Review and Analysis of the Motivations Associated with Urban Gardening in the Pandemic Period

Abstract

This paper examines people’s motives for urban gardening during the pandemic waves of 2020 and 2021. Interest in this practice has often ebbed and flowed in response to changing socioeconomic conditions and depended on positive effects in terms of social integration, community and individual health, urban regeneration, and food security. While several studies have documented these effects well with reference to the pre-pandemic period, few have detailed their existence—and eventually variations—during the lockdowns. These periods have probably reignited interest in this practice. Unlike other recreational activities, urban gardening was not restricted by regional and national governments because they considered this practice to be beneficial for food provisioning. To explore the motivations behind this newfound interest, this paper illustrates the results of a literature review on the articles published on this topic in the period from early 2020 to mid-2022. Findings reveal that the most widespread motivations are those related to personal and community wellbeing as well as food supply security and include the opportunity to spend time having fun outside the home. In addition, community resilience is a motivation that had not been detected in the past.

1. Introduction

In recent years, interest in urban gardens has significantly increased (e.g., [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8]). Although precise numbers are not available, the number of people involved in cultivating a garden—along with those who wish to do so—appears to be constantly increasing [9,10].

Urban gardens are generally defined as “open spaces managed and operated by members of the local community in which food or flowers are grown” [11]. They differ from home gardens in terms of ownership, access, and degree of democratic control [12]. Urban gardens also differ from educational gardens, since the latter are set within schools, and from therapeutic and prison gardens, which are cultivated in hospitals and prisons respectively (e.g., [13,14,15,16,17]).

The history of this type of garden began with the Industrial Revolution in Europe. Families living in precarious economic conditions began to cultivate ‘gardens of the poor’ (in English, migrant gardens; in French, jardins ouvriers) on plots owned by local administrations, factories, or religious communities. Through cultivation, they aspired to alleviate their difficulties in terms of food provision. After a few years, many gardeners began to gather in associations. The first came into being in Germany in 1864, thanks to the initiative of Doctor Schreber. Several gardening initiatives are still named Schrebergarten in his honour. In 1921, German urban gardens became part of the Bundesverband der Gartenfreunde (Federal Association of Friends of Gardens), which today has around 1.5 million members in some 15,000 associations. In France, the history of urban gardens officially began in 1896, when the Ligue du Coin de Terre et du Foyer and l’Ouvre de Jardins Ouvriers (League of the Land Corner and Home and the Workers’ Garden Organisation) were created to help families in need. Under the auspices of these leagues, in 1926 the International Bureau of Land and Urban Gardens was established.

The cultivation of urban gardens spread rapidly during World War I and found further impetus after World War II. It was aimed at productive goals, as it was geared toward self-consumption, especially for people in need. The practice came back into fashion during the 1970s and 1980s, in order to regenerate areas that were exposed to the risk of desertification or further urbanisation. Other potential functions—such as those related to social integration or improving community health—seem to have been less important in sparking interest in the practice. In the 1990s, increasing prosperity in industrialised countries prompted gardeners to abandon their plots. Food was widely available, and, above all, it was offered at very low prices. During the 2008 financial crisis, however, urban garden cultivation was promoted once again because it provided immediate solutions to both food insecurity and the urban redevelopment of disused spaces [18,19,20]). This success has almost certainly depended on the fact that this practice produces more than food. In addition to ensuring food security, it is also an accessible and affordable activity that maintains and improves physical and mental well-being, reduces stress, and exposes people to the benefits of passing time in nature [21,22,23]). Finally, it also promotes socialisation, social integration, and innovative social practices (e.g., Cattivelli, 2022 [24]).

Arguably, the cultivation of urban gardens gained further popularity during the pandemic waves in 2020 and 2021.

The scientific literature explains the interest in urban gardens as having social benefits and effects on the well-being and health of local communities, food security, and environmental preservation. For example, after reviewing studies on community gardens in the United States, Draper and Freeman (2010) [21] reveal 11 types of motivations behind such practices (health benefits, food source, economic development, youth education, development and employment, use and preservation of open space, crime prevention, neighbourhood beautification, leisure and outdoor recreation, cultural preservation and expression, social interactions and community organising). In his analysis, Scheromm (2015) [25] notes a particular interest in reconnecting with agriculture, even when food production is not a priority. Ruggeri et al. (2016) [26] group all the motivations that emerged from a study focusing on Milanese gardeners into just seven categories and document the greater relevance of the motivations included in the categories with the greatest social vocation.

All these studies describe the motivations behind garden cultivation before the pandemic occurred. During the most dramatic phases of the first lockdown in 2020, urban gardens were initially closed to prevent contagion. As the gardens were mostly frequented by elderly people, most municipal administrations decided at first to limit their attendance and then later close them. This decision was based on the opinion that gardening is a recreational activity that can be grouped with things like cinema and theatre. However, following pleas from certain gardening associations, such institutions reopened gardens before businesses and other economic activities in the spring of 2020; they also decided to remain open in subsequent pandemic waves in 2020 and 2021. A change of opinion clearly happened in those first few months because the national government later categorised gardening as a food provisioning initiative, on par with groceries. Behind this categorisation there was the conviction that this cultivation may have alleviated the difficulties of some gardeners in accessing food, helped them overcome stress, or even allowed them to socialise with other people after a period of almost total isolation. Furthermore, it could be practised safely because gardeners could do their work without any contact with others and stay at a safe distance to avoid infection.

However, the effectiveness of gardening during this period, as well as the motivations that encourage gardeners to continue cultivating have been poorly investigated.

The few studies that have been conducted offer information on the health benefits that people sought and received from green spaces and gardening during the pandemic (e.g., [27,28,29]). These accounts align with previous understandings of the health, and therapeutic benefits of gardening, including relaxation, connection to nature, and education. However, they do not detail other motivations related to social integration, community health, urban regeneration, and food security.

To our knowledge, these studies do not include a comparative analysis that capitalises on relative results and provide little quantitative and comparable data on changes in the value and motivations of gardening during an acute global disruption, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. More research is needed to capture variations in public sentiment and practice, and to test whether gardening can be considered an effective and readily accessible solution to increase social resilience to disturbances.

To fill this gap, this article examines the current scholarly, peer-reviewed literature available on the motivations behind urban gardening from 2020 to mid-2022 and discusses how the relative findings inform the decisions of community practitioners, researchers, and municipal offices.

The remainder of this study is structured as follows. The second section illustrates the motivations behind urban gardening that are outlined in the literature published before 2020. The next one explains the method that underpins the literature review. The fourth section describes the results of this review and details what has been elaborated on the topic of urban gardening and its related motivations in the two-year period of the pandemic. The final section discusses the results and draws conclusions.

2. The Underlying Motivations for Urban Garden Cultivation Found in Pre-2020 Literature

The motivations for people to engage in the cultivation of an urban garden are diverse and refer to the “complex mosaic of interests, possibilities, expectations, cultures, values and traditions of each individual” [26]. They include basic physical human needs, such as the production of food, and more abstract needs, such as building self-esteem, being part of a community, and recreating memories and symbols of identity (ibid.).

As these motivations have been extensively researched in recent decades [25,30,31,32,33,34], this list could be very easily articulated. To facilitate their study, Cattivelli (2020) [35] divides the motivations into four categories: social integration, personal and community health, urban regeneration, and food security.

The first category encompasses motivations related to the role of gardening in promoting social integration. Gardening relaxes people and facilitates the creation and maintenance of new relationships. Relating with others helps gardeners to combat loneliness and enlarge their network of social relations. Within families, gardening strengthens family and intergenerational bonds (e.g., [36,37,38]). Very often, gardeners are elderly people or fathers of families who cultivate both by themselves and also with the help of their children or grandchildren. Through gardening, they spend time together and strengthen their relationship.

Another social motivation is the belief that such cultivation strengthens personal and social identity. It is expected that it contributes to creating or supporting a sense of distinction, self-esteem and self-efficacy, and therefore, strengthening the identity of a person as an individual and as a member of a community [39,40]. These reinforced personal and collective identities are useful in cementing social cohesion, which in turn underpins participation in the political arena and in volunteer associations at the local level [41,42,43,44]. Furthermore, social engagement contributes to the production of a new repertoire of practices and rituals. Through interaction, gardeners exchange information and learn new techniques, as well as creating new social models characterised by a variety of values—above all, “solidarity, teamwork, respect, and tolerance” (p. 255) [45]. These models apparently do not alter the dominant system of values or the agricultural culture at the local level, but instead enrich the existing ones. As a result, the memory of old techniques and values are preserved, because they are disseminated to others, and thus not forgotten [46].

The second category of motivations includes the aspirations of gardeners to improve their own health and quality of life, with subsequent positive effects on the health of the entire community. Positive effects can be seen in improving hand-body coordination and decreasing body pain and feelings of fatigue or anxiety (e.g., [47,48]). Gardeners are attracted to the satisfaction they can receive from growing their own vegetables, being outdoors, and reducing their daily stress [49]. They also aspire to improve their eating habits by increasing their consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables [50].

The third category of motivations includes the belief that gardening can preserve and regenerate neighbourhoods. Gardening redevelops disused spaces, reduces the risk of crime in such places, and preserves green spaces that are at risk of overbuilding (e.g., [51,52]). Additionally, its impact in terms of CO₂ production appeared to be less than that of other forms of cultivation [2,53,54,55,56].

The fourth category revolves around food security. Cultivating a garden promotes access to food and minimizes transportation costs. It also offers the opportunity to return to traditional production techniques, without the use of chemical fertilizers or pesticides. However, it does not necessarily lead to economic savings [3,57,58].

Table 1 lists some of these motivations.

Table 1. Some examples of motivations behind urban gardening cultivation and their references.

Category	Motivations	References
Social motivations	Offering opportunities for socialisation	Glover, T. et al., (2005) [36] Hawckins, J. et al., (2013) [37] Glover, T. (2004) [41]
	Social support for elderly people	Remes, O. (2018) [38] Middling, S. et al. (2011) [59]
	Strengthening family ties	Doyle, R.; Krasny, M. (2003) [60]
	Social and ecological memory of ancient practices	Barthel, S., et al. (2014) [46] Fusco, D. (2001) [61] Lautenschlager, L.; Smith, C. (2007) [62]
	Strengthening personal and social identity	Crompton, T.; Kasser, T.; (2009) [40] Clayton, S. (2007) [63] Yap, C. (2019) [64]
	Strengthening social cohesion and participation	Henderson, B.; Hartsfield, K. (2009) [42] Bendt, P. et al. (2013) [43] Veen, E. et al., (2016) [44] Wang, D.; MacMillan, T. (2013) [65] Zrnić, V.; Rubić, T. (2018) [66]
	Sharing value	Crompton, T.; Kasser, T.; (2009) [40]
Health related motivations	Increase the psycho-physical well-being of citizens	Hawkins, J. et al., (2013) [37] Kondo, M. et al. (2018) [47] Barrio-Parra, F. et al. (2019) [48] Van Den Berg, A.; Custers, M. (2011) [49] Park, S. et al. (2009) [67] Claessens, J. et al., (2014) [68] Hartig, T. et al., [69] Williams, K. et al., (2019) [70]
	Better food habits	McCormack, L. et al., [50] Nova, P. et al., [71]
Motivations related to the urban regeneration	Cleaning vacant lots, reducing crime, or just beautifying the neighbourhood, urban–rural linkages design/planning	Kim, G. et al. (2020) [51] Swensen, G. et al. (2022) [52] Nikolaidou, S. et al. (2016) [55] Wunder, S. (2013) [72] Sovová, L.; Krylová, R. (2019) [73]
	Protection of the environment and landscape	Ohmer, M. et al., (2009) [39] Tappert, S. et al., (2018) [56] Young, C. et al., (2019) [74]
	Reducing pollution	Cattivelli, V. (2020) [3] Favoino, E.; Hogg, D. (2008) [53] Certoma, C. (2015) [54] Nikolaidou, S. et al. (2016) [55] Tappert, S. et al., (2018) [56] Goddard, M. et al., [75] Richard, C. et al. (2020) [76]
Food-related motivations	Access to food	Eigenbrod, C.; Gruda, N. (2015) [77] Opitz, I. et al., (2016) [78] Mudu, P.; Marini, A. (2018) [79]
	Turning back on industrial agriculture and search for other methods of consumption, but also production methods	Mok, H. et al., (2014) [80] Spilková, J.; Vágner, J. (2018) [81]
	Access to food at cheaper conditions	Cattivelli V. (2015) [1]

Source: Cattivelli 2020 [35] and subsequent updates in 2022 [82].

Table 1. Some examples of motivations behind urban gardening cultivation and their references.

Category	Motivations	References
Social motivations	Offering opportunities for socialisation	Glover, T. et al., (2005) [36] Hawckins, J. et al., (2013) [37] Glover, T. (2004) [41]
	Social support for elderly people	Remes, O. (2018) [38] Middling, S. et al. (2011) [59]
	Strengthening family ties	Doyle, R.; Krasny, M. (2003) [60]
	Social and ecological memory of ancient practices	Barthel, S., et al. (2014) [46] Fusco, D. (2001) [61] Lautenschlager, L.; Smith, C. (2007) [62]
	Strengthening personal and social identity	Crompton, T.; Kasser, T.; (2009) [40] Clayton, S. (2007) [63] Yap, C. (2019) [64]
	Strengthening social cohesion and participation	Henderson, B.; Hartsfield, K. (2009) [42] Bendt, P. et al. (2013) [43] Veen, E. et al., (2016) [44] Wang, D.; MacMillan, T. (2013) [65] Zrnić, V.; Rubić, T. (2018) [66]
	Sharing value	Crompton, T.; Kasser, T.; (2009) [40]
Health related motivations	Increase the psycho-physical well-being of citizens	Hawkins, J. et al., (2013) [37] Kondo, M. et al. (2018) [47] Barrio-Parra, F. et al. (2019) [48] Van Den Berg, A.; Custers, M. (2011) [49] Park, S. et al. (2009) [67] Claessens, J. et al., (2014) [68] Hartig, T. et al., [69] Williams, K. et al., (2019) [70]
	Better food habits	McCormack, L. et al., [50] Nova, P. et al., [71]
Motivations related to the urban regeneration	Cleaning vacant lots, reducing crime, or just beautifying the neighbourhood, urban–rural linkages design/planning	Kim, G. et al. (2020) [51] Swensen, G. et al. (2022) [52] Nikolaidou, S. et al. (2016) [55] Wunder, S. (2013) [72] Sovová, L.; Krylová, R. (2019) [73]
	Protection of the environment and landscape	Ohmer, M. et al., (2009) [39] Tappert, S. et al., (2018) [56] Young, C. et al., (2019) [74]
	Reducing pollution	Cattivelli, V. (2020) [3] Favoino, E.; Hogg, D. (2008) [53] Certoma, C. (2015) [54] Nikolaidou, S. et al. (2016) [55] Tappert, S. et al., (2018) [56] Goddard, M. et al., [75] Richard, C. et al. (2020) [76]
Food-related motivations	Access to food	Eigenbrod, C.; Gruda, N. (2015) [77] Opitz, I. et al., (2016) [78] Mudu, P.; Marini, A. (2018) [79]
	Turning back on industrial agriculture and search for other methods of consumption, but also production methods	Mok, H. et al., (2014) [80] Spilková, J.; Vágner, J. (2018) [81]
	Access to food at cheaper conditions	Cattivelli V. (2015) [1]

Source: Cattivelli 2020 [35] and subsequent updates in 2022 [82].

3. The Method behind the Present Research

While the motivations underlying the cultivation of urban gardens have been extensively studied up to 2019, the subsequent 2020–mid-2022 pandemic period has seen less investigation. The present research intends to expand this knowledge and capture possible variations in the sentiment and practices during the last acute global disruption through a review of the literature.

To this end, this study analyses peer-reviewed journal articles with a focus on urban gardening and their motivations published by scholars from all around the world from 2020 to mid-2022 (up to 1 July 2022) and uploaded on the Google Scholar search engine. To include all articles on these topics, it uses as search terms ‘urban gardens’ and ‘urban gardens motivations’, as well as ‘urban gardening’ and ‘urban gardening motivation’ both in Italian and in English. For the same reason, it prefers using Google Scholar over other scientific databases. As it also includes case studies, conference presentations, and other scientific outlets, this database consequently offers the widest range of scientific products for analysis.

Methodologically, the research examines the abstracts of the identified articles to exclude those that focus on community gardens, school gardens, and prison gardens. Being out of the scope of the investigation, these articles were omitted from the analysis. In the remaining articles, the research performs a content analysis through an iterative read-and-review process. During this process, it considers the methods adopted by each article and the results obtained. At the same time, it also focuses on the motivations of gardeners and summarises them in a few words. Finally, the research pays particular attention to motivations stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic, or those that have changed since the pre-pandemic period.

4. Results

When searching for ‘urban garden’ in Italian, the research identifies 50 articles. Eight of these do not specifically discuss urban gardens but other agricultural practices and green infrastructure. The most frequently occurring description provided by the remaining articles characterises urban gardens as initiatives that requalify green or vacant spaces (see, e.g., [83,84,85]). No articles describe their importance to health, while only a few outline their role in food security or social integration (see, e.g., [83]). None of them has a specific focus on how urban garden cultivation changed during the COVID-19 pandemic.

When typing ‘urban garden’ in English, the research selects a further 50 articles. Of these, 18 articles cannot be considered because they only deal marginally with urban gardens. The topics they focus on are the functions of urban agriculture, its extension in urban areas, and its contribution towards low-carbon diets and more sustainable urban areas. They also refer to human impacts and specifically to anthropic and urban pressures on natural ecosystems, green infrastructure for urban regeneration, and food security. The topics also include the sustainability of urban and green spaces, as well as the management of the agri-food value chain.

The remaining articles deal specifically with urban gardens, and in particular their social function, such as their role in the psychological restoration of their cultivation [86], in the potential for care support and justice [87], or in the generation of social and inclusive value [88]) and supporting civic participation [89]. Other topics they detail are strongly related to urban regeneration, particularly with reference to their contribution to urban resilience (e.g., [90]) and their relevance for the delivery of ecosystem services [91], as well as their possible contamination (e.g., [92]). Other topics are related to the contribution of urban gardens and other gardens designed as a small-scale food production practice to food security [58] or to community happiness [93]. Only one article, by Lal [94], presents the possible effects of urban gardening in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In doing so, it employs bibliographic resources from previous studies and assumes some hypotheses for the future. None of the articles considered expands the knowledge about the motivations behind garden cultivation.

By typing ‘urban garden motivation’ in Italian, the study obtains 20 results. Of these articles, only seven deal specifically with urban gardens. In the others, the three words appeared, but the articles primarily dealt with other topics. Those that directly focus on urban gardening motivations adopt several research methods. The most frequently preferred are the case studies approach and comparison [95], as well as bibliographic and textual analysis. Four out of seven articles considered adopt the first methods, with the remainder using documentary analysis. Through the iterative read-and-review process, the research reveals that social motivations are the most appreciated, specifically the loneliness and newfound interactions [96], learning and inclusion [97]; personal fulfilment and satisfaction [98], and human health and community well-being [99]. In some articles, these motivations are integrated with those related to food (e.g., Castagnoli [100]). Preti [101] shows the importance of garden cultivation for the well-being of the entire population, and specifically the aged. With reference to the adult population, Lucia reveals that garden cultivation has positive effects such as fulfilment and satisfaction, improved personal relationships, and physical well-being. As a rationale, urban regeneration is mentioned in only one article [102].

The effects that the diffusion of the COVID-19 virus may have had on enthusiasm for urban gardens, or any changes of pre-existing motivations, are not mentioned. Most likely, this absence is due to the fact that these articles were published a few months before or just after the outbreak of the global crisis. Not surprisingly, the article by Vivona et al., [99] (published in 2021) is the only one to consider the restrictions imposed to limit the spread of the virus, and specifically question whether cultivation can help alleviate pandemic stress and help people exercise. Table 2 reports a summary of the results of this investigation.

Table 2. The articles that detail the motivations behind urban gardening published in the 2020–mid-2022 period, and identified after typing ‘urban garden motivations’ in Italian in Google Scholar.

References	The Study Methods	Results	Motivations
Gasperi, E. (2020) [96]	Bibliographic analysis	It shows the importance of urban gardens for the wellbeing of the ageing population and its contribution to the rest of the community	Social interactions, fight against loneliness, intergenerational relations, agro-civism, biodiversity preservation
Pillera, G. (2020) [97]	Textual analysis	It highlights the importance of school gardens for learning and inclusion	Learning, inclusion, socialisation
Lucia, P. (2020) [98]	Case study approach	It shows that cultivation has positive effects such as fulfilment and satisfaction, improved personal relationships, and physical well-being (if exercise is done correctly).	Personal satisfaction, personal and collective identity, physical well-being, improving relationships
Vivona, S. et al., (2021) [99]	Questionnaire administration and quantitative analysis	It emphasises the role of green spaces during COVID-19, in particular, it argues that enjoyment increases the psycho-physical well-being of older people	Improving psychophysical well-being
Castagnoli, D. (2021) [100]	Comparison of various case studies	It outlines the characteristics of urban gardens in Italy and cluster them based on different categories	Food-related issues, health, and relational aspects
Preti, P. (2020) [101]	Case study approach	It highlights the importance of urban gardens for the well-being of the elderly population	Garden therapy, garden as a cure, psychophysical well-being
Cameletti (2022) [102]	Case study approach	It shows that cultivation activates community participation, especially in the urban regeneration of the area	Urban regeneration, collective participation

Source: Author’s elaboration (2022).

Table 2. The articles that detail the motivations behind urban gardening published in the 2020–mid-2022 period, and identified after typing ‘urban garden motivations’ in Italian in Google Scholar.

References	The Study Methods	Results	Motivations
Gasperi, E. (2020) [96]	Bibliographic analysis	It shows the importance of urban gardens for the wellbeing of the ageing population and its contribution to the rest of the community	Social interactions, fight against loneliness, intergenerational relations, agro-civism, biodiversity preservation
Pillera, G. (2020) [97]	Textual analysis	It highlights the importance of school gardens for learning and inclusion	Learning, inclusion, socialisation
Lucia, P. (2020) [98]	Case study approach	It shows that cultivation has positive effects such as fulfilment and satisfaction, improved personal relationships, and physical well-being (if exercise is done correctly).	Personal satisfaction, personal and collective identity, physical well-being, improving relationships
Vivona, S. et al., (2021) [99]	Questionnaire administration and quantitative analysis	It emphasises the role of green spaces during COVID-19, in particular, it argues that enjoyment increases the psycho-physical well-being of older people	Improving psychophysical well-being
Castagnoli, D. (2021) [100]	Comparison of various case studies	It outlines the characteristics of urban gardens in Italy and cluster them based on different categories	Food-related issues, health, and relational aspects
Preti, P. (2020) [101]	Case study approach	It highlights the importance of urban gardens for the well-being of the elderly population	Garden therapy, garden as a cure, psychophysical well-being
Cameletti (2022) [102]	Case study approach	It shows that cultivation activates community participation, especially in the urban regeneration of the area	Urban regeneration, collective participation

Source: Author’s elaboration (2022).

When typing ‘urban garden motivation’ in English into Google Scholar, one finds 74 different articles. 37 of these must be excluded from the research because they describe urban gardens as common goods or experiences of urban agriculture, or as initiatives to protect empty spaces from excessive urbanisation. The remaining articles deal specifically with the motivations driving the cultivation of these gardens and can be grouped into two clusters. The first cluster includes articles reporting the results of studies that were conducted before the pandemic period. Due to the excessive length of the scientific review process, these were published in the two-year period considered by this research, but do not contain any indications as to how the pandemic influenced the factors in question. The second cluster is less conspicuous and instead contains articles that were published during the period being considered and that specifically aim to investigate how the pandemic affected these motivations.

By examining the results of the articles included in the first cluster, the research reveals that the clarification of motivations is one of the goals of the relative investigations, but it is not the only one.

Most of the articles describe the spatial patterns and structural characteristics of urban gardens [103,104] and provide evidence of their peculiarities in each territory being considered. Some investigations detail their distribution in specific regions or countries, such as South Tyrol [35], Vietnam [105], and Singapore [106,107]. Others compare their distribution among urban, rural, and remote areas [108]. Some studies describe how motivations vary geographically from one place to another or compare different experiences internationally [109,110,111,112,113,114]. In contrast, other studies have det<ermined that differences in urban gardening are not relevant, as the relative practices are similar and not place-specific (e.g., [115]).

Some studies test the contribution of urban gardening to the preservation of natural ecosystems ([116,117]) and the sustainability of agricultural systems (see, e.g., [118]), and to food self-sufficiency and security ([3]). Others focus on the diffusion of social assets among urban farmers and community gardens [119], the possible relations between cultivation and better consumption choices and stress reduction ([120,121]), and social relationship improvement [122].

Most studies consider benefits and motivations with reference to the entire population of gardeners while ignoring the specific perspective of each social subgroup, mainly due to lack of data. This scarce knowledge is particularly evident for the subsets of foreign gardeners, (i.e., migrants moving to Italy for work and/or family reasons who decide to cultivate an urban garden in the municipality of their residence), the elderly, and young people, despite being partially compensated for through recent studies (e.g., [82,123,124,125].

Among the motivations analysed in the articles, it appears that social ones are the most appreciated. Social motivations include personal fulfilment and socialisation [126], individual aspirations [111], personal self-growth, and the desire to socialise [125]. In certain studies, they are associated with other motivations, such as positive impacts on health and nutritional choices [109] or a sense of belonging [126]. Food-related motivations are also perceived as particularly important and sometimes these are considered together with social- and health-related motivations. In this category are, for example, Cepic et al. (2020) [103] who consider both health- and food-related motivations to be important. In fact, they reveal that gardeners cultivate in order to improve their health through physical activity and recreation, as well as creating better access to food. Di Fiore et al. (2021) [104] and Mead et al. (2021) [127] are of the same opinion, as they emphasise psychophysical well-being and food security as motivations. Philpott et al. [123] believe that the most important motivation is the need to reconnect with nature.

The remaining scholars examine a full range of motivations. Darby et al. (2020) [108] and Kirby et al. (2021) [109] are particularly broad in describing them because they include nutritional choices, economic reasons, and the desire to socialise. Poniży et al. (2021) [110], Tandaric et al. (2022) [124], and Egerer et al. (2022) [121] are in line with Cattivelli (2020a) [35] and outline the importance of social integration, urban regeneration, and health-food-related motivations. In contrast, Dorn et al. (2021) [125], Hencelova et al. (2021) [122] and Feinberg et al. (2021) [112] claim that there is no confirmation of such motivations. Turner (2020) [105] and Zainal (2021) [119] include motivations that Cattivelli ignores, such as those related to the rationalisation of the agri-food system (sharing of knowledge, transfer of technology, and the adoption of sustainable agricultural practises).

Table 3 reports a summary of the results of this investigation.

Table 3. The articles that detail the motivations behind urban gardening published in the 2020-mid2022 period and identified after typing ‘urban garden motivations’ in English in Google Scholar. Cluster 1.

Reference	The Study Methods	Results	Motivations
Cattivelli, V. (2020) [2]	Territorial maps and description of spatial patterns	The text illustrates the geographical distribution of urban gardens among South Tyrolean municipalities	Reduction in urban pressure on natural resources, preservation of these resources
Cattivelli, V. (2020) [35]	Questionnaire administration and qualitative-quantitative analysis	The text clusters urban gardeners’ motivations into 4 categories of motivations and notes that those related to urban regeneration and social are the most strongly felt	Motivations related to social, health, urban regeneration, and food-related motivations
Cepic, S. et al., (2020) [103]	Questionnaire administration and quantitative analysis	The article highlights the structural characteristics of urban gardens	Access to food, wellness, physical activity, recreation
Di Fiore, G. et al., (2021) [104]	Literature analysis	It highlights how perceptions and motivations relative to the various types of urban agriculture vary among stakeholders, and are place-based because they vary from country to country	Psychophysical well-being and food security
Turner, S. (2020) [105]	Mixed-methods approach, land-use land cover (LULC) mapping, urban food garden mapping, semi-structured interviews and longitudinal observations	Urban gardens are also widespread in Vietnam, for reasons closely related to food security	Access to food, food security, rationalisation, and improvement of the agri-food system locally
Jeff, S. (2021) [106]	Semi-structured interview administration and quantitative processing	The related investigation aims to fill the gap related to the lack of knowledge of urban gardens in Asia	Physical activity, the need for socialisation and improving psychological well-being
Song, S. et al. (2022) [107]	Administration of interviews and quantitative analysis of responses	The text offers a comparison of perceptions about the usefulness of cultivation of gardeners and non-gardeners	Self-production of food, interaction with other horticulturists
Darby, K. et al. (2020) [108]	Questionnaire administration	The text considers the views of gardeners located in rural and/or low-income areas	Desire to save money, spend time outside the home, reconnect with nature
Kirby, C. et al., (2021) [109]	Multivariate analysis	The text provides support for planners as it highlights the existence of various types of urban agriculture and the relative motivations	Wellbeing impacts, nutritional choices, economic reasons, willingness to socialise
Poniży, L. et al. (2021) [110]	Field surveys and quantitative processing of the preferences of gardeners	The article carries out a comparative analysis of various case in different European countries	Food production, financial savings, satisfaction with cultivation, recreation, contact with nature, access to quality food
Vastola, A. et al. (2020) [111]	Use of secondary data	The related investigation carries out a comparative analysis between Rome and Tokyo	The gardener aspires to grow his own vegetables for your own consumption
Feinberg et al. (2021) [112]	Database analysis and case studies approach	The related analysis offers a comparison of the motivations of gardeners located in Germany and The Netherlands	Social motivations are often not the driver for the cultivation
da Cunha, M. et al. (2020) [113]	Location of gardens, site visits, and interviews with gardeners	The article highlights that gardens are cultivated mainly for food supply reasons	Food production
Sachs et al. (2022) [114]	Administration of questionnaires and quantitative analysis of responses	The text compares the motivations of market gardeners in Montpellier and Denver	Psychological effects, autonomy, relationships, well-being, health, reconnection with nature
Home, R. and Vieli, L. (2020) [115]	Questionnaire administration and quantitative analysis	The article argues that the underlying motivations for farming are not place-based	Catering and personal fulfilment, socialisation, self-production of food
Rusciano, V. et al. (2020) [116]	Questionnaire administration and quantitative analysis of results	The article investigates the influence of social and ecological factors on gardeners’ motivations	Mitigation effects urbanisation, social relations, ecological innovation
Newell, J. et al. (2022) [117]	Interview administration and quantitative analysis of responses	Verification of the production of ecosystem services and food	Production of ecosystem services, social cohesion, and then food production
Hunter, C. et al. (2020) [118]	Qualitative analysis	The study aims to demonstrate different propensities for sustainable practices	Sustainable agricultural practices, sustainable behaviour
Zainal, M. (2021) [119]	Questionnaire administration and thematic analysis	It finds that gardeners already have strong social motivations.	Cultivation cements social capital, promotes knowledge sharing and access to inputs and materials, technology transfer, and adoption. It also promotes cooperation and encourages good agricultural practices.
Artmann, M. et al. (2021) [120]	Questionnaire administration and analysis by main components of the answers	The article seeks to understand whether cultivation helps to improve human–food relations	Food-related and health improvement
Egerer, M. et al. (2022) [121]	Questionnaire administration and quantitative analysis of results	The investigation highlights the importance of urban garden cultivation for stress relief during COVID-19	Reconnection with nature, stress reduction, physical activity outside the home and food supply
Hencelová, P. et al. (2021) [122]	Mixed-methods approach, questionnaire administration	The text aims to analyse the relationship between visits to vegetable gardens and social relationships	There is no relationship
Philpott, S. et al., (2020) [123]	Questionnaire administration and quantitative analysis	The study ascertains differences in motivations that drive cultivation and those related to the plant choice between various social subgroups of gardeners	Reconnection with nature
Tandarić, N. et al. (2022) [124]	Questionnaire administration	The authors want to consider the point of view of older gardeners	Personal utility, tradition, self-growing, self-growth, desire to socialise, wellbeing
Dorn, S. et al. (2021) [125]	Questionnaire administration and quantitative analysis of results	The article provides a comparison of the motivations felt by different social subgroups	Social motivations are not as strong for all gardeners
Eiter, S. et al. (2022) [126]	Textual analysis	The article tests how motivations change in 2020 and 2021	Social aspects, neighbourhood beautification, a sense of belonging to the neighbourhood
Mead et al. (2021) [127]	Cross-sectional survey analysis	The related investigation checks possible relationships between cultivation and better consumption choices	Access to quality food, reconnection with nature, individual health, stress reduction, ethical reasons
Amani-Beni, M. et al. (2021) [128]	Historical analysis	The article offers an analysis of historical Persian gardens and the possible current uses	Sustainable urban planning, environmental protection
Wu, C. et al. (2022) [129]	Principal component analysis	The article shows that Chinese residents’ perceptions of ecosystem services and disruptions influence their behavioural intention to establish an urban community garden	Ecosystem service provision

Source: Author’s elaboration (2022).

Table 3. The articles that detail the motivations behind urban gardening published in the 2020-mid2022 period and identified after typing ‘urban garden motivations’ in English in Google Scholar. Cluster 1.

Reference	The Study Methods	Results	Motivations
Cattivelli, V. (2020) [2]	Territorial maps and description of spatial patterns	The text illustrates the geographical distribution of urban gardens among South Tyrolean municipalities	Reduction in urban pressure on natural resources, preservation of these resources
Cattivelli, V. (2020) [35]	Questionnaire administration and qualitative-quantitative analysis	The text clusters urban gardeners’ motivations into 4 categories of motivations and notes that those related to urban regeneration and social are the most strongly felt	Motivations related to social, health, urban regeneration, and food-related motivations
Cepic, S. et al., (2020) [103]	Questionnaire administration and quantitative analysis	The article highlights the structural characteristics of urban gardens	Access to food, wellness, physical activity, recreation
Di Fiore, G. et al., (2021) [104]	Literature analysis	It highlights how perceptions and motivations relative to the various types of urban agriculture vary among stakeholders, and are place-based because they vary from country to country	Psychophysical well-being and food security
Turner, S. (2020) [105]	Mixed-methods approach, land-use land cover (LULC) mapping, urban food garden mapping, semi-structured interviews and longitudinal observations	Urban gardens are also widespread in Vietnam, for reasons closely related to food security	Access to food, food security, rationalisation, and improvement of the agri-food system locally
Jeff, S. (2021) [106]	Semi-structured interview administration and quantitative processing	The related investigation aims to fill the gap related to the lack of knowledge of urban gardens in Asia	Physical activity, the need for socialisation and improving psychological well-being
Song, S. et al. (2022) [107]	Administration of interviews and quantitative analysis of responses	The text offers a comparison of perceptions about the usefulness of cultivation of gardeners and non-gardeners	Self-production of food, interaction with other horticulturists
Darby, K. et al. (2020) [108]	Questionnaire administration	The text considers the views of gardeners located in rural and/or low-income areas	Desire to save money, spend time outside the home, reconnect with nature
Kirby, C. et al., (2021) [109]	Multivariate analysis	The text provides support for planners as it highlights the existence of various types of urban agriculture and the relative motivations	Wellbeing impacts, nutritional choices, economic reasons, willingness to socialise
Poniży, L. et al. (2021) [110]	Field surveys and quantitative processing of the preferences of gardeners	The article carries out a comparative analysis of various case in different European countries	Food production, financial savings, satisfaction with cultivation, recreation, contact with nature, access to quality food
Vastola, A. et al. (2020) [111]	Use of secondary data	The related investigation carries out a comparative analysis between Rome and Tokyo	The gardener aspires to grow his own vegetables for your own consumption
Feinberg et al. (2021) [112]	Database analysis and case studies approach	The related analysis offers a comparison of the motivations of gardeners located in Germany and The Netherlands	Social motivations are often not the driver for the cultivation
da Cunha, M. et al. (2020) [113]	Location of gardens, site visits, and interviews with gardeners	The article highlights that gardens are cultivated mainly for food supply reasons	Food production
Sachs et al. (2022) [114]	Administration of questionnaires and quantitative analysis of responses	The text compares the motivations of market gardeners in Montpellier and Denver	Psychological effects, autonomy, relationships, well-being, health, reconnection with nature
Home, R. and Vieli, L. (2020) [115]	Questionnaire administration and quantitative analysis	The article argues that the underlying motivations for farming are not place-based	Catering and personal fulfilment, socialisation, self-production of food
Rusciano, V. et al. (2020) [116]	Questionnaire administration and quantitative analysis of results	The article investigates the influence of social and ecological factors on gardeners’ motivations	Mitigation effects urbanisation, social relations, ecological innovation
Newell, J. et al. (2022) [117]	Interview administration and quantitative analysis of responses	Verification of the production of ecosystem services and food	Production of ecosystem services, social cohesion, and then food production
Hunter, C. et al. (2020) [118]	Qualitative analysis	The study aims to demonstrate different propensities for sustainable practices	Sustainable agricultural practices, sustainable behaviour
Zainal, M. (2021) [119]	Questionnaire administration and thematic analysis	It finds that gardeners already have strong social motivations.	Cultivation cements social capital, promotes knowledge sharing and access to inputs and materials, technology transfer, and adoption. It also promotes cooperation and encourages good agricultural practices.
Artmann, M. et al. (2021) [120]	Questionnaire administration and analysis by main components of the answers	The article seeks to understand whether cultivation helps to improve human–food relations	Food-related and health improvement
Egerer, M. et al. (2022) [121]	Questionnaire administration and quantitative analysis of results	The investigation highlights the importance of urban garden cultivation for stress relief during COVID-19	Reconnection with nature, stress reduction, physical activity outside the home and food supply
Hencelová, P. et al. (2021) [122]	Mixed-methods approach, questionnaire administration	The text aims to analyse the relationship between visits to vegetable gardens and social relationships	There is no relationship
Philpott, S. et al., (2020) [123]	Questionnaire administration and quantitative analysis	The study ascertains differences in motivations that drive cultivation and those related to the plant choice between various social subgroups of gardeners	Reconnection with nature
Tandarić, N. et al. (2022) [124]	Questionnaire administration	The authors want to consider the point of view of older gardeners	Personal utility, tradition, self-growing, self-growth, desire to socialise, wellbeing
Dorn, S. et al. (2021) [125]	Questionnaire administration and quantitative analysis of results	The article provides a comparison of the motivations felt by different social subgroups	Social motivations are not as strong for all gardeners
Eiter, S. et al. (2022) [126]	Textual analysis	The article tests how motivations change in 2020 and 2021	Social aspects, neighbourhood beautification, a sense of belonging to the neighbourhood
Mead et al. (2021) [127]	Cross-sectional survey analysis	The related investigation checks possible relationships between cultivation and better consumption choices	Access to quality food, reconnection with nature, individual health, stress reduction, ethical reasons
Amani-Beni, M. et al. (2021) [128]	Historical analysis	The article offers an analysis of historical Persian gardens and the possible current uses	Sustainable urban planning, environmental protection
Wu, C. et al. (2022) [129]	Principal component analysis	The article shows that Chinese residents’ perceptions of ecosystem services and disruptions influence their behavioural intention to establish an urban community garden	Ecosystem service provision

Source: Author’s elaboration (2022).

The few articles included in the second cluster specifically consider the possible implications of the COVID-19 virus diffusion on motivations for gardening. Assessing the main drivers for cultivation during lockdown, Basarir et al. (2022) [130] evidence improved well-being and the desire to spend time on recreation, while Harding et al. (2022) [131] assume the recognition of the importance of regenerating urban space and protecting the environment. Novriyanti et al. (2021) [132] emphasise the desire to cultivate herbs alongside the need for recreation, while Nicola et al. (2020) [133], and Joshi et al., (2022) [134] add to this aspiration the importance of activating community resilience mechanisms. Cattivelli (2022b) [3] reveals that social motivations and those related to the urban regeneration appear to be the most appreciated, with other motivations related to food and community health having less impact. It seems likely that this scarce appreciation depends on the fact that food production deriving from this kind of cultivation that does not satisfy the basic needs of gardeners and their families. Table 4 reports a summary of the results of this investigation.

Table 4. The list of the papers that detail specifically the motivations COVID-19 induced or changed among the articles that detail the motivations behind urban gardening published in the period 2020-mid2022. Cluster 2.

Reference	The Study Methods	Results	Motivations
Cattivelli, V. (2022) [3]	Development and application DSS (Decision support system)	The article outlines how the contribution of urban gardens to food security in municipalities at risk of food desertification is near zero	Access to food, food security
Basarir et al. (2022) [130]	Questionnaire administration and results analysis with a logistic regression model	The text analyses the preferences of horticulturists and their desire to have a vegetable garden during the pandemic	Improved wellbeing and recreation
Harding et al. (2022) [131]	Questionnaire administration and quantitative analysis of results	The related investigation tests the contribution of urban gardens to well-being during the pandemic	Well-being, hobbies, use of free space, environmental benefits and beautification of empty areas, urban development
Novriyanti, N. et al. (2021) [132]	Administration of questionnaires and quantitative analysis of responses	The text compares the behaviour of urban gardeners during the COVID-19 pandemic	Growing herbs, recreation
Nicola et al. (2020) [133]	Reflections on the topic	The article tests the contribution of cultivation to a food supply	Availability of fresh food, community resilience
Joshi, N. and Wende, W. (2022) [134]	Questionnaire administration and qualitative processing of responses, ethnography	The article tests the contribution of cultivation to social resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic.	Social relations, community resilience
Behe et al. (2022) [135]	Questionnaire administration and quantitative analysis of responses	Comparison of different generations regarding motivations during the pandemic	Educational, psychological, physical benefits, reduction of isolation, connections, social relations
Tuominen, L. et al. (2022) [136]	Structural Equation Modelling (SEM)	The related investigation tests the perceptions related to the garden box social–ecological system	Environmental protection, social capital, personal identity

Source: Author’s elaboration (2022).

Table 4. The list of the papers that detail specifically the motivations COVID-19 induced or changed among the articles that detail the motivations behind urban gardening published in the period 2020-mid2022. Cluster 2.

Reference	The Study Methods	Results	Motivations
Cattivelli, V. (2022) [3]	Development and application DSS (Decision support system)	The article outlines how the contribution of urban gardens to food security in municipalities at risk of food desertification is near zero	Access to food, food security
Basarir et al. (2022) [130]	Questionnaire administration and results analysis with a logistic regression model	The text analyses the preferences of horticulturists and their desire to have a vegetable garden during the pandemic	Improved wellbeing and recreation
Harding et al. (2022) [131]	Questionnaire administration and quantitative analysis of results	The related investigation tests the contribution of urban gardens to well-being during the pandemic	Well-being, hobbies, use of free space, environmental benefits and beautification of empty areas, urban development
Novriyanti, N. et al. (2021) [132]	Administration of questionnaires and quantitative analysis of responses	The text compares the behaviour of urban gardeners during the COVID-19 pandemic	Growing herbs, recreation
Nicola et al. (2020) [133]	Reflections on the topic	The article tests the contribution of cultivation to a food supply	Availability of fresh food, community resilience
Joshi, N. and Wende, W. (2022) [134]	Questionnaire administration and qualitative processing of responses, ethnography	The article tests the contribution of cultivation to social resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic.	Social relations, community resilience
Behe et al. (2022) [135]	Questionnaire administration and quantitative analysis of responses	Comparison of different generations regarding motivations during the pandemic	Educational, psychological, physical benefits, reduction of isolation, connections, social relations
Tuominen, L. et al. (2022) [136]	Structural Equation Modelling (SEM)	The related investigation tests the perceptions related to the garden box social–ecological system	Environmental protection, social capital, personal identity

Source: Author’s elaboration (2022).

By examining the methods included in both clusters, the research concludes that most studies adopt quantitative techniques to process questionnaires sent to growers to collect information about social status (including their name and age) and about their motivations for gardening. Answers are primarily elaborated using descriptive statistical techniques; only in three cases are they performed with more elaborate econometric techniques such as those of logistic regression and the Structural Equation Modelling system.

When using ‘urban gardening’ as a search term, the research eliminates from the results delivered by Google Scholar certain articles that have already been considered in previous extractions. The remaining 27 articles of 50 deal mainly with biodiversity and sustainability, as well as with the provision and preservation of ecosystem services (e.g., [137,138,139]) and their planning (e.g., [140]). From a social point of view, they delineate urban gardens as places where people cook and meet [141], learn environmentally sustainable practices, and increase their consumption of fruits, vegetables, and organic food (e.g., [71]). With the same orientation, they describe these gardens [142,143,144] as a lifelong learning instrument addressing social and environmental issues. Other research carries on the conviction that gardens contribute to well-being—especially amongst vulnerable populations [145]—or to the consolidation of social capital (e.g., Kingsley et al., 2020 [146]), being initiatives of social innovation [147]. Only one treats gardens marginally and as part of ecosystem services and green infrastructure [148], while another one regards it as an attractive recreation [149]. Just one considers the potential of gardens as a means of resistance to COVID-19 [150].

Regarding their methods, studies employ both quantitative and qualitative techniques. None of the articles detail the motivations behind urban gardening, and none refer to the pandemic period.

When using the search term ‘urban gardening’ in Italian, the research does not add any further articles to those already considered previously in this language. This happens also when typing ‘urban gardening motivations’, both in English and in Italian.

5. Discussion

Traditionally, consolidated literature on urban gardening demonstrates the contribution of this practice to reducing social isolation, its positive impacts on physical and psychological conditions, particularly among older people, and occasionally its influence on family and work relationships. It also considers its contribution to reducing human pressure on natural resources and mitigating environmental alterations, and places focus on its role in increasing access to food, as well as in improving the quality and affordability of food.

Literature produced in the period from 2020 to mid-2022 confirms the contributions of this practice in the same fields.

Table 5. Counts the motivations listed in all considered articles.

Clusters of Motivations	Reasons Included in the Articles and the Number of Times They Are Repeated
Social integration	Willingness to socialise (8), Personal fulfilment (3), Social aspects (1), Knowledge sharing (1), Technology transfer (2), Bond building (1), Ethical reasons (1), Spending time away from home (3), Traditions (2), Social cohesion (2), Educational benefits (1), Community resilience (2), Sense of neighbourhood (2)
Personal and community	Wellbeing (4), Physical activity (2), Recreation (4), Connecting with nature (8)
Urban regeneration	Use of open spaces (1), Neighbourhood beautification (1), Sustainable urban planning and environmental protection (5), Ecosystem services (3)
Food security	Food security (4), Improving the agrifood system (1), Access to food (4), Economic reasons (2), Self-production (9), Encouraging the adoption of good agricultural practises (3), Access to quality food (4), Saving (1)

Source: Author’s elaboration based on bibliographical analysis, 2022.

reports a summary of the results of this investigation.

Specifically, the cluster of literature that was published in the period in question but that refers to previous studies considers social motivations alone less frequently than in the past. They remain important; however, they are appreciated only in terms of increased socialisation, autonomy, and sense of personal fulfilment, and as a driver of social capital cohesion, along with other food- and health-related motivations. Within the same cluster, urban regeneration motivations are less common than social ones—gardeners are not often pushed towards cultivation through a desire to disseminate the principles of sustainable urban planning. Although they reveal the important role urban gardens play in advancing planning, gardeners also outline their ability to strengthen the provision of several ecosystem services (e.g., microclimate, water runoff and quality, plant biodiversity, etc.) and offer opportunities for physical activity and mental well-being.

Several motivations are mentioned by urban gardeners, including the desire to protect urban landscapes and to produce ecosystem services. However, food- and health-related motivations are the most often cited. Gardeners make a choice to cultivate through the desire to produce the food they need for personal consumption, to access food more easily and to obtain food of better quality. Only when questioned for an article do they state an aim to contribute to the improvement of the entire agricultural food system or save money. None of them point out that they can reduce transport costs or the use of fertilizers and chemical pesticides.

The cluster of literature that specifically focuses on the functions of urban gardening during the pandemic [130] outlines its implications on social interactions and resilience [134], well-being [131], and food supply [133], and also details the motivations that drove gardeners to cultivate during this period in particular (e.g., [132,135]). Some scholars reveal that gardeners cultivate to socialise, spend time outside their homes and feel fulfilled after a long period of social isolation, as well as activating those community resilience mechanisms as a response to the pandemic crisis. None evidence the desire to strengthen family relationships, which is never mentioned as a relevant motivation. Community resilience is the most significant development in comparison to the past. This motivation is listed for the first time among social motivations. Other scholars demonstrate that gardeners are motivated by the desire to improve individual and community health, to connect with nature, and improve their own food habits. However, none emphasizes the willingness to contribute to beautify neighborhoods.

Methodologically, few studies used a case study or intervention design, and a smaller number again were considered to be cross-sectional or reviews. Methods vary but include both qualitative and quantitative methods. A comparison of the number of qualitative and quantitative studies shows that the latter are very numerous and slightly outnumber the former. This overturns the findings of Draper and Freedman (2010) [21], who only a few years ago in their review noted that qualitative studies were significantly more numerous than quantitative studies.

This review demonstrates that gardens can help fulfil the mission and goals of community practice during the pandemic period in particular. It also outlines the need for additional evaluative research on the effectiveness of these practices as tools to promote social, health, economic, and environmental change. Additional evaluation in this sense would provide more evidence for developing and implementing them more frequently in other periods, and not just in times of the crisis. The advantages of these practices are that they can be used as a tool to fulfil several goals, such as social, food-related, and urban regeneration targets. Another advantage is that they can also be realised within any community population and its social subgroups. Compared to other interventions, urban gardens can be formed and easily manipulated based on the interests, characteristics, and motivations of specific individuals and periods. The reinforced social capital deriving from the cultivation of a garden illustrates the importance of human relationships, which serve as a vehicle for individual and societal change. The empowerment of gardeners can lead to the enactment of policies and include in the local government agenda more visible prescriptions related to environmental and societal resilience.

6. Conclusions

This article investigates the motivations underpinning the cultivation of urban gardens during the pandemic period, as revealed by research published in the period 2020 to mid-2022. This focus is the novelty of the article because previous surveys have focused on urban garden motivations before that period. Before the pandemic, previous research illustrated the need to improve social integration, food security, community and individual health, and urban regeneration as the main motivations behind garden cultivation.

The choice to include and discuss subsequent studies implies eventual changes in the motivations analysed, and without a doubt will enrich the current debate by offering new reasons to discuss.

This type of research would greatly increase the understanding of the effectiveness of urban gardens. Although the research discussed in this review points to a multitude of motivations rendered through participation in gardening, the overwhelming majority did not measure the changes induced by the pandemic. Restrictions to mobility made it more difficult to get in touch with gardeners and interview them. However, the few recently published studies reveal that some changes have occurred. For many people and communities, gardening during the COVID-19 pandemic was a source of support as they dealt with changing conditions of lockdown. Gardening has helped some individuals to cope with some of the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic: isolation, stress, and anxiety. Gardening also facilitated people’s access to food, but less commonly forced them to reflect on environmental conditions and the importance of protecting green spaces against cementification. It reinforces the idea of gardening as an effective solution that addresses health, well-being, climate change, and social challenges in cities. However, motivations related to urban regeneration seem to inspire gardeners less than in the past.

To sum up, the current research shows that motivations towards gardening were mainly positive during the COVID-19 pandemic and have the potential to promote health. As such, it serves as a positive beginning in discovering these practices, but there is a need to expand upon the variables and population examined, utilising more sophisticated research methodologies. Further research should empirically test these attitudes and variations in motivations, perhaps through direct interviews and relative processing. In doing so, these studies should then detail the point of view of gardeners in general, but also with reference to specific social sub-group, such as elderly people and foreign citizens or in other settings where practitioners are already present—such as schools, hospitals, prisons, residential treatment facilities, not-for-profit organisations, and within the political realm. Similarly, investigations could make a territorial distinction and analyse the spread of gardens and the underlying motivations in various areas, such as urban and metropolitan settings, but also rural and mountainous areas, from a national and European perspective. Some motivations, such as dietary changes or reduction in crime rates, have not been studied in depth or still need to be examined.