Increased global urbanisation has led to public health challenges. Community gardens are identified as a mechanism for addressing socio-ecological determinants of health. This study aims to explore motives for joining community gardens, and the extent to which participation can be facilitated given barriers and enablers to community gardening. Such a study fills a gap in the public health literature, particularly in the Australian context. This paper presents findings from semi-structured interviews with 23 participants from 6 community gardens across Melbourne. Applying phenomenological, epistemological and reflexive methodologies and thematic analysis of the data, this study provides a snapshot of drivers of community garden participation. Results were categorised into six enabling themes to participation. These themes revolved around (i) family history, childhood and passion for gardening; (ii) productive gardening, sustainability and growing fresh produce in nature; (iii) building social and community connections; (iv) community and civic action; (v) stress relief; and (vi) building identity, pride and purpose. Time costs incurred, garden governance and vandalism of garden spaces were among the barriers to community garden participation. Although an interest in the act of gardening itself may be universally present among community gardeners to varying degrees, the findings of this study suggest that motivations for participation are diverse and span a range of ancestral, social, environmental, and political domains. This study contributes exploratory insights on community garden motivations and sustained involvement across multiple urban sites in Melbourne (Australia). This study recommends extending this work by undertaking future quantitative research that can move from local case studies to a national guidelines on how to engage more people in urban agriculture activities like community gardening.

The impacts of global environmental change have precipitated numerous approaches that connect the health of ecosystems, non-human organisms and humans. However, the proliferation of approaches can lead to confusion due to overlaps in terminology, ideas and foci. Recognising the need for clarity, this paper provides a guide to seven field developments in environmental public health research and practice: occupational and environmental health; political ecology of health; environmental justice; ecohealth; One Health; ecological public health; and planetary health. Field developments are defined in terms of their uniqueness from one another, are historically situated, and core texts or journals are highlighted. The paper ends by discussing some of the intersecting features across field developments, and considers opportunities created through such convergence. This field guide will be useful for those seeking to build a next generation of integrative research, policy, education and action that is equipped to respond to current health and sustainability challenges.

Background: Trans, gender diverse and non-binary (TGDNB) adults experience significant health disparities relative to their cisgender peers. While social support is a known health-protective factor within the general population, no systematic reviews of TGDNB experiences of social support exist. Aim: To systematically review prior research of social support for TGDNB adults. We sought to assess the defining characteristics of the research, the participants and the research findings, mapping emerging trends across disciplines. Methods: Six electronic databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, LGBT Life and PsycNet) were searched for literature pertaining to TGDNB adults, social support, and health or well-being published in the past decade. Results: The findings illustrate a predominance of USA-based quantitative research that measures social support of friends, family and a singular intimate partner. The majority of participants were white, binary-identified transgender women and TGDNB people living in metropolitan settings. Social support was commonly reported as a protective factor, with TGDNB peer support the most frequently reported correlate of health and well-being for TGDNB adults. Discussion: The results suggest standardized inventories do not capture the emic nature of social support for TGDNB adults. A key opportunity lies in an inductive, hypothesis-forming approach to the study of what is socially supportive for TGDNB adults. In turn, this knowledge will enable the appropriate measurement, implementation and interpretation of social support studies.