An Analysis of Differences in Perceived Social Value of Community Gardens as Urban Green Spaces between Participating and Non-participating Residents

Background and objective: The purpose of this study is to determine the difference in the perceived social values of community gardens as urban green space between participating and non-participating residents. Methods: From December to March 2021, a survey was conducted on community gardens that targeted both participating and non-participating residents. For data analysis, frequency analysis, independent samples T-test and regression analysis were performed using SPSS 21.0. Results: First, there were differences between residents participating in GCG activities and non-participating residents in their perception of community gardens, as well as their perception of expected conflicts. To resolve expected conflicts, both groups responded that efforts through communication were necessary, but participating residents highlighted the need for trust with the administration; while non-participating residents suggested improving the physical environment. Second, both groups recognized the social values of the community garden as important, and generally evaluated the value of leisure and recreation to be high. However, there was a difference between the groups when it came to the importance of each category of social values; participating residents ranked the categories in the order of symbolic value, value of the commons, and ecological value, while for non-participating residents, the priority of social values was ranked in the order of ecological value> symbolic value = the value of the commons. From this difference, it can be noted that the focus on the perception of spatial values could change from the physical aspect to the cognitive aspect depending on whether residents participated or not. Third, both groups answered that it was necessary to expand opportunities for participation to promote social values. However, participating residents prioritized institutional support over expanding opportunities for participation, while non-participating residents recognized the diversification of programs as an equally important means of social value enhancement as the expansion of opportunities for participation, placing more importance on the physical conditions for their participation activities. The value of the commons was found to be a factor influencing the satisfaction with relevant projects. Conclusion: In conclusion, both participating and non-participating residents recognized the community garden as important as a space for realizing social values. Therefore, to realize social values in community gardens and successfully promote relevant projects, specific practical measures and strategies are needed to expand the physical value of community gardens, reduce differences between groups in their perception of social values through transparent and open communication and active participation, and enhance cognitive value through institutional support.