. 419-422.
Pagano, M. A., & Bowman, A. O. (2000). Vacant Land in Cities: An Urban Resource. Center on
Urban & Metropolitan Policy. Washington D.C.: The Brookings Institution.
Pelling, M., O'Brien, K., & Matyas, D. (2015). Adaptation and transformation. Climatic Change,
133, 113-127.
Pfeffer, J. (2010, Feb). Building Sustainable Organizations: The Human Factor. Academy of
Management Perspectives, 24(1).
Pudup, M. B. (2008). It takes a garden: Cultivating citizen-subjects in organized garden projects.
ScienceDirect, 39, 1228-1240.
Rasinski, K. A. (1989). THE EFFECT OF QUESTION WORDING ON PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR
GOVERNMENT SPENDING. Public Opinion Quarterly , 53(3), 388-394.
Reagor, C. (2016, July 7). Land, land everywhere in Phoenix but not a lot to build on. Retrieved
from https://www.azcentral.com/story/money/real-estate/catherinereagor/2016/07/07/land-land-everywhere-phoenix-but-not-lot-build/86773988/

31

Redman, C. L., & Kinzig, A. P. (2008). Water can flow uphill: A narrative of central Arizona. In
Agricultural landscapes in transition: comparisons of long-term ecological and cultural
change (pp. 238-271). London: Oxford University Press.
Richardson, J. T. (2011, March 23). The analysis of 2 × 2 contingency tables—Yet again. Statistics
in Medicine, 30(8), 890.
Richardson, L. (2016). Sharing knowledge: Performing co-production in collaborative artistic
work. Environment and Planning A, 48(11), 2256-2271.
Rovai, A. P. (2000). Building and sustaining community in asynchronous learning networks. The
Internet and Higher Education, 3(4), 285-297.
Saldaña, J. (2015). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers (3 ed.). SAGE.
Sannino, A., & Engestrom, Y. (2017). Co-generation of societally impactful knowledge in change
laboratories. Management Learning, 48(1), 80-96.
Scharmer, C. O. (2007). Theory U: Leading From the Future as it Emerges. Cambridge, MA: The
Society for Organizational Learning, Inc.
Scheromm, P. (2015). Motivations and practices of gardeners in urban collective gardens:The
case of Montpellier. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 14, 735-742.
Schukoske, J. E. (2000, Jun). Community Development Through Gardening: State and Local
Policies Transforming Urban Open Space. University Journal of Legislation and Public
Policy, 3, 351-392.
Scott, S. M. (2003, July). The Social Construction of Transformation. Journal of Trnasformative
Education, 1(3), 264-284.
Senge, P. M., & Sterman, J. D. (1992). Systems thinking and organizational learning: Acting
locally and thinking globally in the organization of the future. European Journal of
Operational Research, 59, 137-150.
Shipka, S. (2017, October 9). Email thread titled "ECG student research". (M. Halter,
Interviewer)
Skippington, P. A., & Davis, D. F. (2016). Arts-based community development: rural remote
realities and challenges. Rural Society, 25(3), 222-239.
Stedman, R. C. (2016). Subjectivity and social-ecological systems: a rigidity trap (and sense of
place as a way out). Sustainability Science, 11(6), 891-901.
STEPS Centre. (2016, January 19). ‘PATHWAYS’ NETWORK: TRANSFORMATIVE PATHWAYS TO
SUSTAINABILITY. Retrieved from Pathways to Sustainability: https://stepscentre.org/project/pathways-network/
Swan, K., & Shea, P. J. (2005). Chapter 11: The Development of Virtual Learning Communities. In
S. R. Hiltz, & R. Goldman, Asynchronous Learning Networks: The Research Frontier (pp.
239-260). New York: Hampton Press.
Teig, E., Amulya, J., Bardwell, L., Buchenau, M., Marshall, J. A., & Litt, J. S. (2009). Collective
efficacy in Denver, Colorado: Strengthening neighborhoods and health through
community gardens. Health & Place.
The National Gardening Association. (2014). GARDEN TO TABLE: A 5-YEAR LOOK AT FOOD
GARDENING IN AMERICA. Special Report.
Twiss, J., Dickinson, J., Duma, S., Kleinman, T., Paulsen, H., & Rilveria, L. (2003, September).
Community Gardens: Lessons Learned from California Healthy Cities and Communities.
American Journal of Public Health, 93(9), 1435-1438.
32

United States Census Bureau . (2013). Census Explorer. Retrieved April 3, 2017, from United
States Census Bureau : https://www.census.gov/censusexplorer/censusexplorer.html
United States Department of Labor. (2016, February 25). Volunteering in the United States,
2015. Retrieved from Bureau of Labor Statistics:
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/volun.nr0.htm
University of Warwick Learning and Development Centre (LDC). (2012, Jul 10). Action Research.
Retrieved Mar 17, 2018, from Warwick Learning and Development Centre:
https://warwick.ac.uk/services/ldc/resource/evaluation/tools/action/
Van Den Berg, A. E., & Custers, M. H. (2011). Gardening Promotes Neuroendocrine and
Affective Restoration from Stress. Journal of Health Psychology, 16, 3-11.
Van der Walt, J. S., Bultendag, A. A., Zaalman, J. J., & van Vuuren, J. J. (2009). Community living
lab as a collaborative innovation environment. Issues in Informing Science and
Information Technology, 6, 421-436.
Wakefield, S., Yeudall, F., Taron, C., Reynolds, J., & Skinner, A. (2007). Growing urban health:
Community gardening in South-East Toronto. Health Promotion International , 22(2), 92101.
Westley, F. R., Tjornbo, O., Schultz, L., Olsson, P., Folke, C., Crona, B., & Bodin, O. (2013). A
Theory of Transformative Agency in Linked Social-Ecological Systems. Ecology and
Society, 18(3), 27.
Winters, A. (n.d.). USING TALKING CIRCLES IN THE CLASSROOM. Retrieved from Heartland
Community College:
http://www.heartland.edu/documents/idc/talkingcircleclassroom.pdf

33