Seeds and the city: a review of municipal home food gardening programs in Canada in response to the COVID-19 pandemic

Home food gardening in Canada surged during COVID-19, with supply shortages and record retail activity reported in 2020–2021. A September 2020 survey found 51% of Canadians grew at least one fruit or vegetable at home, with 20% new to gardening. Municipal governments sought ways to support physical, emotional, and mental health and introduced home food gardening programs as part of their pandemic response. While community gardens have been well studied and linked to food security, social cohesion, and health benefits, home food gardening—especially in Canada—has received less scholarly attention and is harder to study. This paper evaluates municipal home food gardening programs launched or modified in 2020, assessing their scope, delivery, and potential contributions to household and community food security, social well-being, and municipal policy goals, highlighting four notable cases.

Prior research emphasizes community gardens’ contributions to food security, food literacy, community cohesion, and physical/mental health, and their integration into urban planning. In contrast, home food gardening is less examined in Canada due to identification and methodological challenges and diverse garden forms. Pre-pandemic studies in Guelph, Toronto, Montréal, and San Jose provide insights into habits and motivations but may not reflect pandemic-era prevalence. A global overview (Lal, 2020) discusses potential benefits of home food gardening in response to COVID-19 but is too broad for local policy design. Overall, the literature supports the potential of urban agriculture for health, social, and economic benefits, but gaps remain regarding municipal support for home-based gardening, especially under crisis conditions.

- Sampling frame: 702 Canadian municipalities identified via provincial/territorial lists, Google Maps satellite imagery, and Statistics Canada data. Inclusion required at least one urban center and a municipality population of ≥2000 (influenced by Statistics Canada’s population centre concept; 2016 Census data used). - Discovery and sources: Programs were identified via municipal websites and Google searches (English/French) using terms such as “home food garden,” “growing food,” “backyard garden,” “free seeds and soil,” and “urban agriculture,” supplemented by trusted news and local media. Only online-available sources were consulted due to pandemic constraints. - Program inclusion criteria (COVID-19 response in 2020): originated or modified in 2020; municipal funding (cash or in-kind) and/or administrative role; resident-only participation; at least one transfer of physical materials (e.g., seeds). Exclusions: compost-only giveaways, library-delivered programs, information-only resources without material distribution. - Case contacts and interviews: Four robust programs (Halifax Regional Municipality, Cultiver Montréal for Montréal, City of Brampton, City of Victoria) were contacted. Unstructured interviews (video or email) conducted May–July 2021; internal documents shared by municipalities. Interviews transcribed (Microsoft Teams/Word); transcripts totaled four pages (single-spaced for Victoria email). - Analysis: Policy documents and transcripts were coded using grounded thematic analysis. Themes were identified across program descriptions, goals, delivery models, and outcomes, comparing by municipality size, urban/rural context, and province.

- Prevalence and continuity: - Only 19 of 702 municipalities (2.7%) had a municipal home food gardening program in 2020; programs dropped to 12 (1.7%) in 2021. - Program scale and delivery (selected cases): - Montréal: $45,000 municipal funding to Cultiver Montréal to distribute seeds/seedlings and offer subsidized supplies; >2,800 seedlings distributed to households/community gardens; distribution across 10 of 19 arrondissements. - Brampton (Backyard Garden Program): 14,000 sign-ups in under a week; capped at 6,000 households (first-come, distributed by ward). Kits included soil (choice of ~100 L, ~380 L, or ~765 L) and 1–3 seed packets; some included seedlings. Massive logistics with staff, >45 volunteers, and fire department delivering loose/bagged soil. Participants encouraged to donate harvests; ~5,000 kg donated to local food banks. - Halifax Regional Municipality (Growing Food @ Home): Targeted to food-insecure residents; three kit types (seed packets, seed-starting kits with pots/soil, and container gardens with 30 L soil). Distribution via emergency food aid partners; not widely advertised. Approximately 1,350+ households reached. - Victoria (Get Growing, Victoria!): 5,537 participant households; >81,500 edible plants and ~202 cubic yards of mulch/compost/wood chips distributed. Seedlings grown in city greenhouses; 44 partner organizations delivered to 30 sites; two distribution cohorts (spring and late summer) enabled double-harvest opportunities. - Ottawa (Seeds and Soil Home Garden Project): just under 3,000 households; targeted (with partner Just Food) to low-income residents. - Food security impacts: - 12 of 19 municipalities (63%) cited food security as a program goal; only Halifax and Victoria explicitly targeted or prioritized food-insecure or otherwise vulnerable residents. - Victoria estimated 48,690 kg of produce grown (based on a conservative 50% success rate). Participant outcomes: 81.6% increased access to fresh produce; 72.7% consumed more fresh food; 69.3% saved money on groceries; at least 74% self-identified as disproportionately impacted by COVID-19. - Brampton participants donated nearly 5,000 kg of produce to food banks. - Community and partnerships: - 7 of 19 (37%) municipalities explicitly sought to enhance community cohesion. Even where not explicit (e.g., Victoria), extensive partnerships fostered municipal–community linkages. In Victoria, 57% felt more connected to other residents. - Partnerships varied widely: Victoria used 44 partners; Halifax partnered with Feed Nova Scotia, North End Parent Resource Center, Halifax Public Library, and the Community Mobilization Team; Montréal partnered with Cultiver Montréal; Brampton worked with Seeds of Change and United Way. - Barriers and inclusivity issues: - Digital divide: all programs were announced online; 13 required online registration (some phone alternatives); risks excluding residents lacking internet access or digital literacy. - Language/literacy: most instructions were only in English/French; Halifax used highly illustrated, plain-language instructions. - Housing constraints: some programs implicitly favored detached homes with yards; renters and apartment/condo dwellers faced challenges without container-focused options. - Cultural relevance: seed/seedling selections reflected conventional Western diets; few offerings aligned with culturally diverse or Indigenous crops. - Policy alignment and capacity: - 15 of 19 municipalities referenced food gardening in at least one high-level policy (official plan, environmental plan, parks plan, or urban agriculture policy). Montréal had arrondissement-level urban agriculture plans; Brampton integrated food gardening across multiple plans. - Funding constraints and municipal fiscal rules limited program continuity in 2021; some programs continued with sponsorships or budget line items (e.g., Brampton through at least 2024).

The study set out to understand how municipal home food gardening programs implemented during COVID-19 addressed household and community needs around food security, social well-being, and municipal policy objectives. Findings show that while relatively rare (2.7% of municipalities), these programs can rapidly mobilize substantial material support, generate meaningful harvests, and improve access to fresh produce, dietary intake, and household food budgets. Explicit targeting of food-insecure residents—as done in Halifax and Victoria—enhanced alignment with stated food security goals, yet most programs did not systematically prioritize vulnerable groups. Partnerships were crucial for reach and equity: municipalities leveraged trusted community organizations to distribute materials and engage hard-to-reach populations. Social benefits emerged through increased neighborhood connections and civic engagement even in home-based settings, bolstered by online groups, mentorship, and partner-led activities. However, persistent barriers—digital exclusion, language and literacy limitations, housing constraints, and culturally narrow crop selections—limited inclusivity and may have reduced participation among renters, newcomers, and Indigenous populations. Policy-wise, many programs mapped onto existing municipal plans around health, sustainability, and local food systems, but continued delivery was constrained by municipal fiscal structures and pandemic-era budget pressures. Overall, municipal home gardening initiatives represent a viable, relatively low-cost tool to advance food access, community cohesion, and environmental goals, provided they adopt inclusive design, robust partnerships, and sustained policy support.

Municipal home food gardening programs launched during COVID-19 demonstrated that local governments can quickly catalyze household food production, improving access to fresh produce, dietary behaviors, community connectedness, and progress toward sustainability and food system resilience goals. While program scope, delivery models, and aims varied, participants and communities benefited in tangible ways at relatively low cost. To maximize impact, municipalities should: target and prioritize residents facing food insecurity; address digital, language, and literacy barriers; design for renters and space-limited households through container-focused options; and include culturally diverse and Indigenous crops. Institutionalizing programs with stable funding, strong cross-sector partnerships, and integration into municipal plans will enhance continuity beyond crisis contexts. Future research should quantify garden yields and cost savings across diverse housing forms and climates, evaluate long-term behavior change and food security outcomes, and examine rural and small-municipality contexts to tailor policy and program design.

- Scope and sampling: Municipalities with populations under 2,000 were excluded; results may not generalize to small or rural municipalities where food security dynamics differ. The study used 2016 Census data for population thresholds. - Data availability: Only online sources were used due to pandemic constraints; some small municipalities may have disseminated information offline or removed 2020 announcements, risking undercount of programs. - Outcome measurements: Yield and cost-savings estimates were limited by lack of standardized garden size and depth data; program cost estimates were complicated by in-kind staff time and partner contributions. - Generalizability: Findings primarily reflect urban and peri-urban contexts and programs active in 2020; subsequent years saw reduced program prevalence due to funding constraints.