Next Article in Journal
Compensating for Loss of Nature and Landscape in a Growing City—Berlin Case Study
Next Article in Special Issue
Achieving Sustainable Development Goals in Ghana: The Contribution of Non-Timber Forest Products towards Economic Development in the Eastern Region
Previous Article in Journal
Field-Layer Vegetation and Water Table Level as a Proxy of CO2 Exchange in the West Siberian Boreal Bog
Previous Article in Special Issue
Social Use through Tourism of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of the Amazonian Kichwa Nationality
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Land
Volume 12
Issue 3
10.3390/land12030565
land-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

Characteristics and Roles of School Gardens in Urban Areas of Japan: Perspective of School Managers

by
Rushi Wang
and
Shigeto Yanai
*
Graduate School of Horticulture, Chiba University, Matsudo 271-8510, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Land 2023, 12(3), 565; https://doi.org/10.3390/land12030565
Submission received: 1 February 2023 / Revised: 23 February 2023 / Accepted: 23 February 2023 / Published: 26 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Development of the Territory and Use of Natural and Cultural Resources to Improve the Quality of Life of Residents)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Children spend most of their time at school; thus, agricultural experiences (AEs) in school gardens through school organizations are important for children to remain connected to agriculture and nature. Although various studies confirm the tremendous benefits of school gardens, the lack of studies on the characteristics of school gardens and the factors that influence the effectiveness of their AEs is telling. In this study, a questionnaire was developed and sent to the school garden managers of the public elementary schools in an urban area in Japan to analyze the characteristics of school garden and their influencing factors through descriptive analysis and inferential statistics. The results identified the location effects on the type of school gardens: school gardens inside the school are better able to ensure the safety of children but have less connection with the community; school farms outside the school are better able to ensure a place for children to have AEs; schools with both a school garden and farm have a stronger connection to the community than those with only school gardens, however, safety is decreased. In addition, the lack of budget, teachers, supportive policies, and motivation among school garden managers in operating school gardens was noted. Therefore, ensuring government support, coordinating the time of school garden managers, and strengthening the connection and cooperation between elementary schools and local communities are primary issues for consideration in the future.

1. Introduction

In recent years, urbanization of the world population has caused an increasing number of people to move from rural to urban areas [1]. Even with the presence of nature, children in urban areas have less opportunities to interact with cultivated plants and animals in a natural environment as they tend to play indoor games, such as video games; thus, they spend significantly less time outdoors than previous generations did [2,3]. Many scientific studies prove the benefits of exposure to agriculture and nature for children. Through outdoor experiences, such as contact with the natural environment, students can improve academic performance and social intelligence [4], enhance creativity and engagement [5], and improve observation and reasoning skills [6]. School life is extremely important for the development of children. Children spend a large amount of their daily lives in school [7], such that school gardens can become the primary place where children acquire experiences with nature [3,8].
Scholars provide many definitions of school gardens. School gardens are part of many schools and are used as learning spaces and experiential spaces for students [9], providing an interesting and effective way to create a learning environment for students [10]. School gardens may also refer to a program where students can experience nature and agriculture at school, improving health, social development, academic achievement, and awareness of the natural environment [11]. This study defines a school garden as a green space established by school organizations where children can improve their understanding of life, nature, and the environment through exposure to agriculture [12]. Many definitions provide similar concepts of school gardens. In terms of location, school gardens can be in a corner of the school, such as school playgrounds [13], outdoor school environments [14], and green schoolyards [15]. They can also be located outside the school, usually by borrowing nearby farmland or farms [12] to set up school farms. With the organization of the school, children can go to the school farms for visits or activities [16].
Numerous studies confirm the benefits of school gardens. School gardens can provide food for the school and improve children’s health [17]. In the United States, the “Farm to School” program was launched to alleviate obesity rates [18]. This program covered any activity that promoted local food or food systems in primary or secondary schools, including sourcing local food in school meals, cultivating school gardens, conducting field trips to farms, promoting local food that is included in school meals, and hosting community events [19]. The program reportedly increased participation in school lunches and increased the vegetable and fruit intake of the students.
School gardens can provide a place for agricultural experiences (AEs). Children can give increased attention to agriculture and nature [20] and understand the value of food and life through AEs organized by schools, such as cultivation and harvesting [21]. Thus, AEs can relieve mental tension and anxiety among children and enhance their understanding of farmers, the importance of food, and deepen their connection with nature [22]. In addition, school farms can exert a positive impact on their knowledge of nutrition and preference for vegetables [23]. School gardens provide children with a rich environment for hands-on contact with crops, such as fruits and vegetables, and experience food and agriculture [10]. Students typically work in groups and are responsible for AEs, such as planting and weeding [24], increasing their interest in agriculture and improving their social skills [25].
Japan is a country that attaches great importance to AEs for children. The National Agricultural Policy Reform Program (1998) clearly states that “efforts should be made to promote hands-on agricultural education in elementary and junior high schools to deepen the understanding of agriculture among elementary and junior high school students” [26]. Since then, Japan has vigorously promoted food and AEs for children in schools and introduced several promotional policies. The policy for a “comprehensive study time” was implemented in 2002 this policy considers AEs an essential part of the school curriculum and promotes AEs among elementary and middle school students nationwide. According to the results of an agricultural experience learning questionnaire (2010) conducted by the National Agriculture and Mountain Village Youth Promotion Association, the implementation rate of AEs in elementary schools reached 80.4% in 2010 [27]. Japan introduced policies such as educational farms (2006) [28] and green school farms (2009) [29] to guide the operation of AEs’ locations.
Unlike the common international term of the school garden, in Japan, most sites are called school farms. They are used as experience sites for school students to experience cultivation, harvesting, and other agriculture-related experiences, regardless of their size and location inside or outside the school. To avoid confusion, this paper uses the term school garden to refer to all locations where AEs are launched as a school unit. When it is necessary to compare different types of school gardens, the experience sites inside the school are uniformly referred to as school gardens, while the experience sites outside the school are referred to as school farms.
School gardens are a good method for students to receive AEs and are designed to give children the opportunity to experience the process from growing crops to harvesting food to eating under the guidance of producers. Japan can be considered a country that promotes school gardens and is very attentive to AEs. However, the existing literature contains few studies on school gardens in Japan. In addition, countries express diverse emphases on school gardens; thus, understanding the status quo of school gardens in other countries is essential. For example, many studies in the United States are conducted on the impact of school gardens on the improvement of health problems among students, such as obesity and academic performance [24,30,31].
Moreover, most of the research on school gardens focuses on the effects of AEs on the mood, attitude, and health [10,32,33] of children, whereas articles that examine the types, composition, advantages and disadvantages, and methods for improving school gardens are few, especially those from the perspective of school managers. As an important carrier of experiential agriculture, knowledge about the effective and rational use of space is necessary.
This study conducted an in-depth survey of school gardens in elementary schools in Saitama Prefecture, which has been the most successful prefecture in Japan in terms of promotion of AEs in school. We conducted a questionnaire survey of managers of school gardens in elementary schools to understand the current situation of school gardens, to clarify the types and characteristics of school gardens, and to investigate the factors that influence the effectiveness of AEs. In addition, the study aims to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of different types of school gardens and identify ways to improve their use effectiveness through the evaluation of managers. Finally, it intends to analyze challenges to school gardens from the perspective of administrators and develop optimization strategies and guidelines for future development.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

2.1.1. Southern Region of Saitama Prefecture, Japan

As the largest urbanized area in Japan, the Tokyo Metropolitan Area (TMA), consisting of Tokyo and its three surrounding prefectures (Saitama, Chiba, and Kanagawa [34]) is the political, economic, cultural, and financial center of the country and is one of the most famous metropolitan areas in the world [35]. Its total population is 36.86 million as of 2021, accounting for 29.4% of the total population in Japan [36]. Figure 1 depicts the location of the TMA in Japan.
According to “Saitama: A Statistical View of the Prefecture 2021,” Saitama has a population of 7.26 million, an area of 3797.75 km, and a population density of 1913.4 people per 1000 km2, for which it is ranked fourth in Japan. The prefecture is blessed with few natural disasters, a positive living environment, and an active economy [37]. In addition, Saitama attaches great importance to agriculture, and 20% of its land is allocated to agriculture. Various forms of agricultural production are performed, with a focus on vegetables, rice, and livestock [38].
In Japan, the Basic Act on Shokuiku (Food Education) was enacted in July 2005. The act emphasized the necessity of incorporating more social and nature activities into school education [39]. For this reason, Saitama Prefecture promoted the green school farm (GSF) program in 2008 to support AEs in schools. As of 2018, all 807 public elementary schools in Saitama are enrolled in the GSF program and have school gardens [29]. For this reason, Saitama is a pioneer in Japan for the promotion of school gardens. Therefore, the current study provides a comprehensive understanding of the current state of school gardens by examining the school farms of elementary schools in Saitama.
Based on the distance from the center of Tokyo and the characteristics and status of each area in the prefecture, Saitama Prefecture is divided into three regions: namely, southern, central, and northern. Children located in urban areas have a greater need for agriculture and nature [3,8]; thus, elementary schools in urban areas are the focus of investigation in this study. The southern region of Saitama Prefecture, the subject of this survey, is located within 10–30 km of the center of the TMA, making it the center of Saitama. Figure 1 illustrates the location of TMA in Japan and the location of the southern region of Saitama Prefecture.

2.1.2. The Green School Farm (GSF) Program in Saitama Prefecture

The Promotion Guidelines of the GSF outline the reasons to promote the GSF program in Saitama Prefecture [29]. Recently, problems regarding food for children have been observed in Japan, such as increased levels of eating out and tendency to skip breakfast. Saitama Prefecture is an agricultural prefecture that produces various agricultural products and has a lot of farmlands. However, idle farmland is increasing per year due to the aging farmer population. Simultaneously, the need for children to be exposed to nature and agriculture is increasing. Saitama Prefecture intends to positively influence the attitudes of children toward food and life through AEs, that can nurture life. Therefore, Saitama Prefecture has decided to promote school gardens as a unique initiative in the hopes of promoting food education, enhancing AEs in school, and making effective use of farmlands.
In the GSF program, the school garden is a garden established in a school unit where students, who are still at a stage of physical and mental development, can deepen their understanding of life, nature, the environment, and food through various forms of AEs.
Regarding the location of school gardens, the GSF program recommends using farmland near schools. If no farmland exists nearby, land outside the school or cultivated land in the suburbs may be used. Other options include flowerpots or buckets; a corner of the school may also be converted into farmland suitable for AEs.
The GSF provides many suggestions about the content of AEs, such as using paddy fields outside schools to experience rice cultivation, one flowerpot per person for vegetable cultivation experience, composting experience using leftovers from food, and cultivating flower beds inside the school to experience harvesting. Elementary schools decide on the content of their AEs based on their specific circumstances.

2.1.3. Urban Control Areas and Urban Promotion Areas in Japan

In Japan, the zoning system is considered the most important element in urban planning [40]. Urban city planning areas (UCPAs) are divided into two areas: urban promotion areas (UPAs) and urban control areas (UCAs). Based on the City Planning Law (Article 7, Paragraph 3), UPAs are areas where urban areas have already formed, and urbanization should be implemented preferentially in a well-planned manner within approximately the next 10 years. UCAs are those areas where urbanization should be controlled [41].
As of 2021, Japan has approximately 43,000 km2 of farmland, but only 610 km2 are in UPAs [42]. The farmlands in the UPA have increased in value as green spaces and food supply locations in urban areas in recent years. To protect farmland in UPAs from development, Japan introduced the Production Green Land system in 1991, that ensures that farmlands in UPAs are not developed for residential use by designating them as productive green areas. Farmlands in UPAs that are designated as productive green area are subject to restrictions on construction activity and have a designation mandate lasting 30 years. Lands that receive the designation are eligible for tax breaks [43].
UCAs have not been developed on a large scale; thus, a large amount of farmland that can provide abundant agricultural resources continue to exist. Although they are in urban areas, significant differences exist in the surroundings of elementary schools located in UPAs and UCAs. This factor is essential in influencing the type and content of school gardens selected by elementary schools.

2.2. Data Sourse

2.2.1. Elementary Schools in the Southern Regions of Saitama Prefecture, Japan

Research has demonstrated that children in elementary school are more likely to interact with agricultural environments [10]. For this reason, this study selected elementary schools to investigate the current situation of school farms. Using information from the Saitama Prefectural Office of Education [44], the study found that the southern region of Saitama Prefecture is home to 361 public elementary schools and obtained information on the addresses of elementary schools, number of grade levels, number of students, and number of teachers.
To determine the UCPAs where the elementary schools were located, we downloaded the location information of the UCAs and UPAs in the southern region of Saitama Prefecture through the National Land Numerical Information Download Service of the Ministry of Land and Infrastructure [45].

2.2.2. Questionnaire Survey

From 13 August to 3 September 2021, a questionnaire survey was conducted using the mail return method among managers of school farms in 361 schools in the southern region of the prefecture. The questionnaire was written in Japanese and divided into three parts. The response formats were multiple answer (MA), five-point Likert-type scale, and free answer (FA). The first part focused on the basic attributes of school farms in MA: type, facilities, agricultural products, advantages, shortcomings, and challenges. The second part highlighted the current status of AEs in MA format: content by grade level, frequency of AEs by grade level, and supporters of AEs. The third part evaluated the school managers in FA format: evaluations of AEs in school farms, opinions and issues related to the management of AEs during COVID-19. The evaluations of managers of AEs in school farms were assessed using a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 agree, 5 = strongly agree). (See Supplementary Material)

2.3. Method

2.3.1. Graphical Abstract

In a nutshell, our research flow can be summarized as follows: (1) Data Collecting; (2) Data Analysis; (3) Comprehensive Discussion (Figure 2).

2.3.2. Statistical Analyses

A total of 95 school managers answered the questionnaire. Two were excluded due to missing data, leading to 93 valid questionnaires for analysis. The response rate was 25.8%. All statistical analyses were processed using IBM SPSS Statistics 20. The significance level was set at 0.05.
By sorting through the questionnaire results, we extracted items relevant to the characteristics and role of school gardens for statistical analysis.
We conducted descriptive statistics and inferential statistics on the types, facilities, agricultural products, advantages, disadvantages, and challenges of school gardens, as well as the content, frequency, and supporters of AEs, to determine the current status and barriers of school gardens in Japanese elementary schools.
The chi-squared test was used to detect differences in current status between school gardens and school farms.
The study used one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to investigate differences in the evaluations by managers of AEs in school gardens according to two variables: school gardens area (1–50/51–100/101–150/150 m2) and type of school gardens (school garden only/school garden and farm/ school farm only).

3. Results

3.1. Types of School Gardens

Figure 3a shows that of 93 elementary schools, 85 (91.4%) schools have school gardens and 29 (31.2%) have school farms.
Figure 3b shows that in the subsequent analysis of the evaluations by the managers, we divided school gardens (N = 93) into three types: school garden only (A; 64, 68.8%), school garden and farm (B; 21, 22.6%), and school farm only (C; 8, 8.6%). School garden only means that the school only has a school garden inside the school. School garden and farm means that the school has both a school garden and a school farm. School farm only means that the school only has a school farm outside the school.
Table 1 shows the location of elementary schools in the UCPAs. Of the schools with school gardens, only (N = 64), 61 (95.3%) and 3 (4.7%), were in UPAs and UCAs, respectively. Of the schools with school garden and farm (N = 21), 12 (57.1%) and 9 (42.9%), were in UPAs and UCAs, respectively. Among those with school farms only, 5 (62.5%) and 3 (37.5%), were in UPAs and UCAs, respectively. The Pearson’s chi-square test reveals a significant difference between A and B (p1 = 0.000 ***) and A and C (p2 = 0.016 *). This finding indicates that most of the schools with school gardens are in UPAs.

3.2. Current Status of School Gardens

To understand the characteristics, advantages, and disadvantages of school gardens, we used descriptive statistics to analyze the current status of school gardens (N = 85) and school farms (N = 29).

3.2.1. Facilities and Agricultural Products

Table 2 describes the current status of facilities and agricultural products in school gardens (N = 85) and school farms (N = 29).
Regarding the use of facilities in school gardens, the highest percentage of farms used flowerpots, at 57 (67.1%), followed by fields, at 54 (63.5%), and flowerbeds, at 50 (58.8%). Nearly half of these farms have 3–6 types of facilities. In terms of agricultural products, school gardens were mostly planted with fruit and vegetables, at 78 (91.8%), followed by root crops, at 59 (69.4%), and cereals, with more than 30% planting rate. Of these, 48 (56.5%) of schools grew 1–2 types of agricultural products, and 37 (43.5%) grew 3–6 types of agricultural products.
In school farms, fields were most used in 22 (75.9%) schools, followed by paddy fields, at 9 (31.0%), with 1–2 types of facilities. The most planted agricultural products were root crops, at 14 (48.3%), followed by cereals, at 13 (44.8%) and fruits and vegetables, at 8 (27.6%). The majority, at 27 (93.1%) of the schools, planted 1–2 agricultural products.
A comparison of school gardens and school farms demonstrates that school gardens tend to use efficient set-up facilities, such as flowerpots (p < 0.001) and flowerbeds (p < 0.001), and have a wide variety of experience facilities compared with school farms. Moreover, school farms tend to have a single type of facility, such as fields or paddy fields. A higher percentage of school farms had more paddy fields (p = 0.004) than school gardens. In terms of agricultural products, school gardens are more inclined to grow agricultural products that are easy to plant, such as fruit and vegetables (p < 0.001), and have a wide variety of products. School farms tend to grow agricultural products that are more difficult to grow, such as cereals, and the variety of products planted is relatively low.

3.2.2. Current Status of Agricultural Experiences (AEs)

Table 3 shows the current status of the AEs of school gardens (N = 85) and school farms (N = 29).
Overall, the most popular AEs offered in the school gardens were planting experience, at 83 (97.6%), followed by harvesting experience, at 82 (96.5%), and cultivation experience, at 80 (94.1%). Regarding the frequency of AEs, 76 (89.4%) of the schools used school gardens every week.
The most frequently conducted AEs in school farms were planting experience, at 25 (86.2%), and harvesting experience, at 24 (82.8%); only 14 (48.3%) AEs were conducted in cultivation management. A total of 19 (65.5%) schools used school farms few times a year.
Through the survey, we found that AEs are experienced differently by children in different academic grades. In the school gardens, the probability of students being able to experience planting, cultivation management, and harvesting tends to decrease from lower to higher grades. For example, harvesting experiences were available to 75 (88.5%) of the lower grade students, 48 (56.5%) of the middle grade students, and 45 (52.9%) of the upper grade students. However, in terms of learning agricultural knowledge, 33 (38.8%) of lower grades, 33 (38.8%) of middle grades, and 39 (45.9%) of higher grades were able to perform the experience, which indicated an increasing trend. The same is true for the crop, cooking, and animal feeding experiences, which are gradually increasing in frequency. Although there were no significant differences between grades, we can see that lower grade students are more inclined to experience planting, cultivation management, and harvesting. Middle grade and upper grade students may have experienced these AEs before, so the content of the experiences is more biased toward learning agricultural knowledge and cooking experience with more vital hands-on ability. Regarding the frequency of use of school gardens, 55 (64.7%) of the lower grades, 38 (44.7%) of the middle grades, and 29 (34.1%) of the upper grades were using the school gardens weekly. In contrast, the frequency of monthly and yearly use was relatively low.
In school farms, the likelihood of students experiencing planting and harvesting tends to increase from lower to higher grades. For example, planting experiences were available to 14 (48.3%), 13 (44.8%), and 18 (62.1%) of the lower-, middle-, and upper-grade students, respectively. Regarding the frequency of use of school farms, 7 (24.1%), 12 (41.4%), and 19 (65.5%) of the lower-, middle-, and upper-grade students, respectively, used school farms yearly.
By comparing the AEs of students in the same grade in school gardens and school farms, we found that students in lower grades were more likely to experience planting (p < 0.001), cultivation management (p < 0.001), and harvesting (p < 0.001) in school gardens. In addition, middle-grade students were more likely to have experience planting (p = 0.025) and cultivation management (p = 0.003) in school gardens. However, upper-grade students were more likely to have cultivation management experiences (p = 0.032) in school farms. The reason is that upper-grade students may have greater mobility and a sense of self-protection, enabling safe and easy access to school farms to gain AEs. Regarding the frequency of AEs, all grades gain a better chance of weekly experiences at school gardens, whereas only a few can do so in school farms.
Table 4 shows the supporters of AEs in school gardens. 75 (91.5%) of the school gardens were managed by schoolteachers, followed by 27 (32.9%) who had agricultural organizations’ support. Agricultural organizations can provide seedlings of agricultural products needed by AEs in schools.
Of the school farms surveyed, 26 (92.9%) have the support of farmers and 22 (78.6%) of teachers, followed by 9 (32.1%) of nearby residents. School teachers are needed to manage the GSF program, whether it is in the school garden or the school farm. Only 7 (25%) of school farms have cooperation with agricultural organizations, we presume that farmers on school farms could satisfy most of the needs of students conducting AEs.

3.2.3. Advantages and Disadvantages

Table 5 presents the advantages and disadvantages of school gardens.
In school gardens, for advantages from the perspective of school managers, the response rate for questionnaire item “Children can see agricultural products daily” receiving up 75 (88.2%) responses, and “The growth of agricultural products can be continuously observed from sowing to harvesting,” garnering 71 (83.5%) responses, are very high. “Partnerships with local farmers”, notably, had a very low response rate, receiving 10 (11.8%) responses.
For the disadvantages of AEs in school garden, 50 (58.8%) of the school managers felt that “School teachers have difficulty carving out time for produce management,” and 46 (54.1%) reported that “The spaces for growing agricultural products are limited”. Only 1 (1.2%) of school managers felt that “Time spent on the experience was too short.”
Regarding the advantages and disadvantages of school farms, 20 (69.0%) of the managers think that “Knowledge classes and support can be obtained from farmers,” and 18 (62.1%) reported that “Children are easily surrounded by agricultural landscapes and the natural environment.” With regard to the disadvantages, 16 (55.2%) of the managers think that “School teachers experience difficulty in allocating time for produce management,” 14 (48.3%) think that “The frequency of AEs is dependent on weather,” 14 (48.3%) think that “It takes time to move to the school farm,” and 14 (48.3%) stated “concerns about safety issues, such as traffic accidents during transportation.”

3.3. Manager’s Evaluation of the School Farm

We first tested the validity of the manager’s evaluation. The results of the KMO and Bartlett’s test were 0.829 and p = 0.000, respectively. Thus, the data of this survey can be considered valid. In this study, the level of satisfaction is denoted by a mean value of 3; positive attitudes exceed 3 and negative attitudes are less than 3.

3.3.1. Impact of the Area of School Gardens on Evaluation

Through the survey, we found that most elementary schools have school farms. Therefore, studying what factors influence managers’ evaluation of school gardens will help optimize school gardens in the future.
The questionnaire asked school managers about the area of their school gardens in a free-response format. Of the 64 schools with only school gardens, 46 schools with school gardens responded to this question, with a response rate of 71.8%. The area of school gardens on school grounds denotes areas with fields, paddy fields, and flowerbeds. Other facilities with fixed areas, such as flowerpots and vertical greening, are excluded.
This study analyzed the influence of farm area and the frequency and type of AEs on the perceptions of managers. However, it did not find correlations between managers’ evaluations and AEs frequency and type, or between farm area and frequency and type of AEs.
In terms of the area of school gardens in 46 schools, 25 (54.3%) had an area of 1–50 m², 10 (21.7%) had 51–100 m², 4 (8.6%) had 101–150 m², and 7 (15.2%) had 151 m² or more.
The relationship between area and evaluation was analyzed by one way ANOVA and least significant difference. Among them, the study found significant differences in “The budget is adequate” (p = 0.039), “The effect of AEs is sufficient for children” (p = 0.038), and “Understanding the importance of AEs for children” (p = 0.021). Table 6 presents the results.
Regarding the management of AEs, when the area of the school garden is larger than 150 m2, the manager considers its budget adequate. This may be because these schools pay more attention to the GSF program and dedicate a significant portion of their budget to secure the farm area to guarantee holding AEs. From the perspective of the effect of AEs, school gardens of more than 150 m2 also have a better experience effect. Further, children can better understand the importance of AEs.

3.3.2. Effect of School Garden Type on Evaluation

Different types of school gardens effect managers’ evaluations. Table 7 presents the evaluations.
Overall, the attitude of most school managers is positive. Based on the evaluation of the managers, the safety of school gardens can be ensured (mean: 4.20). In addition, the managers significantly recognized the effect of AEs in school gardens, such as “Understanding of the importance of AEs for children” (mean: 3.42) and “The effect of AEs is sufficient for children” (mean: 3.33). Conversely, managers generally gave negative evaluations of the support system of the schools (mean: 2.53).
In terms of the management of school gardens, having a school garden only was more likely to ensure the safety of children than having a school garden and farm (p = 0.002). Having a school farm only was more likely to ensure places to experience than having a school garden only and having a school garden and farm (p = 0.046) and was more likely to have adequate tools and equipment than having a school garden and farm (p = 0.027).
In terms of cooperation between schools and local communities, having a school garden only is less connected to the community (p = 0.000) and local agriculture (p = 0.000) than having a school farm. In other words, having school farm deepens the connection with the local community.

3.3.3. Willingness to Promote School Garden

Table 8 indicates the willingness of the managers of different types of school gardens to promote the development of gardens in the future. Generally, a high percentage of managers of schools with school gardens selected “Promote school gardens” and “Maintain the current initiatives.” Only 5 (7.8%) of the schools with school gardens only were interested in promoting school farms. In contrast, 4 (50%) of the schools with school farms only were interested in promoting school gardens. Thus, the study infers that the managers of school gardens are less willing to open school farms; most of them opted to maintain the status quo or optimize school gardens.
In terms of “Promote the school gardens” and “Promote nearby school farms,” school garden only (N = 64) and school garden and farms (N = 21) respondents were significantly different. Thus, the study concluded that the managers preferred promoting the existing types of school farms.
In terms of school location, schools located in UCAs tended to promote the development of school farms more than schools in UPAs. The results were statistically significant (p = 0.033).

4. Discussion

4.1. Factors Affecting Choosing the Type of School Garden

The location effects the type of school garden selected by the school. A survey of school gardens in public schools in California found that significantly more urban schools had school gardens compared to rural schools. More than half of the school gardens were planted on the ground or on raised beds; less than half of the agricultural products were potted plants or located outside the school [46]. According to Burt et al. [47], successful school garden programs may be more difficult for schools located in rural areas or in the absence of school or community-wide interest. The above studies show that the need for school gardens is greater in schools located in urban areas than those in rural areas. This study further analyzes the needs of schools located in urban areas for school gardens. We conducted a survey of public elementary schools in urban areas of Japan to understand the types of school gardens in urban areas. We found that more than 90% of urban elementary schools have school gardens. Of them, 95.3% of elementary schools with school gardens are located in UPAs, which are highly urbanized areas in Japan. Farmland accounts for only 1.4% of the total area of UPAs in Japan [42]; thus, most elementary schools in these areas have opted to establish school gardens directly on school grounds due to environmental constraints and lack of agricultural space, even if they would prefer to have school farms. Compared with elementary schools in UPAs, more than 50% of schools in UCAs opted to establish school farms alongside their school gardens. Having a school farm in a relatively rich agricultural environment is a good option for schools in UCAs.

4.2. Characteristics of School Gardens

We found that most of the existing research on school gardens explores the effects of school gardens on students. For example, teaching in or experiencing school gardens can moderately improve students’ academic performance and health, including reading [10,25,48]. Students can learn to differentiate between vegetables by developing their understanding of nature and improve their knowledge, attitudes, preferences, and willingness to taste vegetables [49,50]. Experiences in school gardens demonstrate the efficacy of students’ abilities in terms of skills, knowledge, social skills, personal development, and well-being, and can increase children’s interest in agriculture, reduce psychological tension and instability, and promote healthy child development [51,52]. Though there are research studies that discuss the success factors and barriers to opening school gardens [47,53,54], few studies have discussed the use of different types of school gardens and their similarities and differences. This paper compares the characteristics of school gardens and school farms, understands their use methods, and discusses the differences in the results between different types of school gardens.
We found that school gardens provide a place for children to experience agriculture daily and ensure their safety. Dolianitis et al. [55] mentioned that when a garden is built in idle spaces of schools, children can follow and observe the developmental stages of plants and perform daily care, cultivation, and harvesting by conducting agricultural activities such as planting seedlings and sowing vegetables. With respect to experiential facilities, depending on the extent of the outreach of the GSF program, each school garden features different experiential facilities. Typically, they use flowerpots, flower beds, and corners of school grounds as fields for students to conduct AEs. Also, Wolsey et al. [56] mentioned that school gardens are spaces set aside in existing or unused areas of the school’s open landscape, and can develop into orchards, water harvesting facilities, greenhouses, and small plots of farmland.
In terms of produce, school gardens prefer to grow easy-to-cultivate agricultural products, such as fruit and root crops, due to space constraints. Very few school gardens have paddy fields, because cultivating cereals in paddy fields requires more attention and daily maintenance.
The contents and frequency of use of school gardens varied by grade level. In this study, school gardens in Japan provided students with several experiences in planting, cultivation management, and harvesting. Among them, lower-grade students used school gardens to experience AEs more frequently than middle- and upper-grade students. Based on the evaluation by the managers, they are very confident in guaranteeing the safety of school gardens. The study assumed that experiences in school gardens will better ensure the safety of the lower grade students due to their physical and mental immaturity. However, although the frequency of AEs is high, the amount of time each child can experience is limited due to the limited space available in the school gardens [26]. The responses of the managers about the disadvantages of school gardens reflected this problem.
School farms are composed of fields and paddy fields, that are more natural and agricultural than flowerbeds and flowerpots in school gardens; thus, they provide a better environment for AEs. Japan is in East Asia and has a unique food culture that values cereals such as rice [57]. School farms have more paddy fields; hence, students are exposed to rice, an agricultural product that is rarely grown in cities, as part of school life. In addition, a high percentage of root crops are grown in school farms. School farms tend to be a planting and harvesting experience for upper-grade students compared to lower grade students. However, most students only experience AEs a few times per year due to the distance of school farms from their schools.
School farms are typically borrowed from the fields or paddy fields of nearby farmers; thus, students can usually receive expert instruction in agriculture from farmers. School managers express the advantage of school farms, that can help students be better connected to regional agricultural resources, allowing children to receive added professional knowledge from farmers and easily immerse themselves in the agricultural landscape and the natural environment by learning through field experience, understanding the local customs, nature, and culture, and cultivating a love for the region [58].
Managers also expressed the disadvantages of school farms. The majority believed that the frequency of AEs is highly dependent on the weather. During rainy weather, scheduled experiences are frequently suspended to ensure the safety of the children [26]. They believe that transportation from schools to school farms is time intensive and they worry about the safety of the children during transportation. However, similar studies about school farms that discuss these issues are lacking.

4.3. Factors Affecting the Effectiveness of AEs in School Gardens

The area of the school garden influences its effectiveness. Using the data of the area of school gardens in 46 schools with flower beds or fields, 76% of school gardens had an area of less than 100 m², indicating that the space for AEs in school grounds is very limited. Therefore, increasing the area of school gardens is an important method for improving the effect of AEs in school gardens. Guo et al. [35] mentioned that the area of gardens significantly influenced usage and indicated the importance of sufficient space to support experiential activities. In terms of the perceptions of managers who responded to the questions “The effect of AEs is sufficient for children” and “Understanding the importance of AEs for children,” the level of satisfaction was highest for school gardens with an area more than 151 m². The reason for this may be that managers believe that the larger the area, the more hours and the more opportunities the children gain from exposure to agriculture, meaning the students will have a better understanding of AEs. Therefore, the area of school gardens should be at least 150 m² to improve the effect of AEs.
The types of school gardens can influence their effectiveness. Elementary schools are in different locations; therefore, the type of school garden is different for each school. Schools with school gardens are better able to ensure the safety of children but have less connection to the community. Schools with school farms are better able to ensure a place for children to experience agriculture and nature. Schools with a school garden and a farm have a stronger connection to the community than those with only school gardens; however, safety is decreased. Therefore, schools that want to set up school gardens in the future can choose the type of school garden based on their needs regarding safety, experience place, and connection to the community.

4.4. Barriers to and Strategies for School Gardens

The operating budget influences the effect of school gardens. Burt et al. [47] mentioned that successful school gardens have an adequate operating budget, operate for a greater number of years, and plant crops on the ground or raised beds. In this study, school managers from schools with a school garden and a school farm evaluated the adequacy of their budgets as below average, confirming the existence of an inadequate operating budget. Hoover et al. [53] cited that the participants of school gardens reported that the single greatest barrier to success was the lack of funding. Burt et al. [59] found that limited funding was considered the biggest barrier to the expansion of school gardening projects. For example, additional budgets may enable schools to hire horticultural experts, run courses related to agriculture, or fund more agricultural activities.
Lack of teachers and policy support can also affect the effectiveness of school gardens. Teacher training is considered necessary to improve the success of school gardens [60]. Teachers with knowledge of agriculture and horticulture are better able to provide quality education to students [54]. When the school garden is in operation, it is mandatory to provide long-term support and guidance to the school staff [61]. Teachers and principals are major variables in the success of school gardens [30]. In terms of the evaluation by the manager for the survey item “Convenience in the management of AEs,” the majority negatively rated the item “Supporting systems for schools are adequate.” They felt that policy support from the government for school AEs is extremely inadequate. Clearly, the managers desire that the government strengthen support for teachers by ensuring that the time for AEs is not taken away from work. In addition, Bucher [62] highlighted the marginalization of school garden programs in the daily curriculum, wherein schoolteachers frequently perform above and beyond their basic professional duties. Teachers in cities can easily implement lesson plans with policy support, whereas the pedagogical understanding of learning through school gardens is institutionally marginalized in cities without policy support due to the small number of official educational programs.
The managers of school gardens lack motivation for their operations. In the survey on the intention to promote school gardens in the future, the majority opted to maintain the status quo or to continue to improve the existing school gardens. Only a few wanted to establish other types of farms. Many reasons underlie this result, such as the lack of an adequate budget, teachers, and supportive policies, as previously mentioned. Another possibility was that schools are assigned principals who do not pay attention to the school garden program and consider maintaining the status quo sufficient [63]. In addition, the expansion of school gardens may be impossible due to the limitations of the surrounding environment.
We can strengthen the connection between schools and the community. Most elementary schools with school farms are located in UCAs, whereas those in UPAs largely lack school farms. Japan established the “Production Green Land,” where a certain number of fields and farms are preserved in UPA areas. Therefore, the cooperation between productive green spaces and elementary schools in UPAs needs further discussion. Although most schools opted to improve their school gardens or maintain the status quo, the government can take the lead in promoting cooperation between productive green areas and elementary schools in UPA areas at a time when the agricultural labor force is decreasing. This initiative will reduce the pressure on elementary school teachers and bring employment opportunities to farmers who own productive green spaces.

4.5. Limitations

This thesis was intended to determine the current status of school gardens in 361 public elementary schools in the southern area of Saitama Prefecture; however, we only collected data from 93 schools. Although the response rate was only 25.8%, as the questionnaire was sent by mail, it was likely that enthusiastic school garden managers or schools performing well in terms of their school garden program would respond to the questionnaire and mail it back; therefore, the credibility would be relatively high. However, when calculating the area of farmlands in schools, not all schools provided responses about the area of the farmland, water fields, and flower beds in their schools. Therefore, data on these areas were very limited.

5. Conclusions

School gardens have attracted increased attention in recent years; many studies confirm that they can promote physical and mental health of children. However, existing studies focus on the benefits of school gardens for children and the barriers for school gardens, such that few studies discuss the characteristics of different types of school gardens and their effects. This study distributed a questionnaire to managers of school gardens in elementary schools in Saitama Prefecture and conducted descriptive analysis and inferential statistics to analyze the characteristics of school gardens, the content and frequency of AEs conducted in school gardens, and the evaluations by managers about school gardens. The findings present important implications for policymakers and managers of school gardens regarding the types of school garden to choose and guidelines for school gardens.
The results indicated that urban elementary schools in Japan have three main types of school gardens: school gardens only, a school garden and farm, and school farms only. The type of school gardens is influenced by the location of the school. While more than 90% of schools have school gardens, elementary schools located in UCA would be more likely to have both school garden and school farms.
School gardens can grow a wider variety of agricultural products, providing children a regular experience of agriculture and nature and ensuring their safety; however, their areas are often limited and have very weak connections to the community. School farms offer a spacious experience and can grow cereals that are rarely seen in the city, often with professional guidance from farmers. However, due to the distance from school and time-consuming transportation, children can only receive AEs a few times a year. Schools with both a school garden and a farm will have a stronger connection to the local community than schools with only school gardens, but their safety will be decreased.
Finally, we found insufficient budgets, teachers, and supportive policies among the schools and a lack of motivation among the managers operating the school gardens. Therefore, ensuring government support, coordinating the time of school garden managers, and strengthening the connection and cooperation of elementary schools with local communities are the major issues to be considered in the future.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/land12030565/s1, Questionnaire survey on the actual situation of agricultural experiences in school farms for elementary school.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.W. and S.Y.; methodology, R.W. and S.Y.; software, R.W.; validation, R.W.; formal analysis, R.W.; investigation, R.W.; resources, R.W.; data curation, R.W.; writing—original draft preparation, R.W.; writing—review and editing, R.W.; visualization, R.W.; supervision, S.Y.; project administration, S.Y.; funding acquisition, R.W. and S.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by JST SPRING, Grant Number JPMJSP2109.

Informed Consent Statement

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

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bratman, G.N.; Anderson, C.B.; Berman, M.G.; Cochran, B.; de Vries, S.; Flanders, J.; Folke, C.; Frumkin, H.; Gross, J.J.; Hartig, T.; et al. Nature and Mental Health: An Ecosystem Service Perspective. Sci. Adv. 2019, 5, eaax0903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Yamada, I. Comparison of Environmental Perceptions of Children and Adults in Rural Areas. J. Rural. Probl. 2004, 40, 81–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Zhang, Z.; Stevenson, K.T.; Martin, K.L. Exploring Geographical, Curricular, and Demographic Factors of Nature Use by Children in Urban Schoolyards in Raleigh, NC, USA. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 65, 127323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Mirrahmi, S.Z.; Tawil, N.M.; Abdullah, N.A.G.; Surat, M.; Usman, I.M.S. Developing Conducive Sustainable Outdoor Learning: The Impact of Natural Environment on Learning, Social and Emotional Intelligence. Procedia Eng. 2011, 20, 389–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Hinds, J.; Sparks, P. Engaging with the Natural Environment: The Role of Affective Connection and Identity. J. Environ. Psychol. 2008, 28, 109–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Szczepanski, A. Outdoor Education: Authentic Learning in the Context of Urban and Rural Landscape: A Way of Connecting Environmental Education and Health to Sustainable Learning: Literary Education and Sensory Experience. Perspective of the Where, What, Why, and When of Learning. Perspective of the Where, What, Why and When of Learning (February, 2013). 2009. Available online: http://www.mgu.ac.jp/21tosyokan/files/hatsurin_13.Pdf (accessed on 22 May 2022).
  7. Akoumianaki-Ioannidou, A.; Paraskevopoulou, A.T.; Tachou, V. School Grounds as a Resource of Green Space to Increase Child-Plant Contact. Urban For. Urban Green. 2016, 20, 375–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Hart, C.H. Children on Playgrounds: Research Perspectives and Applications; Suny Press: Albany, NY, USA, 1993; ISBN 0791414671. [Google Scholar]
  9. Pollin, S.; Retzlaff-Fürst, C. The School Garden: A Social and Emotional Place. Fron. Psychol. 2021, 12, 567720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Amiri, A.; Geravandi, S.; Rostami, F. Potential Effects of School Garden on Students’ Knowledge, Attitude and Experience: A Pilot Project on Sixth Grade Students in Iran. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 62, 127174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ohly, H.; Gentry, S.; Wigglesworth, R.; Bethel, A.; Lovell, R.; Garside, R. A Systematic Review of the Health and Well-Being Impacts of School Gardening: Synthesis of Quantitative and Qualitative Evidence. BMC Public Health 2016, 16, 286. [Google Scholar]
  12. Saitama Prefectural Office of Education. Saitama Prefecture Green School Farm Promotion Manual. Available online: https://www.pref.saitama.lg.jp/documents/16128/373368_1.pdf (accessed on 4 January 2021).
  13. Brendon, P. Hyndman; Leanne Lester The Relationship between Elementary School Children’s Enjoyment of School Playground Activities and Participation in Physical Activity during Lunchtime Recess. Child. Youth Environ. 2015, 25, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Aminpour, F.; Bishop, K.; Corkery, L. The Hidden Value of In-between Spaces for Children’s Self-Directed Play within Outdoor School Environments. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2020, 194, 103683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Stevenson, K.T.; Moore, R.; Cosco, N.; Floyd, M.F.; Sullivan, W.; Brink, L.; Gerstein, D.; Jordan, C.; Zaplatosch, J. A National Research Agenda Supporting Green Schoolyard Development and Equitable Access to Nature. Elem. Sci. Anthr. 2020, 8, 406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Prescott, M.P.; Cleary, R.; Bonanno, A.; Costanigro, M.; Jablonski, B.B.R.; Long, A.B. Farm to School Activities and Student Outcomes: A Systematic Review. Adv. Nutr. 2020, 11, 357–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Izumi, B.T.; Alaimo, K.; Hamm, M.W. Farm-to-School Programs: Perspectives of School Food Service Professionals. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 2010, 42, 83–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Graham, H.; Zidenberg-Cherr, S. California Teachers Perceive School Gardens as an Effective Nutritional Tool to Promote Healthful Eating Habits. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 2005, 105, 1797–1800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Botkins, E.R.; Roe, B.E. Understanding Participation in Farm to School Programs: Results Integrating School and Supply-Side Factors. Food Policy 2018, 74, 126–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Inagaki, H.; Ohishi, T.; Takahashi, T.; Matsuno, K.; Yamamoto, T.; Kurita, E. Influences of Agricultural Experience on the Image of Agriculture among Children. J. Rural. Plan. Assoc. 2010, 29, 161–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Takashi, N. The Range of Food and Agriculture Education in Sustainable Community Improvement: Learning of SociaI Participation through the Life of EnvironmentaI Education. Environ. Educ. 2004, 14, 92–100. [Google Scholar]
  22. Katsuno, M.; Fujiu, H. Factors That Make Much More Effective Experience Activities of Rice Farming in Elementary School. J. Jpn. Soc. Shokuiku 2015, 9, 67–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Morris, J.L.; Zidenberg-Cherr, S. Garden-Enhanced Nutrition Curriculum Improves Fourth-Grade School Children’s Knowledge of Nutrition and Preferences for Some Vegetables. Am. Diet. Association. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 2002, 102, 91–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ozer, E.J. The Effects of School Gardens on Students and Schools: Conceptualization and Considerations for Maximizing Healthy Development. Health Educ. Behav. 2006, 34, 846–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Ballantyne, R.; Packer, J. Promoting Learning for Sustainability: Principals’ Perceptions of the Role of Outdoor and Environmental Education Centres. Aust. J. Environ. Educ. 2006, 22, 15–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Yamada, I. The Effects of Agricultural Experience on the Emotion and Interest of Children. J. Rural. Probl. 2008, 44, 326–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Saito, M. The Goal of the Agricultural Experience Curriculum and Learning Cooperation. Bull. Jpn. Curric. Res. Dev. 2017, 40, 67–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ministry of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries. Educational Farm Management Guide. Available online: https://www.maff.go.jp/j/syokuiku/taikenn/tebiki.html (accessed on 2 January 2023).
  29. Saitama Prefecture Green School Farm. Available online: https://www.pref.saitama.lg.jp/a0902/midorigakko/index.html (accessed on 2 April 2021).
  30. Blair, D. The Child in the Garden: An Evaluative Review of the Benefits of School Gardening. J. Environ. Educ. 2009, 40, 15–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Davis, J.N.; Spaniol, M.R.; Somerset, S. Sustenance and Sustainability: Maximizing the Impact of School Gardens on Health Outcomes. Public. Health Nutr. 2015, 18, 2358–2367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kılıçgün, M.Y. The Games 3-6 Aged Children’s Wish to Play in the School Garden. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 152, 233–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Zeng, N.; Gallarza, M. P107 Effects of School Gardens on Children and Adolescents: Systematic Review. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 2022, 54, S69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Fukuda, Y. Land Prices and Agglomeration: Theory and Evidence from the Tokyo Metropolitan Area. J. Jpn. Int. Econ. 2020, 58, 101094. [Google Scholar]
  35. Guo, J.; Yanai, S.; Kodama, T. Factors Influencing the Use of and Attitude toward Community Gardens in Aged Care Facilities: The Managers’ Perspective. Urban For. Urban Green. 2022, 70, 127524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Statistics Bureau of Japan. Statistics Bureau of Japan. Available online: https://www.e-stat.go.jp/dbview?sid=0003448233 (accessed on 24 September 2021).
  37. Saitama Government Saitama’s Strengths. Available online: https://www.pref.saitama.lg.jp/documents/6054/jp_saitamanomiryoku.pdf (accessed on 25 September 2021).
  38. Saitama Government Saitama Land. Available online: https://www.pref.saitama.lg.jp/a0108/saitama-tochi.html#R4 (accessed on 2 January 2023).
  39. Ministry of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries Food Education. Available online: https://elaws.e-gov.go.jp/document?lawid=417AC1000000063 (accessed on 12 March 2022).
  40. Japan Urban Observatory Land Use Control Regulation in Japan. Available online: https://www.gdrc.org/uem/observatory/land-regulation.html (accessed on 2 January 2023).
  41. City Planning Law. Available online: https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/3841 (accessed on 12 July 2022).
  42. Ministry of Land Infrastructure Transport and Tourism Current Status of Farmland Area. Available online: https://www.mlit.go.jp/toshi/park/content/001362577.pdf (accessed on 2 January 2023).
  43. Tange, S.; Sakamoto, K.; Yamazaki, T.; Iida, A.; Yokohari, M. Changing Perceptions and Conservation Policies on Agricultural Lands Remaining in Japanese Mid-Sized Cities. Rep. City Plan. Inst. Jpn. 2021, 20, 270–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Saitama Prefectural Office of Education. Saitama School Handbook. Available online: https://www.pref.saitama.lg.jp/f2203/binran.html (accessed on 10 May 2022).
  45. National Land Numerical Information Download Service. Available online: https://nlftp.mlit.go.jp/ksj/index.html (accessed on 24 September 2021).
  46. Graham, H.; Beall, D.L.; Lussier, M.; McLaughlin, P.; Zidenberg-Cherr, S. Use of School Gardens in Academic Instruction. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 2005, 37, 147–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Burt, K.G.; Lindel, N.; Wang, J.; Burgermaster, M.; Fera, J. A Nationwide Snapshot of the Predictors of and Barriers to School Garden Success. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 2019, 51, 1139–1149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Davis, J.N.; Nikah, K.; Landry, M.J.; Vandyousefi, S.; Ghaddar, R.; Jeans, M.; Cooper, M.H.; Martin, B.; Waugh, L.; Sharma, S.V.; et al. Effects of a School-Based Garden Program on Academic Performance: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 2022, 8, 125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Rye, J.A.; Selmer, S.J.; Pennington, S.; Vanhorn, L.; Fox, S.; Kane, S. Elementary School Garden Programs Enhance Science Education for All Learners. Teach. Except. Child. 2012, 44, 58–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ratcliffe, M.M.; Merrigan, K.A.; Rogers, B.L.; Goldberg, J.P. The Effects of School Garden Experiences on Middle School-Aged Students’ Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behaviors Associated with Vegetable Consumption. Health Promot Pract 2011, 12, 36–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Kirby, T. A Garden of Learning. Sci. Child. 2008, 45, 28. [Google Scholar]
  52. Walter, P. Educational Alternatives in Food Production, Knowledge and Consumption: The Public Pedagogies of Growing’ Power and Tsyunhehkw^’. Aust. J. Adult Learning 2012, 52, 573–594. [Google Scholar]
  53. Hoover, A.; Vandyousefi, S.; Martin, B.; Nikah, K.; Cooper, M.H.; Muller, A.; Marty, E.; Duswalt-Epstein, M.; Burgermaster, M.; Waugh, L.; et al. Barriers, Strategies, and Resources to Thriving School Gardens. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 2021, 53, 591–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Burt, K.G.; Luesse, H.B.; Rakoff, J.; Ventura, A.; Burgermaster, M. School Gardens in the United States: Current Barriers to Integration and Sustainability. Am. J. Public Health 2018, 108, 1543–1549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Dolianitis, B.M.; de Moraes, R.S.; Anschau, J.R.; Leal, M.M.; Pagliarini, G.C.; de, F. de Souza Junior, G.; Frescura, K.D.-S.; Frescura, V.D.-S. The Role of the School Garden in the Early Childhood Education. Ciência E Nat. 2019, 40, 63–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Wolsey, T.D.; Lapp, D. School Gardens: Situating Students within a Global Context. J. Educ. 2014, 194, 53–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Ayabe, S. Multifaceted Studies on Cooking Quality of Various Rice and Japanese Dietary Habits and Culture. J. Cook. Sci. Jpn. 2019, 52, 43–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Hayakawa, S. The Making of the Environmental Education and Environmental Learning Centers from Efforts in Ube City. Trends Sci. 2016, 21, 7_35–7_40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Burt, K.G.; Burgermaster, M.; Jacquez, R. Predictors of School Garden Integration: Factors Critical to Gardening Success in New York City. Health Educ. Behav. 2018, 45, 849–854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Burt, K.G.; Koch, P.; Contento, I. Implementing and Sustaining School Gardens by Integrating the Curriculum. Health Behav. Policy Rev. 2017, 4, 427–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Beery, M.; Adatia, R.; Segantin, O.; Skaer, C.-F. School Food Gardens: Fertile Ground for Education. Health Educ. 2014, 114, 281–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Bucher, K. Opening Garden Gates: Teachers Making Meaning of School Gardens in Havana and Philadelphia. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2017, 63, 12–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Gardens, G.; Garwood, A.; Wasserstrom, P.; Logan, S.; Steeves, S. Portland School Garden Assessment. Available online: http://www.growing-gardens.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/SchoolGardenSurveyReportFinal.pdf (accessed on 24 January 2023).
Land 12 00565 g001 550
Figure 1. Map of the southern region of Saitama Prefecture and location of elementary schools.
Figure 1. Map of the southern region of Saitama Prefecture and location of elementary schools.
Land 12 00565 g001
Land 12 00565 g002 550
Figure 2. Research flow.
Figure 2. Research flow.
Land 12 00565 g002
Land 12 00565 g003 550
Figure 3. Types of school gardens in elementary schools.
Figure 3. Types of school gardens in elementary schools.
Land 12 00565 g003
Table
Table 1. Locations of the elementary schools.
Table 1. Locations of the elementary schools.
UPA
n (%)		UCA
n (%)		Total
n (%)		p1p2
School garden only (A)61 (95.3%)3 (4.7%)64 (100.0%)<0.001 **0.016 *
School garden and farm (B)12 (57.1%)9 (41.9%)21 (100.0%)
School farm only (C)5 (62.5%)3 (37.5%)8 (100.0%)
p-values derived from Fisher’s exact test (p < 0.05 *, p < 0.01 **); p1 is the comparison between school garden only (A) and school garden and farm (B); p2 is the comparison between school garden only (A) and school farm only (C).
Table
Table 2. Current status of school gardens.
Table 2. Current status of school gardens.
Current Status of School GardensSchool Gardens
N = 85		School Farms
N = 29
n (%)n (%)p
Facilities
Flowerbeds50 (58.8%)0 (0.0%)<0.001 **
Paddy fields8 (9.4%)9 (31.0%)0.005 **
Fields54 (63.5%)22 (75.9%)
Flowerpots57 (67.1%)0 (0.0%)<0.001 **
Vertical greening20 (23.5%)0 (0.0%)0.004 **
Livestock shelters13 (15.3%)1 (3.4%)
Types of facilities
1–2 types48 (56.5%)29 (100.0%)<0.001 **
3–6 types37 (43.5%)0 (0.0%)
Agricultural products
Root crops59 (69.4%)14 (48.3%)0.041 *
Fruit vegetables78 (91.8%)8 (27.6%)<0.001 **
Leafy vegetables22 (25.9%)3 (10.3%)
Cereals30 (35.3%)13 (44.8%)
Herbs9 (10.6%)0 (0.0%)
Fruit trees9 (10.6%)0 (0.0%)
Livestock 13 (15.3%)0 (0.0%)
Types of agricultural products
1–2 types48 (56.5%)27 (93.1%)<0.001 **
3–7 types37 (43.5%)2 (6.9%)
p-values derived from Fisher’s exact test (p < 0.05 *, p < 0.01 **).
Table
Table 3. Current status of AEs in school gardens.
Table 3. Current status of AEs in school gardens.
School Garden N = 85School Farm N = 29
Lower GradesMiddle GradeUpper GradesWhole SchoolLower GradesMiddle GradeUpper GradesWhole School
n (%)n (%)n (%)n (%)n (%)n (%)n (%)n (%)
Content of AEs
Learning agricultural knowledge33 (38.8%)33 (38.8%)37 (43.5%)53 (62.4%)6 (20.7%)9 (31.0%)7 (24.1%)13 (44.8%)
Planting experience79 (92.9%) **58 (68.2%) *52 (61.2%)83 (97.6%)14 (48.3%) **13 (44.8%) *18 (62.1%)25 (86.2%)
Cultivation Management75 (88.2%) **56 (65.9%) **46 (54.1%) *80 (94.1%) **11 (37.9%) **10 (34.5%) **9 (31.0%) *14 (48.3%) **
Harvesting Experience75 (88.2%) **48 (56.5%)45 (52.9%)82 (96.5%) *14 (48.3%) **13 (44.8%)15 (51.7%)24 (82.8%) *
Crop processing0 (0.0%)1 (1.2%)2 (2.4%)3 (3.5%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)
Cooking Experience4 (4.7%)2 (2.4%)13 (15.3%) *15 (17.6%) *0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%) *0 (0.0%) *
Animal feeding experience3 (3.5%)2 (2.4%)6 (7.1%)8 (9.4%)1 (3.4%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)1 (3.4%)
The types of AEs
0–2 types14 (16.5%)32 (37.6%)39 (45.9%)8 (9.4%)19 (65.5%)19 (65.5%)19 (65.5%)12 (41.4%)
3–4 types68 (80.5%)50 (58.8%)36 (42.4%)66 (77.6%)10 (34.5%)10 (34.5%)10 (34.5%)17 (58.6%)
5–6 types3 (3.5%)3 (3.5%)10 (11.8%)11 (12.9%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)
The frequency of AEs
Week55 (64.7%) **38 (44.7%) **29 (34.1%) **76 (89.4%) **4 (13.8%) **3 (10.3%) **0 (0.0%) **5 (17.2%) **
Month10 (11.8%)9 (10.6%)10 (11.8%)18 (21.2%)5 (17.2%)6 (20.7%)4 (13.8%)7 (21.2%)
Year17 (20.0%)11 (12.9%)19 (22.4%) *24 (28.2%) **7 (24.1%)7 (24.1%)12 (41.4%) *19 (65.5%) **
p-values derived from Pearson’s chi-square statistical and Fisher’s exact test (p < 0.05 *, p < 0.01 **). p is the difference in AEs comparing grades between school gardens (N = 85) and school farms (N = 29).
Table
Table 4. The supporters of AEs in school gardens.
Table 4. The supporters of AEs in school gardens.
School Garden N = 82
(3 Missing Samples)		School Farm N = 28
(1 Missing Sample)
n (%)n (%)p
School teachers75 (91.5%)22 (78.6%)
Parents17 (20.7%)7 (25.8%)
Nearby farmers16 (19.5%)26(92.9%)<0.001 **
Nearby residents16 (19.5%)9 (32.1%)
Agricultural organizations27 (32.9%)7 (25.0%)
p-values derived from Pearson’s chi-square statistical (p < 0.01 **).
Table
Table 5. Advantages and disadvantages of school gardens.
Table 5. Advantages and disadvantages of school gardens.
Advantages and DisadvantagesN%
Advantages of AEs at school gardens (N = 85)
Partnerships with local farmers1011.8%
Connection to food education is available2731.8%
AEs can be done frequently4552.9%
It is safe because no movement and no suspicious people5058.8%
Children can be cared for at all times during the AEs6070.6%
Can teach agriculture knowledge in the classroom6171.8%
The growth of agricultural product can be continuously observed from sowing to harvesting7183.5%
Children can see agricultural products on a daily basis7588.2%
Disadvantages of AEs at school gardens (N = 85)
Time spent on each experience is too short11.2%
None in particular44.7%
Other78.2%
Students have difficulty carving out time for produce management1618.8%
Poor growing environment for crops, such as shaded by school buildings2934.1%
Lack of faculty with agricultural knowledge and skills3035.3%
Limited types of AEs that can be performed3338.8%
The spaces for growing agricultural products are limited4654.1%
School teachers have difficulty carving out time for produce management5058.8%
Advantages of AEs at school farms (N = 29)
Other00.0%
None in particular00.0%
Children can see agricultural products on a daily basis931.0%
Farmland acreage can be secured931.0%
Many types of AEs that can be conducted1034.5%
Partnerships with local farmers1034.5%
Connection to food education is available1137.9%
The growth of agricultural product can be continuously observed from sowing to harvesting1241.4%
Children are easily surrounded by agricultural landscapes and natural environment1862.1%
Knowledge classes and support can be obtained from farmers2069.0%
Disadvantages of AEs at school farms (N = 29)
None in particular00.0%
Other26.9%
Costly for AEs310.3%
No knowledge classes or support from farmers310.3%
Students have difficulty carving out time for management1241.4%
Concerns about safety issues such as traffic accidents during transportation1448.3%
It takes time to move to the school farm1448.3%
Frequency of AEs depends on the weather1448.3%
School teachers have difficulty carving out time for produce management1655.2%
Table
Table 6. The relationship between area and manager’s evaluation.
Table 6. The relationship between area and manager’s evaluation.
Only School Gardens
1–50 m2 (N = 25)51–100 m2 (N= 10)101–150 m2 (N = 4)150 m2 or More (N = 7)
M ± SD M ± SD M ± SD M ± SD p
Management of school garden
Opportunities for AEs3.16 ± 1.213.30 ± 0.823.00 ± 0.824.14 ± 0.690.171
Time for each AEs3.12 ± 1.133.01 ± 1.102.75 ± 0.963.86 ± 0.900.334
Plenty of places to experience2.80 ± 1.322.80 ± 1.032.75 ± 0.964.00 ± 0.820.119
Ensure safety4.40 ± 0.714.20 ± 0.634.25 ± 0.504.43 ± 0.530.834
Adequate tools and equipment are available3.36 ± 1.083.20 ± 1.032.75 ± 0.963.43 ± 0.980.713
Budget is adequate3.24 ± 1.01 a3.20 ± 1.14 a1.75 ± 0.50 b3.57 ± 0.98 a0.039 *
The content of the AEs is sufficient3.08 ± 1.082.70 ± 0.953.25 ± 0.503.71 ± 0.760.225
variety of agricultural and livestock products2.92 ± 1.122.90 ± 1.102.75 ± 0.964.00 ± 0.820.107
Supporting systems for schools are adequate2.84 ± 1.072.50 ± 1.182.25 ± 0.502.86 ± 0.900.636
Effects of AEs
The effect of AEs is sufficient for children3.36 ± 0.99 ab3.00 ± 1.05 b2.75 ± 0.96 b4.29 ± 0.76 a0.038 *
Understanding the importance of AEs for children3.48 ± 0.96 ab3.10 ± 0.88 b2.75 ± 0.5 b4.29 ± 0.49 a0.021 *
Cooperation between school and the local community
Deepened the connection with parents2.28 ± 1.062.60 ± 1.072.50 ± 1.293.14 ± 0.690.287
Deepened the connection with community2.24 ± 1.132.50 ± 1.082.50 ± 1.292.86 ± 0.690.594
Deepened the cooperation with local agricultural 1.96 ± 0.892.30 ± 0.952.00 ± 0.822.86 ± 0.900.138
The same letters following the scores indicate no significant difference; different letters indicate a significant difference based on the least significant difference (LSD) multiple comparison procedure (p ≤ 0.05). p: one way ANOVA (p < 0.05 *).
Table
Table 7. Comparison of the impact of different types of school gardens on the evaluation of managers.
Table 7. Comparison of the impact of different types of school gardens on the evaluation of managers.
Full SampleSchool Garden Only (N = 64)School Garden and Farm (N = 21)School Farm Only (N = 8)
M ± SDM ± SD M ± SD M ± SD p
Management of school garden
Opportunities for AEs3.30 ± 1.053.30 ± 1.033.14 ± 1.153.75 ± 0.89 0.384
Time for each AEs3.26 ± 1.00 3.25 ± 0.993.14 ± 1.063.63 ± 0.92 0.511
Ensure places to experience3.13 ± 1.203.02 ± 1.19 b3.10 ± 1.26 b4.13 ± 0.64 a0.046 *
Ensure safety4.20 ± 0.884.39 ± 0.70 a3.62 ± 1.16 b4.25 ± 0.71 ab0.002 **
Adequate tools and equipment 3.27 ± 1.043.34 ± 0.98 ab2.81 ± 1.17 b3.88 ± 0.83 a0.027 *
Budget is adequate3.13 ± 1.103.11 ± 1.102.95 ± 1.023.75 ± 1.16 0.210
The content of the AEs is sufficient3.05 ± 1.013.08 ± 1.012.86 ± 1.063.38 ± 0.92 0.448
Variety of agricultural and livestock products3.06 ± 1.083.03 ± 1.103.05 ± 1.073.38 ± 1.06 0.700
Supporting systems for schools are adequate2.53 ± 1.072.56 ± 1.042.19 ± 1.083.13 ± 1.13 0.097
Effects of AEs
The effect of AEs is sufficient for children3.33 ± 0.993.41 ± 0.953.19 ± 1.213.13 ± 0.64 0.573
Understanding of the importance of AEs for children3.42 ± 0.923.50 ± 0.873.19 ± 1.083.38 ± 0.92 0.413
Cooperation between school and the local community
Deepened the connection with parents2.61 ± 1.022.48 ± 1.012.86 ± 1.013.00 ± 1.07 0.187
Deepened the connection with community2.80 ± 1.202.45 ± 1.11 b3.57 ± 1.08 a3.50 ± 1.07 a <0.001 **
Deepened the cooperation with local agricultural 2.47 ± 1.052.19 ± 0.96 b3.14 ± 0.96 a3.00 ± 1.07 ab <0.001 **
The same letters following the scores indicate no significant difference, and different letters indicate a significant difference based on the LSD multiple comparison procedure (p ≤ 0.05). p: one way ANOVA (p < 0.05 *, p < 0.01 **).
Table
Table 8. The willingness to promote school gardens.
Table 8. The willingness to promote school gardens.
School Garden Only (N = 64)School Garden and Farm (N = 21)School Farm Only (N = 8) UPA
(N = 78)		UCA
(N = 15)
n (%)n (%)n (%)p1n (%)n (%)p2
Promote the school gardens37 (57.8%)6 (28.6%)4 (50.0%)0.018 *41 (52.6%)6 (40.0%)
Promote nearby school farms5 (7.8%) 6 (28.6%)2 (25.0%)0.023 *8 (10.3%)5 (33.3%)0.033 *
Promote remote agricultural facilities0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)
Maintain current initiatives28 (43.8%)11 (52.4%)4 (50.0%) 37 (47.4%)6 (40.0%)
Reduce current initiatives0 (0.0%)2 (9.5%)1 (12.5%) 2 (2.6%)1 (6.7%)
None in particular2 (3.1%)1 (4.8%)0 (0.0%) 1 (1.3%)0 (0.0%)
p-values derived from Pearson’s chi-square statistical and Fisher’s exact test (p < 0.05 *). p1 is the comparison between school garden only (N = 64) and having school garden and farms (N = 21). p2 is the comparison between UPA (N = 78) and UCA (N = 15).
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

Wang, R.; Yanai, S. Characteristics and Roles of School Gardens in Urban Areas of Japan: Perspective of School Managers. Land 2023, 12, 565. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12030565

AMA Style

Wang R, Yanai S. Characteristics and Roles of School Gardens in Urban Areas of Japan: Perspective of School Managers. Land. 2023; 12(3):565. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12030565

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wang, Rushi, and Shigeto Yanai. 2023. "Characteristics and Roles of School Gardens in Urban Areas of Japan: Perspective of School Managers" Land 12, no. 3: 565. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12030565

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

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop