Tracy describes “the mind and body of a qualitative researcher” as a literal research instrument, “absorbing, sifting through, and interpreting the world through observation, participation, and interviewing” . I am a Social Ecology doctoral candidate and the Assistant Director of a Long Beach UA nonprofit, Adventures to Dreams Enrichment . AtDE empowers youth by providing the resources and education for youth to grow their own food. The organization’s mission is to engage youth in hands-on enrichment activities, create a safe environment to learn and play, and provide mentorship . While collecting and analyzing data, I will be mindful of how my subjective experiences may influence the research . I began volunteering at AtDE in 2017 while completing my Bachelor’s in Dietetics and Food Administration at California State University of Long Beach. Since then, I assisted AtDE in building and maintaining a youth garden, harvesting produce, coordinating volunteers and interns, and raising funding. These experiences allowed me to build rapport with not only AtDE, but with community members of Long Beach, which is essential for recruitment and data collection for this evaluation. For this study, I could be considered a “complete participant” as a researcher studying a context in which I already am a member . My role as the Assistant Director of a nonprofit engaged in youth gardening offered the advantage of insight into the world of UA. Subjects of a study may act more open and candid around a complete participant, as if a colleague or friend is visiting, rather than a researcher .This research investigated UA sites in Long Beach that fit the United States Department of Agriculture’s definition of cultivating, processing, industrial grow and distributing agricultural products. UA sites in Long Beach include community gardens, school gardens, and urban farms.

An important distinction between community gardens and farms is that community gardens are collectively maintained by a group of individuals to grow food, compared to farms which may be privately owned . Although rooftop farms, hydroponic, aeroponic, and aquaponic facilities, and vertical production qualify as UA, these UA types were not identified in Long Beach . Equipment facilities, distributors, and green spaces that do not grow food, such as botanical gardens, were excluded from this study. This study also collected information on UA sites that are no longer in operation, such as the community gardens deemed “no longer operational” by Ban et al. in 2013 . IRB approval was granted by the University of California, Irvine in May 2023. I used publicly available contact information to request a site visit and interview with the main person responsible for the site . Additional participants were recruited through snowball sampling, or recommendation by initial study participants . UA site leaders were contacted via email with a study information sheet. The interview was conducted with the interviewee’s verbal consent, and interviewees received a $25 gift card as compensation for their time.Data collection took place from June 2023 to December 2023. I interviewed 19 people in a leadership role at a Long Beach UA site . Interviewees were aged 22 to 69 years old, with the average age being 49. In addition to the broad range of ages, interviewees had varying levels of experience. The longest amount of time a UA leader held their position was 13 years, and the shortest amount was one month. About 58% of interviewees were female, and 42% of interviewees were male. I conducted field observations at 27 sites, about 39% of 66 sites that were actively operating in Long Beach at the time of writing, in 2024. I observed, interacted with, and volunteered with over 60 adults engaged in UA and over 200 LBUSD students.

Additionally, about 68% of interviewees identified as White, which is higher representation compared to the city’s population. Only less than a third of Long Beach residents are White . Therefore, the demographics of UA leaders who participated in this study may greatly differ from that of all gardeners, students, and farmers engaged in UA.During the site visits, I wrote field notes as a qualitative method for collecting descriptive information about the UA sites and people involved. Field notes allow researchers to understand others by immersing themselves in events, experiencing and interpreting those events as participants, and “transforming witnessed events, persons, and places into words” . This provides description that may otherwise be missed by a survey questionnaire with prefixed questions . Using a field observation protocol , I recorded the date, time, and duration of sites visit and notes of my initial impressions, including sights, tastes, smells, and sounds. Based on this protocol, I first created a “raw record,” my first, unprocessed writing of the site . Within 36 hours of the site visit, I typed the raw record and saved it as an electronic document . I recorded any site characteristics that corresponded with the SDOH domains of social and community context, economic stability, education access and quality, neighborhood and built environment, and health care access and quality . For example, while observing the Neighborhood and Built Environment, I noted the type of land that the site is located on and its size, any amenities , crops, plants, and vegetation, agricultural techniques, animals and/or insects kept at the site, nearby public transportation, and security features. I took notes on the UA site’s Social and Community Context by recording the number of people present, their visible characteristics , any ongoing activities, programs, or events, and any rules or policies followed at the site.

In my reflections, I documented key events or incidents that are perceived as “significant” or “unexpected” by myself and/or those at the site . I also noted any aspects of the UA site that demonstrate CCW, which will be further explored in interviews with UA leaders .The interview guide included 31 questions organized into 7 sections: 1) Description of Urban Agriculture Site, 2) Management, 3) Transportation, 4) Description of the Community, 5) Community Engagement, 6) Relationships and Partnerships, and 7) Successes and Challenges. Interviewees were asked to describe their role, their UA site or organization, participants at the UA site , the surrounding community and environment, types of community outreach and programs, collaborators, obstacles related to maintaining the site, and any notable accomplishments. Interviews lasted about 45-60 minutes and were audio recorded. During the interview, I wrote short notes to record my observations . Interviews were transcribed with the assistance of Otter.ai, a speech-to-text transcription tool. The interview guide was designed to address the five SDOH domains and CCW forms of capital . SDOH interview questions served to collect detailed information about the community from the perspective of the UA leader, that may not be available from field notes and external sources. For example, Question 15 asked interviewees to describe the UA site’s social and community context: “In your own words, how would you describe the community where your site is located?” Question 17, “How would you describe your community’s environment?” specifically asked for information on the neighborhood and built environment domain of SDOH. CCW questions focused more on abilities, resources, skills, or knowledge actively contributed or gained by the community through participation in UA. For example, Questions 21 “How do community members contribute to the site?” and 22 “How do community members benefit from your space?” were created with social capital in mind. Questions 26, “What are some of the biggest challenges in sustaining a space for urban agriculture?” and 27, “How have you overcome these challenges in the past?” touched on aspirational capital , navigational capital , and resistant capital .Rigorous qualitative research requires care and effort to ensure that there is enough data to support claims, the context or sample is appropriate, and methods are valid and reliable . Tracy outlines eight criteria for producing qualitative work with rigor: 1) worthy topic, 2) rich rigor, 3) sincerity, 4) credibility, 5), resonance, 6) significant contribution, 7) ethical, and 8) meaningful coherence. As mentioned in the previous chapters, this study’s topic is relevant, timely, significant, and interesting due to emerging UA literature, and limited research on UA in the City of Long Beach. The study design addresses rich rigor by carefully explaining how survey and interview questions were developed, based on the SDOH and Yosso’s CCW model. I aim to be sincere and transparent in this dissertation, by reflecting on my own involvement with UA in Long Beach and providing clear details on methodology. Regarding credibility, open-ended interview questions invited participants to describe their narrative on their own terms. This research incorporated thick description, an in-depth illustration that will allow readers to understand context and come to their own conclusions about the data. The study’s major contribution is that it will offer a new lens on the topic of UA in the context of communities addressing health inequities, by exploring the perspectives of UA leaders in Long Beach. Findings may resonate with others involved with UA and community health. The results of this study will be informative for community groups or organizations who are operating, developing, or interested in creating similar UA sites. Additionally, equipment for weed growing readers may be able to replicate methods to transfer findings to another context, such as another city or region . The following chapters will provide meaningful coherence by explaining how the study achieved its goals and connecting findings to previous literature.In this chapter, which explains the dissertation’s theoretical significance, I will describe the social determinants of health and how they apply to the City of Long Beach. Then, I will explain how Yosso’s community cultural wealth model is applicable to addressing health inequities through community-led urban agriculture . From a social ecology perspective, UA can influence multiple, interrelated factors, such as individual attributes and behaviors, interpersonal relationships, the surrounding environment, organizations, corporations, government, and culture .

Although the research questions of this study focus on the community’s role in UA, this dissertation will later explore UA impacts on interconnected, social-ecological systems. The SDOH framework offers specific dimensions to further study health factors health within systems, such as access to education and health care . SDOH provides context to study health inequities, which are systematic differences in the health of different population groups . Health inequities result from socioeconomic inequality, not natural causes or harmful behaviors . This dissertation will build on existing UA research by connecting SDOH to the CCW model, which highlights communities’ cultural knowledge, skills, and abilities . CCW is necessary for developing and maintaining UA spaces, often converted from lots that were abandoned or not designated for growing food . UA is the cultivation, processing and distribution of agricultural products in urban and suburban areas, including tribal communities and small towns . Examples include community gardens, rooftop farms, hydroponic, aeroponic, and aquaponic facilities, and vertical production. UA can improve health by increasing access to fruits and vegetables, which prevent disease and supply nutrients . However, UA provides more than just dietary benefits. I developed Figure 7 to illustrate the conceptual framework for this study, which analyzed how CCW is used to develop UA, which in turn bolsters CCW. Both CCW and UA can address inequities in different facets of SDOH .Rather than focusing on disadvantages faced by lower SES populations, the CCW model highlights their cultural knowledge, skills, and abilities . Yosso’s CCW model describes six forms of capital: 1) aspirational, 2) linguistic, 3) familial, 4) social, 5) navigational, and 6) resistant. Aspirational capital is the resilient ability to maintain hopes and dreams for the future, despite barriers. Linguistic capital includes communication skills in more than one language or style. Familial capital refers to cultural knowledge nurtured among kin, which fosters commitment to community well being. Social capital includes networks of people and community resources. Navigational capital is the ability to maneuver through social institutions not created with communities of color in mind, and resistant capital is built from oppositional behavior that challenges inequality . Social capital, resistant capital, and other aspects of CCW can be seen in community led initiatives to create UA . Urban areas are complex systems and networks , which the United States classifies as “densely developed territory” that has “residential, commercial, and other non-residential urban land uses.” Any areas not included within this definition of urban are classified as rural.1 Because access to agricultural land is less common in urban areas, urban dwellers typically purchase their food from stores .