Evaluating a Community-Based Intervention to Advance Food Equity and Climate Resilience in the South Bronx: Findings from the LEAF Program

Source-supplied abstract

Access to ecologically grown, nutritious food remains limited in low-income U.S. communities due to cost, structural inequities, and the dominance of industrial food systems. Stone Barns Center’s Leading an Ecological and Accessible Food System (LEAF) program—developed through a community-based participatory partnership in the South Bronx—aims to address these challenges through biweekly distributions of regeneratively grown produce, seasonal gardening kits, and culturally responsive nutrition education. This study presents findings from the first two years (2023 and 2024) of a multi-timepoint repeated cross-sectional evaluation using six household-level surveys (<i>n</i> = 79–80 families per round). The surveys captured changes in fruit and vegetable consumption, gardening comfort, emotional well-being, participation in SNAP and WIC programs, food purchasing behaviors, and unmet needs. Statistically significant (<i>p</i> < 0.05) improvements were observed across key outcomes: mean fruit and vegetable intake increased from 3.8 to 4.5 (1–5 scale), comfort with growing food increased from 3.1 to 4.6, emotional response to gardening from 4.1 to 4.6. SNAP participation increased from 15% (12 of 79 households) to 33% (26 of 79 households), and purchasing shifted toward local access points. Notably, 99% (79 of 80 households) of Year 1 families returned for Year 2, reflecting strong engagement and trust. These results highlight the potential of integrated, community-partnered, and climate-aligned interventions to advance health equity, ecological literacy, and food justice. The LEAF program offers a replicable model that may support pathways towards more sustainable and community-aligned food systems in other under-resourced settings.

Abstract text has not been adopted as a GShips conclusion.

What would change this record?

A newer or corrected version, a retraction, a verified duplicate, a material topic mismatch, a changed access state, or claim-level review would trigger a dated editorial update.