IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2021) 12-2

Research article
erd

Evaluation of School Gardens as a Method of Scaling Up
Sustainable Agriculture Technologies
GRACIE PEKARCIK*
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA
Email: gpekarci@vols.utk.edu

DAVID ADER
University of Tennesse, Knoxville, USA
Received 31 December 2020

Accepted 1 August 2021(*Corresponding Author)

Abstract Current research on school gardens is primarily focused on improving student
nutrition. Less examined is their potential to be agents of knowledge transfer to the wider
community. This paper seeks to determine the potential of school gardens as a pathway toscaling agricultural innovations. Literature is reviewed for best practices andrecommendations conducive to scaling up agricultural technologies using school gardens.
Findings indicated that school gardens have the potential to play a key role in scalingsustainable intensification (SI) technologies. They provide opportunities for knowledgetransfer through teacher-student-parent communication. Best practices for scaling throughschool gardens comprised: including parents in the learning process and upkeep of school
gardens; collaboration and commitment among all stakeholders; establishment of hands-on,
research-based agricultural curriculum in schools; financial assistance from government or
outside organization for startup and upkeep; and establishment of home gardens alongsideschool gardens. Primary barriers to scaling included: focusing on the ‘what’ and not the‘how’; social mores and the relationship between parent/child; capacity building for andinvolvement of school heads, teachers, and parents; lack of social, human, and/or economic
capital; and unintegrated commitment and partnership among stakeholders. Identified bestpractices and barriers are then applied to a case study analysis of a USAID-funded project inCambodia: Scaling Suitable Sustainable Technologies (S3-Cambodia) project. S3-Cambodia
targets youth as an entry point to extend target SI technologies to farm families. The project
engages students in experiential learning opportunities by establishing “green labs” atsecondary schools. S3-Cambodia is found to already be implementing many of the bestpractices listed above. Suggestions are made to increase parent involvement in the project
and to increase awareness of the challenges that come with a transnational project.
Keywords adoption, scaling, school garden, knowledge transfer, agriculture

INTRODUCTION
School gardens are a well-known tool to develop agricultural education curriculum and food systemknowledge within primary and secondary schools worldwide. Current research on school gardens is
primarily focused on improving student nutrition and increasing vegetable consumption (Ratcliffe etal., 2011; Schreinemachers et al., 2019; Leuven et al., 2018; FAO, 2004; Ferguson et al., 2019). Less
examined is their potential to be agents of food system reskilling and knowledge transfer to the wider
community (Cramer et al., 2019). Yet, students have significant potential to be agents of change intheir homes and communities. Using knowledge gained through school garden education, students
can serve as credible sources of information to their parents on best agriculture practices (Okiror etal., 2011).
School gardens provide a pathway to evaluate new technologies without personal risk. Often,
implementation and scaling up of new technologies and innovations is met with apprehension due tofear of the economic, social, and health risks that come with crop failure (Shilomboleni and De Plaen,
2019; Westermann et al., 2019). Understanding the process of and barriers to scaling are not newlyⒸ ISERD

24

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2021) 12-2

developed streams of social science research. Feder and Umali (1993) in their literature review ofagricultural innovation adoption during the prior decade detail risk, information availability, credit,
and farm size as major factors influencing farmer adoption of new technologies. This understandingof risk severely limits ability to scale new agricultural technologies which seek to improve
livelihoods and combat impacts of climate change. Often, scaling is described as either ‘scaling up’or ‘scaling out’. ‘Scaling up’ can be likened to the act of increasing, often in terms of number, speed,size, etc. On the other hand, ‘scaling out’ refers to the act of expansion, such as the spread of aparticular technology to new geographical locations (Wigboldus et al., 2016). This paper will
combine the distinction into the phrase ‘scaling up’ which covers the expansion, replication, andadaption of successful technologies, practices, or innovations to reach a greater number of people(Finn, 2012).
Understanding the role of risk in agriculture adoption and scaling is of particular relevance forsustainable intensification (SI) technologies. SI is a method of agricultural production which seeks
to balance environmental, economic, and social factors of farming. Zurek et al. (2015) definesustainable intensification as, “production of more food on the same piece of land while reducing thenegative environmental impacts and at the same time increasing the contributions to natural capitaland flow of environmental services” (p. 24). This has been further expanded to include social issues,
economics, and the human condition as non-environmental factors for a balanced application of SI
processes (Musumba et al., 2017). Barriers to the adoption of SI technologies include, but aren’t
limited to, demographic variables, farm-location characteristics, fiscal capital, information accessand human capital, and the occurrence of climate shocks. Often, these barriers vary based upon timeand location. For example, Kassie et al (2015) finds the primary barriers of SI adoption in easternand southern Africa to be, “social capital and networks, quality of extension services, reliance on
government support during crop failure, incidence of pests and diseases, resource constraints, tenure
security, education, and market access” (p. 400).
This paper seeks to determine the potential of school gardens as a pathway to scaling agricultural
innovations, particularly SI technologies. Specifically, it will assess if school gardens are able to limit
barriers to adoption such as risk and information availability. Literature is reviewed for best practices
and recommendations conducive to scaling up agricultural technologies using school gardens.
Identified challenges and suggestions are then applied to a case study analysis of a USAID-funded
project on scaling of SI technologies in Cambodia.
OBJECTIVE
Objectives of research are as follows:- to identify current and historical literature regarding scaling and adoption of agricultural innovation- to determine the impact of school gardens as a method of scaling up agricultural technologies.
METHODOLOGYThis paper reviewed theoretical and empirical literature on school gardens with a focus on scaling ofagricultural technologies and innovations. Literature was found using key word searching throughusing the University of Tennessee libraries database and Google Scholar (Google Inc., Mountain
View, CA, USA). Key words included: ‘adoption’, ‘scaling’, ‘agriculture’, ‘school garden’,‘knowledge’, ‘transfer’, ‘education’, and ‘sustainable intensification’. Themes and key activities
were then drawn from the literature to determine best practices of scaling successful school garden
programs. Research gaps and challenges to school garden implementation were determined for eachpiece of literature and used to determine key barriers to scaling.
Findings were then applied to a case study analysis of the Scaling Suitable Sustainable
Technologies (S3-Cambodia) project. S3-Cambodia is a 3-year project funded by the USAID
Sustainable Intensification Innovation lab to examine pathways for scaling. S3-Cambodia will
advance the capacity and roles of scaling agents in technology diffusion through applied research,technical assistance, curricula development and organizational strengthening. This process will
Ⓒ ISERD

25

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2021) 12-2

demonstrate the potential for and provide critical information on scaling technology through local,
national, and regional networks.
Previous research in Cambodia has identified, evaluated, and promoted SI technologies that
addressed gaps within the production systems. These innovations promote the diversification andresilience of smallholder systems by introducing new sources of income and nutrition during seasonal“food gaps,” across different agricultural spaces and serving different functions in livelihood
strategies. S3-Cambodia will pursue diffusion and adoption of technologies for different user groups.
Cambodian youth serve as an entry point to extend target technologies to farm families throughexperiential learning opportunities in schools by establishing “green labs”. Students will receive a
combination of hands-on training in SI practices and STEM-based instruction in SI principles. Thispreparation will culminate in the establishment of student home gardens featuring SI technologies.
The process of technology evaluation and diffusion will be supported by applied, participatory
research on the agronomic and nutritional qualities and marketing potential. In order to improve therate of success of S3, it is important to identify previous work in scaling through school gardens andthe lessons learned from attempts.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Current and Past Studies regarding Scaling and Adoption of Agricultural Innovation
Based on extensive review of literature on school gardens in various world regions, a list of bestpractices to assure scaling of agricultural technologies was developed. Additionally, primary barriers
to scaling up through school gardens were identified (Table 1).
Inclusion of parents in the learning process and upkeep of school gardens was found to be a key
component in assuring a successful and scalable school garden. Active parent involvement increased
the likelihood of knowledge transfer from students to parents. Schreinemachers et al. (2017) in theirassessment of a pilot school garden program in Bhutan highlighted the positive impact of the
program’s inclusion of parental involvement throughout the learning process. Parents were involved
through land preparation, crop care, material provision, and student advising. Additionally, teachers
took the time to visit parents at home and encouraged the use of home gardens. The authors determine
the impact to be that parents were highly accepting of the school garden and families increased theirknowledge about sustainable agriculture and nutritious food. Along the same lines, Schreinemachers
et al. (2019) in their study on school gardens in Burkina Faso involved parents through contributions
in determining garden vegetables choice, volunteer garden upkeep, land preparation, and fencing.
The authors determined the impact of parental involvement to be that children’s knowledge about
agriculture, food, and nutrition improved. However, the scope of the study did not directly assesschanges in attitudes and behavior of children, teachers, or parents. The authors specifically describe
the need for such a component to be included in future study design. Furthermore, barriers to scaling
arise if parents are uninterested are unable to commit the necessary time and energy for school garden
involvement. This is especially true if a teacher spearheading the school garden effort leaves theschool. Ferguson et al. (2019) acknowledge that highly motivated parents/schools are necessary tokeep school gardens going on their own if the project leader leaves.
Inclusion of parents in the learning process was directly tied to another identified best practicefor scaling – the establishment of home gardens alongside school gardens. The utilization of homegardens to test methods and technologies learned by children in school settings allows for streamlined
transfer of knowledge and practices to the parents. This in turn increases usage of new agricultural
technologies on a larger scale within households and communities. Calub et al. (2019) in their
School-Plus-Home Gardens Project (S+HGP) in the Philippines found that through this methodology,
the school gardens became learning laboratories; a place where both students and parents learned
about appropriate technologies and practices relevant to sustainable intensification, organic
agriculture, edible landscaping, climate change, and the interconnection of food and nutrition.
Likewise, Okiror et al.’s (2011) study on school gardens in eight Ugandan schools shows how homegardens allow for the transfer of knowledge from student to parent. The authors find that studentsⒸ ISERD

26

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2021) 12-2

were able to effectively pass along their new agricultural knowledge to their parents despite potential
barriers such as language constraints, timidness, and social mores. This was accomplished byproviding visible examples of agricultural techniques to parents through their home gardens, showing
income earned from sale of grown vegetables, and increasing the amount of food eaten at thehousehold level. The likelihood of adoption of these new agricultural practices by parents was
improved when inputs (seeds, chemicals, etc.) were provided for home garden projects. Conversely,
barriers to scaling arose if parents lacked inputs, household land size was small, or there was a poor
relationship between parent and child. Social mores of respect between parent and child could limit
youth’s confidence or ability to share knowledge with their elder. This phenomenon was found to bea key barrier to scaling in Uganda.
In continuation, child to parent transfer of knowledge is evident in the United Nations University
flagship project, network of Regional Centres of Expertise (RCE) on Education for Sustainable
Development (ESD) in Cambodia entitled ‘RCE Greater Phnom Penh’ (GPP). Tabucanon and
Mihara (2016) look specifically at the GPP project entitled, ‘Promoting Sustainable Agriculture at
Kampong Cham Province in Cambodia.’ The authors find evidence of transfer of learning throughschool gardens by incorporating sustainable agriculture and ESD into school curriculum. They
highlight that because most students were children of farmers, they were easily able to discuss andtest learned SI concepts/practices at home using home gardens/fields. The school gardens,
compounded with home garden practice, resulted in increased adoption of sustainable agriculture
practices among farming communities in the region. Similarly, Ran et al. (2013) highlight the‘Promoting ESD through Food, Agriculture and Environment Education in Elementary Schools andRural Communities in Cambodia’ project under GPP. While they also acknowledge the positive
outcome of ESD to be transfer of knowledge, they also highlight lack of resources as a key barrier toscaling of sustainable agriculture. Many schools in the project lacked adequate buildings, desks,
chairs, books, and materials for learning. Additionally, many students are unable to spend necessary
time in school due to commitments on their home farms or financial strain forcing them to seek
additional employment. Lack of social, human, and/or economic capital can severely impact theability of a school garden program to contribute to scaling of sustainable technologies.
The implementation of ESD into curricula in Cambodia detailed by Tabucanon and Mihara(2016) and Ran et al. (2013) highlights another identified best practice of scaling: the establishmentof hands-on, research-based agricultural curriculum in schools. FAO (2004)’s concept note regarding
school gardens calls for the, “integration of school gardening into the curriculum to ensure adequate
time is available for school gardening and related teaching activities without compromising the restof the curriculum” (p. 1). ESD serves as a great example as it is a “holistic and transformational
education which addresses learning content and outcomes, pedagogy and the learning environment”(UNESCO, 2019). ESD incorporates SI learning, promotes exploratory learning, and seeks
collaborative decision-making learning outcomes. However, ESD is not the only pathway tointegrating hands-on, research-based curriculum into schools. Sprague (2016) in her study ofopportunities for and barriers to scaling school gardens using the case study of the Edible Schoolyard
Pittsburgh project notes the importance that school gardens offer, “dynamic learning experiences via
experiential and inquiry-based learning” (p. 18). Remarks from the author’s surveys of garden
educators and parents both centered around the advantages of experimental learning. In fact, someparents indicated that they had actually sent their child to the particular school because of the school
garden curriculum and desired an increased focus on, “outdoor classroom, experimental, inquirybased learning” (Sprague, 2016, p. 97).
Ferguson et al. (2019) focused on the utilization of action research and inquiry-based learningin the classroom, the garden, and through farmer visits. They highlighted this curriculum approachas a key factor of success for their program scaling agroecology through education in Chiapas,
Mexico. Likewise, The Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research inAgriculture (SEARCA) (2017) also used participatory action research through their discussion of aschool and home gardens project in the Philippines. Through the project, “one hundred and twentyfive (125) lesson plans integrating the concepts of nutrition, organic agriculture, climate change
mitigation and adaptation, and solid waste management were prepared by Grade 4 and Grade 7
Science, Mathematics, English, Edukasyong Pantahanan at Pangkabuhayan (EPP) (HomeⒸ ISERD

27

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2021) 12-2

Economics) and Technology and Livelihood Education (TLE) teachers” (p. 2). This resulted insignificant sustainable agriculture and nutrition knowledge increase among students and theirfamilies. However, important to note is that creating well-established experiential school garden
curriculum is a long and tedious process that requires collaboration and patience (SEARCA, 2020).
Building a successful school garden curriculum and then teaching said curriculum is only
possible through collaboration and commitment among all stakeholders. Stakeholders include, but
are not limited to, teachers, parents, students, school leadership, local government, policymakers,
local community members, and research organizations. Without all school garden stakeholders
working together, barriers to scaling become paramount. For example, Tabucanon and Mihara (2016)use a multi-stakeholder networking approach in their study and impress upon readers that it produces,“awareness-raising and learning among farmers, curriculum transformation in schools, andimplementing the notion of sustainable livelihood” (p. 4). SEARCA (2020) also highlight thenecessity of stakeholder collaborations in their briefing of the ‘International Conference on School
Gardens: Leveraging the Multifunctionality of School Gardens.’ The editors describe lack ofpartnership and leadership between academia, local government, policymakers, schools, parents, andteachers as a key barrier to school garden start-up and maintenance.
Sprague (2016) proclaims that collaboration and commitment among school administrators,
teachers, parents, garden coordinators, and community volunteers is necessary for the scaling of an
instructional school garden. She introduces the necessity of a reliable system to track levels of
stakeholder commitment, capacity, and confidence – dubbed the 3Cs. The 3C approach uses aframework that provides a 3C score that serves as, “a measurement of readiness for change or
improvement of a given stakeholder group, arrived at and agreed upon by the stakeholder group”(p.131). Sprague claims this framework serves as a research roadmap with realistic, actionable
timelines that do not cause stakeholders to overextend themselves, creating a balanced, scalable
school garden system. Similarly, Rositsa and Hernandez (2018), in their comparative case study
analysis of three locations for scaling up agricultural technologies, find coalition building between
participants, government, and market institutions to be essential for scaling up of innovations. An
example of appropriate stakeholder collaboration is seen in SEARCA (2017)’s project report onhome and school gardens in the Philippines. The project provided support to the school gardens
through partnership with local government and other stakeholders. Local Government Units (LGU)
were created to support households in establishing home gardens in pilot schools. This was done tosustain necessary resource inputs and services as well as mainstream the project into LGU
development programs.
Concerning resource inputs for school gardens, another best practice of scaling centered aroundthe provision of financial assistance from the government or outside organization for startup andupkeep of school gardens. Many school gardens struggle to maintain the necessary amount of
economic capital to run their programs effectively. For example, in 2012, 4-H, a youth centeredagricultural program from the US, began a club in rural Ghana that encouraged students to planthybrid maize seeds donated by DuPont Pioneer. While Pioneer provided the startup costs, the project
failed in 2015. Pioneer only provided one round of seeds and additional seeds and inputs (pesticides,
herbicides, fertilizers) were simply too expensive for farmers and schools to purchase on their own.
The project would have required substantial subsidies in order to be sustainable long-term (Butler,2014). In Giliberti (2018)’s study on the barriers to adoption and scaling of school gardens he findsthat over 50% of agricultural educators surveyed viewed lack of finances as a key barrier to adoption.
He suggests the offering of monetary incentives in order to increases rates of school garden adoption.
FAO (2004) provides a guideline for minimum budgetary provisions for a national school garden
program including start-up costs, teacher preparation and planning costs, and physical input costs.
If fiscal concerns for a school garden program are diminished, more time and attention is able
to be given to focus on adequate methods for development and scaling. A key barrier found inliterature was focusing too much on the ‘what’ and not the ‘how’ of a school garden program (i.e.,
scaling is not ‘one size fits all’). Trying to implement the school garden curriculum without
considering social, political, economic, geographic, etc. factors will result in substantial gaps insuccess (Wigboldus et al., 2016; Glover et al., 2019). Not one of the studies or projects examined forthis review used the exact same methodology. Each school garden was situated in a uniqueⒸ ISERD

28

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2021) 12-2

geographical, cultural, social, and economic setting that required different tools to address barriers
to scaling. To use the same methods of school garden implementation and maintenance in Pittsburgh
as in Ghana would make the scaling of agricultural technologies immensely challenging, if not
impossible.
Further, a key barrier to scaling was found to be poor capacity building for and involvement ofschool heads and teachers. At SEARCA’s ‘International Conference on School Gardens: Leveraging
the Multifunctionality of School Gardens’, capacity building was a key discussion point with overall
issues/challenges section including, “capacity building for school heads, teachers, and parents as partof social and technical preparation to school gardens” (SEARCA, 2020, p. 68). This was often
founded in lack of adequate training for teachers and administration working with school gardens.
DeMarco (1997) found in his study on factors affecting elementary school teachers’ adoption ofschool gardens into curriculum that teachers’ education and knowledge on gardening principals was
essential for implementation. However, their knowledge was found to be considerably lacking. In his
survey of 236 teachers in the United States, only 18 (8%) indicated that, “their training was sufficient
to successfully handle school gardening with their students and no further training was necessary”
and 217 (92%) stated they felt additional training was needed. Undertaken 21 years after DeMarco’s
study, Giliberti (2018)’s study on adoption of school gardens by Agricultural Science teachers in
Alabama found almost identical teacher concerns. He found that perceptions of planning, time,
incentives, and teaching were key barriers to scaling. If teachers did not feel they had adequate school
garden knowledge and training, strategic planning resources, monetary incentive, and/or time outsideof the traditional classroom setting, then school gardens were far less likely to be implemented.
Capacity is also a key barrier to scaling outside of the United States as we see in Okiror et al.
(2011)’s study on transfer of knowledge from school gardens in Uganda. They find lack of practicalskills among teachers and administration support to be key barriers to scaling of school garden
knowledge. Limiting factors were listed as: administrative conflicts between teachers and headteacher, negative actions of the school management committee (SMC), inadequate agricultural skills
among teachers, and ineffective teachers. Conversely, enabling factors were listed as: teamwork
among teachers, supportive school administration, assistance from extension workers, andavailability of skilled teachers. Unfortunately, many teachers and administrators in the Global Southlack the educational resources and training desired for school garden instruction (Okiror et al., 2020;
Ferguson et al., 2019; Tabucanon and Mihara (2016); Comia et al., 2018; Calub et al., 2019;
SEARCA, 2017; Schreinemachers et al., 2017; Schrienemachers et al., 2019).
Table 1 Best practices and primary barriers to scaling through school gardens••••

Best Practices
Including parents in the learning
process and upkeep of school
gardens
Establishment of home gardens
alongside school gardens
Establishment of hands-on, researchbased agricultural curriculum inschools
Collaboration and commitment
among all stakeholders

•
•
•
•
•

Primary Barriers
Focusing on the ‘what’ and not the ‘how’ (i.e.,
scaling is not ‘one size fits all’)Social mores and the relationship between
parent/child
Poor capacity building for and involvement ofschool heads, teachers, and parents
Lack of social, human, and/or economic capital
Unintegrated commitment and partnershipamong stakeholders

As such, it is essential to provide capacity building opportunities to educators to assure effective
scaling of agricultural technologies through school gardens.
It is of note that a limitation to our review was that while the intended focus was to highlightscaling of agricultural technologies, much literature on school gardens focused on nutrition and foodsecurity. While these are important benefits of school gardens, we found literature regarding theknowledge transfer of school gardens to the lacking. However, we were able to pull out the bestpractices that lead to scaling potential to highlight as tools for future use as well as barriers that would
limit a school garden’s ability to be used for scaling of agricultural technologies.
Ⓒ ISERD

29

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2021) 12-2

Case Study: S3 Cambodia
School gardens have the potential to play a key role in scaling sustainable intensification (SI)technologies. They provide opportunities for knowledge transfer through teacher-student-parent
communication. We can apply best practices and address key challenges through analyzing S3Cambodia. S3-Cambodia seeks to target youth as an entry point to extend target SI technologies tofarm families. The project will engage students in experiential learning opportunities by establishing“green labs” at six pilot secondary schools. Students will receive a combination of hands-on training
in SI practices and STEM-based instruction in SI principles from Cambodian teachers trained on this
topic (Figs. 1, 2). This preparation will culminate in the establishment of student home gardens
featuring SI technologies learned in the schools (Fig. 3).
In order to apply best practices and avoid the barriers to scaling S3 will incorporate the findings
from the literature. For example, home gardens will be implemented alongside school gardens as a
key project activity. It will be done to increase learning and to allow school communities to evaluate
new practices before applying them at the field or farm scale. Additionally, hands-on, research-based
agricultural curriculum will be developed and applied in the pilot secondary schools. As part of its
youth development strategy, the project will work hand-in-hand with the Cambodian Ministry of
Education, Youth, and Sport (MOEYS) to develop new 4-H style1 curriculum and adapt existing
curriculum to provide agricultural-based STEM instruction that can be scaled nationally.
Additionally, S3-Cambodia implements the best practice of providing financial assistance to theschools for the startup and upkeep of the school gardens. As a USAID funded project with additional
leveraged funds, S3-Cambodia is able to provide the necessary monies to establish green labs,
trainings, and necessary inputs. To assure green lab infrastructure and curriculum will be maintained
after project close, the project will provide training, supplies, curriculum, and government support toCambodian educators.
Furthermore, S3-Cambodia will assure collaboration and commitment among stakeholders
through adhering to its detailed capacity building plan. This plan includes collaboration andmentorship with project counterparts (CE-SAIN, RUA, UBB 2 ), a train-the-trainer program, anddirect engagement with end-users. However, it is necessary to be aware of the challenges that may
be faced with collaboration of a transnational project funded and directed from the United States but
taking place in Cambodia. For example, the COVID-19 pandemic, though unprecedented, hasresulted in the stunting of first year project activities because of school closures and travel delays.
This was only exacerbated by extreme flooding events in Cambodia during October, 20203.
Thankfully, because the project is solely focused on Cambodia and particular regions therein,
it is not likely to be hindered by the barrier of focusing on the ‘what’ and not the ‘how’. S3Cambodia is very context-specific and leverages knowledge from past projects (i.e., 2015-2020
WAgN-Cambodia project4) and national partners (CE-SAIN, RUA, UBB).
However, not finalized in the project implementation is parental involvement. As the project
moves forward, acknowledging how to incorporate parents into implementation of school gardens
should be a key goal. This will be necessary in order to overcome potential barriers such as social
mores and the relationship between parent/child. For example, this could be done through welcoming
parents to visit the school demonstration plots once a week to view how the SI technologies areworking and gain a first-hand understanding of what their children are doing at school, encouraging
parent volunteers to help in the green labs, or having parents provide their farms for field visits. Such
activities will add to the potential for successful transferring of SI technology knowledge from childto parent.

1 https://4-h.org/about/what-is-4-h/
2 Center of Excellence on Sustainable Agricultural Intensification and Nutrition (CE SAIN), Royal University ofAgriculture (RUA), University of Battambang (UBB)
3 https://reliefweb.int/disaster/fl-2020-000212-khm
4 https://smithcenter.tennessee.edu/women-in-agriculture-network-wagn-cambodia-gender-and-ecologically-sensitive-

agriculture/Ⓒ ISERD

30

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2021) 12-2

Fig. 1 Students trimming trees in the wild food plant nursery

Fig. 2 Students propagating wild food plants

Fig. 3 Farmer planting grafted vegetables using conservation agriculture techniquesⒸ ISERD

31

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2021) 12-2

CONCLUSION
School gardens serve as a useful tool worldwide to enhance student agriculture education and foodsystems knowledge. This paper addressed a key gap in research on school gardens by reviewing
literature to assess their potential to serve as agents of knowledge transfer. While much of current
research focuses on nutrition and vegetable consumption, there is literature supporting school
gardens’ ability to play a key role in scaling agricultural, specifically SI, technologies. Best practices
and barriers were identified for scaling through school gardens. The best practices provided plausible
opportunities for knowledge transfer through teacher-student-parent communication; the barriers
limited these opportunities. S3-Cambodia has strong potential to successfully transfer knowledge of
SI technologies from the green labs to the home farm. The project utilizes a significant amount of
the best practices identified in literature and has measures in place to avoid the barriers. If parental
involvement is increased, project scaling objectives are likely to be met.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study was partially supported by the USAID Bureau for Food Security and the Feed the Future
Innovation Lab for Collaborative Research on Sustainable Intensification managed by the Kansas
State University and was led by the University of Tennessee Institute of Agriculture (USAID Federal
Award No.: AID-OAA-L-14-00006; Subaward No.: 5587-UT-KSU-6056). The contents of thismanuscript are the responsibility of The University of Tennessee and do not necessarily reflect theviews of USAID or the United States Government.
REFERENCES
Butler, K. 2014. Raise: What 4-H teaches seven million kids and how its lessons could change food and farming
forever. In Raise (1st ed.), University of California Press, Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1525/j.ctt13x1hh1
Calub, B.M., Africa, L.S., Burgos, B.M., Custodio, H.M., Chiang, S., Vallez, A.G.C., Galang, E.I.N.E. and
Punto, M.K.R. 2019. The school-plus-home gardens project in the Philippines: A participatory andinclusive model for sustainable development. Policy Paper 2019-1, Southeast Asian Regional Center for
Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture (SEARCA).
Comia, R.A., Landicho, L.D., Baliton, R.S., Cabahug, R.E.D. and Paelmo, R.F. 2018. Scaling up agroforestry
promotion for sustainable development of selected smallholder farmers in the Philippines. Discussion
Paper Series, Vol. 2017 No. 4, Southeast Asia Regional Center.
Cramer, S.E., Ball, A.L. and Hendrickson, M.K. 2019. “Our school system is trying to be agrarian”: Educating
for reskilling and food system transformation in the rural school garden. Agriculture and Human Values,
36 (3), 507-519, Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-019-09942-1
DeMarco, L.W. 1997. The factors affecting elementary school teachers’ integration of school gardening into
the curriculum. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
Blacksburg, VA.
Feder, G. and Umali, D.L. 1993. The adoption of agricultural innovations: a review, Technological forecastingand social change. 43 (3-4), 215-239, Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-1625(93)90053-A
Ferguson, B.G., Morales, H., Chung, K. and Nigh, R. 2019. Scaling out agroecology from the school garden:
The importance of culture, food and place. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 43, 7-8, 724-743,
Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2019.1591565
Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). 2004. School gardens concept note: Improving child nutrition andeducation through promotion of school garden programs. Special Programme for Food Security Handbook
Series, Rome, FAO.
Giliberti, M. 2018. Examining characteristics and barriers on the adoption of school gardens among agricultural
education teachers, Doctoral Dissertation, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama.
Glover, D., Sumberg, J., Ton, G., Andersson, J. and Badstue, L. 2019. Rethinking technological change insmallholder agriculture. Outlook on Agriculture, 48 (3), 169-180, Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0030727019864978Ⓒ ISERD

32

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2021) 12-2

Kassie, M., Teklewold, H., Jaleta, M., Marenya, P. and Erenstein, O. 2015. Understanding the adoption of aportfolio of sustainable intensification practices in eastern and southern Africa. Land Use Policy, 42, 400411, Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.08.016
Leuven, J.R.F.W., Rutenfrans, A.H.M., Dolfing, A.G. and Leuven, R.S.E.W. 2018. School gardening increases
knowledge of primary school children on edible plants and preference for vegetables. Food Science &Nutrition, 6 (7), 1960-1967, Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.758
Musumba, M., Grabowski, P., Palm, C. and Snapp, S. 2017. Guide for the sustainable intensificationassessment framework. Feed the Future.
Okiror, J.J., Oonyu, J., Matsiko, F. and Kibwika, P. 2011. Can schools offer solutions to small-scale farmers in
Africa? Analysis of the socioeconomic benefits of primary school agriculture in Uganda. The Journal of
Agricultural Education and Extension, 17 (2), 135-151, Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224
X.2011.544454
Ran, S., Kobayashi, K., Siriwattananon, L., Mihara, M. and Ngo, B. 2013. Promoting sustainable agriculture
in Samroung Commune, Prey Chhor District, Kampong Cham Province thought network of RCE Greater
Phnom Penh. Global RCE Network, Tokyo, Japan.
Ratcliffe, M.M., Merrigan, K.A., Rogers, B.L. and Goldberg, J.P. 2011. The effects of school garden
experiences on middle school-aged students’ knowledge, attitudes and behaviors associated with vegetableconsumption. Health Promotion Practice, 12 (1), 36-43, Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/
1524839909349182
ReliefWeb. 2020. Cambodia: Floods - Oct 2020, Retrieved from https://reliefweb.int/disaster/fl-2020-000212khm
Rositsa, T.I. and Hernandez, A. 2018. Scaling-up sustainable development initiatives: A comparative casestudy of agri-food system innovations in Brazil, New York and Senegal. Sustainability, 10 (11), 4057,
Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.3390/su10114057
Schreinemachers, P., Ouedraogo, M.S., Diagbouga, S., Thiombiano, A., Kouamé, S.R., Sobgui, C.M., Chen,
H. and Yang, R. 2019. Impact of school gardens and complementary nutrition education in Burkina Faso.
Journal of Development Effectiveness, 11 (2), 132-145.
Schreinemachers, P., Rai, B.B., Dorji, D., Chen, H., Dukpa, T., Thinley, N., Sherpa, P.L. and Yang, R. 2017.
School gardening in Bhutan: Evaluating outcomes and impact. Food Sec., 9, 635-648, Retrieved fromhttps://doi.org/ 10.1007/s12571-017-0673-3
SEARCA. 2017. Participatory action research on school- and community-based food and nutrition program forliteracy, poverty reduction and sustainable development. Project Brief, Southeast Asian Regional Center
for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture (SEARCA), Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines.
SEARCA. 2020. Leveraging the multifunctionality of school gardens. Proceedings of the International
Conference on School Gardens, Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research inAgriculture (SEARCA), 16-17, Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines.
Shilomboleni, H. and De Plaen R. 2019. Scaling up research-for-development innovations in food andagricultural systems. Development in Practice, 29 (6), 723-734, Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/
09614524.2019.1590531
Sprague, P. 2016. Instructional school gardens: Opportunities for and barriers to scaling. Ph.D. Dissertation,
Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA.
Tabucanon, M.T. and Mihara, M. 2016. Bridging sustainable agriculture and education for sustainable
development, International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development, 7 (1), 1-5.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). 2019. What is education forsustainable development? Retrieved from https://en.unesco.org/themes/education-sustainabledevelopment/what-is- esd
Westermann, O., Förch, W., Thornton, P., Körner, J., Cramer, L. and Campbell, B. 2018. Scaling up
agricultural interventions: Case studies of climate-smart agriculture. Agricultural Systems, 165, 283-293,
Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.07.007
Wigboldus, S., Klerkx, L., Leeuwis, C., Schut, M., Muilerman, S. and Jochemsen, H. 2016. Systemic
perspectives on scaling agricultural innovations. A Review, Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 36(3), 46, Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-016-0380-z
Zurek, M., Keenlyside, P. and Brandt, K. 2015. Intensifying agricultural production sustainably: A framework
for analysis and decision support. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Climate Focus,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Ⓒ ISERD

33