Next Article in Journal
Slap a Label on It—Civic Registration Categories for (Non)Citizens and the Digital Promise
Previous Article in Journal
Evolving Social Media Strategies in Local Journalism: Experiences from Argentine Patagonia
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Social Sciences
Volume 13
Issue 9
10.3390/socsci13090462
socsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Backyard Activities as Sources of Social and Personal Well-Being: A Study of the Mexican Population (Guasave, Sinaloa)

by
Víctor Manuel Peinado-Guevara
1,
Héctor José Peinado-Guevara
1,*,
Mary Cruz Sánchez-Alcalde
1,*,
Griselda Karina González-Félix
1,*,
Jaime Herrera-Barrientos
2,
María de los Ángeles Ladrón de Guevara-Torres
3 and
Aldo Alán Cuadras-Berrelleza
1
1
Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Administrativas, Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa, Boulevard Juan de Dios Bátiz, Guasave 81049, Sinaloa, Mexico
2
Centro de Investigación Científica y de Educación Superior de Ensenada, Baja California (CICESE), Carretera Ensenada-Tijuana No. 3918, Zona Playitas, Ensenada 22860, Baja California, Mexico
3
Instituto Politécnico Nacional, CIIDIR, Unidad Oaxaca, Santa Cruz Xoxocotlán 71230, Oaxaca, Mexico
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Soc. Sci. 2024, 13(9), 462; https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13090462
Submission received: 1 July 2024 / Revised: 15 August 2024 / Accepted: 27 August 2024 / Published: 2 September 2024
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Isolation due to the COVID-19 pandemic has heightened daily tension, leading to stress and other illnesses. This research examined the impact of backyard activities on social and personal well-being, focusing on agricultural (gardens, vegetables, medicinal plants) and livestock activities (chickens, goats, sheep, cows). An exploratory study was conducted using a Likert-scale survey of 387 people, with 22 items covering economic growth, social well-being, and human development. The results showed that 50% of the respondents experienced pleasant emotions through sensory engagement with home gardens, leading to well-being, reduced anxiety and stress, better concentration, and improved family harmony. McDonald’s Omega (ω) value for item consistency was 0.964. Strong correlations were found between economic growth, social well-being, and human development with social and personal well-being, at 0.719, 0.819, and 0.812, respectively. These results are validated by an exploratory principal component factor analysis, which shows the correlation of the classes that integrate backyard activities on a principal axis. Backyard livestock activities had a lesser impact on personal and social well-being compared to agricultural activities, which were valued more for their economic and nutritional contributions. Thus, backyard activities, especially those involving home gardens, significantly enhance social and personal well-being alongside their economic and food benefits.

1. Introduction

The conditions of isolation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and everyday life lead to a deterioration of health, which the World Health Organization (WHO) (2022) defines as ‘a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being, and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity’; i.e., it encompasses the social and personal well-being of individuals (Raghupathi and Raghupathi 2020; Bauer et al. 2006). Social well-being is a state in which individuals live peacefully together within the same community or physical environment, in which social, economic, and natural factors may come into play, all with a common goal: the pursuit of development as a society (United States Institute of Peace [USIP] 2009).
Situations of anxiety, depression, or stress are precise variables in the deterioration of physical, personal, and social well-being. This is why the growing trend in studies associated with personal wellbeing in general can include both biological and personal well-being as well as psychological aspects (de Vries 2023; Barraza-López et al. 2017).
Development and social welfare policies around the world focus on social, economic, health, quality of life, and other issues. Currently, issues such as people’s health have had a greater impact on social support programs. In European regions, the World Health Organization points out the negative impact of economic crises on the personal well-being of society, considering public policies aimed at social welfare and development as tools with positive impacts (Espino Granado 2014).
Kim and Miller (2019) and Wood et al. (2017) have documented the existence of a direct link between people in their homes and nature, biodiversity, green spaces, and ecosystems. These links have improved human health while promoting a commitment to the environment and much-needed sustainable development practices, especially given the accelerated growth of urban spaces which, in recent years, has concentrated more than 50% of the world’s population in urban areas and is expected to exceed 70% by 2050 (García Flores and Ordoñez Díaz 2022; Claris Fisher et al. 2021; Burgin 2018).
With population growth, the need for green spaces becomes increasingly important in people’s lives. Good environmental education can be a key tool to encourage backyard activities. This can also be developed informally, or in an orderly manner with defined objectives through ecological education (Korcz et al. 2021).
Contact with nature is one of the activities that humans have most frequently sought as a mechanism to achieve personal wellbeing (Buckley 2020). A clear example is the ‘forest baths’ originating in Japan: a simple practice where humans give their full attention and concentration to the smells, sounds, and scenery of a natural environment in a forest, where their main objective is the search for physical and mental wellbeing (Farkic et al. 2021).
Situations such as confinement to households due to the recent COVID-19 sanitary contingencies have affected people’s lifestyles in terms of health, stress levels, and financial and food security (Carroll et al. 2020), the context of which, according to Pérez-Urrestarazu et al. (2021), favored the development of backyard activities in households. These activities were performed not only for food production but also for family recreation. The authors describe a positive impact because productive activities in households influenced social behavior.
Backyard activities have represented an alternative to address the current trends of population growth in the world, specifically regarding food shortages and the deterioration of nutritional status that has been a constant threat in recent years, especially in developing countries or rural communities (Awad 2022; Burgin 2018). The Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA 2017) notes that these activities are an important form of agricultural and livestock production for Latin America and the Caribbean and can contribute significantly to the food and nutritional security of rural and urban families in the region.
In communities, backyard activities have been a pastime for people seeking to grow their own fresh and healthy food and enhance their connection with nature (Halvey et al. 2021). They are considered as the “outdoor spaces where all kinds of vegetables and seeds are grown continuously throughout the year for self-consumption or for the development of productive projects in marginalised communities” (Fideicomiso de Riesgo Compartido 2017).
Authors such as Salazar-Barrientos et al. (2015) consider that backyard farming influences the identity of the people who practice it, including their cultural, social, biological, and agronomic relationships, and that, at the same time, they are contributing to the production and self-consumption of food in their homes. In areas with high levels of poverty, they revalue backyard activities as a source of economic income.
Despite the level of importance that backyard activities represent, the vast majority of people are unaware of the concept as such or ignore the benefits that a space in their homes dedicated to the production of consumer goods can have.
The objective of this research is to determine the contribution or influence of backyard activities that, in terms of social and personal well-being, provides to the rural communities of Guasave, Sinaloa, Mexico.

2. Materials and Methods

Following the methodology described by García Flores and Ordoñez Díaz (2022), an exploratory study was carried out in three phases. The first phase consisted of the location and vocation of the study area. The second phase was a socio-demographic description of the people surveyed. Finally, the description and interpretation of the results obtained in the interviews was carried out.
A total of 387 questionnaires were administered to people between 18 and 83 years of age, with a mean age of 43.27 years and a standard deviation of 15.03 years. Most of these people were women (63.69%), who have historically played an essential role in the development of backyard activities, contributing directly to the family economy with the income generated by backyard activities (Jabeen et al. 2020).

2.1. First Phase: Characterization of the Study Area

The surveys were distributed in the municipality of Guasave, which is one of the 18 municipalities of the state of Sinaloa, characterized by its extensive agricultural production, bordered to the north by the municipalities of Ahome and Sinaloa; to the east by the municipalities of Sinaloa, Salvador Alvarado, and Angostura; to the south by the municipality of Angostura and the Gulf of California; and to the west by the Gulf of California and the municipality of Ahome. It also occupies 5.12% of the state’s surface area (INEGI 2020a).

2.2. Second Phase: Sociodemographic Description of Respondents

This study was conducted in the rural communities of Guasave, Sinaloa, Mexico. This municipality has a population structure of 289,370 inhabitants, of which 72.71% of its population is concentrated in rural communities, the area described as the object of study in this research. It also has an average of 3.7 inhabitants per dwelling and 53 people per square kilometer (Ayuntamiento de Guasave 2022; INEGI 2020b; INEGI 2021).
Leyva López et al. (2015) point out that Guasave has a ‘Low’ socio-demographic level of development compared to the rest of the municipalities in the state of Sinaloa, considering in this level of development indicators of social deprivation such as education, health, basic services, and housing quality and spaces (Consejo Nacional de Evaluación de la Política de Desarrollo Social [CONEVAL] 2020).
Of the total economically active population (EAP), 62% are men and 38% women, while of the total non-economically active population (NEAP), most of these people (42.4%) are ‘people dedicated to household chores’ (INEGI 2021).

2.3. Third Phase: Surveys Applied

The survey was administered through Google Forms, including 26 questions. In 22 of them, Likert-type scaling was used, and the rest of the questions were related to aspects of gender, age, and the productive sector to which they belong. The 22 items were divided into three categories: economic (4 items), personal well-being (9 items), and human development (9 items). A Likert scale was used to determine the respondents’ perception of each item, presented in the form of statements to which the respondent reacts. The statements are thematically related to the classes indicated. Possible responses to each statement can be: (1) Strongly agree, (2) Agree, (3) Neither agree nor disagree, (4) Disagree, (5) Strongly disagree (Canto de Gande et al. 2020).
This study was conducted in the municipality of Guasave, Sinaloa, Mexico in the adult population, which according to INEGI data (INEGI 2020a) comprises a community of 204,163 inhabitants. The sample size was calculated using the statistical formula proposed by Torres et al. (2006), which corresponds to the case where the size of the population is known:
N = population size = 204,163
Z = 95% confidence level (Z = 1.96)
p = probability of success, or expected proportion (p = 50%)
q = probability of failure (q = 50%)
d = accuracy = 4.98%
Substituting the values, the following is obtained:
n = N Z 2 p q d 2 N − 1 + Z 2 p q = 204163 ( 1.96 2 ) ( 0.5 ) ( 0.5 ) 0.0498 2 204163 − 1 + 1.96 2 ( 0.5 ) ( 0.5 ) = 386.5 ≈ 387
According to this calculation, the number of respondents is 387.
This calculation is performed based on the literature review by García-Rodríguez et al. (2017), who described three main variables for human health: economic growth, social well-being, and human development. For this purpose, the 22 items were divided into three classes with 4, 9, and 9 items, respectively, proceeding as follows:
The Likert scale was applied to each of the 387 respondents. Four data sets were generated from each respondent’s response to each of the 24 items: one for each class and one for the social and personal well-being class, so that a mean value was obtained from each respondent’s responses to the items in each class, resulting in a series of 387 data sets for each class. The items in the social and personal well-being class were obtained from the mean value of each respondent’s responses to the total number of items.

2.4. Internal Consistency and Validity of the Instrument

To demonstrate the validity and reliability of the instrument, it was subjected to statistical tests (Frías-Navarro 2022) including the McDonald Omega method (IBM 2022): the ideal method to analyze the internal consistency of the scores addressed in the instrument, taking into account the responses of the 22 items of each respondent. The calculations were performed using the freely available program JASP 0.16.1, which is an open-source project with structural support from the University of Amsterdam (JASP Team 2022).
The internal validity of the scale was determined based on an exploratory factor analysis (EFA), which seeks to discover the structure of the data through principal components rotated using the Varimax technique. In this way, we find the factors, components, or eigenvectors in which the items are grouped to form classes or subclasses according to their attributes. The sedimentation graph is also shown, in which the magnitude of the eigenvectors or eigenvalues is observed. From these, the three main components of the variance of the items are determined, as well as the grouping structure of the items on the axes and their relationship with the three classes of item groupings.

3. Results

3.1. Statistical Analysis

Using McDonald’s Omega (ω), the 22 Likert-scale items were analyzed using the JASP 0.16.1 program, yielding a ω = 0.964, which indicates that the items were consistent. Frías-Navarro (2022), states that for values above 0.7, the items are consistent.
The normality test was also applied to the categories using the non-parametric Kolmogórov–Smirnov method using IBM SPSS Statistics software. In all cases, when comparing the subcategories, p = 0.000 < 0.05 was obtained, concluding that there was no homogeneity between the pairs of distributions analyzed. To determine the characteristics of the instrument, which includes non-normal and ordinal data, Kendall’s Tau-b and Tau-c tests were applied using the same statistical program.
When comparing the category social and personal well-being through backyard activities with the categories economic growth, social well-being, and human development, using Kendall’s Tau-b statistical test (see Table 1), significant correlations were found in accordance with Rajbahadur et al. (2022). We observed that the relationship between social and personal well-being through backyard activities and the subcategories of economic growth, social well-being, and human development, maintained a strong correlation.

3.2. Description of the Surveyed Population That Performs Backyard Activities

The questionnaire started with introductory questions that allowed us to determine the profile and characterization of the people surveyed, directed to the practices of backyard activities. Backyard activities were divided into agricultural and livestock activities. Regarding agricultural activities, 89.15% of the respondents stated that they carried out these activities at home, including maintaining a family garden, which includes fruit trees, medicinal plants, and vegetables, among others. Regarding livestock, 67.96% of the respondents reported raising animals at home for domestic consumption, such as chickens, sheep, goats, pigs, and cows, among other animals (Table 2).

3.3. Characterization of Backyard Activities

3.3.1. Economic Growth

In the ‘Economic growth’ class, four items were included that contain economic aspects where backyard activities have a direct impact as an income-generating activity, highlighting the families’ satisfaction when visualizing a good future due to the production of their vegetable gardens and/or raising of domestic animals.
A total of 83.47% of those surveyed considered backyard activities to be a good source of income, with a tendency to grow. They expressed positive attitudes towards the products obtained, and they were sure that the products served to satisfy their basic food needs.
A total of 39.02% of the respondents showed great satisfaction in harvesting the fruits of their backyard activities, such as the production of plants, by answering ‘Strongly agree’. This shows that, in addition to the tangible economic benefits, there is a well-being that generates harmony in people, as well as personal emotional satisfaction (see Table 3).
The economic benefits of backyard activities have different ways of being accounted for, as they are different activities, and families do not have a formal system to account for their income, given that, in most cases, the production of backyard activities can be for sale and/or self-consumption.

3.3.2. Social Welfare

The social welfare class provided insight into the profile of the respondent and the integration of the production of backyard activities as a return of benefits to the society. A total of 52.71% of the respondents said they agreed that the family garden and/or small farm contributed to health and nutrition. Based on this question, most of the respondents said they agreed with the arguments that position backyard activities as actions that ‘unite families’ and allow and promote ‘contact with nature’ by generating a taste for the ‘smells’ and ‘sounds’ that are generated due to activities (see Table 4). As Sosa-Urrutia et al. (2019) point out, these types of parameters allow us to understand how people behave in the face of social well-being.

3.3.3. Human Development Class

The modern concept of human development has undergone various modifications due to the social adaptations that human beings have experienced depending on criteria that are in their environment and over which, for the most part, they have no control; for example, social or economic phenomena. These have a direct impact on their development as a person, and sometimes, this parameter allows a country to measure its place in the global world (Yumashev et al. 2020).
Most of the respondents expressed that their backyard activities provided the impression of relaxation (85.27%), stress release (82.43%), release of anxious feelings (76.74%), concentration (78.04%), companionship (74.16%), positivity (80.88%), optimism (83.98%), and relaxation (79.33%) (see Table 5). On average, more than 49% of the respondents said they agreed with the human development criteria from a positive perspective on backyard activities.

3.3.4. Development and Acceptance of Backyard Livestock and Agricultural Activities

It was necessary to know the respondents’ acceptance of backyard activities that included the production and breeding of domestic animals. Therefore, questions were asked to determine their opinion, pointing out that livestock activities are mainly based on the use and exploitation of domestic animals for productive purposes (Onyango 2023).
It is worth mentioning that 33.07% of the respondents expressed ‘Neither agree nor disagree’; that is, they were indifferent to the presence of an area where backyard livestock activities are carried out, given that it is very common for families in rural communities to carry out these types of practices in their homes (see Table 6).
The most practiced livestock activity among the respondents was the breeding of pigs, with 32.56%, followed by the breeding of chickens, with 31.27%, mainly due to the variety and low cost of feed sources for these animals. However, it is worth mentioning that 32.04% of the respondents stated that they do not engage in the breeding and/or production of domestic animals, which indicates a disadvantage compared to backyard farming activities (see Figure 1).
The acceptance and practices of backyard farming activities allow for sustainable production based on feeding strategies, as it is possible to take advantage of backyard by-products. This activity represents an essential source of animal protein for households; however, backyard animal production may have some limitations among the families that carry them out, including a lack of food and the presence of diseases and predators that could affect animal husbandry (Estrada et al. 2023; Valverde Lucio et al. 2021).
The majority (21.96%) of the respondents engaging in backyard animal husbandry agreed that the main purpose for carrying out these activities was ‘to generate extra income for the family’ and as a ‘source of food’. It is worth noting that 12.66% of the respondents referred to animal husbandry ‘as a distractor’, again associating backyard activities with the personal well-being of the people who carry them out (see Figure 2). Although their contribution to personal well-being is less significant compared to agricultural activities, the practices in question demonstrate a positive impact in the economic sphere.
The production of plants in the households mostly turned out to be fruit trees, which usually included endemic trees of the region such as mangos, plums, oranges, and avocados (López Ortiz et al. 2017), with 63.57%, while 42.38% of the respondents were engaged in the production of vegetables in their homes (see Figure 3). It is important to mention that the respondents who carried out backyard activities with an agricultural focus did so for the production of medicinal plants (28.17%) such as copalquín, toloache, valeriana, basil, and stafiate, among other varieties. These are an essential part of the culture in the rural communities of the region (Aguiar Hernández et al. 2016). Similarly, the main objective of agricultural activities in households, comprising 63.67%, was as a ‘source of food’ (see Figure 4).

3.4. Exploratory Factor Analysis

Figure 5 shows the magnitude of the eigenvectors, observing that 68% of the variance was in the first three components. The first one had 57% of the variance, the second one had 6% and the third one had 5%. The percentage distribution of the variance of each component is shown in Table 7.
Table 8 shows the matrix of the three principal components rotated using the Varimax technique, whose values correspond to the correlation coefficients of the items grouped in these axes, factors, or components. This table shows that all the correlation coefficients are positive, classifying them as weak and strong; the former less than 0.5 and the latter greater than 0.5.
The main axis contains 10 items with a strong correlation coefficient higher than 0.5; i.e., 45% of them had a strong positive correlation. According to the typification of the items, there is a compositional homogeneity of the three categories of the instrument applied to the 387 respondents in axis 1. Therefore, this axis is the main axis and represents the category characterization of backyard activities.
Component 2 exhibits the highest correlation of the human development class, as 55% of the items in this category had a correlation coefficient higher than 0.6. Regarding component 3, 32% of the items had a correlation coefficient higher than 0.5, and 62.5% of them were related to the personal well-being category. Thus, component 1 was the main component, composed of the three classes representing the backyard activities, as it contained 57% of the variance of the items.
In component 1, the low correlation 0.085 of item BS8, which corresponds to ‘with the pandemic, my family garden and/or small farm has been a great support to us’, is striking. It is an item that acquires a high correlation on axes 2 and 3; i.e., it was more sensitive in the specific categories of the human development class and personal well-being.
Axis 1, having 57% of the variance and containing the three homogeneously distributed classes, represents backyard activities, so that the 22-item survey instrument is validated by the positive correlation between the three classes on a main axis, axis 1. On the other hand, axes 2 and 3, with a contribution of 10% of axis 1, show groupings of the human development class and personal well-being.

4. Discussion

Family integration and, consequently, social well-being are directly related to the economic income that families can generate. However, when talking about social and personal well-being in rural communities, where sources of economic income tend to be low due to primary activities, these sources are neither constant nor permanent. In some cases, they are complemented by governmental support focused on reducing poverty levels, thus increasing opportunities for social well-being (Ruiz-Torres and Trejo-Calzada 2015; Soares 2022).
Backyard activities have had a positive impact on household incomes around the world, not only in the nutritional and economic sphere but also from a social and personal well-being perspective. This is because they generate a state of well-being for those who practice these activities, in addition to revaluing the resources available to households for food production and self-consumption. This was most notable during the health crisis of the COVID-19 pandemic, where the fragility of production systems was highlighted from a global perspective (Huang et al. 2021).
The term ‘social and personal well-being’ has traditionally been related to purely economic variables such as per capita income and housing (Velasco Arellanes et al. 2018), among others. Regarding personal well-being, it has been integrated into the concept of health, where both social well-being and personal well-being, together with physical well-being, are part of the concept of health.
Researchers have shown the importance of improving personal well-being services, social well-being programs, and mitigating problems triggered by the pandemic. Backyard activities have been found to generate a synergy between food production for self-consumption and a source of well-being, sustenance, spirituality, identity, and a space to rest (Aparicio et al. 2023; Novera and Kark 2022).
Through the application of the surveys in the study area, it was observed that the creation of home gardens in households provides a space for recreation, which has an impact on personal satisfaction. Additionally, as an indirect consequence, it provides economic and environmental benefits, as pointed out by Sofo and Sofo (2020). The municipality of Guasave, Sinaloa, Mexico, has households that carry out backyard activities, and most of these people capitalize on the benefits of these activities for family self-consumption, mainly in rural communities. Where the spaces for their production are larger and have the ideal characteristics to carry them out, a direct relationship has been found between the amount of space dedicated to food production and the economic income received by the families.
Furthermore, their backyard cultivation and production techniques are mainly adapted to their needs, whether food or economic, as well as to their culture and social structure (Pham et al. 2022; Duché-García et al. 2017). However, when carrying out these activities, it is necessary to focus on the purpose for which the backyard activity is carried out, as its production may not be sufficient to meet the family’s demand, as described in the study by Magaña Magaña et al. (2022).
Although the objective for which families in rural communities decide to carry out backyard activities is food production, the results usually vary over time, ranging from a source of extra income to family integration generated by the role played by each of the members. Therefore, it is of utmost importance to promote these activities among the communities, as well as to provide support and training programs.
Variables such as social and personal well-being among people involved in backyard activities were observed as an indirect positive consequence and were seen as a benefit, as the respondents maintained a direct relationship between nature and therefore greater community cohesion (Nicholls et al. 2020; Van der Ploeg et al. 2017).
In this study, a reciprocity was found between family integration and the practice of backyard activities, as these brought about positive economic, productive, and work-related consequences. In other words, there is a direct relationship between individuals and their environment with regards to health and well-being (Bauer et al. 2006; Bolaños 2020; Castro et al. 2013).
Backyard activities include plant production and/or animal husbandry. Therefore, their activities are often very diverse, and all family members play a different role, generating a commitment among families that avoids food waste (Sosna et al. 2019). However, studies show that the promotion of gardens in households is mainly based on social and environmental issues rather than for contributing to a healthier daily diet. Therefore, the culture and practices of these activities in households in the municipality of Guasave include climatic and economic factors, which make backyard gardening useful knowledge for developing countries or areas (Cattivelli 2022; Jiao et al. 2019).
Likewise, food self-sufficiency for consumption has been a fundamental element in the face of discouraging economic scenarios. Therefore, backyard activities are no longer activities specific to the rural sector but are also included the urban sector, expanding the socio-economic groups and geographical locations that carry out backyard activities (Sosna et al. 2019).
The present exploratory study showed that the 22 items of the questionnaire were related to each other. Through to the exploratory factor analysis via principal components, it is observed that the three categories were in a principal axis that represented 57% of the total variance of the items. The categories economic, personal well-being, and human development were correlated, which gives validity to the instrument.

5. Conclusions

Social and personal well-being, as components of health, benefit from backyard activities, mainly in the agricultural class, where the colors, smells, and textures from the products of these activity generate a state of tranquility and pleasure during the harvest.
Most of the families in the municipality of Guasave determine that backyard activities generate tangible economic, nutritional, and health benefits in their components of social benefits and personal benefits. Backyard activities help family integration, as well as the health and economic aspects. All of these aspects are strongly correlated and are reflected in the factor analysis of the main components along a principal axis.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, V.M.P.-G., J.H.-B. and M.d.l.Á.L.d.G.-T.; data curation, H.J.P.-G. and M.C.S.-A.; investigation, H.J.P.-G., A.A.C.-B. and J.H.-B.; methodology, V.M.P.-G., H.J.P.-G. and J.H.-B.; supervision, M.C.S.-A. and G.K.G.-F.; validation, G.K.G.-F.; visualization, M.C.S.-A.; writing—original draft, V.M.P.-G. and J.H.-B.; writing—review and editing, M.C.S.-A., G.K.G.-F. and M.d.l.Á.L.d.G.-T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

For the present research, we focused on examining the effect of backyard activities on social and personal well-being in rural communities. In the field study, the respondents gave their informed consent, once the aims and objectives of the research were explained to them, they then proceeded to answer the survey designed on a Likert scale. All participants in the instrument were of legal age, and the information collected does not contain sensitive personal data in terms of chapter one, article three and section VI of the Federal Law for the Protection of Personal Data in Possession of Private Parties in force in the United Mexican States, which reads as follows: Sensitive personal data: Those personal data that affect the most intimate sphere of its owner, or whose improper use may lead to discrimination or entail a serious risk for its owner. Sensitive data are those that may reveal aspects such as racial or ethnic origin, present and future health status, genetic information, religious, philosophical and moral beliefs, union membership, political opinions and sexual preference. Ethical review and approval of this study was waived for the following reason: this research does not involve sensitive personal data, medical research involving human subjects, or medical care involving research.

Informed Consent Statement

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

Data Availability Statement

This is not applicable, as the data are not in any data repository with public access, if any editorial committee or reader requires access, we will provide it to them; using the following address.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Aguiar Hernández, Hipólito, Partida Ruvalcaba Leopoldo, and Jacobo Enrique Cruz Ortega. 2016. Oral Communication and Scientific Nomenclature on Medicinal Wild Plants in Culiacan, Sinaloa, México: An Educational Proposal. Open Access Library Journal 3: 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Aparicio, Elizabeth M., Svetlana Shpiegel, Genevieve Martinez-García, Alejandro Sánchez, Michelle Jasczynski, Marissa Ventola, Amara Channell Doig, Jennifer Lynn Robinson, and Rhoda Smith. 2023. Experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic among young parents with foster care backgrounds: A participatory action PhotoVoice study. Children and Youth Services Review 148: 106872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Awad, Atif. 2022. The determinants of food insecurity among developing countries: Are there any differences? Scientific African 19: e01512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ayuntamiento de Guasave. 2022. Información de Guasave. Available online: http://guasave.gob.mx/s/poblacion-economicamente-activa/ (accessed on 21 May 2023).
  5. Barraza-López, René Javier, Nadia Andrea Muñoz-Navarro, and Claudia Cecilia Behrens-Pérez. 2017. Relación entre inteligencia emocional y depresión-ansiedad y estrés en estudiantes de medicina de primer año. Revista Chilena de Neuro-Psiquiatría 55: 18–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Bauer, Georg, Jhon Kenneth Davies, Jürgen Pelikan, Euhpid Theory Working Group, and The Euhpid Consortium. 2006. The EUHPID Health Development Model for the classification of public health indicators. Health Promotion International 21: 153–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Bolaños, Esther Alvarez. 2020. Educación socioemocional. Controversias y Concurrencias Latinoamericanas 11: 388–408. [Google Scholar]
  8. Buckley, Ralf. 2020. Nature tourism and mental health: Parks, happiness, and causation. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 28: 1409–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Burgin, Selley. 2018. ‘Back to the future’? Urban backyards and food self-sufficiency. Land Use Policy 78: 29–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Canto de Gande, A. G., W. E. Sosa Gonzalez, J. Bautista Ortega, J. Escobar Castillo, and A. Santillán Fernández. 2020. Escala de Likert: Una alternativa para elaborar e interpretar un instrumento de percepción social. Revista de La Alta Tecnología y SociedadRevista de La Alta Tecnología y Sociedad 12: 38–45. [Google Scholar]
  11. Carroll, Nicholas, Adam Sadowski, Amar Laila, Valerie Hruska, Madeline Nixon, David W. L. Ma, Jess Haines, and on behalf of the Guelph Family Health Study. 2020. The impact of COVID-19 on health behavior, stress, financial and food security among middle to high income Canadian families with young children. Nutrients 12: 2352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Castro, R., W. Arias, S. Dominguez, M. Masías, X. Salas, F. Canales, and A. Flores. 2013. Integración familiar y variables socioeconómicas en Arequipa metropolitana. Revista de Investigación 4: 35–65. [Google Scholar]
  13. Cattivelli, V. 2022. The contribution of urban garden cultivation to food self-sufficiency in areas at risk of food desertification during the COVID-19 pandemic. Land Use Policy 120: 106215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Claris Fisher, J., J. Emmerson Bicknell, K. Nesbitt Irvine, D. Fernandes, J. Mistry, and Z. Georgina Davies. 2021. Exploring how urban nature is associated with human wellbeing in a neotropical city. Landscape and Urban Planning 212: 104119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Consejo Nacional de Evaluación de la Política de Desarrollo Social [CONEVAL]. 2020. Medición de la Pobreza-Índice de Rezago Social. Available online: https://www.coneval.org.mx/Medicion/IRS/Paginas/Que-es-el-indice-de-rezago-social.aspx#:~:text=El%20%C3%8Dndice%20de%20Rezago%20Social%20es%20una%20medida%20ponderada%20que,observaci%C3%B3n%20seg%C3%BAn%20sus%20carencias%20sociales (accessed on 12 February 2024).
  16. de Vries, L. P. 2023. Differences in Well-Being: The Biological and Environmental Causes, Related Phenotypes, and Real-Time Assessment. Doctoral dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Available online: https://research.vu.nl/en/publications/differences-in-well-being-the-biological-and-environmental-causes (accessed on 7 March 2024).
  17. Duché-García, T. T., H. Bernal-Mendoza, I. Ocampo-Fletes, D. Juárez-Ramón, and O. A. Villarreal-Espino Barros. 2017. Agricultura de traspatio y agreoecología en el proyecto estratégico de seguridad alimentaria (PESA-FAO) del estado de Puebla. Agricultura, Sociedad y Desarrollo 14: 263–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Espino Granado, Antonio. 2014. Crisis económica, políticas, desempleo y salud (mental). Revista de la Asociación Española de Neuropsiquiatría 34: 385–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Estrada, Aylin Mata, Fernando González Cerón, ArturoPro Martínez, Glafiro Torres Hernández, Jaime Bautista Ortega, Artemio Jovanny Vargas Galicia, Carlos Miguel Becerril-Pérez, and Eliseo Sosa Montes. 2023. Caracterización del sistema de producción avícola de traspatio en el Estado de Campeche, México. Agricultura, Sociedad y Desarrollo 20: 125–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Farkic, J., G. Isailovic, and S. Taylor. 2021. Forest bathing as a mindful tourism practice. Annals of Tourism Research Empirical Insights 2: 100028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Fideicomiso de Riesgo Compartido. 2017. Agricultura de Traspatio, Producción Agrícola en Beneficio de Comunidades Marginadas. Available online: https://www.gob.mx/firco/articulos/agricultura-de-traspatio-produccion-agricola-en-beneficio-de-comunidades-marginadas?idiom=es#:~:text=La%20agricultura%20de%20traspatio%20o,proyectos%20productivos%20de%20comunidades%20marginadas (accessed on 23 January 2024).
  22. Frías-Navarro, Dolores. 2022. Apuntes de estimación de la fiabilidad de consistencia interna de los ítems de un instrumento de medida. Universidad de Valencia. España 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. García Flores, J. C., and M. de J. Ordoñez Díaz. 2022. Beneficio del huerto familiar para la salud mental en la pandemia de COVID-19 en Jojutla, Morelos, México. Cuadernos Geográficos 61: 44–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. García-Rodríguez, J. F., A. García-Fariñas, O. Priego-Hernández, and L. Martínez-Pérez. 2017. Salud desde una perspectiva económica. Importancia de la salud para el crecimiento económico, bienestar social y desarrollo humano. Salud en Tabasco 23: 44–47. [Google Scholar]
  25. Halvey, M. R., R. E. Santo, S. N. Lupolt, T. J. Dilka, B. F. Kim, G. H. Bachman, J. K. Clark, and K. E. Nachman. 2021. Beyond backyard chickens: A framework for understanding municipal urban agriculture policies in the United States. Food Policy 103: 102013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Huang, J.-Q., G. Antonides, H. K. Christian, and F.-Y. Nie. 2021. Mental accounting and consumption of self-produced food. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 20: 2569–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. IBM. 2022. Análisis de Fiabilidad. SPSS Statistics. Available online: https://www.ibm.com/docs/es/spss-statistics/28.0.0?topic=features-reliability-analysis (accessed on 9 January 2024).
  28. INEGI. 2020a. Subsistema de Información Demográfica y Social. Censo de Población y Vivienda 2020. Available online: https://www.inegi.org.mx/programas/ccpv/2020/#Datos_abiertos (accessed on 20 April 2024).
  29. INEGI. 2020b. Información de México para niños. Censo de Población y Vivienda 2020. Available online: https://cuentame.inegi.org.mx/monografias/informacion/sin/poblacion/densidad.aspx?tema=me&e=25 (accessed on 19 April 2024).
  30. INEGI. 2021. Panorama Sociodemográfico de Sinaloa. Censo de Población y Vivienda 2020. Available online: https://www.inegi.org.mx/contenidos/productos/prod_serv/contenidos/espanol/bvinegi/productos/nueva_estruc/702825197988.pdf (accessed on 13 May 2024).
  31. Instituto Interamericano de Cooperación para la Agricultura (IICA). 2017. Agricultura Familiar y Urbana: Una Contribución Esencial a la Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional en América Latina y el Caribe. Available online: https://www.iica.int/es/publicaciones/serie-politicas-publicas-para-la-transformacion-agricola-y-rural-no-7 (accessed on 7 January 2024).
  32. Jabeen, S., S. Haq, A. Jameel, A. Hussain, M. Asif, J. Hwang, and A. Jabeen. 2020. Impacts of Rural Women’s Traditional Economic Activities on Household Economy: Changing Economic Contributions through Empowered Women in Rural Pakistan. Sustainability 12: 2731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. JASP Team. 2022. JASP (Version 0.16.1) [Computer Software]. Available online: https://jasp-stats.org/ (accessed on 20 April 2024).
  34. Jiao, X. Q., H. Y. Zhang, W. A. N. G. Chong, X. L. Li, and F. S. Zhang. 2019. Science and Technology Backyard: A novel approach to empower smallholder farmers for sustainable intensification of agriculture in China. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 18: 1657–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kim, G., and P. A. Miller. 2019. The impact of green infrastructure on human health and well-being: The example of the Huckleberry Trail and the Heritage Community Park and Natural Area in Blacksburg, Virginia. Sustainable Cities and Society 48: 101562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Korcz, N., E. Janeczko, E. Bielinis, D. Urban, J. Koba, P. Szabat, and M. Małecki. 2021. Influence of informal education in the forest stand redevelopment area on the psychological restoration of working adults. Forests 12: 993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Leyva López, J. C., D. A. Gastélum Chavira, and C. López Portillo Tostado. 2015. Análisis sociodemográfico de los municipios del estado de Sinaloa, México, bajo un enfoque multicriterio. Gestión y Política Pública 24: 533–77. [Google Scholar]
  38. López Ortiz, D., I. Osuna Flores, M. de la Torre Martínez, and A. Olivos Ortiz. 2017. Diversidad de árboles frutales de traspatio en Mochicahui, El Fuerte, Sinaloa, México. Biodivers Neotrop 7: 6–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Magaña Magaña, M. Á., I. A. Valdivieso Pérez, and E. Aguilar Urquizo. 2022. Importancia socioeconómica de las especies pecuarias criadas en traspatio en localidades rurales de Yucatán y Campeche. Acta Universitaria 32: 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Nicholls, E., A. Ely, L. Birkin, P. Basu, and D. Goulson. 2020. The contribution of small-scale food production in urban areas to the sustainable development goals: A review and case study. Sustainability Science 15: 1585–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Novera, J., and S. Kark. 2022. Backyard conservation in traditionally owned lands. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 38: 3–7. [Google Scholar]
  42. Onyango, D. A. 2023. Livestock for Livelihoods: Role of goats in improving the livelihood and well-being of women pastoralists in Ethiopia and Uganda. One Health Cases. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Pérez-Urrestarazu, L., M. P. Kaltsidi, P. A. Nektarios, G. Markakis, V. Loges, K. Perini, and R. Fernández-Cañero. 2021. Particularities of having plants at home during the confinement due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 59: 126919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Pham, T.-T.-H., N. McClintock, and E. Duchemin. 2022. Home-grown food: How do urban form, socio-economic status, and ethnicity influence food gardens in Montreal? Applied Geography 145: 102746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Raghupathi, V., and W. Raghupathi. 2020. The influence of education on health: An empirical assessment of OECD countries for the period 1995–2015. Archives of Public Health 78: 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Rajbahadur, G. K., S. Wang, G. A. Oliva, Y. Kamei, and A. E. Hassan. 2022. The Impact of Feature Importance Methods on the Interpretation of Defect Classifiers. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 48: 2245–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ruiz-Torres, J., and R. Trejo-Calzada. 2015. Nivel de bienestar social en comunidades rurales de tres municipios del estado de Durango, México. Paper presented at the Acciones Para Fortalecer el Desarrollo Sustentable en Zonas Áridas, Durango, Mexico, October 29–30. [Google Scholar]
  48. Salazar-Barrientos, Lucila de L., Miguel A. Magaña-Magaña, and Luis Latournerie-Moreno. 2015. Importancia económica y social de la agrobiodiversidad del traspatio en una comunidad rural de Yucatán, México. Agricultura, Sociedad y Desarrollo 12: 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Soares, D. 2022. Territorio, género y derechos: El agua y el saneamiento en debate. Revista Perfiles Latinoamericanos 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Sofo, A., and A. Sofo. 2020. Converting Home Spaces into Food Gardens at the Time of COVID-19 Quarantine: All the Benefits of Plants in this Difficult and Unprecedented Period. Human Ecology 48: 131–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Sosa-Urrutia, M. E., H. Thomé-Ortiz, G. Pérez-Rivas, E. Sánchez-Vera, A. Morales, and F. E. Martínez-Castañeda. 2019. Impacto del cambio climático en la seguridad alimentaria: Una aproximación metodológica. La Ganadería Ante Escenarios Complejos 91. Available online: http://ri.uaemex.mx/handle/20.500.11799/105745 (accessed on 20 April 2024).
  52. Sosna, D., L. Brunclíková, and P. Galeta. 2019. Rescuing things: Food waste in the rural environment in the Czech Republic. Journal of Cleaner Production 214: 319–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Torres, M., K. Paz, and F. Salazar. 2006. Tamaño de una muestra para una investigación de mercado. Boletín Electrónico 2: 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  54. United States Institute of Peace, Peacekeeping, and Stability Operations Institute. 2009. Guiding Principles for Stabilization and Reconstruction. Available online: https://www.usip.org/publications/2009/11/guiding-principles-stabilization-and-reconstruction-web-version (accessed on 20 April 2024).
  55. Valverde Lucio, Alfredo, Ana Gonzalez-Martínez, Jose Luis Alcivar Cobena, and Evangelina Rodero Serrano. 2021. Characterization and Typology of Backyard Small Pig Farms in Jipijapa, Ecuador. Animals 11: 1728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Van der Ploeg, J. D., Henk Renting, Gianluca Brunori, Karlheinz Knickei, Joe Mannion, Terry Marsden, Kees de Roest, Eduardo Sevilla-Guzmán, and Flaminia Ventura. 2017. Rural development: From practices and policies towards theory. In The Rural. London: Routledge, pp. 201–18. [Google Scholar]
  57. Velasco Arellanes, F. J., O. Luna Velázquez, and A. A. García Félix. 2018. El malestar social: Integración de indicadores negativos que expliquen el contexto del bienestar social de los mexicanos. Revista Electrónica de Psicología Política 16: 24–44. [Google Scholar]
  58. Wood, L., P. Hooper, S. Foster, and F. Bull. 2017. Public green spaces and positive mental health—investigating the relationship between access, quantity and types of parks and mental wellbeing. Health & Place 48: 63–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. World Health Organization (WHO). 2022. Available online: https://www.who.int/es/about/frequently-asked-questions#:~:text=%C2%BFC%C3%B3mo%20define%20la%20OMS%20la,ausencia%20de%20afecciones%20o%20enfermedades%C2%BB (accessed on 22 May 2024).
  60. Yumashev, Alexei, Beata Ślusarczyk, Sergey Kondrashev, and Alexey Mikhaylov. 2020. Global Indicators of Sustainable Development: Evaluation of the Influence of the Human Development Index on Consumption and Quality of Energy. Energies 13: 2768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Socsci 13 00462 g001
Figure 1. Livestock activities carried out by the respondents.
Figure 1. Livestock activities carried out by the respondents.
Socsci 13 00462 g001
Socsci 13 00462 g002
Figure 2. Objectives of domestic animal husbandry.
Figure 2. Objectives of domestic animal husbandry.
Socsci 13 00462 g002
Socsci 13 00462 g003
Figure 3. Type of backyard farming activities carried out in households.
Figure 3. Type of backyard farming activities carried out in households.
Socsci 13 00462 g003
Socsci 13 00462 g004
Figure 4. Purpose of backyard farming activities carried out by the respondents.
Figure 4. Purpose of backyard farming activities carried out by the respondents.
Socsci 13 00462 g004
Socsci 13 00462 g005
Figure 5. Distribution of the magnitude of the eigenvalues.
Figure 5. Distribution of the magnitude of the eigenvalues.
Socsci 13 00462 g005
Table 1. Kendall’s Tau-b statistical analysis to determine the correlation between social well-being and the development of backyard activities, along with their subcategories.
Table 1. Kendall’s Tau-b statistical analysis to determine the correlation between social well-being and the development of backyard activities, along with their subcategories.
CategorySubcategoryCorrelation ValueType of CorrelationSignificance Level
Social and personal wellbeing through backyard activitiesEconomic growth 0.71Strong0.00
Social welfare0.81Strong0.00
Human development0.81Strong0.00
Table 2. Distribution of backyard activities carried out among the respondents.
Table 2. Distribution of backyard activities carried out among the respondents.
Agricultural ActivitiesLivestock Activities
Yes89.15%67.96%
No10.85%32.04%
Table 3. Items in the economic growth class.
Table 3. Items in the economic growth class.
Strongly Agree (%)Agree (%)Neither Agree Nor Disagree (%)Disagree (%)Strongly Disagree (%)
I enjoy doing these backyard activities (home garden and/or raising domestic animals) (EC1).35.9250.9010.852.330.00
My work in my family garden and/or my small farm is thriving (EC2).31.7850.1315.762.330.00
I enjoy seeing and reaping the fruits of my efforts from backyard activities (EC3).39.0249.8710.081.030.00
Backyard activities produce healthy food and income (EC4).34.3749.1013.952.580.00
Results expressed as a percentage of the total number of surveys.
Table 4. Claims about the types of social well-being.
Table 4. Claims about the types of social well-being.
Strongly Agree (%)Agree (%)Neither Agree Nor Disagree (%)Disagree (%)Strongly Disagree (%)
My home garden and/or small farm contributes to my health and nutrition (BS1).30.7552.7113.952.580.00
Backyard activities feel like part of my family (BS2).23.2652.7119.904.130.00
Being in the family garden and/or my small farm, I feel in touch with nature (BS3).32.0456.079.821.290.78
I feel in touch with life as I watch the garden and its fruits grow and/or my pets multiply (BS4).32.0454.7811.371.810.00
I like the smells of the family garden (BS5).32.8249.8714.213.100.00
By developing backyard activities, I learn new things (BS6).36.1852.7110.081.030.00
I like the sounds produced in my backyard (BS7).28.6849.1018.603.620.00
With the pandemic, my family garden and/or small farm has been a great support to us (BS8).36.1847.0314.212.330.26
Backyard activities bring my family together (BS9).22.4844.7028.683.880.26
Results expressed as a percentage of the total number of surveys.
Table 5. Statements about the human development class.
Table 5. Statements about the human development class.
Strongly Agree (%)Agree (%)Neither Agree Nor Disagree (%)Disagree (%)Strongly Disagree (%)
I find it relaxing to attend to these backyard activities (home garden and/or domestic animal husbandry) (DS1).30.4954.7811.633.100.00
It relieves me from the stress of attending to backyard activities (home garden and/or raising domestic animals) (DS2).28.6853.7513.953.360.26
Being in my family garden and/or my small farm makes my anxiety disappear (DS3).25.5851.1618.095.170.00
By developing backyard activities, I concentrate better on what I am doing (DS4).26.1051.9417.574.390.00
Developing backyard activities makes me not feel lonely (DS5).26.6147.5517.578.010.26
Being in my family garden and/or my small farm, my mood is positive (DS6).27.6553.2316.542.580.00
I feel optimistic in my home garden and/or my small farm (DS7).29.9754.0114.211.810.00
I enjoy watering and tending my home garden and/or feeding my pets (DS8).28.9456.0712.142.840.00
Seeing the family garden and/or my small farm relaxes me (DS9).29.7249.6118.092.580.00
Results expressed as a percentage of the total number of surveys.
Table 6. Acceptance of backyard livestock activities by the population.
Table 6. Acceptance of backyard livestock activities by the population.
Strongly Agree (%)Agree (%)Neither Agree Nor Disagree (%)Disagree (%)Strongly Disagree (%)
I consider that keeping animals in my backyard can lead to diseases.8.5322.2233.0731.784.39
I am annoyed that my neighbor has pets 3.8810.8540.8336.697.75
Results expressed as a percentage of the total number of surveys.
Table 7. Percentage distribution of the components.
Table 7. Percentage distribution of the components.
ComponentInitial Eigenvalues
Total%
Variance		%
Accumulated
112.55657.07157.071
21.3576.16663.237
31.0084.58467.821
40.7753.52471.344
50.6693.04174.386
60.6262.84477.230
70.5482.49379.723
80.4812.18481.907
90.4321.96283.869
100.3801.72785.596
110.3661.66287.258
120.3351.52188.779
130.3251.47890.257
140.3051.38891.645
150.2901.31992.964
160.2851.29494.258
170.2581.17495.432
180.2391.08496.516
190.2130.96997.485
200.1990.90298.387
210.1790.81299.199
220.1760.801100.000
Table 8. Matrix of the three principal components or axes rotated in relation to the original items.
Table 8. Matrix of the three principal components or axes rotated in relation to the original items.
Rotated Component Matrix
Component
123
EC10.7530.2770.224
EC20.6580.1770.362
EC30.5470.2230.570
EC40.3250.3110.708
BS10.4560.4930.393
BS20.3600.6910.217
BS30.6550.2860.355
BS40.6690.3310.347
BS50.4100.4380.459
BS60.5310.1930.610
BS70.2110.5160.616
BS80.0850.6170.577
BS90.4010.0900.755
DS10.7600.3230.163
DS20.6510.4850.178
DS30.3410.7850.176
DS40.3560.7360.218
DS50.2270.7810.160
DS60.4470.6290.245
DS70.6130.3510.370
DS80.6340.3910.335
DS90.2670.6010.560
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Peinado-Guevara, V.M.; Peinado-Guevara, H.J.; Sánchez-Alcalde, M.C.; González-Félix, G.K.; Herrera-Barrientos, J.; Ladrón de Guevara-Torres, M.d.l.Á.; Cuadras-Berrelleza, A.A. Backyard Activities as Sources of Social and Personal Well-Being: A Study of the Mexican Population (Guasave, Sinaloa). Soc. Sci. 2024, 13, 462. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13090462

AMA Style

Peinado-Guevara VM, Peinado-Guevara HJ, Sánchez-Alcalde MC, González-Félix GK, Herrera-Barrientos J, Ladrón de Guevara-Torres MdlÁ, Cuadras-Berrelleza AA. Backyard Activities as Sources of Social and Personal Well-Being: A Study of the Mexican Population (Guasave, Sinaloa). Social Sciences. 2024; 13(9):462. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13090462

Chicago/Turabian Style

Peinado-Guevara, Víctor Manuel, Héctor José Peinado-Guevara, Mary Cruz Sánchez-Alcalde, Griselda Karina González-Félix, Jaime Herrera-Barrientos, María de los Ángeles Ladrón de Guevara-Torres, and Aldo Alán Cuadras-Berrelleza. 2024. "Backyard Activities as Sources of Social and Personal Well-Being: A Study of the Mexican Population (Guasave, Sinaloa)" Social Sciences 13, no. 9: 462. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13090462

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

Article Metrics

Article metric data becomes available approximately 24 hours after publication online.
Back to TopTop