Options
Methodology

Promoting planting in front gardens: a systematic approach to intervention development

Authors
  • Ayşe Lisa Allison orcid logo (UCL Centre for Behaviour Change, University College London (UCL), 1-19 Torrington Pl, London WC1E 7HB, UK)
  • Rachael Frost orcid logo (Department of Primary Care and Public Health, University College London (UCL), UCL Royal Free Campus, Rowland Hill Street, London NW3 2PF, UK)
  • Niamh Murtagh orcid logo (The Bartlett School of Sustainable Construction, University College London (UCL), 1-19 Torrington Pl, London WC1E 7HB, UK)

This is version 1 of this article, the published version can be found at: https://doi.org/10.14324/111.444/ucloe.3147

Abstract

Planting in front gardens is associated with a range of human and environmental health benefits. Effective interventions aimed at cultivating this practice are, however, hampered by the paucity of theory- and evidence-based behavioural research in this context. This study aims to systematically determine a set of behaviour change interventions likely to be effective at promoting planting in front gardens amongst UK householders. The Behaviour Change Wheel framework was applied. Behavioural systems mapping was used to identify community actors relevant to front gardening. Potential behavioural influences on householders’ front gardening were identified using the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, Behaviour model. Using peer-reviewed scientific findings as evidence, behavioural influences were systematically linked to potential intervention strategies, behaviour change techniques and real-world implementation options. Finally, intervention recommendations were refined through expert evaluations and local councillor and public stakeholder feedback, evaluating them against the Acceptability, Practicability, Effectiveness, Affordability, Side effects and Equity criteria in a UK implementation context. This study formulated 12 intervention recommendations, implementable at a community level, to promote front gardening. Stakeholder feedback revealed a preference for educational and supportive (social and practical) strategies (e.g., community gardening workshops, front gardening ‘starter kits’) over persuasive and motivational approaches (e.g., social marketing, motivational letters from the council to householders). Householders’ front gardening behaviour is complex and influenced by the behaviour of many other community actors. It also needs to be understood as a step in a continuum of other behaviours (e.g., clearing land, gardening, waste disposal). This study demonstrates the application of behavioural science to an understudied implementation context, that is, front gardening promotion, drawing on a rigorous development process promoting a transparent approach to intervention design. Stakeholder consultation allowed relevance, feasibility and practical issues to be considered. These improve the likely effectiveness of interventions in practice. The next steps include evaluating the proposed interventions in practice.

Keywords: Behaviour Change Wheel, biodiversity conservation, front gardens, gardening, public engagement, public health, sustainability

463 Views

Published on
24 May 2024
Peer Reviewed
License
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0

 Open peer review from Lorenzo Lotti

Review
Thank you for submitting this interesting manuscript, which sets up very well the field for further research on front-door gardening.

Motivation: both the Abstract and the intro discuss how the paucity of Behavioural research on this hampers cultivating. Rather, I would argue that there are socio-economical barriers, fairly discussed in the manuscript which hamper this practice. The scarcity of research is not a barrier per se but does not allow to overcome the barriers, this should be rephrased.

Literature/Intro: I was a bit puzzled to read rows 95 and below, given that then the authors mention references 20 and 21 which look at front gardens with a similar methodology. The differences from 20 and 21 should be clarified.
It would be good to briefly mention in the abstract/intro one or two strengths of this paper, which are then well described in the final part.

Results: the insights obtained by stakeholders are really interesting, however, the number seems low (and narrow in terms of demographics, as discussed in the limitations. On top of age, the distinction between owners and people renting may also be important to discuss). and the fact that half of the interviewed individuals are from London makes this a bit biased if we consider this research valid for all of the UK. Were they paid or given vouchers?

Minor points:

line 57 are forests urban green space? Unclear
line 73 Not necessarily in front gardens, I would argue (it is also a repetition)

Note:
This review refers to round of peer review and may pertain to an earlier version of the document.

 Open peer review from Cleopatra Moshona

Review
Congratulations to the authors for this well-rounded, high-quality paper, which I thoroughly enjoyed reading. The authors demonstrate extensive knowledge on the subject of behavioral interventions and this work is an original and valuable contribution to the field. The paper is cohesive and logically structured with clearly formulated aims, which are then addressed in the discussion and conclusion. The abstract is well-written and adequately summarizes the background, aims, methods results and conclusion. The writing style is appropriate for an academic journal, eloquent and the paper reads very smoothly. As far as I can tell, the paper follows the journal’s guidelines in regards to formatting and citation/reference style.

Below, I only have a few minor revision requests, which should be easily manageable:

- The figures should be provided in a better resolution. For figure 1, please consider redrawing the figure yourself and provide a better contrast. The inner hub is difficult to read. The same applies to figure 4, which would benefit from a larger font size.
- The figure and table captions overall seem to be a little sparse. Please provide enough information for the readers to be able to interpret the figures and tables without having to go through the entire text.
- Table 3: please add a column with author/year.
- Table 4: what does the “n=x” refer to? It would also enhance readability if you visually enhanced the table by adding +/- (maybe in red and green accordingly) to distinguish between inhibiting and enablers.
- 2.3.1. (and elsewhere) please consider writing out the terms instead of using abbreviations such as BCT. For reads who are not very familiar with these models, it is a bit tedious having to go back and forth in the text to search for the terms. Please also add a sentence at the end of the paragraph, reminding the reader that the BCW-intervention types and COM-B components are.
- Line 334: “We also selected participants to provide maximum 334 diversity with regards to age, ethnicity, gender, …” Seems a bit odd to claim this, given that 6/7 stakeholders are female and of a similar age range?
- Figure 4: why is there only one negative line drawn? In the text you discuss for example that seeking permission from landlords may be an inhibitor. Shouldn’t some of these lines go both ways?
- Table 7: very useful information, but also very text-heavy. It would immensely improve readability if you added some visual elements, e.g. +/- again or a checklist for the APEASE evaluation, given that it is more or less repeated?
- The Method section would benefit from a visualization of the steps described in the abstract: BCW  Mapping to identify community actors  COM-B application to identify behavioral influences (literature review + stakeholder workshop)  Intervention recommendations  Evaluation based on APEASE criteria
- Finally, while the paper reads very optimistically, I would argue that an intervention might still fail, despite having a good picture/idea of the behavioral networks associated with it. It is well-documented e.g. in the area of environmental psychology, that some behavioral changes/interventions often fail, despite the intention to engage in a particular behavioral pattern. This is often referred to as the intention/knowledge-action-gap. I think it would be interesting to discuss this aspect within this framework and maybe to also highlight the point that some success stories dissipate after a while, e.g. when there are no incentives (e.g. “freebies”). In other words, highlight that behavioral changes are a process, rather than having an “on”/”off” switch.

Note:
This review refers to round of peer review and may pertain to an earlier version of the document.