ABSTRACT Title of disseratation: LET MY PEOPLE GROW: THE DIFFUSION OF THE JEWISH FARMING MOVEMENT THROUGH THE JEWISH COMMUNITY OF THE GREATER BALTIMORE METROPOLITAN AREA Rachel Elise Berndtson, Doctor of Philosophy, 2014 Dissertation directed by: Professor Martha Geores Department of Geographical Sciences The purpose of this research is to account for the diffusion of the Jewish farming movement as it transpires through several sites in Baltimore County and Baltimore City, Maryland. This research develops an empirically grounded theory surrounding the establishment and diffusion of the Jewish farming movement, as well as its influence on participating individuals. Research questions include determining the context and reason for the movement?s establishment, the mechanisms surrounding its diffusion, and the Jewish cultural and pro-environmental influence of the movement on participants. A grounded theory and mixed method approach was used to discover empirical regularities surrounding this phenomenon. This research resulted in the generation of a substantive level theory, explaining the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore as a new social space that is both the result of social processes, and results in new social processes, all of which are embedded in the theory?s core categories of ?Jewish community," ?Jewish cultural sustainability," and "environmental sustainability.? The author concludes that as a new social space, the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore uses community-based organizations to address Jewish cultural longevity and pro-environmentalism. LET MY PEOPLE GROW: THE DIFFUSION OF THE JEWISH FARMING MOVEMENT THROUGH THE JEWISH COMMUNITY OF THE GREATER BALTIMORE METROPOLITAN AREA by: Rachel Elise Berndtson Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2014 Advisory Committee: Professor Martha Geores, Chair Professor Alexander Chen Professor Klaus Hubacek Professor Christopher Justice Professor Julie Silva ii TABLE OF CONTENTS List of tables........................................................................................................................v List of figures ................................................................................................................... vii Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................1 1.1: Research purpose and motivation .............................................................................2 1.2: Research purpose questions ......................................................................................5 1.3: Research site: the Baltimore Jewish community ......................................................7 1.4: Research importance and implications ....................................................................14 1.5: Parameters of research ............................................................................................15 1.5.1: Personal bias ....................................................................................................15 1.5.2: Qualitative research .........................................................................................16 Chapter 2: Literature review ..........................................................................................17 2.1: Innovation diffusion ................................................................................................18 2.2: Individualism and community in the United States ................................................23 2.3: Jewish identity and community in the United States ..............................................27 2.3.1: Jewish community and identity: mid-18th to mid-20th century .......................27 2.3.2: The four horsemen: assimilation, intermarriage, secularism, and disappearance ....................................................................................................................................31 2.3.3: Jewish identity in 21st century America and the sovereign self ......................38 2.4: Industrial agriculture and sustainable alternatives ..................................................43 2.4.1: Industrial agriculture .......................................................................................43 2.4.2: Environmental initiatives: top-down vs. bottom-up ........................................46 2.4.3: Community gardens ........................................................................................51 2.5: Judaism and environmentalism ...............................................................................56 2.6: Historical American Jewish farmers .......................................................................59 2.7: The contemporary Jewish farming movement ........................................................67 2.7.1: Jewish environmental and agricultural education ...........................................72 Chapter 3: Methods .........................................................................................................78 3.1: Ontology: critical realism ........................................................................................78 3.2: Methodology: grounded theory ...............................................................................80 3.3: Data collection procedures ......................................................................................86 3.3.1: Open interviews ...............................................................................................88 3.3.2: Structured phone interviews ............................................................................91 3.3.3: Online surveys .................................................................................................92 3.3.4: Semi-structured interviews ..............................................................................95 3.3.5: Reviews: scholarly literature and grey literature .............................................98 3.4: Data analysis procedures .......................................................................................101 3.5: Checking research reliability and validity .............................................................103 Chapter 4: Development of categories .........................................................................108 4.1: Major category #1: establishment supported by Jewish institutions ....................115 4.1.1: Property: reason for creation ..........................................................................118 iii 4.1.1.1: Subcategory 1.1: period of Jewish social change ...................................119 4.1.1.2: Subcategory 1.2: period of increased environmental awareness ............120 4.1.2: Property: new programming ...........................................................................122 4.1.2.1: Subcategory 1.3: traditionally environmental/agricultural programming through a Jewish lens ...........................................................................................123 4.1.2.2: Subcategory 1.4: traditionally Jewish programming through an environmental/agricultural lens ...........................................................................128 4.1.3: Property: Jewish institutional support ............................................................131 4.1.3.1: Subcategory 1.5: capacity resources .......................................................131 4.1.3.2: Subcategory 1.6: power resources ..........................................................136 4.2: Major category #2: diffusion pathways ................................................................141 4.2.1: Property: Jewish diffusion networks ..............................................................145 4.2.1.1: Subcategory 2.1: diffusion through professional Jewish networks ........145 4.2.1.2: Subcategory 2.2: diffusion through personal Jewish networks ..............149 4.2.2: Property: Jewish diffusion channels ...............................................................150 4.2.2.1: Subcategory 2.3: diffusion through interpersonal channels ....................150 4.2.2.2: Subcategory 2.4: diffusion through media channels ...............................152 4.2.3: Property: geographic scale of diffusion ..........................................................152 4.2.3.1: Subcategory 2.5: diffusion within the JCGBMA....................................154 4.2.3.2: Subcategory 2.6: diffusion beyond the JCGBMA ..................................157 4.3: Major category #3: adoption by participants .......................................................163 4.3.1: Property: participant characteristics ...............................................................167 4.3.1.1: Subcategory 3.1: age ...............................................................................168 4.3.1.2: Subcategory 3.2: marital status ...............................................................169 4.3.1.3: Subcategory 3.3: sex ...............................................................................170 4.3.1.4: Subcategory 3.4: socioeconomic status ..................................................170 4.3.1.5: Subcategory 3.5: Jewish denomination ..................................................171 4.3.1.6: Subcategory 3.6: Jewish formal affiliation .............................................174 4.3.1.7: Subcategory 3.7: perceived importance of being Jewish ........................177 4.3.1.8: Subcategory 3.8: perceived level of pro-environmental dedication .......178 4.3.2: Property: individual-level impacts .................................................................182 4.3.2.1: Subcategory 3.9: Jewish identity impacts ...............................................182 4.3.2.2: Subcategory 3.10: pro-environmental lifestyle impacts .........................185 4.4: Quality checking ..................................................................................................199 Chapter 5: Answering research questions ...................................................................200 5.1: Research question #1: What is Jewish farming movement in Baltimore, why did it begin, and what factors contributed to its original invention? ....................................201 5.1.1: What is the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore? ...................................201 5.1.2: Why did the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore begin? ........................210 5.1.3: What factors contributed to the original invention of the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore? ..........................................................................................219 5.2: Research question #2: How is the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore diffusing through the Jewish community of the Greater Baltimore Metropolitan Area? ......................................................................................................................................236 iv 5.3: Research question #5: How is the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore creating a new form of this community, and who is part of this community? ..........................245 5.3.1: How is the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore creating a new form of Jewish community? ..................................................................................................245 5.3.2: Who is part of the community created through the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore? ............................................................................................................250 5.4: Research question #3: What are the impacts of the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore on its participants? Jewish identities and pro-environmental lifestyles? ....261 Chapter 6: Conclusions and future directions ............................................................271 Appendix A: Programs offered through the Pearlstone Farm ........................................277 Appendix B: Open interview questions ..........................................................................278 Appendix C: Structured phone interview questions ......................................................279 Appendix D: Online survey questions ............................................................................280 Appendix E: Structured interview questions with Baltimore City comparison sites .....286 Appendix F: Regression results and residual plots .........................................................287 Bibliography ...................................................................................................................293 v List of tables: Table 1: Jewish population of the Greater Baltimore Metropolitan Area in 2010 .........11 Table 2: Topics feeding into the Jewish farming movement ...........................................14 Table 3: Jewish connections of in-married and intermarried Jews ..................................33 Table 4: Marriage and childbirth statistics for American Jews versus the larger American population .........................................................................................................................36 Table 5: Environmental and agricultural concepts and laws from Jewish traditional texts ............................................................................................................................................56 Table 6: Jewish farming movement programs in the United States ................................68 Table 7: Data collection methods employed in this research ...........................................87 Table 8: Open interviewees? length of Pearlstone Farm participation .............................89 Table 9: Open interviewees? method of Pearlstone Farm participation ...........................89 Table 10: Open interviewees? previous participation in other Jewish Baltimore institutions .........................................................................................................................89 Table 11: Open interviewees? previous participation in other Jewish environmental, food, or farming institutions .......................................................................................................90 Table 12: Open interviewees? network of Pearlstone Farm diffusion .............................90 Table 13: Open interviewees? channel of Pearlstone Farm diffusion ..............................90 Table 14: Open interviewees? geographic location at time of Pearlstone Farm diffusion ............................................................................................................................................90 Table 15: Open interviewees? age ....................................................................................90 Table 16: Open interviewees? sex ....................................................................................90 Table 17: Open interviewees? marital status ....................................................................90 Table 18: Open interviewees? socioeconomic status .......................................................90 Table 19: Open interviewees? Jewish denomination .......................................................91 Table 20: Open interviewees? importance of being Jewish prior to Pearlstone Farm participation ......................................................................................................................91 Table 21: Open interviewees? dedication to living a pro-environmental lifestyle prior to Pearlstone Farm participation ...........................................................................................91 Table 22: Phone interviewees? network of Pearlstone Farm diffusion ............................92 Table 23: Phone interviewees? channel of Pearlstone Farm diffusion .............................92 Table 24: Phone interviewees? geographic location ........................................................92 Table 25: Online survey takers? age ................................................................................94 Table 26: Online survey takers? sex .................................................................................94 Table 27: Online survey takers? marital status .................................................................94 Table 28: Online survey takers? socioeconomic status ....................................................94 Table 29: Online survey takers? Jewish denomination ....................................................94 Table 30: Online survey takers? Jewish formal affiliation ...............................................95 Table 31: Online survey takers? importance of being Jewish prior to Pearlstone Farm participation ......................................................................................................................95 Table 32: Online survey takers? dedication to living a pro-environmental lifestyle prior to Pearlstone Farm participation ............................................................................................95 Table 33: Online survey takers? network of Pearlstone Farm diffusion ...........................95 Table 34: Online survey takers? channel of Pearlstone Farm diffusion ............................95 Table 35: Online survey takers? geographic location .......................................................95 vi Table 36: Sites from grey literature used for content analysis ........................................100 Table 37: Criteria for quality checking and application to this research ........................104 Table 38: Validation strategies and application to this research .....................................106 Table 39: Interview excerpts indicating the Baltimore Jewish community as the "local" community for the JFM in Baltimore ..............................................................................153 Table 40: Pearlstone Farm participants? motivation for participating ............................180 Table 41: Indicators of Jewish identity ...........................................................................189 Table 42: Indicators of pro-environmental lifestyles ......................................................189 Table 43: Descriptive statistics of each single indicator .................................................192 Table 44: Descriptive statistics of each summative index ..............................................192 Table 45: Transformation of online survey responses from text to numeric format ......194 Table 46: Assumption for linear regression ....................................................................196 Table 47: Regression results of participant characteristics on Jewish identity summative index ................................................................................................................................197 Table 48: Regression results of participant characteristics on pro-environmental lifestyle summative index .............................................................................................................198 Table 49: Gardens and farms from the grey literature that started out of pro- environmental motivations ..............................................................................................215 Table 50: Gardens and farms from the grey literature that started out of community development motivations ................................................................................................218 Table 51: Indications of the community as ?local? from Baltimore City garden and farm interviewees ....................................................................................................................243 Table 52: Median household income comparison amongst Baltimore City gardens and farms and the Pearlstone Farm ........................................................................................255 Table 53: Jewish connections by institutional affiliations .............................................257 vii List of figures: Figure 1: Map of the Jewish communities of Delaware, Washington DC, Maryland and Northern Virginia ..............................................................................................................10 Figure 2: Map of the Jewish population of the Greater Baltimore Metropolitan Area in 2010 ..................................................................................................................................11 Figure 3: The Pearlstone Farm, June 2012 ......................................................................13 Figure 4: United States adult Jewish population by religion, and by no religion ............34 Figure 5: United States adult Jewish population by religion, and by no religion, based on generation ..........................................................................................................................35 Figure 6: The contextualized ecological footprint ...........................................................49 Figure 7: Word cloud of goals and missions of JFM programs from Table 7 .................69 Figure 8: Properties and subcategories of major category #1 ........................................108 Figure 9: Properties and subcategories of major category #2 ........................................109 Figure 10: Properties and subcategories of major category #3 ......................................109 Figure 11: Theoretical diagram key ...............................................................................113 Figure 12: Theoretical diagram of the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore ...........114 Figure 13: Theoretical sampling for major category #1 ................................................116 Figure 14: Properties and subcategories of major category #1 ......................................117 Figure 15: Major category #1 in the final theory ...........................................................118 Figure 16: The Pearlstone Farm?s Gan Alef Beit (Alef Beit Garden) ............................125 Figure 17: The Pearlstone Farm?s Beresheit plot ..........................................................125 Figure 18: The Pearlstone Farm?s Jewish calendar garden ...........................................126 Figure 19: The Pearlstone Farm?s sukkah .....................................................................127 Figure 20: The Pearlstone Farm?s Patriarch?s Vineyard ...............................................127 Figure 21: An etrog tree on the Pearlstone Farm ...........................................................128 Figure 22: Theoretical sampling for major category #2 ................................................143 Figure 23: Properties and subcategories of major category #2 ......................................144 Figure 24: Major category #2 in the final theory ...........................................................145 Figure 25: Advertising for a Pearlstone Farm event on the Hazon website ..................148 Figure 26: Advertising for a Pearlstone Farm event on the Adamah/Isabella Freedman website ............................................................................................................................148 Figure 27: Map of the Pearlstone Farm and Pearlstone Farm Community Gardens of the 2011 ? 2013 seasons .......................................................................................................156 Figure 28: Institutions? and individuals? distance from the Pearlstone Farm ................159 Figure 29: Institutions and individuals within and beyond Pearlstone Farm ................160 Figure 30: Map of institutions and individuals within the JCGBMA ............................160 Figure 31: Map of institutions and individuals within and outside of the JCGBMA in the Baltimore ? Washington corridor ....................................................................................161 Figure 32: Map of institutions and individuals within and outside of the JCGBMA in the New England and Mid-Atlantic states .............................................................................162 Figure 33: Diffusion channels for local and nonlocal institutional Pearlstone Farm participants ......................................................................................................................163 Figure 34: Diffusion channels for local and nonlocal individual Pearlstone Farm participants ......................................................................................................................163 Figure 35: Theoretical sampling for major category #3 ................................................165 viii Figure 36: Properties and subcategories of major category #3 ......................................166 Figure 37: Major category #3 in the final theory ...........................................................167 Figure 38: Average ranks of increase to each Jewish identity indicator ........................191 Figure 39: Average ranks of increase to each pro-environmental lifestyle indicator .....191 Figure 40: Jewish identity summative index histogram .................................................193 Figure 41: Pro-environmental lifestyle summative index histogram ..............................193 Figure 42: Components of the final theory used to answer the "what" of RQ#1 ...........201 Figure 43: Components of the final theory used to answer the "why" of RQ#1 ............210 Figure 44: Components of the final theory used to answer the "what factors" of RQ#1 ..........................................................................................................................................219 Figure 45: Components of the final theory used to answer RQ#2 ..................................228 Figure 46: National map of Jewish farming movement sites in the United States ........240 Figure 47: Regional map of Jewish farming movement sites in the United States .......241 Figure 48: Components of the final theory used to answer the "how" of RQ#5 ............245 Figure 49: Components of the final theory used to answer the "who" of RQ#5 ............250 Figure 50: Components of the final theory used to answer RQ#3 ..................................261 1 Chapter 1: Introduction The farms and gardens of the Jewish farming movement (JFM) are socially produced spaces. These (social) spaces are the result of (social) actors and processes, and also result in new (socially produced) processes, meanings, and relationships. Informed by Henri Lefebvre's famed thesis: "(social) space is a (social) process" (1991), this research investigates the Jewish farming movement as it transpires in Baltimore, Maryland as a social product to be used, and also as a means of social production. The principle factors underlying the social spaces of the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore are Jewish community, cultural sustainability, and environmental sustainability. The new social spaces were produced through Jewish community and based on sustainability, and also result in the new production of Jewish community and sustainability. The spaces of the JFM in Baltimore are dynamic across temporal scales and between participating individuals, based on each person's perception and sense of meaning derived from the space. This body of research analyzes the social production of space surrounding the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore from conception, to diffusion, to meaning derived from participants. In analyzing these three systematic components of the JFM in Baltimore, this research provides an inclusive theorization of the phenomenon. As Lefebvre notes, the idea of social production of space is incomplete and abstract unless one addresses the questions of "Who produces? What? How? Why and for whom?" (1991). Additionally, Tim Unwin makes the case that to move beyond the idea of space as an all-encompassing object, which lacks real meaning, geographers "need not just to refer to the production of space, but rather to the processes by which specific experienced phenomena are produced in particular spatio-temporal contexts" (1992, 204). This research uses a critical realist approach to identify the processes and 2 contexts explaining how the phenomenon of the JFM in Baltimore happens (causal mechanisms), and the extent to which it happens (empirical regularities) (Outhwaite 1987 in Unwin 1992, 176). The study produces a new, empirically grounded theory that explains the elements, interactions, and products of JFM as a social space that diffuses throughout and beyond the Baltimore Jewish community. 1.1. Research purpose and motivation The purpose of this grounded theory study is to account for the diffusion of the Jewish farming movement through the Jewish community of the Greater Baltimore Metropolitan Area. Farming Jews are often associated with biblical figures or Israeli kibbutzim, but American Jews are broadening those representations by engaging in small-scale, sustainable farming across the country. The Jewish farming movement is an educational phenomenon that frames social and ecological issues surrounding agriculture and food systems through a Jewish lens, and traditional Jewish practice and meaning through an environmental lens. The movement began in 2003 and operates through several educational farms and community gardens across North America, in both rural and urban locations. The farms and gardens associated with the movement are largely supported by preexisting and well-established Jewish institutions, including Jewish federations, synagogues, and philanthropies. The motivation to study this phenomenon originates from two trends: Jewish engagement through the natural environment, and community-based environmental initiatives. The researcher was motivated to discover how cultural, religious, or ethnic groups can retain group distinction in open and liberal societies, and what role the natural environment can play in this process. Research motivations also stemmed from an 3 interest in discovering how community-based actors can supplement top-down initiatives towards pro-environmental living, and what this action looks like amongst cultural, ethnic, or religious communities. This research explores how the natural environment is used as a mechanism for Jewish communal engagement, and the whether or how it is influential to Jewish cultural sustainability. The Jewish farming movement is part of a larger revival in social justice action amongst American Jewish communities in recent years, which is considered as a new method of Jewish engagement (Windmueller 2007). Much of this social action stems from the Jewish notion of ?tikkun olam1,? which means ?repair the world? (Cohen and Eisen 2000; Heilman 2004; Kaplan 2009). American Jewish community leaders believe social action will do good for others as well as for young American Jews to reinforce their own identity (Kaplan 2009). Although participation in philanthropy and welfare has always been foundational to both the American Jewish community (from its earliest inception following immigration) and American Jewish identity (Winter 1968), methods of participation have recently shifted to include a more ?hands-on? experience. Rather than donating to a universal Jewish philanthropy, contemporary American Jews are increasingly taking an active role in carrying out specific social and environmental initiatives in local communities (Windmueller 2007; Reimer 2011). The Jewish farming 1Tikkun olam is a Jewish notion that has become synonymous with social action, the struggle for justice, peace and equality, and ecological responsibility (Rosenthal 2005). The concept of tikkun olam has evolved from many interpretations, originating with the mention of tikkun in Kohelet (Ecclesiastes), where it translates as ?to straighten, to repair, to fashion? (Gordis 1951 interpretation of Kohelet 1:15, 7:13, and 12:9 in Rosenthal 2005, 215). As an influential aspect of Lurianic Kabbalism, tikkun is understood as a measure through which divine harmony may be restituted by the earthly medium of man (Scholem 1946). The Lurianic Kabbalist interpretation of mitzvot as functioning towards the cosmic process of tikkun has influenced Hasidic spirituality, which is largely based on ?devotion enacted from perfect faith? to achieve the tikkun of Adam?s original sin (Magid 2003, 108). 4 movement is a manifestation of this new wave of experiential and local Jewish participation mechanisms that is embedded in the natural environment. This research also seeks to better understand how community-based environmental initiatives operate and diffuse, and how those processes occur amongst cultural, religious, or ethnic communities. The Jewish farming movement stems from the larger, (secular) environmental and sustainable agriculture movements in the United States, which seek to educate and empower individuals and communities to live "green" and consume sustainably. The idea of sustainable consumption and development reached a global scale at the turn of the 21st century through the United Nation?s Earth Summits (Barr 2003; Seyfang 2005; Newton et al 2008). National governments have sought to achieve environmental sustainability largely through financial disincentives and legislation. Other pro-environmental approaches have included an emphasis on value changes, guided by intrinsic moral motivations (Seyfang 2006a, 2006b; Matti 2008; Jagers, Martinsson and Matti 2009), and supplementing top-down approaches with action by community-based organizations (Defra 2005 in Middlemiss 2008, 78; Gardner and Stern 2002 in Middlemiss 2008, 78; Jackson 2005 in Middlemiss 2008; Middlemiss and Parrish 2010). Community-based agriculture is an example of this bottom-up action. In the United States the community-based and sustainable agriculture movement is growing in popularity through local initiatives such as farmer?s markets, community-supported agriculture (CSAs), and community gardening (Lawson 2005; USDA AMS 2009 in Martinez et al 2010, 6; Adam 2006 in Martinez et al 2010, 8). The Jewish farming movement is one rendition of a community-based initiative tackling environmental and agricultural issues. Jewish engagement through the natural environment, as well as 5 community-based environmental action, served as the researcher's larger motivations for conducting this study. These larger motivations led to the development of several specific research questions. 1.2. Research questions As a grounded theory study, this research begins with general questions that broadly ask, "What is going on here?" regarding a specific phenomenon or topic of interest (Strauss and Corbin 1998). The Jewish farming movement in Baltimore is the topic of interest for this research. Several broad questions and sub-questions surrounding the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore guide this research, including: ? What is the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore? How did it begin? What factors contributed to its original invention? ? How is the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore diffusing through the Jewish community of the Greater Baltimore Metropolitan Area? ? What are the impacts of the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore on its participants? Jewish identities? ? What are the impacts of the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore on its participants? pro-environmental lifestyles? ? How does the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore compare to other, similar movements in the United States? This study defines "innovation diffusion" as participation in the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore. In this research the "innovation" is the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore, and "diffusion" is measured based on the extent of adopters, or JFM participants. Therefore, to be considered an "adopter" one must act by participating 6 in the JFM. Innovation diffusion can alternatively be examined from a cognitive perspective. Examining the diffusion of information (rather than action) and factors leading to non-participation is beyond the scope of this research, and is a worthy area to pursue in future projects. As this grounded theory study progressed, relevant themes were identified and abstracted from the data leading to a better understanding of the phenomenon in question, and thus more specific research questions. Initial questions in grounded theory research are broad, and become "progressively narrowed and more focused during the research process as concepts and their relationships are discovered" (Strauss and Corbin 1998, 41). The core categories (which represent ?the main theme of the research? (Strauss and Corbin 1998, 146)) of this study emerged as "Jewish cultural sustainability," "environmental sustainability," and "Jewish community." These core categories led to the development of additional, and more specific, research questions, including: ? How, and for whom is the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore enabling Jewish cultural sustainability? ? How, and for whom is the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore enabling environmental sustainability? ? What role does Jewish community play in the creation, diffusion, and operation of the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore? ? What features specific to the Jewish community of Baltimore make the Jewish farming movement possible and successful there? ? How is the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore creating a new form of Jewish community, and who is part of this community? 7 The original and subsequent research questions are answered in Chapter Five of this dissertation. 1.3. Research site: the Baltimore Jewish community The researcher selected the Baltimore, Maryland Jewish community as the Jewish farming movement community of study based on ease of geographic access and the availability of literature and secondary data. The JFM in Baltimore operates through a central organization: the Pearlstone Center. This section introduces the Baltimore Jewish community and the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore as it transpires through the Pearlstone Center. The city of Baltimore was established in 1729, almost 100 years after the founding of the state of Maryland, as a town fueled by the increase in tobacco production (Fein 1971). Although created as a result of the tobacco industry, Baltimore?s economic base shifted to wheat, lumber and iron production during the decade of American independence (Graves 1925 in Fein 1971, 4; Gould 1913, 1915, 1931 in Fein 1971, 4). The growth of commerce in Baltimore led to a growth in permanent settlements and communities, eventually attracting many Jewish merchants and traders from Pennsylvania (Fein 1971). This influx of Jews and other job seeking immigrants led to a residential base less concerned with religious and ethnic origins than economic success (Fein 1971). The first permanent Jewish settlers arrived in Baltimore in 1773, with some of the first Jewish families in Baltimore involved in business establishments, investments in the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, and the founding of hospitals, insurance companies and financial institutions (Fein 1971; Diner 1992). As the Jewish population increased in size, Jews began fighting for the political equality they lacked in the city. In 8 1826 a bill was passed to ensure Jewish political equality. ?The Jew Bill,? designed to remove restrictions against Jews in elected offices, was originally constructed by Scotsman Thomas Kennedy in 1818 and was heavily disputed in the Maryland legislature (Fein 1971). The passage of the bill and Baltimore?s continued religious tolerance (based on economic growth) made it a more attractive city for Jews to live (Fein 1971). In the two decades following the bill?s passage, the Baltimore Jewish community grew to a population of 1,500 (Leeser 1897 in Fein 1971, 18; Rosenwaike 1960 in Fein 1971, 18; Fein 1971). The Baltimore Jewish community displayed signs of permanency as it grew2 throughout the 19th century with the establishment of Jewish organizations. The late 19th and early 20th centuries brought huge changes for the predominately German Baltimore Jewry as Russian Jews began migrating en masse to the United States (Fein 1971). Russian Jews were met with resistance from the already economically and socially adjusted German Jews (Fein 1971). Although divided between Germans and Russians, the Baltimore Jewry flourished throughout the early 20th century with the addition of learning opportunities, publications, Yiddish theatre, Jewish and non-Jewish affairs, and a growing community (Fein 1971). Downtown and primarily Russian Jews created the United Hebrew Charities in 1907, while uptown and primarily German Jews created the Federation of Jewish charities in 1914. It was not until 1920 that the two organizations united under the name the Associated Jewish Charities, better known today as ?the Associated? (Fein 1971, 236). By the end of the First World War, the Baltimore Jewish 2 From 1850 to 1880 the Jewish population of Baltimore grew from 700 families to 10,000 persons (Allgemeine Zeitung des Judenthums 1850 in Fein 1971, 77; Sulzberger 1897 in Fein 1971, 81). 9 population saw greater economic opportunities, a move into the middle class3, trends in suburbanization, and a blurring of the once prominent lines separating those of German and Russian descent (Fein 1971). The 20th century brought geographic, social, and cultural shifts to the community, with a northwest migration out of Baltimore City and a growing number of Americanized Jews who showed alienation to ?old established forms? (Fein 1971, 242-243). Today?s Jewish Baltimore includes 42,500 households4 with 93,400 people5, making it the 14th largest Jewish community in the United States (Ukeles and Miller 2010). The Baltimore Jewish community is one of two Jewish communities in the state of Maryland (the Maryland portion of the Jewish community of the greater Washington DC metropolitan area is the second) that accounts for 90% of the 238,200 Jews in the state (Sheskin and Dashefsky 2012). The map below shows Jewish population estimates in the state of Maryland based on studies conducted in 2003 (Greater Washington), 2006 (Delaware), and 2010 (Greater Baltimore, Howard County, Annapolis), and informant/internet estimates for all other areas (Sheskin and Dashefsky 2012, 47). 3 The growing population and increased economic opportunities of the post-World War I era provided Jews with the atmosphere to use their already developed business skills to succeed as merchants, real estate men and professionals (Fein 1971). 4 The 2010 Greater Baltimore Jewish Community Study identifies a Jewish household as ?a household that includes at least one self-identified Jewish adult? (Ukeles and Miller 2010, 12). 5 The 2010 Greater Baltimore Jewish Community Study identifies a Jewish person as ?an adult over the age of 18 who considers him/herself Jewish or a child being raised as Jewish? (Ukeles and Miller 2010, 12). 10 Figure 1: Map of the Jewish communities of Delaware, Washington DC, Maryland and Northern Virginia (source: Sheskin and Dashefsky 2012) Within the Greater Baltimore Metropolitan Area, 75% of Jews live in five areas: Pikesville, Park Heights, Owings Mills, Reisterstown and Mount Washington (Ukeles and Miller 2010). The geographic areas and number of Jews living within each area are displayed below. 11 Table 1: Jewish population of the Greater Baltimore Metropolitan Area in 2010 (source: Ukeles and Miller 2010) Figure 2: Map of the Jewish population of the Greater Baltimore Metropolitan Area in 2010 (source: Ukeles and Miller 2010) 12 The Jewish farming movement in Baltimore operates through one central farm located on the grounds of a Jewish retreat center in Baltimore County, and ten smaller community gardens located at other Jewish institutions in Baltimore City and County. The central farm through which the movement operates is the Pearlstone Farm: an educational program of the Pearlstone Center (a Jewish non-profit organization) in a rural location in Reisterstown, Maryland. The Pearlstone Center is an organization under the umbrella of the Jewish Federation of Baltimore, also called the "Associated." Without the Pearlstone Farm, the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore would not exist. That is not to say farmers or gardeners who happen to be Jewish in Baltimore City or County would not exist, but rather that the Jewish farming movement (an educational phenomenon) would not. The Pearlstone Farm also helps to operate ten Jewish Community Gardens located at other Jewish institutions (such as synagogues, JCCs and senior centers) throughout Baltimore County and City in both urban and suburban locations. Pearlstone is a five acre farm situated in a rural setting that uses sustainable (but not USDA certified Organic) methods to grow fruits and vegetables and maintain goats and chickens. The photograph below displays the Pearlstone Farm's primary field and greenhouse (this photograph does not include the Pearlstone Farm?s additional field and greenhouse, as well as its goat and chicken pastures). 13 Figure 3: The Pearlstone Farm, June 2012 (source: Rachel Berndtson, 2012). In addition to running a 50 member CSA, this nonprofit farm is largely educational in its focus, offering a variety of programs for different audiences. Farm programs range in structure and content. Although each Pearlstone Farm program varies, a common theme involves framing social and ecological issues surrounding agriculture and the environment through a Jewish lens, and/or framing traditional Jewish ritual and culture through an environmental and agricultural lens. An interviewee from this research describes the Jewish farming movement as a balance between Judaism and environmentalism: "It?s a movement that seeks to synthesize Jewish values with land-based values and awareness of how we interact with the environment and ecosystems and food. And we are looking for what Judaism has to say about those topics and we also challenge Judaism with new information and new understanding about agriculture and sustainable agriculture. Trying to find both the harmony between and two and where each can inform each other? (Interviewee #3, 2011). A detailed description of Pearlstone Farm programs can be found in Appendix A. 14 1.4. Research importance and implications Research has been conducted on several topics feeding into the JFM, including: Table 2: Topics feeding into the JFM (table created by Rachel Berndtson) Topic Area Scholarly Work (key examples) Innovation diffusion H?gerstrand 1967; Brown 1981; Strang and Meyer 1993; Rogers 2003; Geels 2004a, 2004b Jewish American identity and community Herman 1989; Cohen and Eisen 2000; Horowitz 2002; Kaplan 2009 Religious environmentalism Ehrenfeld and Bentley 2001; Smith and Pulver 2009 Community-based sustainable consumption Seyfang 2005, 2006a, 2006b; Middlemiss 2010a, 2010b Community gardening in the United States Armstrong 2000; Kurtz 2001; Lawson 2005 Historical American Jewish farmers Brandes 1971; Goldberg 1986; Eisenberg 1995 The scholarly literature informs research questions and analysis in this study. However, the literature lacks comprehensive theorization on the development, diffusion, and impacts of religious and ethnic community-based environmental initiatives. This study's grounded theory research on the JFM in Baltimore resulted in the development of a new theory, which may help to explain this new phenomenon (Strauss and Corbin 1998; Creswell 2007; Baxter 2010). Results from this research have implications for several audiences, including those in academia, the Pearlstone Farm community, other JFM initiatives, and other community-based agricultural initiatives. The new theory emerging from this research is applicable for future academic work on similar phenomena, such as community-based environmental initiatives amongst other religious, cultural, and ethnic groups. Components of this theory may also inform research on small-scale, sustainable 15 agricultural movements in the United States, Jewish identity formation from ?new6? Jewish initiatives, and pro-environmental lifestyle changes through community-based organizations. This research is also relevant to the Pearlstone Farm community for future planning and fundraising. Results can inform Pearlstone Farm marketing agendas, program content, and strategies for participant engagement. Pearlstone staff have expressed an interest in using this research for grant-writing, progress reports, and fundraising efforts. Pearlstone staff have additionally suggested this study supplement ongoing Jewish environmental education research. Staff members specifically pointed to the "Jewish Outdoor, Food, and Environmental Education" (JOFEE) initiative: a new Jim Joseph Foundation project seeking to inform local funders and national organizations on best practices surrounding built networks of JOFEE programs. The methodology from this study can also inform assessment of other JFM programs in the United States. The researcher is in contact with a staff person from a separate JFM program outside Baltimore, seeking to assess the impacts of her initiative. Lastly, research results are applicable to non-JFM community-based agricultural initiatives in the United States, to identify best practices for establishment, operation, and diffusion. 1.5. Parameters of research 1.5.1. Personal bias As an American-Jew engaged in domestic environmental and agricultural issues the researcher is personally attached to this study. As a participant in a summer program through a Baltimore JFM site during the summer of 2010, the researcher became acquainted with several farm employees and volunteers. Based on this involvement the 16 researcher seeks to avoid any biased opinions or views on the research by employing validation procedures. 1.5.2. Qualitative research This study relies heavily on qualitative research for data collection and analysis. Qualitative researchers always bring their own philosophical assumptions, paradigms and interpretive frameworks to the research at hand (Creswell 2007). Complete objectivity is impossible to achieve based on the highly social nature of qualitative research, and thus the researcher?s personal contexts are always present and involved (Dowling 2010). In order to address these limitations, the researcher will employ critical reflexivity to become aware of the nature of her involvement and influence on the social relations within the study. Critical reflexivity is a self-conscious scrutiny of the research process itself, as the researcher build awareness of her own position in the research process (Dowling 2010). By employing critical reflexivity, the researcher will make her personal assumptions, paradigms, and frameworks known while conducting research and be fully aware of these influences over data collection and analysis (Creswell 2007). 17 2. Chapter 2: Literature review This chapter reviews the literature on topics associated with the present study. In grounded theory research, literature reviews play a critical role both prior to and during data collection and analysis. Prior to data collection and analysis, ?a researcher can turn to the literature to formulate questions that act as a stepping off point during initial observations and interviews? (Strauss and Corbin 1998, 51). Although grounded theory is an inductive research method, the researcher should not ?enter the field lacking an understanding of the literature or the theoretical question to be addressed? (Shah and Corley 2006, 1827). Rather the researcher should ?formulate a research problem and possibly specify some potentially important variables, with some reference to extant literature. However, they should avoid thinking about specific relationships between variables and theories as much as possible, especially at the outset of the process? (Eisenhardt 1989, 536). Literature reviews are also used during the iterative process of data collection and analysis to make systematic comparisons between the observed processes and those from the literature (Strauss and Corbin 1998; Goulding 2005). The scholarly literature can be used to stimulate questions during analysis, and sensitize the researcher to properties and dimensions of which she was previously unaware (Strauss and Corbin 1998). The literature reviewed below includes several topics surrounding the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore, including: innovation diffusion, individualism and community in the United States, Jewish identity and community in the United States, industrial agriculture and sustainable alternatives (including top-down and community- based alternatives, and community gardening), Judaism and environmentalism, historical American Jewish farmers, and the contemporary Jewish farming movement. 18 2.1. Innovation diffusion The world evolves partly as a function of adopting new innovations, and recent improvements in technological communications have led to a greater diffusion of innovations across physical, political, cultural, and social borders. Innovations diffuse on spatial and temporal scales to become adopted or rejected by receiving individuals. The innovation itself is ?an idea, practice or object that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption,? and may be new in its time since creation or perceived as new to the individual who encounters it (Rogers 2003, 12). Diffusion is ?the process in which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system? (Rogers 2003, 5). Innovations cover a wide range ideas, practices and objects, and diffusion transpires through a broad span of communication behaviors. Innovation diffusion research has a rich history in a variety of academic fields including geography, anthropology, sociology, political science, economics, and communications. Early research on innovation diffusion shapes current diffusion theories, but simplifies the process in terms of diffusion strategies and social systems. A consideration of diffusion strategies and social systems adds to the complexity of models and frameworks, and accounts for a more accurate representation of reality. However more realistic new diffusion frameworks may be, an original and fundamental notion of innovation diffusion is that human behavior is unpredictable and may not follow models7. The origins of innovation diffusion in the field of human geography begin in the early to mid-20th century with the work of Carl Sauer and Torsten H?gerstrand. Sauer?s work on cultural origins and culturally influenced land-surface features are some of the 7Torsten H?gerstrand, a pioneer of innovation diffusion research, noted early on that each individual has his own unique constraints, making prediction of human behavior difficult to near impossible (1975 in Pred 1977, 210). 19 earliest geographic accounts of innovation diffusion research. Sauer?s examination of cultural trait diffusion over space and time led to an understanding of human landscape evolution and change based on the introduction of new innovations (1952 in Brown 1981, 17). Torsten H?gerstrand studied diffusion over time and space using mathematical and computer simulations of agricultural diffusion processes across towns in central Sweden (1967). H?gerstrand?s Swedish study emphasized the process of innovation diffusion, rather than exclusively the product (1967; Hudson 1972; Pred 1977; Brown 1981). H?gerstrand's diffusion work led to the creation of time geography and the identification of empirical diffusion regularities over time and space (1967; Brown 1981; Haggett 1983), which laid the framework for future diffusion research. Sauer and H?gerstrand's work is critiqued for lacking a more detailed examination of the social systems in which diffusion transpires, by acknowledging a variety of adopter characteristics and communication channels. A closer inspection of adopter characteristics includes understanding economic, social, cultural, and historical elements. A more detailed examination of communication channels includes studying social system hierarchies and communication flows. The H?gerstrand model?s limitations lie mainly in its rules and uniformities (Haggett 1983). In a more realistic diffusion situation the population is not uniformly dispersed, innovations are not automatically accepted, and there are barriers to transmittance (Hudson 1972; Blaut 1977; Brown 1981; Haggett 1983; Giddens 1985; Gregory 1985; Morrill, Gaile, and Thrall 1988). Diffusion addtionally relies heavily on a social system?s cultural characteristics (Blaut 1977; Giddens 1985; Strang and Meyer 1993). Variations in cultural norms, communication networks, historic contexts, and power structures affect the diffusion process (Marsh and 20 Coleman 1956 in Strang and Meyer 1993, 504; McClelland and Winter 1969 in Blaut 1977, 345; Foster 1965 in Blaut 1977, 345; Giddens 1985; Blaut 1977; Pred 1985; Gregory 1985; Blaut 1987; Strang and Meyer 1993). Diffusion scholars following H?gerstrand propose a variety of adaptations to better represent reality. Derek Gregory suggests a deeper ontological understanding of social relations by comprehending the complexities that exist within the multidimensional structures of social relations and historical hierarchies (1985). Jim Blaut argues for an inclusion of political and economic factors when deciphering reasons behind adoption or rejections (1987). Richard Morril, Gary L. Gaile, and Grant Ian Thrall suggest the importance of the methods taken to eliminate adopter resistance, such as awareness, demonstration, and trial of the innovation prior to acceptance (1988). David Strang and John W. Meyer suggest a reinterpretation of diffusion models to include the institutionalization of diffusion, which affects the communication channels responsible for diffusion and the likelihood of adoption. Strang and Meyer argue rapid diffusion takes place within a culturally similar society after the institutionalization of a diffusion model (1993). Strang and Meyer (1993) and others also highlight cultural similarities as influencing the diffusion process, in that diffusion should be rapid between actors of a similar culture, and innovations that align with larger cultural understandings of a network diffuse more quickly than those that do not (Strang and Soule 1998). Barbara Wejnert (2002, 308) sites several sources (Abbott and De Viney 1992; Hout and Goldstein 1994; Chaves 1996) to explain that the structural equivalence in a network along cultural (amongst other) factors impacts the adoption of innovations due to the homogeneity of adopters' behaviors (Burt 1987; DiMaggio and Powell 1983). 21 Lawrence Brown and Everett Rogers provide detailed frameworks on innovation diffusion. Brown?s framework is based on the market and infrastructure approach, emphasizing the supply side of innovation diffusion, and acknowledging that potential- adopters often have unequal adoption opportunities due to supply side factors (1981). According to Brown, if one focuses solely on the characteristics of the adopters and forgoes examination of the propagator, the study fails to capture the ?manipulable? influence a propagator may have on those human characteristics (1981). Rogers? framework incorporates the supply and demand sides, examining the nature of the innovation itself, communication from diffusion propagators, and the receiving community?s social system. Rogers highlights four central elements to innovation diffusion including the innovation itself, time, communication channels, and social systems (2003). Influenced by the scholarship on the social construction of technology (Pinch and Bijker 1987), socio-technical systems (STS) is a framework used to understand the transition from one innovation to another (Geels 2004b), and has been applied to transitions towards environmental sustainability ("sustainability transitions") (Geels 2010). Socio-technical systems work considers several elements and actors in the transition process, including the technology itself, rules and regulations, user practices, cultural meanings, and infrastructure (Geels, Elzen, and Green 2004). Central to STS is the notion that new innovations structure the way adopters (or technology "users") act, while users also reshape and reproduce the rules surrounding the innovation (Geels 2004a; Hughes 1987 in Berkhout, Smith, and Stirling 2004, 52; van Oost et al 2009). The social rules that steer the innovation's use develop based on interaction and social 22 learning amongst users (Burns and Flam 1987 in Geels 2004a, 907). The multi-level perspective on STS conceptualizes a micro to macro level transformative process through which systems become increasingly stable and institutionalized (Rip and Kemp 1998; Kemp, Rip, and Schot 2001). Under the multi-level perspective, innovations move up the scale from technological niches, to technological regimes, to technological landscapes, with an increasing level of structuration in each scale (Geels 2004a, 2004b). Gill Seyfang and Adrian Smith have applied the STS framework to community-based initiatives, to better understand the social elements surrounding the operation and diffusion of grassroots sustainability innovations (2007). Seyfang and Smith understand these sustainability oriented "grassroots innovations" as: "networks of activists and organizations generating novel bottom-up solutions for sustainable development; solutions that respond to the local situation and the interests and values of the communities involved. In contrast to mainstream business greening, grassroots initiatives operate in civil society arenas and involved committed activists experimenting with social innovations as well as using greener technologies" (2007, 585). Grassroots innovations operate based on social and culturally-specific rules and norms (Seyfang and Smith 2007). While bottom-up approaches provide relevant and meaningful learning experiences, their uniqueness can be a barrier to diffusion at greater scales (Seyfang and Smith 2007). The literature on innovation diffusion was applied to this study in structuring initial questions, and also analyzing empirical data to make sense of the new phenomenon. The researcher used broad concepts from the earlier literature (H?gerstrand, Sauer, Pred, Blaut, and others) to inform initial research questions. The literature on diffusion agencies, institutionalization, and socio-technical systems was used to form 23 major categories #1 and #2 in Chapter Four, as well as to answer to research questions #1 and #2 in Chapter Five. 2.2. Individualism and community in the United States Modern influences have affected the social processes through which identity is established, resulting in a decline of identities based on socialization within consistent groups and a rise in identities formed through what Charles Taylor deems a ?malaise? of modernity: individualism (1991, 2). According to sociologist James Coleman, this long- term societal transformation began in 18th century with the French and Industrial Revolutions (1993). The French Revolution brought a new form of social organization that shifted away from political and economic systems based on normative traditions, and towards those grounded in bureaucracy and rationalization (Coleman 1993). The Industrial Revolution brought technological changes to forms of production, transportation, and communication which created new, individualistic forms of work, residency, and relationships (Taylor 1991; Coleman 1993; Wellman 1999; Wellman 2001). Additionally, Western society has reached a sufficient level of peace and order that community is no longer essential for individual protection and survival (Tuan 2002). These systematic changes led to a transition in social structures, which Coleman classifies as shift from ?primordial? to ?purposively constructed? social organizations (Coleman 1993, 2). ?Primordial? social organizations are constructed through family and clan ties, operate through closed networks, and rely on normative power for social control. ?Purposively constructed? social organizations are created between ?positions? and/or offices rather than persons, and rely on rules, laws, and formal incentives for social control (Coleman 1993). Much of the normative power once held amongst 24 primordial social organizations was lost during the transition. According to Taylor, contemporary individualism has discredited the premodern idea of living as a part of a larger greater good that at one time brought meaning to social activities, rituals, and norms, which are now conducted primarily for instrumental significance (1991; Marris 2002). Taylor believes in lieu of a universal greater good, individualism has extracted passion from life and created a generation of self-absorbed, narrow individuals who have lost concern for the greater society and community (1991). Norms powerful enough to dictate society stemmed partially from the high degree of social capital maintained in such societies based on high network closure (Coleman 1988, 1993). Prior to the industrial revolution communities existed around ?door to door? relationships, or those established in spatially compact areas, which led to closed social networks in which all actors interact on a regular basis (Wellman 2001). Door to door networks dissipated with the Industrial Revolution?s technological innovations in transportation and communication, which enabled the development of ?place to place? communities based on social definition rather than spatial constraints (Durkheim 1964 in McMillan and Chavis 1986, 8; Wellman 1999, 2001). As social relationships expanded beyond immediate spatial boundaries, the amount of groups with whom individuals developed connections increased, but the commitment and involvement to and within those social groups decreased (Wellman 2001). Geographer Yi-Fu Tuan recognizes this to be the difference between the cold, non-committed, but efficient ?society,? and the warm, devoted, but somewhat less-efficient ?community? (2002). The communal to societal transition impacted identity formation and resource access. 25 Today?s contemporary technological advances have reinforced the individualistic trend, resulting in communities formed around ?person to person? and (even more fragmented) ?role to role? relationships (Wellman 2001). Such social networks are characteristic of fluid membership, and provide a less tangible sense of group belonging, meaning, and identity (Wellman 2001; Marris 2002). For example, rather than embeddeding oneself within one, consistent network, the individual acts within sets of ?concentric encompassing circles? (Coleman 1993, 2-3; Wellman 2001; Tuan 2002). Highly individualistic persons no longer share a set of consistent unifying values at a level larger than the self. Although an individualistic lifestyle revolves around one?s self, Taylor argues an authentic self requires ?unconditional relationships and moral demands beyond the self? in some form (1991, 73). In other words, individuals must interact with others to legitimate the authenticity of their constructed selves. A highly individualistic lifestyle is ?self-defeating? because relations with others through social structures and interactions are necessary in assigning importance and meaning to identity and life (Taylor 1991, 35; Bellah et al 1985; Tuan 2002; Lawler 2008). A part of one?s identity becomes meaningful not because he or she has deemed it so, but because other humans have interpreted it as important (De Vos and Romanucci-Ross 2006). However, the privatized relationships of many Western communities lead to ?individualized networks? which decrease the amount of others with whom an individual may interact (Wellman 1999, 2001). A decrease in social interaction leads to a reduction in the potential opportunities for identity self-articulation8 or identity recognition by others. 8 With the collapse of the premodern social systems that prescribed identities based on occupation, race, or class, modern individuals must articulate their own identities through dialogue (Taylor 1991). 26 The individualized societal transition also affects the way in which many people access resources. Barry Wellman describes contemporary Western communities as ?loosely bounded, sparsely knit, ramifying networks of specialized ties? (1993 in Wellman 1999, 97; Wellman 2001). Individuals develop a series of loose relationships to secure a complete set of goods and services that they no longer receive from a single community (Wellman 1999; Tuan 2002). Each specialized tie connects the individual to a different community resulting in multi-layered communities providing separate resources for separate needs (Fischer 1982 in McMillan and Chavis 1986, 19). This series of weak9, specialized ties, however resourceful, may not provide as solid a support system as strongly tied, centralized networks (Tuan 2002). Tighter networks made up of individuals? ?whole selves? (rather than ?fragments of selves?), enable the creation and maintenance of social capital, which empowers local groups to successfully embark on future cooperative actions (Wellman 2001, 244; Coleman 1993; Putnam 1994). As detailed further below, social capital is valuable for cooperative group action, including group activity for ecological sustainability (Putnam, Leonardi, and Nanetti 1993 in Dale 2005, 26; World Bank 2003 in Dale 2005, 26; Dale 2005). Societal trends of individualism framed the larger motivations for this study. As elaborated upon in section 2.3, individualism affects processes of contemporary cultural and ethnic identification. In the United States, Jews initially maintained group distinction through geographic proximity, and social and physical boundaries, and later through participation in Jewish organizations. However, trends of individualism have resulted in 9 As demonstrated by Mark Granovetter, weak ties are those connections between acquaintances that may provide information and resources beyond one?s immediate social circle, but are less readily available and are of less assistance, and formal or strong ties are those connections between friends and family that are easily accessible and provide deep measures of assistance (1983). 27 declining participation in traditional organizations, and a desire for Jewish engagement through personally-meaningful and interest-based mechanisms, including the natural environment. Individualistic trends are also juxtaposed with community-based efforts to address environmental sustainability. Section 2.4 expands upon the difficulty of pro- environmental living when responsibility rests solely with the individual. Community- based efforts towards sustainable action can enhance an individual's capacity for pro- environmental living. 2.3. Jewish identity and community in the United States With the dissipation of old ethnic enclaves and an increase in residential mobility away from family homes, American Jews are no longer socialized in spaces that carry consistent unifying orders, thus impacting Jewish identification (Teutsch 2003; Groeneman and Smith 2009). The topic of American Jewish identity has been highly disputed for many decades, but has recently increased in intensity, because demographic data and reporting show trends in population and life-choice statistics that some have interpreted as damaging for the American Jewish community. The aspects causing increased concern amongst the American Jewish community in terms of visualizing a Jewish future include what Douglas Bloomfield has named the ?four horsemen of the Jewish Diaspora Apocalypse?: assimilation, intermarriage, secularism, and disappearance (1999, 270). Before examining these factors in detail, this section provides a brief history of Jewish identity and community from the Enlightenment onward. 2.3.1. Jewish community and identity: mid-18th to mid-20th century Historically, the ?main function of Jewish religion has been to retain its identity,? and this idea is exemplified by numerous religious laws that create social boundaries 28 between Jews and non-Jews (Poll 1998, 186). These rules, combined with historically strict anti-Semitic laws, led to a cohesion of the Jews resulting in a tight identity with religious and ethnic attributes (Poll 1998). Premodern Jewish identities were influenced by a society of exclusivity and difference and a collective unity over religion and ethnicity, and embodied many of the norm-driven traits of Coleman?s primordial societies. This apartness from non-Jews served as a means of self-identification, not only because it was believed to be the right way to live, but also because it was essential to Jewish survival amongst majority societies (Diner 1992; Cohen and Eisen 2000). The middle of the eighteenth century brought European emancipation and the Enlightenment (the Haskalah), which exposed the once separated Jewish communities to non-Jews (Herman 1989; Diner 1992). Jews in European countries began to identify less with a strictly religio-ethnic identity and more with a national identity. For example, the adjective modifying the noun ?Jew? (French Jew, Russian Jew, etc.) gained importance in self-identification (Diner 1992; Poll 1998; Cohen and Eisen 2000). The Enlightenment softened occupational, social, and residential barriers, and prompted Jewish life outside the traditional areas, eventually leading to American migration10 (Diner 1992). As the modern state affirmed Jews individual rights it simultaneously denied "recognition of the right of minority or ethno-religious groups to make claims upon individuals that deviate from traditional cultural or legal norms," resulting in "the radical weakening of the normative and institutional structure of Jewish (and other groups) communal life" (Bekerman and Kopelowitz 2008, 328). 10 The experience of American migration differed for all Jewish immigrants, depending on the local European contexts from which they originated (Diner 1992). 29 Between the 1820 and 1880 approximately 150,00011 Jews (primarily from the Germanic and central/western12 European states) migrated to the United States largely due to economic13 motives (Diner 1992). Although the exact number of Jewish migrants to the United States before the 1880s is ?impossible? to estimate (Diner 1992, 53), there were no more than 3,000 Jews in America before 1820 (Diner 1992, 56). By 1848 it is estimated that 50,000 Jews lived in America, and by 1880 that number reached 240,000 (Ruppin 1934 in Diner 1992, 56; Oppenheim 1918 in Diner 1992, 56; Rosenwaike 1963 in Diner 1992, 56; Rosenwaike 1985 in Diner 1992, 56; Linfield 1939 in Diner 1992, 56). This early population of Jewish migrants settled largely in urban areas, with New York City, Philadelphia, and Baltimore as home to one-fourth of all Jews in America by the mid-1840s (Diner 1992, 57). Between 1880 and 1920 over two million Jews migrated to America from Eastern Europe, increasing the American Jewish population from 3% to 23% of the global Jewish population, and accounting for the largest Jewish in-migration in American history (Sorin 1992). During this time the American-Jewish population increased from about 280,000 Jews out of 50 million Americans (about 0.5% of the population) to about 4 million Jews out of 115 million Americans (about 3.9% of the population) (Lavender and Steinberg 1995, 3). Of the Jews who left Eastern Europe during this time period, 80% chose the United States as a final destination, with the Lower East Side of New York City as their ?geographic and cultural core? (Goldberg 1986, 24; Sorin 1992). Between 1881 and 1911, 1,000,000 Jews arrived in New York City and 73% remained there. Urban 11 ?At most? 150,000 Jews migrated to the United States in this time period (Diner 1992, 233). 12 These states included Poland, Bohemia, Slovakia, France and Lithuania (Diner 1992) 13Although anti-Semitism may have been a push factor for some Jewish migrants, ?the vast majority left their homes for America because in Europe they could neither work nor marry? (Diner 1992, 43). 30 migration trends were not limited to New York, with many major American cities as centers for Jewish population. For example, in 1880 only 25% of Americans lived in urban centers, but 83% of American Jews lived in urban centers, with 60% of American Jews living in the Boston to Baltimore corridor (Sorin 1992, 63). American assimilation was slow due anti-Semitism and Jewish social cohesion. Anti-Semitism on the part of non-Jewish Americans led to Jewish exclusion from occupations, clubs, organizations, and neighborhoods, and these barriers were enhanced with self-separation on the part of Jews based on fears of anti-Semitism, and a general lack of trust (Diner 1992; Sorin 1992; Cohen and Eisen 2000). Jews gravitated towards religious congregations and Jewish organizations for access to careers, social life, basic needs, and community defense (Diner 1992; Sorin 1992; Bloomfield 1999). Upon arrival into the United States, 75% of Jews identified with religious congregations and those who did not sought other organizations from which to experience Jewish identity, including landsmanschaften (associations based on ethnicity), charity projects, politics, labor organizations, arts, and anti-discrimination organizations (Diner 1992; Sorin 1992; Poll 1998). While Jews lived in urban ghettos, they were still members of the greater Jewish community ?if only through osmosis? (Kaplan 2009, 21). However, the mid-20th century brought a massive exodus to the suburbs, and during this time many Jews either lost their sense of Jewish connection or saw a need to actively reevaluate their Jewish identity (Kaplan 2009). From the 1950s to recent decades Jewish connection and identity stemmed largely from what Steven Cohen and Arnold Eisen call the ?pillars of American Jewish identity,? including historical relations of Jewish survival with the Holocaust, 31 attachment to the state of Israel, and membership in Jewish organizations such as Jewish Community Centers (JCCs) and philanthropic groups (Cohen and Eisen 2000, 10; Herman 1989; Selengut 1995; Poll 1998; Lipset 2003; Kirshenblatt-Gimblett 2005). These three factors fostered Jewish identification through emotional, historical, and social connection, rather than strictly religious practice and affiliation. Solomon Poll attributes the decline in Jewish religious affiliation during this time period to the prevalence of the three pillars (1998). In other words, Jews no longer needed to adhere to religious traditions and norms to establish Jewish identity for themselves and be recognized as Jews by others. The relevance of the three pillars is declining in the 21st century, causing Jews to once again reinterpret Jewish identity (Sharot 1998; Cohen and Eisen 2000; Teutsch 2003; Kirshenblatt-Gimblett 2005; Beck 2009). The reinterpretation of identity characterizes much of the current state of Jewish identity formation and maintenance in the United States, and is influenced by trends of American individualism. Bloomfield?s ?four horsemen? (assimilation, intermarriage, secularism, and disappearance) add complexity to modern Jewish identity. 2.3.2. The four horsemen: assimilation, intermarriage, secularism, and disappearance Since the European Enlightenment the majority of Jews have become more assimilated into the societies in which they live (Herman 1989; Diner 1992). Ethnic identities exist based on recognition from both the ethnic individual and the social ?other? to distinguish and legitimate the ethnic identity. Therefore, ?ethnic identity requires the maintenance of sufficiently consistent behavior so that others can place an individual in or a group in some social category? (De Vos and Romanucci-Ross 2006, 32 386; Herman 1989; Tuan 2002). To maintain a Jewish identity, individuals must externally express this identity in ways that are recognizable to outsiders to set them apart (Herman 1989). In an open and liberal society, cultural sustainability "requires the ability of an individual to move between multiple cultural contexts, yet at the same time not lose the cultural attachments that tie him or her to the minority group? (Bekerman and Kopelowitz 2008, 124). Contemporary American Jews live in a society where religious boundaries that once maintained group distinctiveness are now less relevant, leading to interreligious bonding over shared commonalities (Alba 2006). Bethamie Horowitz has categorized American Jewish assimilation as bumpy-line assimilation approach, or that in which a ?personalized ethnic identity may endure, even when the ethnic group?s structural distinctiveness does not? (2002, 16). Throughout the second half of the 20th century, intermarriage was increasingly viewed as a threat to a Jewish future (Sklare 1964 in Kaplan 2009, 167; Berman 2008). The argument gradually intensified, but erupted after the 1990 National Jewish Population Survey (NJPS) revealed that of Jews marrying between 1985 and 1990, 52% had chosen a non-Jewish spouse (Poll 1998, 152; Kaplan 2009, 167). Further analyses of the 1990 NJPS showed only 5% of the non-Jewish spouses chose to convert to Judaism, and only 28% of the offspring from intermarriage would be raised as Jews (Poll 1998, 152; Kotler-Berkowitz et al 2004, ix). These analyses created an ?unprecedented hysteria? across the American Jewish community (Kaplan 2009, 167). High intermarriage rates are also connected with high geographic mobility ? a common feature amongst today's American Jews (Groeneman and Smith 2009). Familial and communal ties are more easily broken after physical separation (Kaplan 2009). Less exposure to extended 33 family ?diminishes the experience of Jewish living as well as the transmission of Jewish values and practices? (Teutsch 2003, 71). According to analysis of the 2000-2001 National Jewish Population Survey, the intermarriage rate is increasing (Kotler- Berkowitz et al 2004). Of all Jewish marriages still intact (whether they were married long ago or recently), 31% of Jews in America are intermarried today (Kotler-Berkowitz et al 2004, 17). Analyses also show that several factors of Jewish connection (associated with Jewish identity) are lower for intermarried Jews (Kotler-Berkowitz et al 2004). Table 3: Jewish connections of in-married and intermarried Jews (source: NJPS 2000 ? 2001 data in Kotler-Berkowitz et al 2004, 19). However, others argue that the traditional measures14 of Jewish identity (which are foundational to much of the demographic data and reporting) do not account for the more 14 Horowitz has observed traditional measures of Jewish identity as falling into two categories: (1) the ?declining level of Jewish practice approach,? (the extent to which Jews observe traditional and shared religious and cultural practices based on their length of time in America) and (2) the ?sociological distinctiveness approach? (the extent to which Jews are a group of people with social patterns distinct from other religious/ethnic groups) (2002, 14-15). Such approaches use indices to measure the ritual practices, ethnic behaviors, and group boundaries that are thought to characterize most Jews (Horowitz 2002). 34 personalized and internal mechanisms for Jewish identification that are gaining prevalence amongst contemporary American Jews (Kelman 1999 in Horowitz 2002, 23; Horowitz 2002; Blecher 2007). The third ?horseman? arguably responsible for the current Jewish identity crisis is increasing secularization amongst modern American Jews. Jews have always had religious commonality as a solid core in identification, but this religious core is weakening (Lipset 2003). A recent study from Pew Research Center shows that one in five American Jews identify as Jewish but not by religion, and this trend has become more prominent over time (Pew Research Center 2013). These trends are displayed in the figures below. Figure 4: United States adult Jewish population by religion, and by no religion (Pew Research Center 2013) Examples of measurable indicators include: lighting Shabbat candles, observing Kashrut, fasting on Yom Kippur, (Cohen 1988 in Rebhun 2004, 46), synagogue membership, frequency of attending religious services (Cohen 1998 in Rebhun 2004, 46), Jewish organizational membership, number of Jewish friends, and Jewish inmarriage (Lipset 1994 in Horowitz 2002, 21). 35 Figure 5: United States adult Jewish population by religion, and by no religion, based on generation (Pew Research Center 2013) Jewish religious identification in America began to decline as early as the 1950s, as Jews relied on the "three pillars" for identity (Herman 1989; Selengut 1995; Poll 1998; Cohen and Eisen 2000; Lipset 2003; Kirshenblatt-Gimblett 2005). Trends of secularization are most significant amongst the youngest generations of American Jews (Ukeles, Miller, and Beck 2006; Pew Research Center 2013). The ?disappearance? of the Jewish people refers to a declining American Jewish birth rate, the religion of children of intermarried couples, and persons of Jewish ancestry deciding not to be Jewish (as described in the above section on increasing secularization). Jewish Americans are marrying in lower numbers and at later points in their lives than ever before, which also influences trends in birth rates (Ukeles, Miller, and Beck 2006, 15). At all ages Jewish women have lower fertility rates than the overall American female population, regardless of whether this statistic is determined by the percent who are childless or the average number of children born per woman (Kotler-Berkowitz et al 2004 in Ukeles, Miller, and Beck 2006, 15). These marriage and birthrate statistics are displayed below. 36 Table 4: Marriage and childbirth statistics for American Jews versus the larger American population (Table compiled by Rachel Berndtson; data source: NJPS 2000-2001 as reported in Ukeles, Miller, and Beck 2006) American Jews Total American Population Unmarried, ages 18 ? 35 Male 52% 41% Unmarried, ages 18 ? 35 Female 36% 30% Childless, ages 35 ? 39 Female 50% 20% Marital status and birth rates not only have implications for the American Jewish population in terms of population size, but also impact one?s Jewish identity in terms of levels of Jewish connection and adherence to traditional norms (Horowitz 2000; Cohen 2005a in Ukeles, Miller, and Beck 2006, 16; Sheskin and Kotler-Berkowitz 2007). Family is the keystone of American Jewish identity. Family plays a large part in memory formation, is the ?stimulus to and location of ritual observance,? and also serves as a factor towards Jewish identity formation outside its relations to memories and rituals (Cohen and Eisen 2000, 9). Attitudes towards Jewish life are often shaped not in childhood, but as adult children leave their parents? homes and start families of their own. Relationships with the nuclear family ?continue to dramatically influence when, where, and how Jewish identities take shape? (Cohen and Eisen 2000, 58). Family becomes the ?principle arena for the expression of contemporary American Jewish identity,? especially with the addition of children (Cohen and Eisen 2000, 72). Children serve as a stimulus for ritual practice and Jewish tradition, and provide an arena for that practice through Hebrew schools or Jewish day schools (Cohen and Eisen 2000). Household composition and marital status are amongst the most significant factors impacting 37 involvement in Jewish organizations (Horowitz 2000; Sheskin and Kotler-Berkowitz 2007), with unmarried and childless individuals showing lower levels of involvement. Disappearance is also associated with children of intermarried couples who are not raised Jewish. Only 37% of intermarried American Jews raise their children Jewish, versus 96% of inmarried Jews (Pew Research Center 2013). These trends point towards disappearance, as the rates of intermarried Jews are higher with each successive generation (Kotler-Berkowitz et al 2004; Pew Research Center 2013). Low birth rates, fewer children raised Jewish, and increasing secularization has led to a decline in percentage of Jews in the American population. Recent American Jewish population studies estimate there are between 5.2 and 6.7 million Jews in the United States today (Sheskin and Dashefsky 2012). The percentage of the Jewish population in America fell from roughly 3.7% of the American population in 1940, to roughly 2% of the American population today15 (Sarna 2004 in Sheskin and Dashefsky 2010; Sheskin and Dashefsky 2011, 2012). According to Ira Sheskin and Arnold Dashefsky, ?This change has occurred because the growth of the American Jewish population has not kept pace with the expansion of the US population, which has increased due to greater fertility and immigration than exhibited by American Jews? (2011, 2). The American Jewish population would be even smaller without the relatively small number of Jewish immigrations to the United States. Since 1980, only 335,000 Jewish adults are immigrants. Roughly two-thirds of this population migrated from the former Soviet Union (FSU) (Kotler-Berkowitz et al 2004). 2.3.3. Jewish identity in 21st century America and the sovereign self 15 Although the percentage of Jews in America fell during this time, the absolute number of Jews in America grew, expanding from about 4.8 million Jews in 1940 to about 6 million Jews in 2000 (Sarna 2004 in Sheskin and Dashefsky 2010, 3). 38 Since the 1980s, America?s religious climate has been categorized by selective, individual spirituality rather than top down observation of obligation from religious authorities (Peterson 2009), and Jews have certainly experienced this shift. As described by R. Stephen Warner, "the grounds in which Americans gather and find one or another religious message compelling, grounds that have historically included geography, social class, race, national origin, generation, ethnicity, and language, now also include gender, sexual orientation, 'life-style,' and moral culture" (1993, 1064). Contemporary Jewish lifestyles are more fluid in terms of social and physical boundaries, giving individuals the opportunity to choose and re-choose identity based on individually made decisions (Cohen and Eisen 2000; Kelman 1999 in Horowitz 2002, 23; Heilman 2004; Kirshenblatt-Gimblett 2005; Windmueller 2007; Ellenson 2009; Grossman 2009; Heller 2009). Many contemporary American Jews want to be Jewish based on a personal meaning rather than a communal obligation or historical destiny (Azria 1998; Cohen and Eisen 2000; Horowitz 2000; Heilman 2004; Kirshenblatt-Gimblett 2005; Windmueller 2007). The decline of religious communal obligations and the desire to be Jewish on an individualistic basis has led to a Jewish identification through the ?sovereign self? ? a trend classified by Cohen and Eisen explaining religious identification and practice that emerges from the significance of personal meaning, gives authority to the individual, and transpires primarily through private and intimate spaces (2000). American Jews16 identifying through their sovereign selves use personal meaning as the key component in Jewish involvement, and typically construct meaning from a collection of experiences, 16 Identifying by the sovereign self is not characteristic of American Jewry in its entirety, but is characteristic of ?moderately affiliated American Jews.? Cohen and Eisen describe this cohort of American Jews as ?those who are neither unusually active in conventional Jewish life nor among the most uninvolved in terms of ritual practice, formal institutional affiliation, or social networks? (2000, 184). 39 memories, and rituals that fit into their individual lives (Cohen and Eisen 2000). This form of Jewishness has been described as an ?elective ethnicity,? based on its voluntary and non-compulsory characteristics (Azria 1993 in Azria 1998, 29), and leads to cultural identities forming from ?consent? rather than ?descent? (Sharot 1998, 87; Kirshenblatt- Gimblett 2005). Selective Jewish identification reflects David Hollinger?s idea of a ?postethnic identity,? which is characterized by the fluidity of ?affiliation? rather than the fixedness of ?identity," and is more available to those of European descent, as their ethnicities are less recognized by the physical characteristic of skin color (2000, 7). The three ?pillars? (the Holocaust, the state of Israel, and Jewish communal organizations) that were once strongholds of American Jewish identity are today decreasing in relevance. The Holocaust is quickly losing its strength as a collective aspect of identity, despite its once unifying effect amongst Jews in the Diaspora (Etzioni-Halevy 1998). The common emotional attachment to a homeland has deteriorated. Rather than a single, agreed upon attachment to Israel, there are now many different views on Israel?s importance splitting the previous unification (Etzioni-Halevy 1998). The Jewish communal organizations once necessary to American Jewish economic and social survival have become less relevant based on American Jewish economic and social acculturation and success, and an increase in individualistic pursuits (Bloomfield 1999; Teutsch 2003; Ukeles, Miller, and Beck 2006; Windmueller 2007; Woocher 2009). The sovereign self has become the ?principle authority? in identity formation for many American Jews, given the declining practice of religious norms and communal affiliations, and the decline of externally imposed identities (Cohen and Eisen 2000, 2; Sharot 1998; Selengut 1999). American Jews have created their own personalized 40 authentic selves from various aspects of Judaism rather than stepping into an ?inescapable framework? of identity based on familial, communal or traditional prescriptions (Cohen and Eisen 2000, 2; Horowitz 2000; Windmueller 2007; Ellenson 2009; Grossman 2009). Jewish authenticity is no longer a concern or a question amongst many American Jews, because to them Jewish identity is an absolute factor, operating internally and unaltered by choice of practice or non-practice (Cohen and Eisen 2000; Horowitz 2000; Wuthnow 2002 in Ukeles, Miller and Beck 2006, 49). Although modern American Jews are not using the same methods to maintain a Jewish identity, they are still looking for meaning within a Jewish frame of life (Cohen and Eisen 2000). A recent Pew Research Center study found that only 15% of American Jewish adults consider being Jewish to be mainly a matter of religion, while 62% consider it to be mainly a matter of ancestry or culture (2013). Despite the decline of Jewish identity based on religion, 94% of Jews in the United States are proud to be Jewish, and 75% have a "strong sense of belonging to the Jewish people" (Pew Research Center 2013). For some (and particularly for the youngest generation17) American Jews, Jewish identity maintenance has shifted from externally bounded religious norms to internally driven, personally meaningful concepts (Horowitz 2002; Woocher 2009; Pew Research Center 2013). Jewish community organizations have long used Jewish denominations as boundaries. Within the larger group, the Jewish community varies by denomination, with the Orthodox considered mostly strictly adhering to religious law, followed (in descending order of "strictness") by Conservative, and Reform. Jewish individualized identities fit less neatly into hierarchically established denominational 17 According to the National Jewish Population Survey (NJPS) of 2000-01, 26% of American Jews identify outside denominational boundaries as ?Just Jewish,? and 27% of those are in the youngest age bracket (18 to 34 years old) (Ament 2005, 10, 16). 41 labels such as ?Conservative? or ?Reform,? making nondenominational and transdenominational movements an attractive option (Kirshenblatt-Gimblett 2005; Ellenson 2009; Heller 2009; Grossman 2009). The ?less measureable18? institutions offering Jewish communal connection across denominational boundaries provide open and fluid Jewish experiences that satisfy personal desires, and are often provided through nontraditional spaces (Cardin 2005; Kirshenblatt-Gimblett 2005; Ukeles, Miller and Beck 2006; Blecher 2007; Windmueller 2007; Geffen 2009). These may include imaginative spaces (memory), private ritual activity, family connections, and new, alternative organizations (Cohen and Eisen 2000; Kirschenblatt-Gimblett 2005). Memory of family and traditional rituals is essential to Jewish identity, because it supplements the group in lieu of observing religious rituals and adhering to religious Judaism (Azria 1998; Selengut 1999). For some ethnic groups the ?lack of definitive external and objective boundaries? has led to ethnic identities constructed around belief rather than action (Jenkins 1997 in Cohen 2004, 88; Levine 1997 in Cohen 2004, 88). In some cases memory has replaced tradition as a more appropriate paradigm in Jewish identity formation, as modern Jewish rituals are more concerned with focusing on celebrating past events rather than abiding by traditional Jewish law (Azria 1998). However, the practice of rituals is ?without a doubt the most important way in which modern, moderately affiliated Jews express their Jewish commitments,? because it enables them to step outside the self and act Jewish in an external way (Cohen and Eisen 2000, 73). Rituals allow Jews to externally articulate their identity to others and thus gain recognition of 18The NJPS heavily measures ?traditional, formal institutions? for participation in Jewish life (with only 1 out of 300 questions in the 2000-01 Survey acknowledging the internet as a form of Jewish information), thus underestimating the significance of the online world and other ?less measureable? venues (Blecher 2007, 65). 42 their identity from others. Although rituals are external expressions, they often occur within the privacy of the home. Family connection is a third factor essential to American Jewish identity maintenance (Cohen and Eisen 2000; Kotler-Berkowitz et al 2004; Ukeles, Miller and Beck 2006; Sheskin and Kotler-Berkowitz 2007). As noted above, Jewish families provide the company with whom to practice traditional rituals, and the impetus for participation in communal Jewish affairs outside the home. Lastly, new and alternative Jewish organizations are a means for contemporary Jewish identification, as they provide new spaces for Jewish interaction and identification. Many new organizations are based off the premise of pluralism, shifting away from an emphasis on old communal obligations, boundaries, and exclusivity, and towards one of personal enrichment (Ukeles, Miller, and Beck 2006). ?Being Jewish? is increasingly taking place in arenas outside traditional religious spaces, and new Jewish subcultures are forming in these spaces through Jewish cultural activities (Kirshenblatt-Gimblett 2005; Ukeles, Miller, and Beck 2006). Personal interests have trumped communal values as the primary focus for many Jewish organizations (Teutsch 2003; Windmueller 2007; Herring 2009), and include social justice, the environment, music, media and the arts. Since the first century Judaism has survived through communal organizations. However, today the programming offered through these traditional organizations is less relevant to modern American Jews (Cohen and Eisen 2000). Rather than Jewish communities creating organizations to help Jews find their American identity, today Jewish organizations create the communities to help American Jews find their Judaism (Teutsch 2003; Windmueller 2007). According to Dana Kaplan, if traditional Jewish communal organizations are to remain a prevalent feature in Jewish American identity 43 formation and maintenance, they must expand outside denominational boundaries and reach as wide a Jewish community as possible (2009). The fourth and fifth generations of American Jews have acculturated to American society but ?now have the challenge of acculturating to Judaism? because they do not experience the same ?deep family exposure,? life in Jewish neighborhoods, continuous relationships with other Jews, mastery of Jewish languages, or emotional attachment to the Holocaust and Israel that previous generations received (Teutsch 2003, 71). New spaces for Jewish interaction, including the natural environment, can provide meaningful experiences for contemporary Jewish identification. The literature on Jewish community and identity in the United States informed research questions and analysis in this study. Literature on general demographic trends and the rise of the "sovereign self" prompted the researcher to explore Jewish engagement through the natural environment. A more detailed examination of Jewish demography and identification mechanisms served as a method of systematic comparison to the Pearlstone Farm's participant base and Jewish identity impacts. Comparisons informed the construction of major categories #1 and #3 in Chapter Four, and the answers to research questions #1, #3, and #4 in Chapter Five. 2.4. Industrial agriculture and sustainable alternatives 2.4.1. Industrial agriculture Beginning after the Industrial Revolution and booming after World War II, American agriculture?s business-like transition has had negative physical and social consequences for farming communities (Martinez et al 2010). As described by Timothy Weiskel, ?never before in the history of humanity have so many people come to depend 44 on so few plant species grown in such restricted regions and subsidized by the net destruction of such quantities of non-renewables? (1997, 20). This unnatural and unsustainable system of food and fiber production is dominant in America and continues to thrive due to support from government and corporate bodies. Although destructive agricultural practices occur at a global scale, Leo Horrigan, Robert S. Lawrence, and Polly Walker believe the food system in the United States ?represents one of the worst- case examples of the pitfalls of industrial agriculture? (2002, 446). The physical destruction of American farmland is largely a result of an increased dependency on chemical inputs, large machinery, and constant watering. Chemical inputs, including nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium (NPK), (the ?big three? of industrial agriculture?s soil rejuvenation), replenish minerals at a price of potentially diminished returns, increased waste products, poor quality crops, increased pests, and soil, air19 and water20 pollution (Jenny 1984, 50; Carpenter 1994 in Gutman 1999, 2356; Cicerone and Oremland 1998 in Tilman et al 2002, 673; Hall, Matson, and Roth 1996 in Tilman et al 2002, 673; Horrigan, Lawrence, and Walker 2002). Water and soil resources suffer from factors beyond chemical inputs. Water resources are under constant pressure based on the demand for year-round crop production, necessitating industrial irrigation systems that may lead to salt poisoning21, the death of native fish22, and the depletion of 19 Nitrogen fertilization emits gasses that alter tropospheric and stratospheric chemistry, leading to air pollution (Cicerone and Oremland 1998 in Tilman et al. 2002, 673; Hall, Matson, and Roth 1996 in Tilman et al. 2002, 673). 20 Chemical inputs contaminate groundwater and can cause hypoxic results leading to a loss of marine biodiversity through eutrophication (Weiskel 1997; Horrigan, Lawrence, and Walker 2002). 21 Salt poisoning occurs in areas of little rainfall where the ground contains many unleached salts. Attempts to irrigate such land bring these salts to the ground surface, which may end up in the rivers systems that poison downstream locations (Worster 1984). 22 Native fish die due to shifting levels of oxygen and changes in salt to fresh water dilution patterns (Worster 1984). 45 natural aquifers (Worster 1984; Horrigan, Lawrence, and Walker 2002; Tilman et al. 2002). Soil resources suffer from the creation and maintenance of industrial farmland including clearing lands23, use of heavy machinery24, and monocropping25 (Berry 1977; Jenny 1984; Horrigan, Lawrence, and Walker 2002). Perhaps the most significant destructive factor of industrial agriculture is the eradication of local knowledge, which farmers require to fully understand and successfully operate farms (Berry 1977, 1984). A good farmer is a cultural product of generations of wisdom and experiences passed down through family, community and self-education, but an extinction of these families and communities leaves grim hopes for the future of small farms (Berry 1977, 1984). Many farmers are forced out of their previous livelihoods due to financial constraints such as lofty-priced sanitation and industrial farming equipment, and physical constrains such as land deemed ?un- farmable? for industrial agriculture. These constraints have led to the environmental and cultural disruption that Wendell Berry has deemed ?community-killing agriculture? (1977, 41). However, sustainable, small-scale agricultural alternatives are on the rise in the United States. Today?s growing26 sustainable agricultural initiatives combat the 23 Sites of industrial agriculture are cleared of trees, leaf matter, and grass, leading to accelerated erosion beyond the earth?s natural erosive processes (Jenny 1984; Horrigan, Lawrence, and Walker 2002). 24 Soil quality is degraded from large industrial machines that compact the soil (Berry 1977; Horrigan, Lawrence, and Walker 2002). 25Monocropping is a method to produce massive amounts of the same crop variety and disrupts the biodiversity of natural plant variations (Berry 1977; Horrigan, Lawrence and Walker 2002). 26 Growth the United States includes: an increase in direct-to-consumer sales of agricultural products of $660 million (120%) from 1997 to 2007 (USDA NASS 2009 in Martinez et al 2010, 5); an increase in farmers? markets by 92% from 1998 (2,746 markets) to 2009 (5,274 markets) (USDA AMS 2009 in Martinez et al 2010, 6); an increase in community supported agriculture (CSA) from 2 operations in 1986 (Adam 2006 in Martinez et al 2010, 8) to over 2,500 operations in 2010 (Local Harvest 2010 in Martinez et al 2010, 8); an increase in home gardening of 19% from 2008 (36 million households) to 2009 (43 million households) (National Gardening Association 2009 in Martinez et al 2010, 10); an increase in farm to school programs from 2 programs in 1996-1997 to 2,051 programs in 2009 (Joshi and Azuma 2009 in Martinez et al 2010, 14-15). 46 physical and social detriments associated with industrial farming, address community development issues, and empower those at the local level. 2.4.2. Environmental initiatives: top-down vs. bottom-up Environmental sustainability entered the global conversation largely through the creation of Local Agenda 2127 (LA21) at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit (Barr 2003; Seyfang 2005; Newton et al 2008). According to the United Nation's World Commission on the Environment and Development (1987), or the Bruntland Report, sustainable development is that which: "meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs'' (WECD 1987). In efforts to achieve environmental sustainability, national governments have implemented financial disincentive policies28. However, such approaches have been criticized for relying too heavily on the individual actor and for choosing a strategy stemming from superficial rather than morally intrinsic reasons for pro-environmental behavior changes (Barr 2003; Dobson 2003; Seyfang 2006b). Gill Seyfang highlights several reasons the top-down, financial disincentive approach fails to produce long-term, sustainable lifestyles, including: externalization of environmental and social costs of economic activity, exclusion of psychological and social motivations for consumptive behavior, exclusion of consumers? situational limitations (including affordability and availability) for pro-environmental consumption, exclusion of institutional (including corporate and governmental) purchases, and unequal 27 Local Agenda 21 is an action plan promoting sustainable development at the local level with local participation (Warburton 1998 in Newton et al 2008, 16; Barton 2000 in Newton et al 2008, 16). The plan proposes to use the market as a medium to change consumption patterns, but also suggests changes to the concepts in which wealth and prosperity are understood, in order to promote lifestyles with less dependency on the earth?s finite resources (UNCED 1992 in Seyfang 2005, 293). 28 Many governments have adopted the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development?s (OECD) suggestion that market failure will lead to unsustainable action, and therefore prices and regulations should encourage pro-environmental consumer choices (OECD 2002 in Seyfang 2005, 293). 47 pitting of individuals against global institutions to solve global problems (2005, 2006a, 2006b). Some argue rather than solely promoting ?greener? consumption, approaches aimed at pro-environmental lifestyles should emphasize value changes, guided by intrinsic moral motivations29 (Seyfang 2006a, 2006b; Matti 2008; Jagers, Martinsson, and Matti 2009). Addressing environmental sustainability requires more than just rational and technical solutions, such as management, innovation, and policies, to include ?new ways of knowing, of being differently human? (O?Riordan and Voisey 1998 in Sterling 2007, 65). Religious organizations provide a relevant interpretive framework or cultural ?template? through which to make sense of and act on social issues such as the environment. As Stephen Hart explains, "Christianity, Judaism, and increasingly other religions, are major sources of cultural content or templates: values and views of reality. These are appropriated, transformed, and then used by movements to guide their activities and also to articulate movement purposes and garner support" (1996, 89). However, even when situated within meaningful contexts, strategies for pro- environmental living still confront a number of external (such as institutional30, economic31 and cultural32), and internal (such as level of environmental knowledge33 and 29 Pro-environmental behavior is more likely to occur if the individual finds personal meaning and sense of well-being in the sustainable lifestyle (De Young 1996 in Barr 2003, 230; Maiteny 2002; Macnaghten 2003). 30 Institutional factors include the provision and upkeep of necessary infrastructures (such as bike paths, recycling centers, and public transportation systems) to adopt pro-environmental behaviors and the provision of appropriate policies to enforce behavior (Kollmuss and Agyeman 2002; Barr 2003; Redclift and Hinton 2008). 31 Economic factors include the ability of the individual to afford adopting a sustainable lifestyle (Kollmuss and Agyeman 2002). 32 Cultural factors include norms that may prevent pro-environmental behavior (Chan 1998 in Barr 2003, 230; Georg, 1999; Tucker 1999 in Barr 2003, 230; Kollmuss and Agyeman 2002; Middlemiss 2008; Redclift and Hinton 2008). 48 awareness and perceived amount of control34) barriers. Community-based organizations may have the ability to ease some of the barriers to adopting pro-environmental lifestyles (Defra 2005 in Middlemiss 2008, 78; Gardner and Stern 2002 in Middlemiss 2008, 78; Jackson 2005 in Middlemiss 2008; Middlemiss and Parrish 2010). Community-based organizations enable pro-environmental behavior by delivering informational resources relevant to local contexts, providing meaningful experiences with the environment, offering the necessary facilities and infrastructure through which to act sustainably, and creating community norms that ?stimulate a culture in which sustainable consumption is acceptable? (Middlemiss 2010a, 87; Georg 1999; Maiteny 2002; Barraket 2005). Lucie Middlemiss has researched the ability of community-based organizations to enable pro-environmental behavior for individuals. Middlemiss proposes a ?reframing? of the ecological footprint model to incorporate both individual and institutional responsibilities for acting in a pro-environmental way (2010b, 148). Middlemiss?s ?contextualized ecological footprint? model (displayed below) is made of four ?capacities? that impact the size of the individual?s footprint, and notes each person?s capacities will vary based on context. The model includes cultural, organizational, infrastructural, and personal capacities that represent both the external structures and individual contexts that affect ?the ability of the individual to take on responsibility? (Middlemiss 2010b, 160; Middlemiss 2010a; Middlemiss and Parrish 2010). Cultural capacity refers to the norms and values that affect the individual?s personal ability to take 33 Environmental knowledge and awareness is the extent to which one knows of environmental issues and problems associated with unsustainable human activity (Kollmuss and Agyeman 2002; Barr 2003). 34 Perceived amount of control is the extent to which one believes her behavioral change will impact the current unsustainable conditions (Newhouse 1991 in Kollmuss and Agyeman 2002, 255; Maiteny, 2002; Eden 1993 in Barr 2003, 231; Hinchliffe 1996 in Barr 2003, 231). 49 environmental responsibility. Organizational capacity refers to the resources (including leadership skills and informational resources) offered by community-based organizations. Infrastructural capacity refers to the products and services available to the individual provided by the government, businesses, and/or the community. Personal capacity includes a positive attitude of the environment, comprehension of environmental problems, personal knowledge, enthusiasm, motivation and curiosity, time resources, and income (Maiteny 2002 in Middlemiss 2010b, 162; Robbins and Rowe 2002 in Middlemiss 2010b, 162). Figure 6: The contextualized ecological footprint (source: Middlemiss 2010b, 160) Middlemiss found that community-based organizations expand the capacities impacting an individual?s ecological footprint. In her study on the Christian Ecology Group?s (CEG) (a community-based organization) involvement with the Holy Trinity Church, Middlemiss found that the CEG expanded church members? organizational capacities by creating links between church purpose and church activities, and by gaining support for activities through the church hierarchy (Middlemiss 2010a).The CEG expanded church 50 members? cultural capacities by creating an ?alternative culture of ecological consciousness? within the church, which connected religious faith and ecological activities (Middlemiss 2010a, 79). The CEG expanded church members? infrastructural capacities through provision of facilities to encourage pro-environmental behavior changes, such as the creation of the ?Green Pages,? which lists environmental options for businesses and services in the area. Although many participants in Middlemiss?s study expressed positive attitudinal changes to living sustainably, their behavioral changes were inhibited by personal and infrastructural capacities enabling them to act, such as personal finances and provision of public transportation systems. Although church members recognized the extent and limits to their own capacities for sustainable action, ?these are not necessarily associated with corresponding limits to responsibilities? (2010a, 86, emphasis added). Both the CEG and the church members understood pro-environmental behavior as a responsibility solely of the individual actor, rather than that of larger institutions ? an often discouraging mindset. Middlemiss suggests that community-based organizations empower individuals to better understand the limits of their individual responsibilities in making pro- environmental change (2010a). 2.4.3. Community gardens Community gardens are a community-based response to environmental sustainability and industrial agriculture, and also address many social issues, including community development, employment, local economies, health, and food access. Local environmental and agricultural initiatives such as community gardens create (Feenstra 1997; Georg 1999; Wells, Gradwell, and Yoder 1999; Cone and Myhre 2000; Hinrichs 51 2000; Lacy 2000; Hendrickson and Heffernan 2002; Feagan 2007; Feagan and Henderson 2009) and are created by social capital (Putnam 1994; Stocker and Barnett 1998 in Luckin and Sharp 2005, 65; Putnam, Leonardi, and Nanetti 1993 in Dale 2005, 26; World Bank 2003 in Dale 2005, 26; Dale 2005). Social capital is defined here as "features of social organization, such as networks, norms, and trust, that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit" (Putnam 1994, 6-7). The social capital brought to and generated from community-based initiatives can be utilized through a community field. A community field is a ?purposefully organized sub-network? that ?provides the structural or institutional framework for the development and/or mobilization of social capital? (Sharp 2001 in Barraket 2005, 78; Barraket 2005). The field serves as a structural base upon which to organize local action, mobilize social capital within and amongst local communities, and address issues of cultural, social, environmental and economic development (Barraket 2005). Community gardens serve as community fields through which participants build and harness social capital to mobilize and address political and social issues. The key elements distinguishing a community garden from a private garden include the garden's sense of public ownership, access, and control (Ferris, Norman, and Sempik 2001). In her comprehensive review of community gardening in the United States, Laura Lawson explains that although community gardens are often assumed to be "grassroot" activities, they rely on institutions and organizations at multiple scales for advisory, technical, financial and political support (2005). According to Lawson, "While the idea of allotting land for gardening may seem straightforward, in fact much organization and program development is necessary. Most gardens rely on organizations and programs that coordinate gardeners, manage land, and facilitate educational or social activities" (2005, 3). 52 Contemporary community gardens in the United States vary in form, vegetation, and purpose, and increasingly address political, economic, and social issues in addition to food production. Historically, community gardens in the United States have formed in response to political and economic crises, and ebb in times of prosperity (Schmelzkopf 1995 in Schmelzkopf 2002, 327; Saldivar-Tanaka and Krasny 2004; Lawson 2005). The United States has a long history of community gardens, and the intention and use of these spaces has changed over time. The late 19th century brought an increase of community gardens in the United States as a response to the depression of 1893. Industrial expansion in American cities led to unstable economic and social conditions, complicated by the boom in urban populations (Lawson 2005). City officials (including those in Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, and Philadelphia) promoted community gardens as a way to provide relief programs to the poor, alleviate food shortages, and improve communities with abandoned properties and vacant lots (Hannah and Oh 2000; Kurtz 2001; Twiss et al 2003; Lawson 2005; Draper and Freedman 2010; Mukherji and Morales 2010). Community gardens from this era focused on marginalized populations, and were lauded as a relatively cheap way to provide the poor with physical activity, job and skill training, and food. Gardens were seen as a progressive way to help the poor help themselves without too much reliance on outside actors (Lawson 2005). A second wave of American community gardens came during the Great Depression and throughout World Wars I and II (Armstrong 2000; Kurtz 2001; Lawson 2005; Eizenberg 2009). These gardens differed from those of the previous era, in that they were framed as a national effort for all citizens, rather than limited to poor, children, 53 and minority groups (Lawson 2005). Gardens were therefore not only focused on food production, hunger, and poverty relief, but were also touted as a means for patriotic volunteerism and morale building, health and nutritional assistance, and social and psychological benefit (Lawson 2005). Gardens from this era were also unique in their increased organizational involvement, particularly from the federal, state, and municipal governments (Lawson 2005). However, the increased organizational support sustaining many of these gardens quickly faded after the two World Wars and the Depression passed. As the Depression eased and industrial agriculture took off, cities tended to take back community garden land for real estate interests (Saldivar-Tanaka and Krasny 2004; Lawson 2005; Okvat and Zautra 2011). The 1960s and 1970s brought a new surge of community gardening in response to urban decline, interest in greening vacant urban spaces, and the environmental and energy crises (Smith and Kurtz 2003; Lawson 2005; Eizenberg 2009). Community gardens of the 1960s and 1970s were characterized by a period of social unrest and urban disinvestment, and early gardens were largely not supported by government programs (Kurtz 2001; Mukherji and Morales 2010). Although many gardens began through local efforts and took root in vacant urban lots, they were later supported by governments at the local, state, and federal levels (Lawson 2005). Institutional involvement increased in the 1970s and 1980s, including the establishment of the USDA's Cooperative Extension Urban Garden Program (1976), and the founding of the American Community Gardening Association (1978) (Lawson 2005). The past two decades have introduced a new community garden movement in the United States, spurred largely by social reformers seeking to provide low income 54 populations with jobs, skills, empowerment and low food costs, to bring nature to the city, and to achieve overall community and social development (Kaufman and Bailkey 2000; Warner 1987 in Kurtz 2001, 658; Allen et al 2003; Lawson 2005; Eizenberg 2009). By the mid-1990s over 1 million individuals were involved in over 15,000 community gardens in the United States (Malakoff 1995 in Okvat and Zautra 2011, 375). Contemporary community gardens are supported by a diversity of organizations, thus resulting in a diversity of programmatic goals. The American Community Gardening Association (AGCA) recently revised its vision statement to reflect this diversity. As of 2001, the ACGA's vision state reads, "Our vision is that community gardening is a resource used to build community, foster social and environmental justice, eliminate hunger, empower communities, break down racial and ethnic barriers, provide adequate health and nutrition, reduce crime, improve housing, promote and enhance education, and otherwise create sustainable communities" (Abi-Nader, Dunnigan, and Markely 2001 in Lawson 2005, 239.) Today many organizations use community gardens as a means for addressing their organizational goals rather than primarily for food production. As Lawson notes, "the promoters of urban gardens have rarely considered them simply as places to grow food and flowers; rather, they have viewed them as a means to address much larger social concerns, such as economic relief, education reform, and civic accord" (2005, 287). As vehicles for creating and harnessing community social capital, gardens empower individuals and communities' to shape their own future through community activism and neighborhood revitalization (Westphal 2003 in Tidball and Krasny 2007, 155; Kingsley and Townsend 2006 in Milburn and Vail 2010, 72; Iles 2005 in Milburn and Vail 2010 72). Although community gardens offer a mechanism through which to address larger 55 social, economic, health, and political issues, they should not be taken as a panacea to these problems (Lawson 2005). Gardens help to ameliorate the consequences of drug use, crime, poverty and hunger, but additional action is required to address the root causes of these larger issues (Lawson 2005). The literature on industrial agriculture and top-down responses to environmental destruction served as initial motivations for this study. Scholarship on these subjects prompted the researcher to explore the issues, and also study the role of community-level actors in addressing the issues. Research on the barriers to pro-environmental living, and the ability of community-based organizations to address those barriers informed analysis, as the researcher was better able to identify meaningful elements from the empirical data enabling or constraining pro-environmental lifestyles. This systematic comparison was used to establish major categories #1 and #3 in Chapter Four, and answer research question #3 in Chapter Five. As one rendition of community-based environmental action, the literature on community gardening in the United States was also used as a basis for systematic comparison with the Pearlstone Farm. Each major category in Chapter Four (establishment, diffusion, and adoption) was compared to literature on community gardens. This systematic comparison is also applied in to answer research question #4 in Chapter Five, which is embedded in all other research questions. 2.5. Judaism and environmentalism According to David Ehrenfeld and Philip Bentley, many people fail to realize that Judaism is ?one of the first great environmental religions? (2001, 125). Judaism is built on the notion that God is the sole creator of the universe, and the natural world, as part of this creation, relies on God for maintenance and sustainability (Tirosh-Samuelson 2001). 56 Like other Judeo-Christian religions (Rupp 2001), Judaism respects and reveres the natural world not for its own sake, but for its connection to God (Tirosh-Samuelson 2001). The Torah and the Talmud35 offer general notions of environmentalism, and specific laws on the social justice surrounding agricultural societies and land conservation. These are summarized in the table below. Table 5: Environmental and agricultural concepts and laws from Jewish traditional texts (Table compiled by Rachel Berndtson; sources included in the table) Concept Explanation Citation in Torah/Talmud/Mishnah36 Stewardship to God God is the creator of the earth and man is the humble steward. ?And?God?put him into the garden of Eden to till it and to keep it? (Genesis 2:15 in Ehrenfeld and Bentley 2001, 129). ?The land shall not be sold forever: for the land is Mine; for you are strangers and sojourners with Me? (Leviticus 25:23 in Ehrenfeld and Bentley 2001, 129). Bal tashchit A commandment from God requiring that humans ?do not destroy? (Ehrenfeld and Bentley 2001, 131). ?When in your war against a city you have to besiege it a long time in order to capture it, you must not destroy its trees, wielding the axe against them. You may eat of them, but you must not cut them down. Are trees of the field human to withdraw before you under siege? Only trees which you know do not yield food may be destroyed; you may cut them down for constructing siegeworks against the city that is waging war on you, until It has been reduced? (Deuteronomy 20: 19-20, New Jewish Publication Society Translation in Schwartz 2001, 231, author?s emphasis). Peah and Leket Leaving corners of one?s field, and allowing dropped harvest ?When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field to its very border, neither shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest. And you shall not strip your vineyards bar, neither shall you 35 The Talmud is a compilation of ?Jewish wisdom, and the oral law, which is as ancient and significant as the written law (the Torah)?.legend, and philosophy, a blend of unique logic and shrewd pragmatism, of history and science, anecdotes and humor.? Although the compilation can be used as a source for Jewish law, it ?cannot be cited as an authority for purposes of ruling? (Steinsaltz 2006, 4). 36 The Mishnah is (together with the Gemarah) a book of the Talmud, containing rabbinic discussions dating from roughly a century prior to year 1 up until the 500s. Scholars of later generations reorganized the rabbinic discussions into new texts, with (what many believe to be) the most authoritative as the Schulchan Aruch, compiled in the 1500s (Blecher 2007). 57 to be left for the poor (Avery- Peck 1985). gather the fallen grapes for our vineyards; you shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the Lord your God" (Leviticus 19:9-10 in Avery-Peck 1985, 36 - 37). Shichecha Leaving harvested crops that have been forgotten in the fields for the poor (Avery- Peck 1985). ?When you reap your harvest in your field, and have forgotten a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back and get it; it shall be for the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow; that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hands. When you beat olive trees, you shall not go over the boughs again; its hall be for the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow. When you gather the grapes of your vineyards, you shall not glean it afterward; if shall be for the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow. You shall remember that you were once a slave in Egypt; therefore I command you to do this.? (Deuteronomy 24:19-22 in Avery-Peck 1985, 37). Shvi?it Letting the earth go fallow for an entire year, every seventh year (Avery-Peck 1985). ?"The Lord said to Moses on Mount Sinai, 'Say to the people of Israel, When you come into the land which I give you, the land shall keep a sabbath to the Lord. Six years you shall sow your field, and six years you shall prune your vineyard and gather in its fruits; but in the seventh years there shall be a sabbath of solemn rest for the land, a sabbath to the Lord; you shall not sow your field or prune your vineyard. What grows of itself in you harvest you shall not reap, and the grapes of your undressed vine you shall not gather; it shall be a year of solemn rest for the land. The sabbath of the land shall provide food for your, for yourself and for your male and female slaves and for your hired servant and the sojourner who lives with you; for your cattle also and for the beast that are in your land all its yield shall be for food.? (Leviticus 25:1-7 in Avery-Peck 1985, 144). Orlah Prohibits harvesting of fruit trees for their first three years (Avery- Peck 1985). ?When you come into the land and plant all kinds of trees for food, then you shall count their fruit as forbidden; three years it shall be forbidden to you, it must not be eaten? (Leviticus 19:23 in Avery-Peck 1984, 323). Kilayim Forbidden mixtures of animals, plants, and fibers (Avery-Peck 1985). ?You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind; you shall not sow our field with two kinds of seed; nor shall there come upon you a garment of cloth made of two kinds of stuff." (Leviticus 19:19 in Avery-Peck 1985, 108). 58 Connections between religion and the environment are not limited to the Jewish faith. Environmental stewardship and reverence is a common notion amongst many religions, and contemporary religious groups have increasingly engaged in environmental work (Smith and Pulver 2009; Johnston 2013). Faith-based groups may be particularly successful at shaping the environmental beliefs and actions of adherents, because they provide ?contextual connection? by framing environmental issues from a value-based theological perspective, thus giving those issues a greater meaning (Maiteny 2002, 305; Brockelman 1997; Rockefeller 1997; Jacobs 2002; Macnaghten 2003; Middlemiss 2008; Smith and Pulver 2009). By situating environmental sustainability within meaningful frameworks, religious groups can alter the normative group culture surrounding the environment (Middlemiss 2010a). The literature on connections between Judaism and the environment gave the researcher a better understanding about JFM programming, as well as the potential for faith-based groups to enable pro-environmental action. This literature informed the development of major category #1 in Chapter Four, particularly on the new programming offered through the Pearlstone Farm, and is also applied in answering research questions #1 and #3 in Chapter Five. 2.6. Historical American Jewish farmers Farming was a way of life for those Jews living in ancient Israel, but the ?urban complexion of American Jewry disguises, even from itself, a people rooted in agrarianism? (Goldberg 1986, xxiii). Jews farmed in the United States as early as the 59 colonial era37, and collective American Jewish farming communities came about in the late 19th century (Lavender and Steinberg 1995). The majority of early American Jewish farmers were immigrants from Russia who left to escape brutal tsarist policies against Jews and seek socio-economic improvement (Goldberg 1986; Eisenberg 1995). After the late 18th century breakup of Poland, many Jews in Europe migrated to Russia. To deal with the influx of Jews, Tsarina Catherine secluded Jews to a geographic location known as the Pale of Settlement, and restricted Jews economically, socially and politically ? a policy which was upheld under Alex I (Fein 1971; Goldberg 1986; Sorin 1992; Eisenberg 1995). The Pale of Settlement (an area of 15 western provinces of European Russia and ten provinces of Russian-held Poland) was the confined home to nearly four million Jews for more than two centuries (Sorin 1992). Jews in the Pale suffered from overcrowding and poverty based on competition and economic restrictions. Adding complexity to the situation, the peasant-based economies through which many Jews worked eroded towards the late nineteenth century (Sorin 1992). During this time period, the modernization of agriculture and start of industrialization displaced many Jews working as petty merchants, peddlers, and artisans. At the same time, the Russian government, blaming Jews for Russian economic instability, encouraged anti-Jewish business and boycotted the remaining Jewish merchants (Sorin 1992). In addition to geographic and economic confinement, conversion, and assimilation measures were taken by the Russian 37 Colonial-era individual Jewish farmers were ?not infrequent? and thrived as early as 1726, with farms in New York, Pennsylvania, Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, Mississippi and Missouri (Lavender and Steinberg 1995, 8; Jewish Agricultural Society 1954 in Lavender and Steinberg 1995, 8; Sharfman 1977 in Lavender and Steinberg 1995, 8; Reznikoff and Engelman 1950 in Lavender and Steinberg 1995, 9; Evans 1973 in Lavender and Steinberg 1995, 9; Korn 1969 in Lavender and Steinberg 1995, 9; Marcus 1953 in Lavender and Steinberg 1995, 9). 60 government. Policies towards the Jews, including inscription into the army and offers of free Russian education (Crown schools), had the underlying motive of assimilation (Sorin 1992). In 1859 the policies on Russian Jews took a positive turn, as Tsar Alex II abolished many of the oppressive laws, opening Jewish communities to more emancipation and freedom in communal lifestyles and leading to modernization and Enlightenment amongst many Russian Jewish communities (Sorin 1992). During this time period increased secularization was sought, including an elimination of the kehillah as a middle ground between Jews and the state and an allowance of Jewish students in Russian-Jewish and Russian educational institutions (Sorin 1992). The Russian secular education separated many of the Jewish intellectual youth from the general Jewish population, leading to new cultural forms of Jewishness such as Zionism and socialism (Sorin 1992). However, after Alex II?s assassination in 1881 the laws against Russian Jews became more severe than they were before Alex II?s reign. Alexander III, who reigned from 1882 -1894, and Nicholas II, who reigned from 1894-1918, took positions not to Russify the Jews, but to eradicate them (Sorin 1992). The Temporary Laws (the May Laws of 1882) led to Jewish discrimination, exclusions, and expulsions, including restrictions on land ownership and farming and forbiddance of business transactions on the Christian Sabbath and holiday (Sorin 1992; Eisenberg 1995). By 1884, the Russian government created Jewish education quotas for the number of Jews allowed to receive secondary and university education (Sorin 1992). 61 This period of wide-spread anti-Semitism built up to the brutal Russian pogroms38 of 1881-1882 and 1903-1906 (Fein 1971; Goldberg 1986; Sorin 1992). Jews responded by converting en masse or illegally fleeing39 to Western Europe and America (Sorin 1992). In 1891, Konstantin Pobedonostev, heading of governing body of Russian Orthodox church and a major instigator of the pogroms, made the prediction, which aligned with the Russian governments aims, that ?one-third of the Jews will convert, one- third will die, and one-third will flee the country? (Sorin 1992, 33). Between 1891-1892 more than 107,000 Jews migrated from Russia to the United States (Sorin 1992, 33). The years of 1903 to 1906 led to an explosion of pogroms, which were much more violent and murderous than those of the years prior (Sorin 1992). In addition to the pogroms, economic competition and overcrowding acted as push factors to America, and were coupled with the American pull factor of dire need for industrial workers40 (Sorin 1992). Restrictions in the Pale and persecution under Russian policies instilled a sense of revolutionism and territorialism amongst many Russian immigrants, which, for some, led to agricultural desires (Sorin 1992). As noted above, between 1880 and 1920 over two million Jews migrated to America from Eastern Europe accounting for the largest Jewish in-migration in American history (Sorin 1992). The manufacturing jobs in New York City?s garment industry 38 The Russian pogroms were episodes of violence and brutality by non-Jewish Russians against Jews. The attacks, affecting hundreds of communities, resulted in rape, murder and homelessness and were largely ignored by Russian government and local officials. In many cases, the Jewish victims were deemed responsible for the attacks (Sorin 1992). 39 Immediately following the violence of 1881, 13,000 Jews ?desirous of escaping the physical threat? migrated from Russia to the United States in a move that almost doubled the Jewish population migrating to America in the entire decade of 1870-1880 (Sorin 1992, 32-33). 40 The majority of Jews living in the Pale were craftsmen, which made them suitable for industrial garment work in America (Sorin 1992). 62 employed two-thirds41 of the Jewish Russian immigrants, based on previous experience and ease of working from tenants (Goldberg 1986; Sorin 1992; Eisenberg 1995; Lavender and Steinberg 1995). Garment work (80% of which was in NYC lower east side and 90% of those factories were owned by German Jews) provided Jews with familiarity of co- workers and the opportunity to take Shabbat off (Sorin 1992). Crowded housing and sweatshop working conditions led to high levels of filth and disease amongst the American Jewish community (Goldberg 1986; Sorin 1992). The urban clustering and economic congestion that transpired in American cities as a result of this large Jewish migration concerned the German Jews who were already living in America (Diner 1992; Sorin 1992). The majority of German42 Jews in America had migrated during the first half of the 19th century, and were already established and somewhat acculturated by the time the large influx of Russian Jews arrived (Fein 1971; Diner 1992, Baum 1997). As a reaction to the large concentrations of eastern European Jews in the urban areas, Jewish philanthropies43 established Jewish farming colonies throughout America to decentralize the mass in hopes of downplaying anti-Semitism, creating what they believed to be stable, productive44 and respectable jobs, and hastening 41 Peddling was the other major form of Jewish immigrant employment, because it was a familiar occupation from Europe, allowed Jews to seek new areas for business and settlement, was an easy occupation to begin and led to the formation of an American Jewish community through family and business networks (Diner 1992; Sorin 1992). 42 Although Jews from the Germanic states accounted for the majority migrating to America before 1880, a large portion were Polish, Slovakian, French, Lithuanian and Russian. American government officials may have deemed these immigrants as German due to their spoken language. Additionally, non-Germanic immigrants may have claimed German heritage to improve their status, as a German identity was thought to be prestigious (Diner 1992). 43 Jewish philanthropies assisting immigrant agricultural relocation included the Jewish Agricultural and Industrial Aid Society (JAIAS), the Alliance Isra?lite Universelle (AIU) and the short lived Hebrew Emigrant Aid Society (HEAS) of the United States (Brandes 1971; Dubrovsky 1992; Eisenberg 1995; Lavender and Steinberg 1995; Rikoon 1998). 44Jewish immigrants were often stereotyped as unproductive based on their craft and peddling occupations (Goldberg 1986; Berk 1985 in Eisenberg 1995, 74; Rikoon 1998). 63 assimilation and Americanization (Brandes 1971; Goldberg 1986; Dubrovsky 1992; Sorin 1992; Eisenberg 1995; Rikoon 1998). The German American Jewish aid societies were well funded and well established, allowing for the creation of more permanent agricultural colonies. Although these aid organizations were a major reason for the successful establishment of Jewish agricultural colonies in America, their motives for providing aid were not aligned with the socialist goals of the colonists (Eisenberg 1995). Founded in 1882, the Hebrew Emigrant Aid Society of the United States (HEAS) was one of the earliest philanthropic establishments (Dubrovsky 1992). This organization was set up in New York City to manage the influx of Russian Jewish refugees by setting up agricultural colonies (Dubrovsky 1992). In 1891, the Baron de Hirsch45 Fund was created with a $2,400,000 endowment, becoming one of the most well-known and successful Jewish aid organizations for agricultural endeavors (Eisenberg 1995; Lavender and Steinberg 1995; Rikoon 1998). Later renamed the Jewish Agricultural and Industrial Aid Society (JAIAS), this organization offered loans, advice and information for Jewish immigrants in hopes for creating self-sufficient and hard-working Jews (Goldberg 1986; Eisenberg 1995; Lavender and Steinberg 1995; Moss 2006). The Baron de Hirsch Fund operated based on a system of philanthropy that increased Americanization and productivity, rather than philanthropy that provided alms and charity (Dubrovsky 1992; Eisenberg 1995). The Fund opposed charity ?based on the belief that charity bred a dependence antithetical to the goal of adapting immigrants to the American economic system? (Eisenberg 1995, 144). In 1921 the JAIAS became the Jewish Agricultural 45Baron Maurice de Hirsch was born 1831 in Munich to an old and prominent Jewish family. In 1891 de Hirsch founded the Jewish Colonization Association out of his Fund, believing the only answer to the abuse of Eastern European Jewry was migration (Lavender and Steinberg 1995). 64 Society (JAS) and focused on individual farming missions with a discouragement from collective, colony-like organizations (Dubrovsky 1992). Plans for American Jewish farming colonies also originated from the Russian immigrants themselves, prior to arrival on American soil. Am Olam (The Eternal People) was founded in Russia in 1881 by primarily young, educated men and women who were driven by ideas of emancipation and secularist enlightenment (Brandes 1971; Goldberg 1986; Eisenberg 1995; Lavender and Steinberg 1995). The Marxists and socialist Russian Jews who founded this organization had no experience with farming, but longed for the independence of land ownership and wanted to prove their worth by making a living off the land (Dubrovsky 1992; Lavender and Steinberg 1995). Am Olam chapters idealized the Tolstoyan ideals of communal agricultural as free persons and agricultural societies in America to make a living through honest and productive labor and change the image of the Jew from peddler to agricultural steward (Brandes 1971; Dubrovsky 1992; Sorin 1992; Lavender and Steinberg 1995). The aid societies sponsors? goals, including capitalist ventures, private land ownership and a productive Jewish work ethic, clashed with the Am Olam goals of communal land settlements (Eisenberg 1995). Many of the Am Olam chapters dissolved immediately after arriving to New York based on lack of planning and structure (Eisenberg 1995). The first Am Olam colony was established in 1881 on Sicily Island, in New Orleans, Louisiana with financial support from the HEAS (Goldberg 1986; Dubrovsky 1992; Sorin 1992; Eisenberg 1995; Lavender and Steinberg 1995). The colony lasted less than a year due to malaria, inability to counter flood conditions and poor planning, although colonists are said to of blamed the failure on complete isolation from Jewish life (Goldberg 1986; Dubrovsky 1992; 65 Sorin 1992; Eisenberg 1995). Other Am Olam communities were enacted in states across the nation including Kansas, Oregon, Ohio and Arkansas, but were largely unsuccessful due to undefined goals, disorganization, problems with the physical environment, inexperience, distant markets and an era increasingly dominated by technology, industrialization and urbanization (Brandes 1971; Goldberg 1986; Dubrovsky 1992; Sorin 1992; Eisenberg 1995). The New Jersey Am Olam colonies were the only to see success (Brandes 1971; Eisenberg 1995). New Jersey was an ideal location for the colonies because of its temperate climate and short distance to the cultural, social and economic Jewish hub of New York City (Brandes 1971; Dubrovsky 1992; Eisenberg 1995). The New Jersey46 colonies also saw economic success based the inclusion of industrial work (Brandes 1971; Eisenberg 1995). The sponsoring agencies could control the cultural activities within the New Jersey colonies because they funded the establishment of cultural, social, recreational, religious and educational programs they believed would contribute to the Americanization of the colonists, including English classes and modern religious education (Eisenberg 1995). The sponsors also controlled the economic structure of the colonies. Loans were only allotted to individual families for private ownership in order to discourage communalism and cooperative notions, as the sponsors believed individual, private economic structures would lead to independence as Americans (Eisenberg 1995). Even those Russian Jewish immigrants who were not members of Am Olam were drawn to American agricultural lifestyles in search for stronger economic vitality, an escape 46 Some of the most successful New Jersey colonies included Alliance, Vineland, Carmel, Rosenhayn, Woodbine, Norma and Farmingdale (Brandes 1971; Dubrovsky 1992; Eisenberg 1995). 66 from the urban slums, a better future for their children (physically and educationally), and a greater chance at shtetl47 community life (Goldberg 1986; Dubrovsky 1992). Focus eventually shifted in all the New Jersey colonies from the colonists? original communal goals to the sponsors? goals of privatization, Americanization, and productivity (Brandes 1971; Eisenberg 1995). Although some lasted through the latter half of the 20thcentury, the New Jersey colonies dissipated from a variety of factors including inexperience48, lack of financing, and existence of alternatives49 (Brandes 1971; Dubrovsky 1992; Eisenberg 1995; Moss 2006). A lack of Jewish communal life added to the colonists? distress. As stated by J. Sanford Rikoon, ?The brief sojourns of Jewish families did not result in the construction of a Jewish rural culture or rural values system. Instead, immigrant families worried about their inability to maintain traditions enacted and maintained within patterns of communal life and social institutions linked to more concentrated Jewish populations? (1998, 30). The legacy of Jewish farmers in the United States is often an overlooked or unknown portion of Jewish-American history. Although short-lived, it is important to consider these agricultural attempts when studying the Jewish-American experience. Research participants from this study contrast historical American Jewish farmers with the current Jewish farming movement, as a way to explain the more contemporary phenomenon. The literature reviewed in this section helped the researcher build that distinction to better contextualize the contempoary JFM. 47 Shtetls were small Jewish communities in 19th and early 20th century Poland and Russia (Lavender and Steinberg 1995). 48 Although some Jews did farm in Russia (despite the Tsarist restrictions against Jewish agricultural occupations and acquisition of rural property), only 4% of the Eastern European Jewry had farming experience, and the majority of Am Olam members did not (Brandes 1971; Dubrovsky 1992). 49 Many American born offspring were drawn to the growing industrial and urban economic opportunities in the city (Brandes 1971; Eisenberg 1995). 67 2.7. The contemporary Jewish farming movement The contemporary Jewish farming movement is an educational phenomenon that frames the social and ecological issues surrounding agriculture and food systems through a Jewish lens, and traditional Jewish practice through an environmental and agricultural lens. The movement began in 2003 and operates through small organic farms and community gardens throughout the United States. The JFM is supported by the larger Jewish institutional community, but the structure of support varies. Jewish institutions supporting the JFM include the United Jewish Federations, synagogues, day schools, JCCs, Jewish family foundations, and individual donors. Financial and institutional support come through land acquisition, operational financing, event promotion, and program participant allocation. Jewish farming movement spaces also vary by the programs and events they provide. Some provide Jewish agricultural and environmental education as well as a specific space at which to farm, while others provide training and education but do not maintain a farm or garden space. The table below highlights JFM organizations identified by the researcher through interviews and grey literature reviews. The table provides information on: the names, founding dates, and locations of each program, whether they maintain their own space for agriculture (farm or garden) or if they provide external support to different institutions (or both), and their sources of Jewish institutional support (as identified in the grey literature). Table 6: Jewish farming movement programs in the United States (Table compiled by Rachel Berndtson; sources include: Adamah Introduction 2013, Who We Are, Jewish Farm School 2013; Mission and History, Pearlstone Center 2013; About the Gan Project 2013; Vision and Mission, Hazon 2013; Mission, Ekar 2013; Our Story Urban Adamah 2013; About Us, Yiddish Farm 2013; Ganei Beantown 2013) Name Founded Location Space/ support Institutional support 68 Adamah 2003 Falls Village, CT Both; Space is 10+ acre farm Isabella Freedman Jewish Retreat Center Hazon 2004 Various locations in United States Support UJA Jewish Federation of New York Jewish Farm School and Farm at Eden Village 2005 and 2010 Putnam Valley, NY (farm), NYC and Philly metro areas (support) Both; Space is a 2 acre farm Hazon, UJA Jewish Federation of New York Pearlstone Farm 2006 Reisterstown, MD (farm) and Baltimore metro area (support) Both; Space is a 5 acre farm and support Pearlstone Center and Jewish Federation of Baltimore Gan Project 2010 Chicago, IL (garden), Chicago metro area (support) Both; Space is a 1/4 acre garden Chicago JCC Ekar 2010 Denver, CO Space: 2 acre farm Denver Academy of Torah Urban Adamah 2011 Berkeley, CA (farm) Space: 1 acre farm Various foundations and donors Yiddish Farm 2011 Goshen, NY Space: 200 acre farm Various foundations and donors Ganei Beantown 2011 Boston metro area Support Theological school and area synagogues The JFM is fueled by a network of volunteers and employees, many of whom were trained at common Jewish agricultural and educational organizations. The Teva Learning Center and the Adamah Fellowship at the Isabella Freedman Jewish Retreat Center were responsible for much of this initial training. Trained Jewish environmental and agricultural educators remain connected through the Adva Network: an online network that provides information about Jewish environmental, food and agricultural jobs, resources and opportunities. Although variations exist between JFM programs and 69 organizations, the goals and missions of each include Jewish and environmental values, as seen in the word cloud figure below. Figure 7: Word cloud of goals and missions of JFM programs from table 7 (world cloud created through Wordle.net and compiled by Rachel Berndtson) The Jewish farming movement is a product of the preceding Jewish environmental and Jewish food movements. Jewish environmental discourse emerged in the United States in the 1960s in defense of the religion against accusations of its contribution to environmental destruction (Jacobs 2002). In 1967 historian Lynn White Jr. wrote ?The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis? ? an article blaming Judeo- Christian religious traditions for much of Western society?s environmental destruction. The article prompted many defensive responses from across the Judeo-Christian spectrum, resulting in the creation of religious-environmental groups (Gendler 1997; Tirosh-Samuelson 2001; Jacobs 2002). Jewish environmental discourse morphed to action in late 1980s and early 1990s, with the establishment of organizations such as ?Shomrei Adamah? (or ?Keepers of the Earth?) - a religious-environmental organization for educational outdoor trips, holiday celebrations and other Jewish environmental events. The 1990s brought religious environmental advocacy to the political sphere. Jewish environmental advocacy included the signing of the statement"On the urgency of a Jewish response to the environmental crisis" by prominent Senators and religious 70 leaders, and Carl Sagan's founding of the Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life (COEJL) (Jacobs 2002, 457). Other institutions following the eco-turn in Judaism include the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, the National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Board, the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, and the Rabbinical Assembly (Jacobs 2002). The successful and growing Jewish environmental movement spawned a sub- movement around ecologically sustainable and socially-just food, later to be dubbed the ?new Jewish food movement.? Developed between 2004 and 2005, the new Jewish food movement uses a Jewish moral lens to address issues of food access, justice, and production in the United States and abroad (Feldstein 2011). The new Jewish food movement, like the Jewish environmental movement, serves as a new approach for reengagement in Jewish life, and new socially constructed Jewish spaces. According to Dana Kaplan ?Perhaps the most interesting of these new approaches to traditional observances is eco-kashrut50,51? (2009, 74). The Eco-Kosher Project was developed in 1990 by Rabbi Arthur Waskow, co-founder of the Alliance for Jewish Renewal (ALEPH), in order to ?reevaluate the observance of kosher laws? (Kaplan 2009, 75; Jacobs 2002). According to Waskow, ?What the Eco-Kosher Project implies is that we can strengthen our Jewish distinctiveness and serve the needs of the earth as well; that we can strive to heal ourselves by helping to heal the earth, and help to heal the earth by healing ourselves? (1995 in Kaplan 2009, 75). In this way, eco-kashrut makes a traditional element of Jewish life relevant to a new generation of Jews concerned with 50Kashrut are the dietary laws of Judaism (Steinsaltz 2006). 51 Rabbi Zalman Schachter-Shalomi, the founder of the Jewish renewal movement, coined the word ?eco- kashrut? in the late 1970s to describe a humane and environmentally friendly way to eat kosher foods (Kaplan 2009, 259, 75). 71 ecological and social issues (Kaplan 2009). The leading organization in the new Jewish food movement is ?Hazon,? a national non-profit that uses sustainable food and farming to engage Jews from across geographic scales, generations, and religious denominations. Hazon?s programs include establishing CSAs in Jewish communities, hosting and organizing national Jewish food conferences, and maintaining the ?Jewish Food Education Network" (JFEN). The Jewish farming movement came as a natural evolution from the Jewish food movement, with the first Jewish educational farm, Adamah, founded in 2003 at the Isabella Freedman Retreat Center in Connecticut. Jewish agricultural educators originally trained at Adamah have created other farms in different locations across the United States, including the Pearlstone Farm. The goal many Jewish farming movement programs is to make gardening and farming normative within the Jewish community by institutionalizing the movement in JCCs, synagogues, day schools and other communal organizations (Fishkoff 2009). JFM programs and organizations use experiential education as a means to deliver Jewish agricultural and environmental education. In recent years the Jewish environmental, food, and farming movements have gained momentum and increased in size by participant base and institutional involvement (Mann 2012). Rather than operating in isolated spaces, the movements' central actors have formed coalitions to distribute information and expand networks. The Jewish environmental website and blog, "Jewcology," hosts an interactive map of Jewish environmental initiatives in the United States. The map provides contact information on each of the 134 organizations involved, and includes interactive filters to sort for scale of work, focus of work (education, advocacy/policy, hand-on greening, communities of 72 practice, funding), and type of service provided (direct educational program and experiences, events, ready-made resources, products for purchase, community organizing and policy-making, leadership training, field building and capacity building). The Jewish Environmental Initiatives Map can be found at http://www.jewcology.com/map. 2.7.1. Jewish environmental and agricultural education A major product of the Jewish environmental movement was the realization of its power and effectiveness as a means for Jewish education. According to Sam M. Intrator and Wendy Rosov, Jewish environmental education is, "programming wherein experiential encounters with the natural world, accompanied by attendance to an ethic of conservation, are combined with the practice of Jewish ritual, the exploration of Jewish concepts and the value of Talmud Torah to the ends of propelling participants to contemplate their relationship with God and their obligations to the natural world through a uniquely Jewish perspective" (1998, 104). Jewish environmental education draws both its curricular roots and activities from secular environmental education (Intrator and Rosov 1998), which tends to be experiential. As put best by Intrator and Rosov: "Jewish environmental education is about an enterprise that, at its core, is attempting to provide a prospective way of confronting an overall crisis of meaningful survival that is endemic not only to the Jewish community, but to the global community as well..." and this concept is embodied in the movement's name: "Jewish ? as a response to the crisis of religion and of spirit; environmental?as an ethical response to the problematic paradigm of dominion; and education ?as the experiential means or process by which the message is conveyed (1998, 112). The leading organization in the development of Jewish environmental education is the Teva Learning Center, which fosters education through experiential techniques (Intrator 73 and Rosov 1998). Created in 1994, the Teva Learning Center uses a philosophy of immersive environmental education to help students ?develop a more meaningful relationship with nature and their own Jewish practices? for ?personal growth, community building, and a genuine commitment to Tikkun Olam, healing the world? (Teva Learning Center 2011). Teva runs Jewish environmental education programs for groups across the Jewish denominational spectrum, hosted in many local Jewish communities. The experiential nature of Jewish environmental education has been a source of excitement for its potential to mitigate the lack of enthusiasm associated with traditional Jewish education (Intrator and Rosov 1998), which is considered a critical mechanism for Jewish cultural sustainability. Intrator and Rosov find that although environmental education per se is not very important to Jewish institutional agendas, "environmental education as an example of innovative and potentially transformative educational programming is" (Intrator and Rosov 1998, 108-109). Jewish institutional leaders are interested in Jewish environmental education as means to achieve Jewish curricular, communal, social, and spiritual goals (Intrator and Rosov 1998). Many Jewish Federations in the United States place Jewish education at the forefront of agendas, and studies have correlated a greater emphasis on Jewish education with a stronger Jewish identity (Cohen 1995; for a comprehensive review: Dashefsky and Lesbon 2002; Ukeles, Miller, and Beck 2006; Cohen and Veinstein 2011). According to Jack Wertheimer, when it comes to Jewish education in the United States "perhaps never before has a Jewish community pinned so much of its hopes for 'continuity' - for the transmission of a strong Jewish identity to the next generation - on programs of formal 74 and informal education" (1999, 4). Many cultural groups that are highly integrated into Western and liberal society use cultural education to maintain their cultural distinction. Cultural education is defined here as, "the educational efforts invested by minority groups who seek to sustain what they perceive to be their socio-historical heritage, in the face of the homogenizing assimilatory power of a hegemonic global West" (Bekerman and Kopelowitz 2008, 335). Cultural education is used as a vehicle for cultural sustainability for many types of groups (religious, ethnic, national), and by a diversity of institutions (schools, community-based organizations, the state) (Bekerman and Kopelowitz 2008). Jews in the Diaspora use cultural education as a mechanism for cultural sustainability (Bram 2008; Parker-Jenkins 2008; Pomson 2008; Bekerman and Kopelowitz 2008), and this education comes through formal and informal institutions. In recent years North American formal Jewish education has been characterized by an extraordinary increase of liberal Jews opting for formal Jewish education by sending their children to Jewish parochial or ?day? schools (Pomson 2008; Bekerman and Kopelowitz 2008), which are thought to ?enable successful cultural and economic integration into the surrounding society, but at the same time provide the younger generations with a sustainable Jewish identity" (Bekerman and Kopelowitz 2008, 323). Informal Jewish education (including camps, youth groups, Israel trips, and other experiential programming) has been offered in the United States since the early 20th century, but has received an increasing amount of attention since the mid-1990s following the alarming results from the 1990 National Jewish Population Survey, which showed American Jewish youth with lower indicators of traditional Jewish identification, and higher intermarriage rates across the national 75 Jewish population (Chazan 1991, 2003; Wertheimer 1999; Reimer 2007). Informal Jewish education, as defined by Barry Chazan52, is: "... aimed at the personal growth of Jews of all ages. It happens through the individual?s actively experiencing a diversity of Jewish moments and values that are regarded as worthwhile. It works by creating venues, by developing a total educational culture, and by co-opting the social context. It is based on a curriculum of Jewish values and experiences that is presented in a dynamic and flexible manner. As an activity, it does not call for any one venue but may happen in a variety of settings. It evokes pleasurable feelings and memories. It requires Jewishly literate educators with a ?teaching? style that is highly interactive and participatory, who are willing to make maximal use of self and personal lifestyle in their educational work" (2003, 15 - 16). As identified in Chazan's definition, informal Jewish education is experiential, interactive, and fun, and also structured through curricula and carried out through trained educators. Whereas formal Jewish education has been largely understood as teaching the "basic building-blocks of Jewish literacy and knowledge," informal Jewish education offers "Jewish sociability and identification" (London and Chazen 1990 in Chazan 1991, 304). A central goal of Jewish informal education is making Jewish life meaningful and relevant for contemporary Jews (Reimer 2011; Woocher 2012). Informal Jewish education presents a viable way for a Jews to stay involved and connected. Jewish environmental and agricultural education are two new forms of Jewish informal education that use the natural world to enhance the meaning of Jewish life in the 21st century. Kaplan emphasizes the experiential value of Jewish environmental education, suggesting it offers Jews a ?spiritual experience that is inspiring and dynamic rather than repackaging the formal and ossified suburban religion of their parents? generation? (2009, 52 According to Joseph Reimer, "No one has worked harder to define informal Jewish education than Barry Chazan" (2007, 806). 76 100). Kaplan goes on to say ?the most successful approaches to Jewish religious revitalization all stress the spiritual wisdom that has laid hidden in Judaism, inaccessible to the emotionally semi-involved participant who was sent to Hebrew school and pushed through a ?bar mitzvah factory? as part of childhood rites of initiations? (2009, 104). Jewish environmental and agricultural education use traditional Jewish texts and values to discover what Judaism says about the environment and agriculture, and also reinterpret and reapply a Jewish ethic to contemporary environmental and agricultural issues. When it comes to informal Jewish education, ?Meaning and relevance are the name of the game....viz. the growing interest in Jewish learning that explores topics like the environment, gender identity, and spirituality, learning that often includes a serious re- engagement with Jewish texts" (Woocher 2012, 328, emphasis on original). The literature on the Jewish environmental, food, and farming movements informed analysis for the current study. The information cited above shaped the formation of major categories (establishment, diffusion, adoption) in Chapter Four, and provided a basis for addressing research questions in Chapter Five. Literature on the origins of each movement and its influence on the subsequent movements helped conceptualize the original establishment of the Pearlstone Farm in Baltimore. The information in this section also served as a basis for systematic comparison between other JFM initiatives and the Pearlstone Farm, as a way to highlight Pearlstone's distinct programming and operations. Lastly, the sources cited above introduced the larger context of Jewish education and its role in Jewish cultural sustainability. The educational context framed major categories #1 and #3 in Chapter Four, and helped to answer research questions #1, and #3 in Chapter Five. 77 78 3. Chapter 3: Methods This chapter reviews the research approach from an ontological and methodological perspective. This research employs a critical realist ontology and a grounded theory methodology. The sections below provide a general overview of both critical realism and grounded theory, as well as specific information on how each is directly applied to this study, including data collection, analysis, and validation procedures. 3.1. Ontology: critical realism The ontological approach taken to research is informed by philosophies that seek to explain the nature of the social world in order to attain knowledge about the social world, and inform the nature of the reality the researcher can attain (Yeung 1997; Aitken and Valentine 2006). Qualitative research often leads to multiple realities due to the multiple perspectives from the different individuals involved (Creswell 2007). This research is informed by a critical realist philosophy that recognizes the world as existing independent of our understanding of it, and emphasizes the necessity of self-reflection in this personalized, individually-based understanding. Critical realism is informed by realism, which emphasizes the existence of a real world with physical things, independent of our perception of it (Cloke, Philo, and Sadler 1991; Sayer 2006). Critical realism holds the same view, but additionally emphasizes that measures of truth are relative to the contexts in which they are given, and some social explanations are closer to the truth than others, deeming knowledge as always ?partial truths53? (Proctor 1998, 361; Entrikin and Tepple 2006). Critical realism stresses self-reflection at all steps through research, and is 53 James Clifford refers to ?partial truths? as partly false interpretations (1986 in Proctor 1998, 372). 79 guided by an understanding that the theories informing the research are not fixed (Habermas 1972 in Cloke, Philo, and Sadler 1991, 143). Geographic realist ontology came as a response to the quantitative revolution and a rejection of positivism?s notion that knowledge is a direct reflection of the world that can be represented in laws and models (Cloke, Philo, and Sadler 1991; Unwin 1992; Sayer 2006). Early attempts to incorporate unique human behavior into geography include Carl Sauer?s understanding of human landscapes as interpretations of culture, William Kirk?s incorporation of the Gestalt54, and David Lowenthal?s emphasis on individuals? uniqueness and questioning the possibility of making generalizations about group actions (Leighly 1963 in Unwin 1992, 141; Kirk 1952 in Unwin 1992, 141; Lowenthal 1961 in Unwin 1992, 141). A realist ontology questions aspects of the world that make knowledge possible and seeks to answer these questions by attempting to understand ?the fundamental ?building blocks? of reality and how we can acquire knowledge about these blocks,? by exploring the mechanisms, events and experiences that affect and are affected by the ways in which humans operate (Cloke, Philo, and Sadler 1991, 134; Outhwaite 1987 in Unwin 1992, 175; Lawson and Staeheli 1990 in M?ki and Oinas 2004, 1756). The approach recognizes human experiences as context- dependent in that an identical alignment of events and mechanisms may produce a different experience in a different context (Sayer 2006). Although there are no well- defined guidelines for conducting realist research, ?certain methodological guidelines are more relevant and useful than others? (Yeung 1997, 57, author?s emphasis). Geographer Henry Wai-chung Yeung suggests iterative abstraction, grounded theory, and 54 The Gestalt is a psychological idea developed by Wolfgang K?hler and Kurt Koffka, which understands the individual and his actions as a product of his unique behavioral environment (1929 in Unwin 1992, 141; 1929 in Unwin 1992, 141). 80 triangulation as three methodological approaches complementary to a critical realist philosophy (1997), all of which are employed by this study. 3.2. Methodology: grounded theory A grounded theory research method is appropriate for the study of the diffusion of the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore, because it is a relatively new phenomenon and has not yet been theoretically analyzed from a geographic perspective. The development of a new theory may help to explain the new phenomenon (Strauss and Corbin 1998; Creswell 2007; Baxter 2010). Rather than beginning with a theory in order to prove it, grounded theory research begins with a study area and discovers relevant themes and contexts that emerge from the empirical data collected in that study area (Strauss and Corbin 1998). This is not to say the researcher enters the field without some theoretical background from which to base data collection and analysis (Goulding 2001; Baxter 2010). Rather, the researcher enters the field with an open mind and a ?willingness to have faith in the data,? so she may trace theories and concepts as they emerge from empirical findings (Goulding 2001, 23). The actions and processes examined through grounded theory research are understood as contextual and relative to specific historical, cultural, temporal, and subjective circumstances, and thus multiple representations of reality exist (Benoliel 1996 in Bailey, White, and Pain 1999, 173; Knigge and Cope 2006; Sayer 2000 in Baxter 2010, 88). Because these circumstances are constantly in flux, grounded theory research demands rigorous self-awareness and self- criticism and an openness to new ideas (Strauss and Corbin 1998; Bailey, White, and Pain 1999; Seale 2004; Knigge and Cope 2006). 81 Data collection and analysis in grounded theory are cyclical, as the researcher collects data and tests it against propositions until emerging incidents are grouped into categories to make a theoretical explanation of the research question (Strauss and Corbin 1998; Bailey, White, and Pain 1999; Seale 2004). Categories are constructed in terms of their ?properties? and ?dimensions.? Properties are characteristics of a category that define the category and give it meaning, and dimensions are the range by which properties vary (Strauss and Corbin 1998). Because data collection for grounded theory research is driven by the emergence of concepts, the researcher cannot enter into research with ?a list of preconceived concepts, a guiding theoretical framework, or a well thought out design? (Strauss and Corbin 1998, 34). Rather, the researcher uses the concepts and patterns that emerge from analysis of the empirical data to guide the next method and source of data collection (Strauss and Corbin 1998; Seale 2004). The cyclical data collection and analysis process is both inductive and deductive (Becker 1993 in Coyne 1997, 626; Strauss and Corbin 1998; Sarker, Lau, and Sahay 2001; McGhee, Marland, and Atkinson 2007). According to Anselm Strauss and Juliet Corbin, ?At the heart of theorizing lies the interplay of making inductions (deriving concepts, their properties, and dimensions from data) and deductions (hypothesizing about the relationships between concepts, the relationships also are derived from data, but data that have been abstracted by the analyst from the raw data)? (1998, 22). Grounded theory is inductive in that concepts, relationships and meaning are abstracted from the empirical data to form the emerging theory, and deductive in its employment of purposeful sampling to check the emerging theory against pre-abstracted concepts. In this way grounded theorists are ?deriving ideas inductively and then testing them deductively? (McGhee, Marland, and Atkinson 2007, 335). Making comparisons and 82 theoretical sampling underlie the inductive-deductive interplay of grounded theory, and are thus two central components of the method (Eisenhardt 1989; Coyne 1997; Strauss and Corbin 1998; Hallberg 2006; Suddaby 2006 in Wayne 2011, 6; Weed 2009; Gasson and Waters 2011; Raduescu and Vessey 2011; Kolb 2012). Grounded theory comparisons are made at the conceptual and theoretical levels. Conceptual comparisons involve comparing incident against incident from the empirical data to classify the incidents along the lines of their properties and dimensions, and thereby place the incident in a larger category (Strauss and Corbin 1998). This ?constant comparative? method allows the researcher to identify variations in the patterns of the data, based on different conditions under which incidents take place (Strauss and Corbin 1998). The constant comparative method can also be used for data validation as the grounded theory evolves. Abstractions made from empirical data are constantly compared to those from more recently gathered empirical data to confirm the consistency of the abstraction or note a contradiction (Strauss and Corbin 1998). Using constant comparison, grounded theory moves from induction to deduction, as incoming data are constantly compared to previous data and categories (Strauss and Corbin 1998; Gasson and Waters 2011). Theoretical comparisons are a tool used by the researcher to compare categories ?to similar or different concepts to bring out possible properties and dimensions when these are not evident to the analyst? (Strauss and Corbin 1998, 94). Comparisons at the theoretical level are intended to stimulate thinking about the properties and dimensions appropriate for a specific category, and link categories into the larger developing theory. The researcher compares the properties and dimensions of the empirical data with data 83 from the literature or other experiences to further specify a category by its properties and dimensions. Strauss and Corbin suggest comparing cases that are different in order to become sensitive to properties that define them (1998). One method of theoretical comparison is the ?flip-flop technique? in which the researcher looks for an opposite concept to ?obtain a different perspective on the event, object, or action/interaction? (1998, 94). A second method of comparison is the ?systematic comparison? technique, which involves ?comparing an incident in the data to one recalled from experience or from the literature" (Strauss and Corbin 1998, 95). The systematic comparison technique is used to "sensitize the researcher to properties and dimensions in the data that might have been overlooked because the researcher did not know what he or she was looking for" (Strauss and Corbin 1998, 95). A second key element to grounded theory research is theoretical sampling. Theoretical sampling involves selecting sites or participants that will ?maximize the opportunities to compare events, incidents, or happenings to determine how a category varies in terms of its properties and dimensions. The researcher is sampling along the lines of properties and dimensions, varying the conditions? (Strauss and Corbin 1998, 202). Theoretical sampling is not based on the number of participants but rather on the richness of the information extracted (Strauss and Corbin 1998; Kuzel 1992 in O?Reilly and Parker 2013, 193; Fossey et al 2002 in O?Reilly and Parker 2013, 196). Making comparisons informs theoretical sampling, as the researcher samples sites or participants that can be used to confirm or deny the emerging theory. Theoretical sampling enables deduction, as samples are purposefully selected to ?check out? the emerging theory by selecting participants or sites that purposefully look for instances of similarity or 84 difference (Becker 1993 in Coyne 1997, 626; Strauss and Corbin 1998; Gasson and Waters 2011; Kolb 2012). A grounded theory researcher must be pragmatic and flexible in the theoretical sampling approach (Marshall 1996 in O?Reilly and Parker 2012, 193), as the type and source of participants will change as the theory evolves. The theoretical sampling technique used changes as the analysis progresses from open to axial to selective coding, becoming more specific as the researcher progresses through these coding steps. Initial theoretical sampling is used to generate as many original categories as possible, thus leading the researcher to sample in ?a wide range of pertinent areas? (Strauss and Corbin 1998, 203). According to Strauss and Corbin, ?the aim of data gathering at this time is to keep the collection process open to all possibilities. Sampling is open to those persons, places, and situations that will provide the greatest opportunity for discovery? (1998, 206). Initial sampling should be selected based on the researcher?s access to individuals and available resources, because no theory yet existed from which to guide sampling (Strauss and Corbin 1998). After initial categories, properties and dimensions are abstracted from open sampling and open coding, theoretical sampling shifts to ?relational? or ?variational? sampling. Relational/variational theoretical sampling is based on a sample of incidents and events ?that enable [the researcher] to identify significant variations? amongst properties and dimensions of categories (Strauss and Corbin 1998, 210). During relational/variational sampling, the researcher seeks incidents that ?demonstrate dimensional range or variation of a concept and the relationships among concepts? (Strauss and Corbin 1998, 210). Once categories, properties and dimensions are close to saturation, theoretical sampling evolves again to 85 ?discriminate? sampling. Discriminate theoretical sampling aims to ?integrate the categories along the dimensional level to form a theory, validate the statements of relationships among concepts, and fill in any categories in need of further refinement? (Strauss and Corbin 1998, 211). This may mean returning to old sites, documents, or persons, or collecting data from new sites (Strauss and Corbin 1998). Theoretical sampling and analysis continue until saturation is researched, or ?the point in category development at which no new properties, dimensions or relations emerge during analysis? (Strauss and Corbin 1998, 143). However theoretical saturation is a ?matter of degree? and does not follow a rigid standard to be uniformly applied in all grounded theory studies (Strauss and Corbin 1998; O?Reilly and Parker 2013). Strauss and Corbin acknowledge this flexibility, noting: ?In reality, if one looked long and hard enough, one always would find additional properties or dimensions. There always is that potential for the ?new? to emerge. Saturation is more a matter of reaching the point in the research where collecting additional data seems counterproductive; the ?new? that is uncovered does not add that much more to the explanation at this time? (1998, 136). Additionally, ?there is limited practical guidance or help to show researchers when saturation has been reached? (Bowen 2008 in O?Reilly and Parker 2013, 194; Guest, Bruce, and Johnson 2006 in O?Reilly and Parker 2013, 194). However, cannons for saturation in the literature include getting to a point when: a ?depth? and ?breadth? of information is found (Bowen 2008 in O?Reilly and Parker 2013, 193), no new or relevant data about a category emerges, the category is ?well developed? in terms of its properties, dimensions the variation amongst them, and the relationships amongst the categories are well established and validated (Glaser and Strauss 1967 in Strauss and Corbin 1998, 212; 86 Seale 2004; Goulding 2005; Shah and Corley 2006; Weed 2009; Gasson and Waters 2011). 3.3. Data collection procedures This research uses a mixed methods data collection approach through open interviews, structured phone interviews, online surveys, semi-structured interviews, and scholarly and grey literature reviews. A mixed qualitative and quantitative methods approach is useful in grounded theory research when it aids the researcher with theory development (Eisenhardt 1989; Strauss and Corbin 1998; Gasson and Waters 2011). For example, ?the qualitative should direct the quantitative, and the quantitative feed back into the qualitative in a circular, but at the same time evolving, process with each method contributing to the theory in ways that only each can? (Strauss and Corbin 1998, 34). Qualitative data helps abstract initial concepts, categories and hypotheses, while quantitative data can show relationships amongst concepts unidentifiable by the qualitative data alone (Eisenhardt 1989; Strauss and Corbin 1998; Dooley 2002; Shah and Corley 2006). Strauss and Corbin suggest that quantitative data be used in grounded theory research to determine the extent to which certain properties and dimensions lead to certain outcomes (1998). Additional qualitative data collection may be used after the results from quantitative method are analyzed to further examine the trends highlighted through the quantitative method (Jick 1979 in Eisenhardt 1989, 538; Strauss and Corbin 1998; Dooley 2002). Each data collection method and its application to grounded theory research is described below. 87 Table 7: Data collection methods employed in this research (Table compiled by Rachel Berndtson; sources cited within table) 55 The data collection tools used can be found in Appendices A-D. Collection method55 Description Application in grounded theory Open Interviews Collection of a diverse set of meanings and experiences that help to explain complex behaviors (Dunn 2010). Open interviews are a recommended initial data collection procedure, because they allow the researcher to gain a wide-ranging understanding of the phenomenon by opening the floor for broad theories and concepts to emerge (Strauss and Corbin 1998). Structured phone interviews and semi-structured in-person interviews -Structured and semi- structured interviews are ?question-focused? methods of interviewing (Dunn 2010) -Benefits of phone interviews include: enhanced sample size, reduced interviewer effects (due to visual anonymity), enhanced convenience, and cost savings (Dunn 2010, McGuirk and O?Neill 2010). Questions become more specific as the theory building evolves. Once the central phenomenon is determined through relatively open questions, "there will be many more specific questions about the phenomenon and how it relates to events and happenings that are observed" (Strauss and Corbin 1998, 75). Surveys Present standardized, formally structured questions to a broader population to help collect data on individuals' behaviors, experiences, social interactions, attitudes and opinions (McGuirk and O?Neill 2010; McLafferty 2003 in McGuirk and O?Neill 2010, 192; Parfitt 2005 in McGuirk and O?Neill 2010, 192). -Surveys are influenced by concepts that emerged from prior qualitative research (Strauss and Corbin 1998). -?Once relevant concepts and hypotheses have emerged from and validated against the data, the researcher might turn to quantitative measures and analysis if this will enhance the research process? (Strauss and Corbin 1998, 34). Reviews: scholarly and grey literature -Scholarly literature reviews situate original research within a broader context to make external connections. Reviews can be done -Literature reviews are used to analyze the data in theoretical terms and stimulate thinking about empirical properties in order to ?differentiate and give specificity to the emergent 88 3.3.1. Open interviews From January 5, 2011 to July 13, 2011 the researcher conducted nine one-on-one, open interviews with several actors knowledgeable about Jewish farming movement in Baltimore. Eight out of the nine individuals were involved with the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore (either as employees, former employees, or participants), and one was not, but was well aware of the phenomenon. The purpose of collecting data through open interviews was to gain a wide-ranging understanding of the phenomenon by opening the floor for broad theories and concepts to emerge (Strauss and Corbin 1998). Interviews took place at a variety of locations in the Baltimore City and Baltimore County, and lasted 50 to 160 minutes. Rapport was upheld by requiring IRB-approved signed consent forms. Data were recorded through an audio-visual device and later transcribed into Word documents. Data were analyzed through the Atlas Ti coding program. Interviews consisted of open-ended questions asking about the purpose, history, systematically prior to research, although fieldwork can change emergent ideas and thus the relevance of pre-reviewed literature (Branley 2004). -Grey literature includes reports from non-official organizations, media, and internet resources (Branley 2004). concept? (Strauss and Corbin 1998, 49). -?Before beginning a project, a researcher can turn to the literature to formulate questions that act as a stepping off point during initial observations and interviews? (Strauss and Corbin 1998, 51). -Grey literature ?can be used to supplement interviews and observations. For example, much can be learned about an organization, its structure, and how it functions (which might not be immediately visible in observations or interviews) by studying reports, correspondence, and internal memos? (Strauss and Corbin 1998, 53). 89 diffusion, and influence of the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore. Interviews were conducted in an informal manner so the researcher could gain a wide-ranging understanding of the phenomenon (Strauss and Corbin 1998). Questions were preceded by a pre-interview survey to gain information on each interviewee. Data are stored on backed up computer files in the researcher?s home, locked office on a password protected computer. Interviewees? identities are protected through coded name changes. Interviewees were theoretically sampled based on their involvement in: the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore (history and method of participation), other Jewish institutions in Baltimore, and other Jewish environmental, food, and farming institutions elsewhere. Interviewees were also theoretically sampled based on how the Pearlstone Farm diffused to them (diffusion network, diffusion channel, and locality), and their demographic characteristics (age, sex, marital status, socioeconomic status, Jewish denomination, importance of being Jewish, pro-environmental lifestyle dedication). The stratification of open interviewees along these characteristics is displayed below. Table 8: Open interviewees? length of Pearlstone Farm participation (N = 9). Less than 1 year 3 1 - 2 years 1 2 - 3 years 2 3+ years 3 Table 9: Open interviewees? method of Pearlstone Farm participation (N = 9) Participant 3 Non-participant 1 Employee 4 Former employee 1 Table 10: Open interviewees? previous participation in other Jewish Baltimore institutions (N = 9) Yes 4 No 4 No data 1 90 Table 11: Open interviewees? previous participation in other Jewish environmental, food, or farming institutions (N = 9) Yes 5 No 4 Table 12: Open interviewees? network of Pearlstone Farm diffusion (N = 9) Professional 4 Personal 1 No data 4 Table 13: Open interviewees' channel of Pearlstone Farm diffusion (N = 9) Interpersonal 5 Media 0 No data 4 Table 14: Open interviewees' geographic location at time of Pearlstone Farm diffusion (N = 9) Local 4 Nonlocal 3 No data 2 Table 15: Open interviewees' age (N = 9) 18-34 4 35-54 2 55-74 1 No data 2 Table 16: Open interviewees? sex (N = 9) Male 3 Female 4 No data 2 Table 17: Open interviewees? marital status (N = 9) Single/never married 5 Married 3 No data 1 Table 18: Open interviewees? socioeconomic status (by pretaxed total household income in 2011) (N = 9) $49,999 or less 3 $50,000 - $99,999 2 $100,000 - $149,999 1 $150,000+ 1 No data 2 91 Table 19: Open interviewees' Jewish denomination (could select all that applied) (N = 9) Culturally Jewish 1 Nationally Jewish 1 Ethnically Jewish 1 Reconstructionist 1 Orthodox 1 Reform 1 Post-denominational 1 Just Jewish 1 Conservative 2 No data 2 Table 20: Open interviewees' importance of being Jewish prior to Pearlstone Farm participation (N = 9) Very 7 Somewhat 0 Not very/not at all 0 No data 2 Table 21: Open interviewees' dedication to living a pro-environmental lifestyle prior to Pearlstone Farm participation (N = 9) Very high - high 4 Moderate - low 3 Very low - none at all 0 No data 2 3.3.2. Structured phone interviews The researcher identified 93 institutions that participate in the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore. Institutional participation is defined as: any organized involvement at, with, or through the Pearlstone Farm, including educational, cultural, volunteer, fundraising, partnership, or advocacy events. "Organized" involvement refers to involvement that was previously planned between the participating institution and Pearlstone Farm staff. The 93 institutions were identified by scanning the grey literature and confirming results with research gatekeepers. From July 27, 2011 to April 26, 2012 the researcher conducted 30 structured phone interviews with representatives of these institutions. The purpose of collecting data through structured phone interviews was to 92 identify the ways in which a category varied across properties and dimensions, including the relationship between participant status (institutional versus individual) and diffusion properties, as well as the relationship between diffusion properties (networks, channels, geographic scale). Structured phone interviews consisted of questions regarding how and when the Jewish farming movement diffused to each institution. Rapport was upheld by requiring IRB-approved oral consent. Oral consent and data were collected over the phone and recorded in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. Data are stored on backed up computer files in the researcher?s home, locked office on a password protected computer. Structured phone interviewees? identities are protected through coded name changes. Structured phone interviewees were theoretically sampled based on their status as institutional Pearlstone Farm participants (as a basis of comparison with individual Pearlstone Farm participants), and also by their dimensional range across the following properties: diffusion network, diffusion channel, geographic extent. The stratification across these properties are displayed below. Table 22: Phone interviewees' network of Pearlstone Farm diffusion (N = 30) Professional 25 Personal 5 Table 23: Phone interviewees' channel of Pearlstone Farm diffusion (N = 30) Interpersonal 21 Media 7 Not sure 2 Table 24: Phone interviewees' geographic location (N = 30) Local 19 Nonlocal 11 3.3.3. Online surveys From August 8, 2011 to November 4, 2012, 147 individuals who participate in the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore took online surveys. Individual participation is 93 defined as: any organized or impromptu involvement at, with, or through the Pearlstone Farm, including educational, cultural, volunteer, fundraising, partnership, or advocacy events. Unlike institutions, individuals have more flexibility to participate at the Pearlstone Farm without having planned this participation in advance. The purpose of collecting data through online surveys was to identify the ways in which categories varied across properties and dimensions including the relationship between: participant demographic characteristics and self-perceived impacts, participant status (institutional versus individual) and diffusion properties, and diffusion properties themselves (networks, channels, geographic scale). Data collection through the online survey also enabled the researcher to explore the extent to which each individual impact was perceived to have occurred. Online surveys sought information on participant demographics, methods and history of Pearlstone Farm participation, how the Pearlstone Farm diffused to participants, and participants' perceptions of impacts of their Pearlstone Farm involvement on their own Jewish identities and pro-environmental lifestyles. Rapport was upheld by requiring electronic signatures on IRB-approved consent forms. Data are stored on backed up computer files in the researcher?s home, locked office on a password protected computer. Online survey takers? identities are unknown. Survey takers were theoretically sampled based on their status as individual Pearlstone Farm participants (as a basis of comparison with institutional Pearlstone Farm participants). Survey responses capture a dimensional range of demographic properties (including: age, sex, marital status, socioeconomic status, religion, Jewish denomination, Jewish formal affiliation, self-perceived level of importance of being Jewish, self-perceived level of dedication to living a pro-environmental lifestyle), as well as diffusion properties 94 (including: network, channel, and geographic extent). The stratification of survey takers along these properties is displayed below. Table 25: Online survey takers? age (N = 147) 18-34 90 35-54 26 55-74 30 74+ 1 Table 26: Online survey takers? sex (N = 147) Male 51 Female 96 Table 27: Online survey takers? marital status (N = 147) Single/never married 72 Married 61 Widowed, divorced, partnered 11 No data 3 Table 28: Online survey takers? socioeconomic status (by pretaxed total household income) (N = 147) $49,999 or less 55 $50,000 - $99,999 35 $100,000 - $149,999 15 $150,000+ 28 No data 14 Table 29: Online survey takers' Jewish denomination56 (N = 147) Nondenominational only, or non-denominational and one traditional denomination 49 Reform/Reconstructionist 26 Conservative 34 Orthodox 21 Not Jewish 14 No data 3 56 The "nondenominational" label includes those who identified as one of the following options: Just Jewish, post-denominational Jew, secular, ethnically Jewish, nationally Jewish, culturally Jewish, humanistic, non-practicing Jew; the "orthodox" label includes those who identified as one of the following options: Orthodox, Hasidic/Lubavitch/Satmar, Haredi (Ultra-Orthodox). The ?Not Jewish? label includes those who identified as one of the following options: Other religion, No religion/None/Nothing Jewish. 95 Table 30: Online survey takers' Jewish formal affiliation (JCC and/or synagogue member) (N = 147) Affiliated 82 Not affiliated 61 No data 4 Table 31: Online survey takers' importance of being Jewish prior to Pearlstone Farm participation (N = 147) Very 104 Somewhat 30 Not very/not at all 12 No data 1 Table 32: Online survey takers' dedication to living a pro-environmental lifestyle prior to Pearlstone Farm participation (N = 147) Very high - high 55 Moderate - low 83 Very low - none at all 9 Table 33: Online survey takers' network of Pearlstone Farm diffusion (N = 147) Professional Jewish network 66 Personal Jewish network 56 Professional non-Jewish network 3 Personal non-Jewish network 4 Non-Jewish network, don?t know professional or personal 2 Jewish network, don?t know professional or personal 9 No data 7 Table 34: Online survey takers' channel of Pearlstone Farm diffusion (N = 147) Interpersonal 115 Media 27 No data 5 Table 35: Online survey takers? geographic location (N = 147) Local 105 Nonlocal 34 No data 8 3.3.4. Semi-structured interviews From June 22, 2012 to November 30, 2012 the researcher conducted four one-on- one, semi-structured interviews with individuals representing non-JFM community gardens and farms in Baltimore City, Maryland. Three of these are faith-based (but not 96 Jewish), and the fourth is non-faith-based. The purpose of collecting data through semi- structured interviews was to make theoretical comparisons (through the systematic comparison technique) between the Pearlstone Farm and similar cases to raise the researcher's sensitivity about the properties defining the developing theory, and to create boundaries for the developing theory (Seale 2004; Strauss and Corbin 1998; Shah and Corley 2006; Eisenhardt and Graebner 2007; Kolb 2012). Semi-structured interviewees were theoretically sampled based on their status as nonprofit community gardens and farms in Baltimore City, or Baltimore County, Maryland. The additional sampling property of ?faith-based? was applied to those three sites. The researcher used Google searches to identify each of the four Baltimore City community gardens and farms for comparison. Three secular sites and eight faith-based sites were contacted by phone and/or email (when no phone number was available). Out of the three secular sites one responded and two did not return voicemails or emails. Out of the eight faith-based sites three responded, one closed its garden permanently, two did not return voicemails or emails, and two returned initial voicemails or emails but did not return follow up communication. The four interviews took place at each organization's garden or farm, and lasted between 60 and 120 minutes. Rapport was upheld by requiring signatures on IRB- approved consent forms. Data were recorded using an audio-visual device and were later transcribed into Word documents. Data were analyzed through the Atlas Ti coding program. Interviews consisted of structured questions regarding the purpose, history, diffusion, and influence of the each organization's community garden or farm. Data are stored on backed up computer files in the researcher?s home, locked office on a password 97 protected computer. Interviewees? identities are protected through coded name changes. The following descriptions provide a brief overview of each comparison case: Site A: Site A is a community farm run through a non-faith-based (secular) nonprofit organization. This five-plus acre-farm is located on Baltimore City property and serves several neighborhoods and public schools in the surrounding area. This community farm is located in a zip code with a $34,499 median household income (based on the American Community Survey five year, 2007 ? 2011 estimates). Site A is a fully operational farm with vegetable production, a CSA, farmers markets, and several hoop houses. This farm offers structured programming for participants, including: agricultural and environmental education, nutrition and cooking classes, agricultural skill training workshops, public school internships and field trips, volunteer days, and community celebrations. Site B: Site B is a community garden run through a Baptist church. The garden is less than ? acre and is located on church property. This community garden is located in a zip code with a $63,931 median household income (based on the American Community Survey five year, 2007 ? 2011 estimates). The garden produces vegetables that are donated to area food shelters and are available for church members to harvest and enjoy. Site B does not offer structured programming outside its informal use by the church?s Sunday school. Site C: Site C is a community garden run through a non-sectarian church. The garden is on roughly ? an acre and is located on church property. This community garden is located in a zip code with a $70,957 median household income (based on the American Community Survey five year, 2007 ? 2011 estimates). Site C is a meditation 98 garden with a diversity of bushes, shrubs, flowers, and trees, and does not produce food. Similarly to Site B, this community garden does not offer structured programming outside its informal use by the church?s Sunday school. Site D: Site D is a community garden run through a nonprofit interfaith organization. The garden is between ? and ? acres and is located on the grounds of a Catholic church. This community garden is located in a zip code with a $47,472 median household income (based on the American Community Survey five year, 2007 ? 2011 estimates). Site D is a meditation garden with a diversity of plants, flower, and trees. The garden offers structured programming for participants, including: cultural festivals, movie nights, storytelling, flea markets, and field trips, but is also used by individuals outside these structured events. 3.3.5. Reviews: scholarly literature and grey literature The researcher reviewed scholarly and grey literature as a basis of systematic comparison between the emerging grounded theory and other, similar phenomena. Grey literature on the Jewish farming movement, the Associated, the Pearlstone Farm, and Pearlstone Farm's institutional partners was selected through discriminate theoretical sampling in order to saturate information on specific categories, properties, and dimensions. Grey and scholarly literature was also collected on other, similar community gardens and farms in the United States as a mechanism of systematic comparison. The community gardens and farms from the grey literature used for comparison come from three sources: the USDA's People's Garden initiative, the Baltimore Green Space (BGS) land trust, and the Farm Alliance of Baltimore City. The community gardens and farms from these sources are comparable to the Pearlstone Farm in either their faith-based 99 nature (People?s Garden sites), or in their geographic location in Baltimore City and/or County (BGS, Farm Alliance). These three sources offered a systematic way to locate and analyze comparison community gardens and farms. The websites of all three sources provide background information on the community gardens and farms they support, such as the sites' geographic locations and names. The USDA's People's Garden is an initiative that began in 2009 to establish community gardens in the United States in order to empower local groups to address community issues, including hunger and the environment. A map on the People's Garden website (http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=PEOPLES_GARDEN) provides the names and addresses of all its community gardens. In order to narrow down the list of People's Gardens from a total of 1,918, the researcher only analyzed gardens at "faith-based centers," which include churches, community centers, and other places of worship. There are 57 faith-based People's Gardens in the United States and its territories. Baltimore Green Space (http://baltimoregreenspace.org/) is a Baltimore City land trust that purchases community gardens, pocket parks, and other open, green spaces that are locally established and maintained. The community gardens within the BGS are meant to socially, economically, and environmentally benefit local neighborhoods. Upon request, a BGS staff member provided the researcher with a dataset of the trust's community gardens (N = 68). Information on this list relevant to this research includes garden names, approximate addresses, and motivations to begin. The Farm Alliance of Baltimore City is a network of urban farms that work to improve food access, and operate by socially, economically, and environmentally just practices. The Alliance includes six operational community farms and gardens that are 100 not duplicated from the BGS list (a seventh Farm Alliance farm is also on the BGS list). The Farm Alliance website (http://www.farmalliancebaltimore.org/) provides the name, location, website, Facebook page, and brief description of each site. Between the People's Garden, BGS, and the Farm Alliance, the original list of community farms and gardens for the grey literature content analysis included 131 sites. However, an operational website or Facebook page, or accessible online media articles were necessary in order to analyze each site's grey literature. Online grey literature was located through Google and Facebook searches. Out of 131 original sites, 73 had online grey literature. Therefore, most of the content analysis was limited to these 73 sites. However, the BGS dataset provided additional details about its several of its community gardens? motivations to begin, regardless of whether those gardens had online grey literature available. The BGS list provided "motivation" data on an additional seven community gardens that do not have online grey literature. Therefore, the number of comparison sites from the grey literature varies, depending on the property and dimension of comparison. The table below displays the number of comparison sites used in this analysis. Table 36: Sites from grey literature used for content analysis Original # of sites # of sites with online grey literature (or BGS Excel sheet for motivation data) Baltimore Green Space 68 32 (7) The Farm Alliance 6 6 USDA People?s Garden 57 35 Total 131 73 (7) 101 3.4. Data analysis procedures In grounded theory, data analysis occurs through a series of coding techniques that Strauss and Corbin describe as ?open,? ?axial,? and ?selective? coding (1998). Each step of coding involves conceptualizing empirical data into abstract categories to make sense of the phenomenon occurring. General concepts are abstracted from the empirical data, clustered into larger descriptive categories, evaluated for interrelationships, and finally combined into one emergent ?substantive-level? theory (Strauss and Corbin 1998; Goulding 2001; Seale 2004; Creswell 2007). Open coding begins with a ?line by line? content analysis in which the researcher reads data transcriptions and highlights recurring concepts and key words (Strauss and Corbin 1998; Goulding 2001). Once concepts ?begin to accumulate? the researcher groups them into more abstract explanatory terms, called ?categories? (Strauss and Corbin 1998, 114). Categories, as described by Strauss and Corbin, are concepts derived from data that explain the phenomenon. (1998). Categories are constructed in terms of their ?properties? and ?dimensions," which are the characteristics of a category that define the category and give it meaning (properties), and the range by which properties (dimensions) (Strauss and Corbin 1998). Categories are then deconstructed based on the variation of their properties and dimensions to create ?subcategories? explaining the phenomenon. In this research, open interviews were the first method of data collection. Open interviews were transcribed and coded using manifest57 and latent58 content analysis. This open coding process led to the creation of 88 initial concepts describing the 57Manifest content analysis (in vivo coding) involves recording themes, phrases or words appearing at the surface of the data (Creswell 2007; Cope 2010; Dunn 2010). 58Latent content analysis involves searching through data for unarticulated but reappearing themes (Dunn 2010). 102 phenomenon. The incidents were given conceptual labels that represent the context under which the concept is abstracted (Strauss and Corbin 1998). The 88 initial concepts were grouped to form larger ?major categories? to describe diffusion of the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore. This process resulted in the creation of three major categories including: (1) ?establishment supported by Jewish institutions,? (2) ?diffusion pathways,? and (3) ?adoption by participants.? Open coding shifts to axial coding as major categories are further developed based on their properties and dimensions. Open and axial coding do not occur sequentially, but rather they ?proceed quite naturally together? (Strauss and Corbin 1998, 136). Although axial coding requires the researcher to have developed some categories during open coding, ?often a sense of how categories relate begins to emerge during open coding? (Strauss and Corbin 1998, 124). Axial coding is the process of relating the categories to the subcategories at the dimensional level. Categories are related to subcategories through statements explaining the relationships, or ?relational statements.? Relational statements are not necessarily in hypothesis or proposition form, but rather, ?they tend to be woven innocuously into the narrative? (Strauss and Corbin 1998, 145). Relational statements are later used as regularities to form the final theory. According to Strauss and Corbin, when creating relational statements, it is important to note that: ?There are multiple factors operating in various combinations to create a context?.that makes it more likely [that a certain outcome will take place]?. Identifying, sifting through and sorting through all the possible factors showing the nature of the relationships does not result in a simple, 'if?then' statement. The result is much more likely to be a discussion that takes readers along a complex path of interrelationships, each in its own patterned way, that explains what is going on? (1998, 130). 103 The relational statements in this research reflect a narrative structure and are described in detail under each subcategory in the Chapter Four. Empirical findings that contradict the hypotheses made through relational statements are either true contradictions (if other cases are present) or extreme variations (Strauss and Corbin 1998). Lastly, selective coding involves integrating and refining the theory by organizing all major categories around one or several core categories, and explaining these relationships through a new and final theory (Strauss and Corbin 1998). The core categories may be one of the major categories or newly created categories to encompass the other major categories. In this study, selective coding led to the creation of three core categories: ?Jewish cultural sustainability,? "environmental sustainability," and ?Jewish community.? The final theory has no ?strict formula? in its presentation. It may be a ?well codified set of propositions, or it may consist of running theoretical discussion using conceptual categories and their properties? (Glaser and Strauss 1967 in Goulding 2001, 29). The final product may be a descriptive narrative or in diagram format (Strauss and Corbin 1998), and in this research appears as both. The coding process continues for each major category until the category is ?saturated,? or ?when no new information seems to emerge during coding, that is, when no new properties, dimensions, conditions, actions/interactions or consequences are seen in the data? (Strauss and Corbin 1998, 136). 3.5. Checking research reliability and validity Grounded theorists do not check the research reliability and validity based on the ?usual scientific canons? of significance, generalizability, consistency, reproducibility, and verification (Gortner and Schultz 1988 in Strauss and Corbin 1998, 266) due to ?the complexities of the social phenomena that [grounded theorists] seek to understand? 104 (Strauss and Corbin 1998, 266). The theory developed through the methodology is a "substantive level" rather than "general" theory (Strauss and Corbin 1998). Whereas a general theory can be applied broadly, a substantive level theory is developed around a specific, small area and population, and builds "explanatory power" to create a "predictive ability" to explain given situations that arise around certain phenomena (Strauss and Corbin 1998, 267). Because reproducibility is not a canon for qualitative research, research reliability is checked against a series of criteria that indicate the analytical logic of the research process and relationship among the concepts (Strauss and Corbin 1998; Creswell 2007). According to qualitative researchers Yvonna Lincoln and Egon Guba, qualitative research cannot be evaluated on positivistic criteria, because a positivistic worldview is incommensurable with an interpretive59 worldview (used in this research), which carries different assumptions about the nature of reality (2000 in Gasson 2004, 89). This research applies Strauss and Corbin?s seven criteria for quality checking in grounded theory research (1998), described below. Table 37: Criteria for quality checking and application to this research Criterion description (Strauss and Corbin 1998) Application in this research How is the original sample selected? On what grounds? The original sample was selected based on the researcher?s access to individuals and available resources, because no theory yet existed from which to guide sampling (Strauss and Corbin 1998). In the case of this research, the original sample includes the researcher?s prior contacts at the Pearlstone Farm. What major categories emerged? Three major categories emerged during the open coding process. The major categories emerged as a result of the accumulation of initial concepts from the empirical data that explain the larger processes 59An interpretive worldview understands the world as subjective, reality as socially-constructed (Lincoln and Guba 2000 in Gasson 2004, 87) and observable phenomena as ?only meaningful in terms of individual experience and interpretation? (Gasson 2004, 87). 105 occurring (Strauss and Corbin 1998). What were some of the events, incidents, or actions (indicators) that pointed to some of these major categories? The events, incidents, and actions pointing to the major categories were discovered through the axial coding process, in which major categories are deconstructed based on their properties and dimensions (Strauss and Corbin 1998). The variation of properties and dimensions led to the creation of subcategories. In this research, subcategories are labeled and described in Chapter Four under each major category. Subcategories are then related to major categories through the development of relational statements (Strauss and Corbin 1998). The relational statements in this research are ?woven innocuously into the narrative? (Strauss and Corbin 1998, 145), under each major category in Chapter Four. On the basis of what categories did theoretical sampling proceed? That is, how did theoretical formulations guide some of the data collection? After the theoretical sampling was done, how representative of the data did the categories prove to be? The categories for theoretical sampling are selected based on their ability to ?maximize the opportunities to compare events, incidents, or happenings to determine how a category varies in terms of its properties and dimensions. The researcher is sampling along the lines of properties and dimensions, varying the conditions? (Strauss and Corbin 1998, 202). The properties selected for theoretical sampling in this research are labeled as such in Chapter Four under each major category, as well as in Chapter Three under the description of each data collection method. Incoming data not representative of categories are identified as such in Chapters Four and Five. What were some of the hypotheses pertaining to conceptual relations (i.e. among categories), and on what grounded were they formulated and validated? A constant comparison method was employed to form and test hypotheses, and ensure they pertain to conceptual relations. Hypotheses (or "how concepts relate" (Strauss and Corbin 1998, 135)) are formed from patterns that emerge from the empirical data. These patterns are constantly compared to more recently gathered empirical data to confirm the consistency of the abstraction or note a contradiction (Strauss and Corbin 1998). Hypotheses are tested based on their level of theoretical saturation or the point at which each major category is ?well developed? in terms of its properties, dimensions, the variation amongst them, and the relationships amongst the categories are well established and validated (Glaser and Strauss 1967 in Strauss and Corbin 1998, 212; Seale 2004; Goulding 2005; Shah and Corley 2006; Weed 2009; Gasson and Waters 2011). 106 Were there instances in which hypotheses did not explain what was happening in the data? How were these discrepancies accounted for? Were hypotheses modified? Instances not aligned with hypotheses were represented as true contradictions or extreme variations in developing theory (Strauss and Corbin 1998). Discrepancies are accounted for in Chapters Four and Five of this research, hypotheses were modified accordingly. How and why was the core category selected? Was this collection sudden or gradual, and was it difficult or easy? On what grounds were the final analytic decisions made? The core categories were selected for centrality, frequency, and consistency of relations to other categories (Strauss and Corbin 1998). Relationships between core categories and major categories are explained in Chapter Four under each major category, and the theoretical model. Core categories emerged towards the end of the research process. In order to validate findings, this research uses triangulation, consensual validation, clarification of research bias and qualitative research limitations, and rich, thick data descriptions. These validations strategies are described below. Table 38: Validation strategies and application to this research (table compiled by Rachel Berndtson; sources cited within table) Method description Application Triangulation Improves the validity and reliability of critical realist approaches; ensures rigor through multiple and various sources and methods to compile evidence (Yeung 1997; Lincoln and Guba 1985 in Creswell 2007, 204; Creswell 2007; Bradshaw and Stratford 2010). Data collection through several sources and methods. Consensual validation/ peer review Validation through the opinions of others for an agreement on interpretations and descriptions of data (Eisner 1991 in Creswell 2007, 204; Creswell and Miller 2000 in Creswell 2007, 207-208). Results checked with committee and gatekeepers60. Clarification of research bias and limitations Foundation of qualitative research and imperative to a critical realist approach (Creswell and Miller 2000 in Creswell 2007, 207). Personal bias and research limitations are clearly stated. Rich, thick data description Enables the transferability of data to analysis (Creswell and Miller 2000 in Creswell 2007, 207; Geertz 1973 in Mansvelt and Berg 2010, 349). In depth accounts of data collection and analysis. 60 Data collection and analysis were posted on a Facebook page, with core/gatekeeper research participants invited to this page and encouraged to provide feedback through consensual validation and peer review. Additionally, the researcher had several in-person and email exchanges with gatekeepers to validate results. 107 108 4. Chapter 4: Development of categories This chapter presents the results of open, axial, and selective coding. Coding resulted in the construction of major, sub, and core categories, which are the foundation for the final grounded theory. Open coding resulted in the construction of three major categories, including: (1) establishment supported by Jewish institutions, (2) diffusion pathways, and (3) adoption by participants. Axial coding led to the development of several subcategories (representing the dimensional range of each major category) deconstructed from each major category. In this chapter, the analysis under each subcategory accounts for the relational statement between that subcategory and its corresponding major category. Relational statements form regularities for the final theory. The diagrams below display the major categories and their relation to each subcategory based on the dimensional range of the properties defining the major category. Figure 8: Properties and subcategories of major category #1 109 Figure 9: Properties and subcategories of major category #2 Figure 10: Properties and subcategories of major category #3 110 Selective coding resulted in the development of the core categories and the final theory. The core categories are the central principles of the theory, and relate to each major category. The core categories for this grounded theory are: (1) Jewish community, (2) Jewish cultural sustainability, and (3) environmental sustainability. These core categories are briefly described below. Jewish community is both a prerequisite to and result of the socially created spaces of the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore. As identified in the literature above, community is often a means and an end to small scale environmental and agricultural initiatives. Religious communities and nonprofit organizations enable diffusion and mobilization given their preexisting infrastructure, and extensive access to resources (cultural, human, financial), and social networks. The Jewish community of Baltimore and the Jewish environmental, food, and farming community are sources for these resources in establishing and diffusing the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore. The Jewish farming movement in Baltimore is also a social space producing a new Jewish community, based on a common interest in the environment and sustainable agriculture. This consequential Jewish community spans denominational boundaries and includes members of the Jewish population who are traditionally underrepresented in Jewish communal life. Jewish cultural sustainability is a second core category defining this grounded theory. Cultural sustainability is a cultural group or an individual's attempt to maintain cultural distinction amongst an open and liberal democratic society. As reviewed in the literature, since the European Enlightenment, Jews have been increasingly incorporated (politically, economically and socially) into the majority societies in which they live, and 111 have had two options to retain ethnic distinction: recreate social and physical boundaries between Jews and outside groups, or choose separate Jewish and non-Jewish areas of life. The vast majority of American Jews have adopted the latter, which has included involvement in Jewish organizations. However, the organizations once acting as spaces for Jewish cultural sustainability have today declined in membership and popularity. For many American Jews, Jewish life has become increasingly about the individual and his/her interests (as explained through the "sovereign self"). The Jewish farming movement in Baltimore offers nontraditional spaces for Jewish cultural connection based on personal interests in the environment and sustainable agriculture. The final core category defining this grounded theory is environmental sustainability. Environmental sustainability is defined here after the United Nation's World Commission on the Environment and Development, or the Bruntland Report: "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs'' (WECD 1987). As reviewed in the literature, action towards environmental sustainability as enacted by policymakers often fails to address individual-level barriers to living "green." Community-based organizations have the ability to ease some of the barriers to pro-environmental living. The Jewish farming movement in Baltimore operates through community-based organizations (the Pearlstone Farm and other Baltimore Jewish institutions) that break many external and internal barriers to living an environmentally sustainable lifestyle. The final grounded theory from this research is constructed from the major, sub, and core categories. The Jewish farming movement in Baltimore is a space that is the result of social processes, and also resulted in new social processes, all of which are embedded in 112 the three core categories of Jewish community, Jewish cultural sustainability, and environmental sustainability. Therefore, this social space (like all space) is both the result of and the precondition to the production of society (Lefebvre 1991). The core, major, and subcategories are the elements explaining the JFM in Baltimore as a socially produced space. In explaining these regularities, the researcher is moving beyond the idea of space as an all-encompassing object, and adopts Tim Unwin's suggestion that geographers "need not just to refer to the production of space, but rather to the processes by which specific experienced phenomena are produced in particular spatio-temporal contexts" (1992, 204). In grounded theory research, the final theory does not adhere to a ?strict formula,? and may be a descriptive narrative or in diagram format (Strauss and Corbin 1998). This research presents the final theory in both formats. The model below presents the theory in a diagram format, and the analysis under each major category in this chapter presents the theory in a narrative format. Chapter Five uses the theory developed in this chapter to answer this study?s nine research questions. 113 Figure 11: Theoretical diagram key 114 Figure 12: Theoretical diagram of the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore 115 The remainder of this chapter is structured around the three major categories. Each major category is deconstructed based on its dimensional range in the form of subcategories, which are used as relational statements in the final theory. 4.1. Major category #1: establishment supported by Jewish institutions Major category #1 was saturated using open interviews, grey and scholarly literature reviews, and structured interviews. Open theoretical sampling initially took place through the researcher?s prior contacts with those involved in the Jewish movement in Baltimore. Following Strauss and Corbin?s suggestion, the initial interviewees were selected based on the researcher?s access to individuals and available resources, because no theory yet existed from which to guide sampling (1998). After rudimentary properties and dimensions were identified, the researcher moved to relational/variational theoretical sampling, intentionally selecting additional interviewees who varied dimensionally based on their involvement in: the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore, other Jewish organizations in Baltimore, and other Jewish environmental, food, and farming organizations elsewhere. To fully saturate the first major category, the researcher used discriminate theoretical sampling by systematically comparing the emerging theory with concepts from the grey and scholarly literature, as well as with data from structured interviewees from other, similar movements in Baltimore. The literature reviews and structured interviews were used to raise sensitivity about the properties defining the developing theory. Once sensitive to these properties, theoretical saturation was reached by filling in underdeveloped categories through "review of memos or raw data, looking for data that might have been overlooked" (Strauss and Corbin 1998, 158). The diagram below shows the theoretical sampling for major category #1. 116 Figure 13: Theoretical sampling for major category #1 117 Major category #1 is embedded in all core categories. The Pearlstone Farm was created amidst contexts of Jewish cultural sustainability and environmental sustainability, and its programs seek to enhance both. Additionally, Jewish communities played significant roles in the creation of the Pearlstone Farm, by providing resources and support. The figures below display the properties and subcategories of major category #1, as well as its contribution to the final theory. Figure 14: Properties and subcategories of major category #1 118 Figure 15: Major category #1 in the final theory 4.1.1. Property: reason for creation A Jewish educational farm was created in Reisterstown, Maryland amidst two larger contexts: Jewish social change and increased environmental awareness. Out of these contexts came goals of enabling both Jewish cultural and environmental sustainability. An interviewee describes the duality of the Pearlstone Farm's sustainability goals in saying: "This idea of sustainability doesn?t mean the very survival of the [Pearlstone61] Farm, but what survival means in general within the Jewish community. So now the Farm has become a role model for greater sustainability and sustainability in the Jewish community as well" (Interviewee #8, 2011). 61 Until November 2012, the Pearlstone Farm was called the ?Kayam Farm.? In 2012, the Pearlstone Center's strategic planning led to a closer alignment of the Farm to the Center, and, "we dropped the 'Kayam Farm' name and became a more holistic entity known as the Pearlstone Center" (Our Story Continued Pearlstone Center 2013). Many of the interviews for this research were conducted prior to November 2012, and therefore interviewees referred to the Pearlstone Farm as the ?Kayam Farm,? or ?Kayam.? The researcher changed the terminology by replacing ?Kayam? with ?Pearlstone? in this and several quotes throughout the remainder of the dissertation. 119 These two separate, but influential, contexts surrounding the establishment of the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore are iterated through subcategories 1.1 and 1.2 below. 4.1.1.1. Subcategory 1.1: period of Jewish social change The American Jewish community is changing. Jews, like other religious groups in America, are using new mechanisms to find meaning that are based on personal interpretations and take place in nontraditional spaces. The Jewish farming movement creates new spaces for a new "way to be Jewish" based on interest in the environment and agriculture. Interviewees in this research describe this new social context as an influential factor in bringing the Jewish farming movement to Baltimore. As an interviewee explains: ?Being a Conservative, Orthodox, Reform Jew is not as meaningful for people today as it used to be, and the lines are extremely blurred between what people are and what they do. Being Jewish today is a voluntary choice, and we need to provide Jews with a choice of being Jewish a way they want to be Jewish. The Jewish people will not look the same as they did 50 years ago. It?s a changing group? (Interviewee #1, 2011). The ?way" many Jews want to be Jewish is changing from membership in traditional organizations to new methods of participation in non-traditional spaces. An interviewee contrasted the new "way to be Jewish" through the Pearlstone Farm with traditional forms explaining that on the Farm, "You?re not sitting in a synagogue and looking at a Torah scroll? (Interviewee #4, 2011). Other interviewees describe the new Jewish social context responsible for the Pearlstone Farm?s establishment: ?Jewish institutional communal life is not what it was 20, 30, 40 years ago, and in many ways is struggling ?Jewish engagement in institutional Jewish communal life is dropping. So there?s a question of, ?why? What?s not being?what?s not being fulfilled that is causing people to engage less and less?? ?What are people looking for?? And ?how do we provide a Judaism that does speak to people and keeps people engaged and engages more people??? (Interviewee #5, 2011). 120 ?The synagogue and other Jewish institutions no longer are able to give people, especially young people, this connection they desire? (Interviewee #1, 2011). Interviewees describe the Jewish farming movement as a way to satisfy those changing needs and wants in Jewish communal engagement. To many who are dissatisfied with the status quo, the Pearlstone Farm is a space that provides ?something that is engaging people who don?t belong to a synagogue, who don?t care what denomination they?re in or way to pray -- this is a living, breathing kind of Judaism? (Interviewee #2, 2011). Like many programs that attract an individualized, 21st century population, the Pearlstone Farm is not based off organizational membership. Rather than belonging to an organization to be considered ?Jewishly involved,? the Farm uses a universal concept, sustainable agriculture, and applies it in a ?Jewish way? through educational programming with fewer long term financial and social commitments than traditional mechanisms of Jewish engagement (Interviewee #4, 2011). An interviewee explains, ?It?s very much like a D.I.Y. Jewishness? (Interviewee #4, 2011). The Jewish farming movement is a space that provides many Jews who were previously uninvolved in Jewish communal life with a new ?way to be Jewish? (Interviewee #5, 2011). 4.1.1.2. Subcategory 1.2: period of increased environmental awareness The establishment of the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore was also influenced by the larger secular environmental and sustainable agriculture movements in the United States. Industrial agriculture has reached a point of environmental crisis, and environmental and agricultural issues are increasingly addressed by community-level actors in addition to those at larger scales. Interviewees were quick to acknowledge the larger, secular environmental movement's influence on the creation of the Pearlstone Farm. When explaining why the Farm was created, an interviewee emphasizes, ?I really don?t want to discount society as a whole. All the issues in terms of living greener and eating healthier have been a trend for the past 15-20 121 years, and how much is it society in general and Jews are just a part of that?? (Interviewee #1, 2011). A second interviewee makes a similar claim: ?As [the environmental] movement grows secularly, naturally more Jews as members of secular society become interested in those issues? (Interviewee #3, 2011). Several other interviewees emphasize the larger environmental and sustainable agriculture movements' influence on the creation of the Pearlstone Farm: ?We can?t ignore the fact that a whole segment of our society are moving back to farms. [The Jewish farming movement] is a desire for something authentic and real and part of the movement towards greening and the green movement. And I think Judaism is laid on top of that looking for these connections? (Interviewee #1, 2011). ?Food and health were starting to become popular culture. Subsets of environmental, but aside from the environmental, people who care about health and are neurotic about food and stuff, tapping into that stream and culture" (Interviewee #2, 2011). "And a lot of this stuff is pervasive anyways in mainstream culture, with lots of different farmers markets happening, and people talking about sustainability and agriculture all the time" (Interviewee #4, 2011). "My guess is that [the Jewish farming movement] would have to do with a yearning for a certain reconnection to land-based values and an investigation of food values and food systems. And an awareness that being in this country as a whole, food is a social issue in addition to being an ecological issue. And I think that Jews in general tend to be at the forefront of social issues. And so I guess it makes sense that the two would come together and happening through a Jewish lens" (Interviewee #3, 2011). "And then, so, the food movement, and specifically the Jewish food movement, I think is something that came out of that [secular] awareness in large part" (Interviewee #5, 2011). The larger environmental movement is "working its way" across Jewish organizations through the Jewish environmental, food, and farming movements. 122 4.1.2. Property: new programming The production of the Pearlstone Farm as a new space has involved the creation of new Jewish and environmental programming. The Jewish farming movement is primarily educational in its purpose. According to an interviewee, "You could almost call it the ?Jewish educational farming movement.? The non- contemporary Jewish farming movements have been Jewish farmers: Jews, who farm. I think this movement is definitely educational in its impact" (Interviewee #2, 2011, emphasis on original). As a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization (according to the IRS tax code) the Pearlstone Center has a religious and educational mission. As a program of that nonprofit organization, the Pearlstone Farm offers experiential programming for Jewish and environmental education. The Pearlstone Farm's new programming falls under the core category of "sustainability," as it provides a source for Jewish cultural sustainability and environmental sustainability. The vast majority of Pearlstone Farm programming is structured and educational. Students of all ages come out and enjoy the land and learn in an agricultural setting. Pearlstone Farm programming is categorized in this research as traditionally environmental/agricultural programming reinterpreted and reapplied through a Jewish lens, and traditionally Jewish programming reinterpreted and reapplied through an environmental/agricultural lens. Both approaches seek to enhance relevancy and meaning for program participants. The Farm's environmental/agricultural programming framed through a Jewish lens seeks to increase the relevancy of the environment and sustainable agriculture for participants whose Judaism informs aspects of the secular world, or who wish to engage with the environment in a Jewish social space. The Farm's Jewish programming framed through an environmental/agricultural lens seeks to add to the relevancy of Jewish culture and religion for those who find the environment and agriculture personally meaningful, or who wish to engage in Jewish community through an 123 outdoor space. An interviewee emphasizes the Farm?s relevancy for different audiences by explaining that programming is "tailored to meet the needs of specific congregations and organizations, so there?s a lot of relevancy. So the program is geared to be relevant to that group, which shows you don?t have to be of a certain persuasion or of a certain group or live in a certain place to have it meaningful? (Interviewee #8, 2011). A second interviewee describes a specific case to highlight the Farm?s adaptation to different audiences in order to be relevant: ?So, on the one side, we get Orthodox schools and participants that come out here because maybe they?ve been studying the Talmud?s agricultural laws. And they want to come out and see what that actually looks like on a farm. And maybe these students don?t have such a relationship with land and nature and we?re giving them a hands on experience and getting them excited about that and getting them engaged with that. And then from the flip side of that, there are let?s say a group of Reform kids, who have maybe heard of the Talmud, right? They come out here because they?re excited about this Jewish environmental farm experience. So they come out here because that?s what excites them. And maybe we?re looking at [the law of] peah. So here we have this law in the Torah saying you have to set this corner of your field for the poor to come harvest. So that?s a great lesson plan, because it demonstrates that the Talmud is a really important and a needed complement to the Torah. So not only in Reform, but on that general side. That that level of Jewish study and texts just doesn?t happen, but we get to expose them to the Talmud" (Interviewee #5, 2011, emphasis on original). Pearlstone Farm programming offers relevant connections to Judaism and the environment for participants from different backgrounds. The Farm provides new spaces for Jewish education and community through experiential programming shaped by the environment and agriculture, as well as spaces for environmental education structured around a meaningful cultural template. 4.1.2.1. Subcategory 1.3: traditionally environmental/agricultural programming through a Jewish lens The Pearlstone Farm uses Jewish texts to inform and interpret perspectives on agriculture and the environment. Environmental topics for interpretation include (but are not limited to) justice, diversity, efficiency, botany, population, hydrological cycles, wilderness, plant 124 domestication, consumption choices, ecology, environmentalism, and urban sustainability (Community Education, Pearlstone Center 2013). For example, in a Pearlstone Farm lesson plan entitled "Mashiv HaRuach U'Morid HaGashem," or "Who Makes the Wind Blow and the Rain Fall," "Participants explore water and the water cycle, and how people and plants fit in. They experience water in various physical states of matter and learn the Jewish relationship to water and rain" (Chai Ve'Kayam Curriculum 2011, 35). Jewish primary texts and concepts frame educational content offered through the Farm's daylong field trips and more intensive programs. Long terms programs include the annual Beit Midrash conference, through which participants use Jewish primary texts to learn about and discuss what Judaism says about the environment, social justice, and agriculture. Examples of conference sessions from the 2012 Beit Midrash include, "The Garden of Eden, Agricultural Revolution, and the Messianic Ideal," and "Kilayim and Permaculture: Compliments or Counterparts?" The Beit Midrash is a national event that has increasingly grown since its inception in 2009, and is now a 3-5 day affair with 200+ participants. The Farm's Summer Kollel is a second more intensive program using Jewish primary texts to interpret environmental concepts. The Kollel is a summer long immersive program in which participants from different ages, educational backgrounds, and Jewish denominations study issues of food justice, food systems, and agriculture based on lessons from field-experts and religious texts. A Jewish interpretation of the environment and agriculture is also applied to the structure of the Pearlstone Farm, thus creating a Jewish cultural landscape. For example, the Farm physically implements the Talmudic law of kilayim (which prohibits the mixing of certain species) by restricting certain crops from being planted within a given distance of others. Other Jewish cultural influences on the Farm's landscape come through linguistic, structural, and social 125 features. For example, Hebrew language and biblical references are apparent throughout the landscape, including plots signs named after books of the Torah and the garden boxes with crops in the shape of Hebrew letters. The images below display the Pearlstone Farm's "Gan Alef Beit" or "Alef Beit Garden" (raised garden boxes that each represent a letter of the Hebrew alphabet), and a plot sign entitled "Beresheit" or "Genesis." Figure 16: The Pearlstone Farm?s Gan Alef Beit (Alef Beit Garden) (photo by Rachel Berndtson) Figure 17: The Pearlstone Farm?s Beresheit Plot (photo by Rachel Berndtson) 126 In addition to linguistic features, structures also add to the Jewish space. Farm structures include a Jewish calendar garden, a sukkah, busts of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob atop the patriarch's vineyard, and five Farm entrances reflecting the five books of the Torah. The Jewish calendar garden consists of twelve raised beds representing the twelve months of the Jewish calendar. In each raised bed, crops are planted that symbolize the Jewish holidays occurring within than month. The photo below displays the calendar garden. Figure 18: The Pearlstone Farm?s Jewish calendar garden (photo by Rachel Berndtson) The farm's sukkah (circled in the photo below) is a gazebo-looking structure with a roof constructed out of earthen materials that shades those inside from the sun. The sukkah is used during the Jewish holiday of Sukkot to signify the temporary shelters the Jews used when wandering in the wilderness from Egypt to Israel. 127 Figure 19: The Pearlstone Farm?s sukkah (photo by Rachel Berndtson) Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are the three patriarchs from the Torah. Their busts on the Pearlstone Farm patriarch's vineyard are circled in the photo below. Figure 20: The Pearlstone Farm?s Patriarch's Vineyard (photo by Rachel Berndtson) 128 The Jewish cultural landscape on the Pearlstone Farm is also reflected through crop varieties. For example, prior to Sukkot, the Farm grows a citrus fruit called an "etrog," used in Sukkot rituals. The photo below displays an etrog tree on the Pearlstone Farm. Figure 21: An etrog tree on the Pearlstone Farm (photo by Rachel Berndtson) Lastly, the Farm?s participants add to the Jewish cultural landscape through traditional Jewish dress. Some Farm participants wear yarmulkes or head coverings, dress modestly, and don beards, peyot (sidelocks or side curls on the head) or tzittzit (knotted fringes that frame the four corner of a Jewish prayer shawl). 4.1.2.2. Subcategory 1.4: Traditionally Jewish programming through an environmental/ agricultural lens Many cultural groups are highly integrated into Western and liberal society, yet also maintain their cultural distinction, and cultural education is one mechanism for doing so. The Pearlstone Center is a community-based cultural organization that (through its program, the Pearlstone Farm) offers cultural education for cultural sustainability. The Pearlstone Farm offers informal Jewish education interpreted and applied to through an environmental and agricultural 129 lens to create ?Jewish agricultural education.? Since the 1990s North American Jewish institutional leaders and philanthropists have shown interest in Jewish education as a means for Jewish cultural sustainability, and Jewish environmental education has been lauded due to its experiential nature. By offering Jewish agricultural and environmental education, the Pearlstone Farm satisfies a population interested in the environment and sustainable agriculture, and at the same time a population interested in Jewish education as means for Jewish cultural sustainability. An interviewee describes programming as satisfying this latter populations saying: "It?s a significant kind of new Jewish education. So within the Jewish world outside of people concerned with environmental sustainability and agriculture, but who are concerned with Jewish continuity and Jewish identity, sort of cultural survival and cultural growth and vibrancy. And in a time when the 2010 Jewish community study in Baltimore showed masses of people not affiliated with synagogues anymore, and lots of interfaith couples and lots of children of interfaith couples not doing anything Jewish anymore" (Interviewee #2, 2011, emphasis on original). A second interviewee recognizes the Pearlstone Farm?s role in modeling this new form of Jewish education. He describes the Farm as, ?very instrumental in creating the inspiration and the recognition of the huge potential that Jewish garden education has as a means of Jewish education. And also for sure a lot of excitement nationwide about Jewish community gardening as a means of Jewish education" (Interviewee #5, 2011). The Pearlstone Farm's Jewish agricultural educational curriculum includes sections on agricultural laws from the Torah and Talmud, and new environmental interpretations of Jewish holidays and rituals. Lessons cover Jewish agricultural laws which may not have otherwise been included in informal Jewish education, and also reinterpret the laws' practicality in contemporary society. For example, the laws of leket (letting the fallen pieces of produce to be collected by the poor) and peah (marking the corners of one?s field to be harvested by the poor) are difficult to put into practice due to the Farm?s rural location and 21st century societal norms. As an 130 interviewee explains, "The poor don?t live out here? and ?if we marked the corner [of the field], who is going to come out here to collect it?? (Interviewee #5, 2011). Pearlstone Farm participants discuss and debate such contemporary issues surrounding the ancient laws. Educational programming is delivered and developed by Farm?s staff, who are trained as Jewish agricultural/environmental educators. The Farm also makes its educational content accessible to Jewish educators across the country by selling curricula and holding teacher training workshops. The Pearlstone Farm?s own curriculum for Jewish agricultural education, ?Chai Ve?Kayam,? features ?experiential lessons in Jewish agricultural laws,? and can be adopted by ?Jewish shuls, schools, camps, gardens and farms around the county? (Pearlstone Farm 2012). The Farm also hosts an annual Early Childhood Education Conference, which unites educators from across the country for several days of Jewish environmental education training. Jewish holidays and rituals take on new meaning when interpreted and applied environmentally on the Pearlstone Farm. The values behind the rituals remain, but, as an interviewee describes, ?in terms of rituals it?s like the way we do things that makes it new? (Interviewee #4, 2011, emphasis on original). An example of a traditional Jewish ritual practiced in a new environmental "way" is the Farm's Sustainable Simcha workshops. The workshops offer ways to ?green? one?s Bar or Bat Mitzvah by reducing carbon footprints during and after the event. The Farm's monthly Rosh Chodesh (celebrating the ?head of the month?) rituals are structured around an environmental interpretation, as they are meant to connect the passing of time with the land and seasons. The Farm also offers programming around Jewish holidays (including Passover, Sukkot, Tu B?Av and Tu B?Shvat) with a focus on sustainable agriculture and the environment in contemporary society. 131 4.1.3. Property: Jewish institutional support Two Jewish communities provided the support necessary to create the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore, and still provide support to maintain it there. These are the Jewish community of the Greater Baltimore Metropolitan Area and the Jewish environmental, food, and farming community. The Jewish institutional support enabling the establishment of the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore feeds the second core category in this research, ?Jewish community.? These two communities have provided support for the JFM in Baltimore through capacity resources and power resources. 4.1.3.1.Subcategory 1.5: capacity resources A new manifestation of the Jewish farming movement was successful in Baltimore due to the capacity resources provided by the Jewish community of the Greater Baltimore Metropolitan Area and the Jewish environmental, food, and farming community. The Baltimore Jewish community has a very strong and well-connected professional network that led the way for planning the Pearlstone Farm. The Jewish Community Federation of Baltimore, also called the Associated, is at the forefront of this institutional support, as it is the main hub for Jewish communal life in Baltimore. Several interviewees commented on the strength and organization of the Associated as a unique feature of the Baltimore Jewish community: The Associated is a ?VERY unique model? because ?everything and anything Jewish happening in Baltimore is tied in some way to the Associated. For sure any sort of institutionally Jewish thing is connected to the Associated? (Interviewee #5, 2011, emphasis on original). ?But [the Baltimore Jewish community is] huge and in many ways thriving and a strong network, and strong infrastructure that?s pretty unique? (Interviewee #5, 2011). ?But the Baltimore Jewish community is one of the reasons it works around here. The Baltimore Jewish community is very strong. Through programs and, like, the Associated, we have a very strong, connected Jewish community. Pearlstone, 132 Camp Milldale is right there, the JCC is only a few roads away? (Interviewee #7, 2011). The Associated?s network encompasses many Jewish organizations in Baltimore, including the Pearlstone Center. Interviewees point to both the Associated and the Pearlstone Center as institutions critical to the JFM's success in Baltimore. For example, in describing why the Pearlstone Farm works in Baltimore an interviewee states: ?I mean, The Federation. [The] Pearlstone [Center]. [The] Pearlstone [Center] is SO significant for [the Farm]! The paperwork, the finances, the captive audience for people coming to stay? (Interviewee #2, 2011). The Jewish environmental, food, and farming community was also critical to the Pearlstone Farm's establishment. Individuals and institutions from this community provided original and continued support through well trained staff members, participants, and volunteers. These two institutional communities enabled the capacity for creating the Pearlstone Farm by providing land, financial, and human resources. Land for the Pearlstone Farm is a resource provided by the Jewish community of Baltimore. The Pearlstone Farm is located on the grounds of the Pearlstone Center ? a 160 acre state-of-the-art Jewish facility located in the rural setting of Reisterstown, Maryland, with overnight accommodations, conference spaces, and an industrial certified-kosher kitchen. The Associated owns this land and the adjacent land on which Camp Milldale (a second Jewish organization within the Associated) is located. Under the Associated?s institutional network, negotiations took place to transfer land from Camp Milldale to the Pearlstone Center to create a farm. Interviewees recognize the availability of this space as a feature unique to the Pearlstone Farm compared to other JFM sites in the United States. While other Jewish communities host community gardens, the Pearlstone Farm's setting, structure, and institutional support make it 133 unique. As an interview explains, the community garden model can be easily replicated in other Jewish communities, but: ?I don?t think this is possible everywhere, that [the Pearlstone Farm] is possible everywhere. We have 160 acres. We have a Jewish retreat center. We?re 25 minutes from a major Jewish population center. You?re not going to get all those factors crystallizing in one place, plus the strength and organization, and financial resources of the Baltimore Jewish community are significant? (Interviewee #2, 2011, emphasis on original). ?We?re 5 miles, between 8 and 20 minutes, to the Jewish community and we?re on a farm surrounded by farms. You couldn?t do this in Manhattan. If you go to other communities to have the type of setting we have, a rural farm five minutes from a heavy metropolitan Jewish community, I don?t know how many places in the country that would match up? (Interviewee #2, 2011). A second interviewee makes a similar observation, explaining why the Pearlstone Farm provides a different JFM experience the Jewish Community Gardens in Baltimore. ?And [a Pearlstone Farm employee] and I have kind of joked about putting [the Pearlstone Farm] out of business. All the sudden people have beautiful flourishing Jewish educational gardens at their institutions. Why are they going to drive out 30 to 40 minutes to come out here? And there are a lot of reasons why and institutions have continued to say that it?s still an apples and oranges thing? (Interviewee #3, 2011). Capital is a second resource provided by the Baltimore Jewish community. According to an interviewee, ?when we talk about the Farm and the support of the community, it?s almost crass to talk about it only in terms of gifts and money, but that?s what makes it possible? (Interviewee #1, 2011). The Associated is vital to the Pearlstone Farm?s funding. Through its annual capital fundraising campaigns, the Associated collects money from donors and redistributes it to Jewish organizations in Baltimore. This process allows Baltimore Jewish organizations (many of which are nonprofits) to avoid asking the same donors for money, thus reducing the competition for funds. Between 2010 and 2011, the Associated collected $26.4 million from foundations and philanthropic funds (Associated's Center for Funds and 134 Foundations 2013). Although the Pearlstone Farm receives only a small share of these funds, the extent of the total amount exemplifies the Associated's well-organized system of philanthropic development. An interviewee explains the annual capital funding campaign process: ?One of the big things the Associated does, is it serves as a filter or a hub financially. One of the main things they do is collect. So the Associated has its annual capital funding campaigns, and then allocates that money to all the various institutions every year. And I don?t know what the process is, but they go through their process of who and how and how much and all that. And one of the main reasons for why they do that and why it?s successful is without the Associated? Virtually any Jewish institution and agency needs to raise money, they?re all nonprofits, so what this avoids in every agency asking all the same people for money. So, instead, the Associated asks for money from all the key players in the Baltimore Jewish community, and then decides how that money should be allocated? (Interviewee #5, 2011). In order to originally establish the Pearlstone Farm, The Pearlstone Center sought money from the Associated, which helped to locate the first Farm funder. This individual's contributions led to the construction of a Pearlstone Farm greenhouse, outdoor kitchen facility, and several farm employee salaries. The same funder continues to annually donate substantial amounts. Other startup funds came through the strong and well-connected network of donors within the Baltimore Jewish community. An interviewee explains, ?Once you get one funder you can get a bunch of others. They talk to each other, they grew up together, these are all local family foundations, so when you get one supporting you, you get a lot supporting you? (Interviewee #1, 2011). The Baltimore Jewish Environmental Networks (BJEN), which is connected to the Associated, hosted a forum through which the newly created Pearlstone Farm could seek initial funding. BJEN is a committee of Jewish, environmental, and advocacy representatives from Baltimore and the state of Maryland, who seek to enhance the understanding of Jewish environmentalism and provide a hub for resources, advocacy and mobilization (About Us, Baltimore Jewish Environmental Network 2013). An interviewee emphasizes the importance of 135 the Baltimore Jewish community?s financial resources to the Pearlstone Farm in saying, ?All these foundations and individual donors, their commitment to making this real, has allowed us to move from one person?to a full time staff working year round? (Interviewee #1, 2011). Lastly, the Baltimore Jewish community and the Jewish environmental, food, and farming community play key roles in securing human capital for the Pearlstone Farm. Human capital includes Pearlstone Farm program participants, volunteers, and staff. An interviewee describes the Baltimore Jewish community?s role in locating program participants, saying, ?the Jewish community of Baltimore IS the network that not just supported us, but, like, linked us to all these different groups? (Interviewee #2, 2011, emphasis on original). The Associated and other Jewish institutions in Baltimore bring a steady stream of Pearlstone Farm participants, who come regularly for programs organized through their day schools, synagogues, youth groups, JCCs, and other organizations. The Jewish community of Baltimore is also essential in securing a volunteer base that is critical to the Farm's operation. The Jewish Volunteer Connection (JVC) (a program of the Associated) is a source of many Pearlstone Farm volunteers. Interviewees describe the role of the JVC and other Associated programs in finding Farm volunteers: ?Plus Baltimore is blessed with an organization called the Jewish Volunteer Connection. So the JVC serves as an outlet in the Jewish community for volunteer service. The Associated created this organization, and it was a perfect match for the [Pearlstone] Farm for planting, harvesting, weeding, selling produce at farmers markets, to add value to foods we?re planting. So the JVC feeds us many young and older Jewish people in the community? (Interviewee #1, 2011). ?And the [Jewish Volunteer Connection] basically pairs their volunteers with other places in the Jewish network, based on volunteer interests. So if anyone is ever interested in working outside they?ll send them here? (Interviewee #4, 2011). ?And the Associated provides a lot of volunteer opportunities and they send the information out there for volunteers to know that it exists. The reason I?m here is I was familiar with Pearlstone, because I had stayed here with a different organization, which was the Dillar Organization, and I didn?t know they had consistent volunteers here working, until my mom told me she was involved in 136 the Chapter 2 Women?s Group ,which is another Associated group? (Interviewee #7, 2011). The Jewish environmental, food, and farming community also locates Pearlstone Farm participants and volunteers. Organizations within this community, such as Hazon, Teva, and the Jewish Farm School, advertise Pearlstone Farm programming and events on their websites and listservs. These original and flagship organizations from the Jewish environmental, food, and farming community have also significantly contributed to the Farm's staff. The Pearlstone Farm?s initial staff had previously worked at these flagship institutions, which provided training in farm management, farm operations, and Jewish environmental/agricultural education. Many subsequent Pearlstone Farm employees were also previously involved in Jewish environmental, food, or farming organizations outside Baltimore. Interviewees acknowledge the influence of these preceding organizations and programs on the Pearlstone Farm's human resources: ?I think the Teva Learning Center trained a lot of people? (Interviewee #4, 2011). ?Adamah is churning out leaders and educators and skilled professionals? (Interviewee #2, 2011). "It?s important to recognize the nested quality of [the Pearlstone Farm] with the Jewish environmental movement, the Jewish food movement and the Jewish farming movement. And not just conceptually, but I personally was involved in the Jewish environmental movement, the Jewish food movement, and the Jewish farming movement, and I think that?s true for several leaders of the Jewish farming movement emerging from these other movements" (Interviewee #2, 2011). 4.1.3.2. Subcategory 1.6: power resources The Jewish community of Baltimore and the Jewish environmental, food, and farming community also provided power resources for the Pearlstone Farm. Power resources include the JFM's previous normalization and institutionalization, sponsorship from respected institutional leaders, and demand from the Jewish population of Baltimore. 137 The enthusiasm to bring the Jewish farming movement to Baltimore was largely created by the flagship organizations of the Jewish environmental, food, and farming community. These organizations supplied the original idea for the Jewish farming movement, and an established and successful format for putting that idea to action. Early adopters from this community normalized and institutionalized the JFM before it came to Baltimore. Two levels of institutionalization occurred before the JFM was established in Baltimore: the national Jewish environmental and food movements paved the way for the national Jewish farming movement, and the first JFM program, Adamah (at the Isabella Freedman Retreat Center in Connecticut), paved the way for the Pearlstone Farm program at the Pearlstone Center. The Jewish farming movement grew out of the preceding Jewish food movement, which grew out of the preceding Jewish environmental movement. As interviewees explain: ?The Jewish farming movement is definitely considered as a subset of the Jewish food movement, which is a subset of the Jewish environmental movement? (Interviewee #2, 2011). ?The Jewish farming movement is a subset of the broader Jewish environmental movement, which is also connected to the Jewish food movement? (Interviewee #5, 2011). The Jewish environmental and food movements grew and operated through flagship organizations such as the Teva Learning Center and Hazon. Both organizations were founded in the mid to late 1990s and continue to lead the national Jewish environmental community. The pioneering work done by these organizations led to the Jewish environmental and food movements' growing support and eventual normalization amongst the North American Jewish community, as evidenced by the increasing number of institutional participants. The Jewish environmental and food movements paved the way for the Jewish farming movement. The first site at which the Jewish farming movement took place was the Isabella Freedman Jewish Retreat 138 Center in Falls Village, CT, through its Adamah fellowship program. Isabella Freedman and Adamah institutionalized and normalized the Jewish farming movement before it diffused to Baltimore. The institutions and individuals involved in the original Jewish environmental, food, and farming movements were critical to establishing the Pearlstone Farm. Several interviewees point to actors from these preceding organizations in explaining the Pearlstone Farm?s creation: ?[The Pearlstone Farm] is, like, a direct diffusion from the Adamah/Teva world? (Interviewee #4, 2011). ?When I think of the Jewish farming movement I think of a lot of a lot of programs that have branched out of Isabella Freedman, Adamah, and Teva. So I think of [The Pearlstone Farm], and Jewish Farm School, and Eden Village, and a new program in Boston, and Urban Adamah out in Berkeley, California. And so the people who are responsible for those programs for the most part have come out through Isabella Freedman? (Interviewee #3, 2011). ?And [the Pearlstone Farm?s creation] was really Teva nested. Teva produced [name of a Jewish environmental educator] and [a name of a second Jewish environmental educator], who produced Isabella Freedman, and now you sort of have this Teva/Adamah combination which is now like 25 young Jewish adults who are passionate about this new way of being Jewish...We were basically the first outpost of that?then Pearlstone called us, because Teva was running programs out of Pearlstone. [A Pearlstone employee]?, his daughter was working at Isabella Freedman, so all these connections. So Teva, and his daughter, and everyone was telling [the Pearlstone employee] you should do something at Pearlstone? (Interviewee #2, 2011). The final quote describes the Pearlstone Farm?s creation based on the Teva and Adamah connection. In 2005 the Pearlstone Center became involved in the Jewish environmental movement by hosting Teva Learning Center programs on its grounds. The following year the Center became involved in the Jewish farming movement after an employee learned of the Adamah farming fellowship at the Isabella Freedman Jewish Retreat Center, and was inspired to create a farm at the Pearlstone Center. The supportive power resources leading to the creation of the Pearlstone Farm are also fueled by the Baltimore Jewish community. This support comes from respected individuals as 139 opinion leaders, and demand from the general populace. Prior to the creation of the Pearlstone Farm, the Jewish community of Baltimore began to incorporate the environmental movement into its structure and programming. The Baltimore Jewish Environmental Network was created in 2006 by Rabbi Nina Beth Cardin and other leaders in the Baltimore Jewish community. BJEN hosted the Pearlstone Farm's first promotional event, introducing it to institutional leaders in Jewish Baltimore. An interviewee describes Rabbi Cardin?s support of the Farm through BJEN: "Rabbi Nina Cardin, who had been the Jewish Director at the JCC, had left the JCC and was very interested in environmentalism, and had started to pull together things in the community to make the Jewish community more aware of the environment, sustainability, greening, things like that. So she made a committee of people from synagogues and institutions, myself included, as a part of the steering committee [for BJEN]. She planned this conference at the JCC Owings Mills, bringing together people from synagogues and Jewish institutions, and [a Pearlstone Farm employee] went to speak about Jewish food and food safety and the Farm" (Interviewee #1, 2011). Other interviewees cite leadership from the Baltimore Jewish community as a condition to the Jewish farming movement's success in Baltimore: ?Another important thing about Baltimore is the Jewish Federation. The Associated has really been initially neutral to interested. They weren?t doing a lot, but they weren?t stopping it either. But certain Associated members were very enthusiastic. So in many communities you have many people who would oppose this, ?what are you doing investing money in a farm, we need money to do this and that.? So that?s unique about Baltimore, we have support and encouragement and we?re moving forward on it? (Interviewee #1, 2011). "The reason that [Baltimore] was ripe doesn?t just have to do with a large Jewish population. It also has to do with the values of the people of Baltimore, the Jewish community and the Jewish leadership of Baltimore. I know that Rabbi Nina Beth Cardin started the BJEN, and she?s been a long proponent of Jewish greening in Jewish Baltimore. So having people who are allies and working on similar things, is another reason why Baltimore is ripe" (Interviewee #3, 2011). ?There?s a lot of good things about Baltimore and that?s so much about what this work is. Day school teachers, and JCC professionals, and local Jewish community professionals are, kol kavod, they reeeally work hard and are committed to this and for this movement to really make an impact spiritually, culturally, intellectually, and environmentally? (Interviewee #2, 2011, emphasis on original). 140 In some cases, opinion leadership is built into Pearlstone Farm programming to ensure its longevity and success. For example, the Jewish Community Garden Collective, (a program of the Pearlstone Farm through which Baltimore Jewish institutions (including synagogues, schools and JCCs) create and maintain their own community gardens) requires each institution involved to have three ?garden captains,? who are members of the institution and serve as liaisons between it and the Pearlstone Farm. The Farm requires at least one of the three garden captains to be a Jewish institutional leader in order to ensure the garden?s permanency. As an interviewee explains, Community Gardening captains: ?could be a lay leader, but the idea behind that request is that, let?s say you?re working with a day school and you have two very enthusiastic parents and a teacher as your garden captains and they start the garden and year one goes by. And year two, let?s say the higher-ups at the institution say ?we want to build a new swimming pool. Where?s it going to go? Right there. Oh, there?s a garden there? I haven?t heard of any garden! Who even uses it?? You know? So it was kind of a preventative measure, but also someone with power and clout and has been with the institution a while. So we thought that would be a good idea for what I just said and also for securing finances and being a decision maker. Someone who can pull the strings if necessary, because there?s that element of a new project that has to go through a lot of loops and bureaucracies at institutions? (Interviewee #3, 2011). Support for the Pearlstone Farm from well-established opinion leaders opens the Farm up to those who may be unsure about the nontraditional space. Jewish farming is new and edgy, but the Associated and the Jewish institutional leaders who sponsor and promote the Pearlstone Farm are institutionalized, traditional, and respected. As an interviewee describes: ?Sometimes the things that make us very traditional are the things that give us strength. [Baltimore has] a very strong [Jewish] Federation, and this centralization may take away from diversity?is [Jewish farming] something that may get people more involved and donating and acting in the community? Or is [Jewish farming] something that gives people such a sense of individualism that they can be acting on their own and don?t have a sense of community responsibilities? The way that [the Pearlstone Farm] exists with support from [Baltimore?s] centralized Jewish community here, through the Associated, through our Federation, there?s a 141 way in which it?s acting both normative and edgy at the same time? (Interviewee #9, 2011). The institutional support discussed here as key to bringing the Jewish farming movement to Baltimore also plays a role in the Pearlstone Farm's diffusion within and beyond Baltimore. The concept of opinion leadership is discussed in more detail in section 4.2 describing the mechanisms through which the Pearlstone Farm diffuses. Enthusiasm for the Pearlstone Farm is not limited to institutional leaders. According to interviewees, the general Baltimore Jewish populace also fuels this support. As described by interviewees: ?It?s important to recognize that the vast majority of what we do [at the Pearlstone Farm] is reactive. People were calling us to set up field trips before there was a farm! So it?s a great strength, and we are responding to community demands? (Interviewee #2, 2011). "Everybody here is very enthusiastic about it. There?s nobody here who?s saying ?no I don?t want to be a part of it? (Interviewee #6, 2011). Although the second quote is an over exaggeration, the Pearlstone Farm is responding to community demands for Jewish environmental and agricultural education, and this external support has fueled its success. 4.2. Major category #2: diffusion pathways Major category #2 was saturated using open interviews, structured phone interviews, online surveys, grey and scholarly literature reviews, and semi-structured interviews. The researcher used open theoretical sampling amongst the initial open interviewees. Once the researcher identified properties and dimensions, relational/variational theoretical sampling was used to collect data from additional open and structured phone interviewees that varied by individual vs. institutional participation status, as well as dimensionally across diffusion 142 networks, channels, and geographic scales. To fully saturate major category #2 the researcher used the systematic comparison technique, and returned to previous sources to saturate specific elements of the category. The systematic comparison technique involved comparing the case at hand to similar cases from the scholarly and grey literature and structured interviews, to raise sensitivity about the properties defining the developing theory, and to create boundaries for the developing theory. Data saturation was achieved by returning to several open interviewees to ask structured questions, and also returning to online survey and structured phone interview results. The diagram below displays the theoretical sampling for major category #2. 143 Figure 22: theoretical sampling for major category #2 144 The previous section highlights the importance of Jewish communities in establishing the JFM in Baltimore through the creation of the Pearlstone Farm. The core category of Jewish community also influences the diffusion of that innovation throughout and beyond Baltimore. Diffusion of the Pearlstone Farm throughout and beyond Baltimore takes place largely due to the effort and resources from Jewish communities. The figures below display the properties and subcategories of major category #2, as well as its position in the final theory. Figure 23: Properties and subcategories of major category #2 145 Figure 24: Major category #2 in the final theory 4.2.1. Property: Jewish diffusion networks The Pearlstone Farm primarily diffuses through Jewish (versus non-Jewish) networks. The Jewish networks through which the Pearlstone Farm diffuses are categorized in this research as "professional" and "personal." The Pearlstone Center, the Associated, the Associated?s organizations, and Jewish institutional participants are categorized as ?professional Jewish networks." Personal contacts are categorized as ?personal Jewish networks.? 4.2.1.1. Subcategory 2.1: diffusion through professional Jewish networks The Pearlstone Farm diffuses largely through professional networks. As an interviewee describes, "So in terms of diffusing information, it?s working within institutions? (Interviewee 146 #8, 2011). The Pearlstone Center itself offers a professional network for diffusion. Groups and individuals who come to the Pearlstone Center for programs other than the Farm learn about the Farm during their stay. As interviewees explain: ?I think also people who go to [the] Pearlstone [Center] for a conference, or an event, or a wedding, or professional development. And people walk through and hear about [the Pearlstone Farm]? (Interviewee #9, 2011). "When groups come to stay at the Pearlstone Retreat Center, we always send them information about [the Pearlstone Farm] and the programs available there? (Interviewee #1, 2011). "The thousands of Pearlstone [Center] guests who stay see the farm, read our literature, see that the food they eat in the dining hall came from the backyard and this spreads the word? (Interviewee #1, 2011). Outside the Pearlstone Center, the Associated provides a second professional network through which the Pearlstone Farm diffuses. As the locus for all institutional networking in Jewish Baltimore, and a nearly 100-year-old Jewish community organization, the Associated has a very well-developed marketing strategy and a large audience for spreading information about events in the Baltimore Jewish community. As interviewees explain, the Associated diffuses information about the Pearlstone Farm through newsletters, message boards, and calendars: ?The Associated keeps everyone very connected in this community and attuned to what?s going on and what opportunities there are? (Interviewee #7, 2011). ?The Associated does do a lot of media in terms of social networking media and newsletter promotion of what?s happening at [the Pearlstone Farm] and events at [the Pearlstone Farm]? (Interviewee #8, 2011). ?The link to [the] Pearlstone [Center] and the Associated certainly helps. We list all [the Pearlstone Farm] events in the Associated calendar? (Interviewee #3, 2011). The many Jewish organizations under the Associated?s institutional umbrella also serve as outlets for information. Interviewees name several of the Associated's organizations (Jewish 147 Volunteer Connection, Dillar Organization, Chapter 2 Women's Group, JCC of Baltimore, etc.) below in describing this professional network diffusion: ?I?m hearing a lot about word of mouth, and also the JVC, the Jewish Volunteer Connection. They?re really great? (Interviewee #4, 2011). ?The reason why I'm here is...because I had stayed [at the Pearlstone Center] with a different organization, which was the Dillar Organization, and I didn?t know they had consistent volunteers here working, until my mom told me she was involved in the Chapter 2 Women?s Group ,which is another Associated group? (Interviewee #7, 2011). ?We have connections with the JCC, the Associated, the day schools, and the synagogues, and have many programs where kids are involved. We have a lot of outreach going to these Jewish organizations in Baltimore. The JCC is an outlet to give out information, as are all the school programs. Right now we have [Pearlstone Farm] staff going to JCC nursery schools, day schools, going to teach about sustainable gardening and farming?(Interviewee #1, 2011). ?[For] the Jewish Community Gardening Collective we have captains from the institutions, functioning to take [the Pearlstone Farm] and bring it to their community. Certainly the relationships we?ve developed with schools and other organizations that come out for programs bring pieces with that back with them. For example, [a local Jewish day school] comes out here every year for a full day of Sukkot programs, and uses that as a springboard for Jewish environmental education learning, and that leads into excitement in the spring for their Teva learning that is hosted by Pearlstone (Interviewee #5, 2011). ?So a lot of [diffusion] is through events, and bringing educational outreach into downtown, and setting the example by having key institutions in our community role model for people? (Interviewee #8, 2011). The professional diffusion network for Pearlstone Farm diffusion is not limited to organizations in Baltimore. Jewish environmental, food, and farming organizations spread the word through conferences and advertising. As an interviewee explains, "So there are two Hazon conferences, Eden Village puts on programs, the Beit Midrash happening here, and these people get together and meet each other, and talk about other kinds of programs and summer camps" (Interviewee #1, 2011). Below are examples of Pearlstone Farm programming advertised through Hazon and Adamah/Isabella Freedman websites. 148 Figure 25: Advertising for a Pearlstone Farm event on the Hazon website (Source: Kayam Farm Beit Midrash: Smittah and Society, Hazon, 2012). Figure 26: Advertising for a Pearlstone Farm event on the Adamah/Isabella Freedman website (Source: 3rd Annual Kayam Beit Midrash, Adva Network 2011). Nonlocal institutional Pearlstone Farm participants are also professional agents of diffusion. Groups who come to the Pearlstone Farm from nonlocal institutions and return home with positive experiences can stimulate additional Farm participation. Interviewees describe this process: 149 "The [Jewish] farm movement itself is certainly expanding around the country due to various centers where these things are going on, and people are participating in these programs. They go back home and want to be involved. Many are congregational rabbis, or leaders in their community, or young people in the community who are active. And they go back to their communities with things they learned here and institute the same things, or come back here" (Interviewee #1, 2011). "People who come in for the Beit Midrash or other events, they look things up and come back and get more involved" (Interviewee #4, 2011). 4.2.1.2. Subcategory 2.2: diffusion through personal Jewish networks The Pearlstone Farm also diffuses through non-institutional, personal networks. According to interviewees, Pearlstone Farm participants talk about their experiences with those close to them, and Pearlstone diffuses through these personal connections. For example: ?My husband actually has planted tomato plants and basil and all kinds of things on our deck this summer because of [the Pearlstone Farm]! And a neighbor said, 'ok well if yours grows and does well I?m doing it next year!'? (Interviewee #6, 2011). ?People learn [about the Pearlstone Farm] from events, they learn from their friends? (Interviewee #4, 2011). "On the internet, we have blogs, Facebook groups, websites all promoting the movement and people see these and tell their friends. So the internet plays a role in the introduction to the movement" (Interviewee #1, 2011). The researcher used structured phone interviews and online surveys to gather additional data about the variation of diffusion networks between institutional and individual Pearlstone Farm participants. Results from structured phone interviews and online surveys show that 93% of institutional participants (JCCs, schools, organizations, synagogues, etc.) and 88% of individual participants first learned about Pearlstone from through a Jewish (versus non-Jewish) network. Of those who first learned from Jewish networks, 82% of institutions (phone interviewees) and 52% of individuals (online survey takers) first learned about the Pearlstone Farm through professional (versus personal) Jewish networks. 150 4.2.2. Property: diffusion channels The Pearlstone Farm diffuses primarily through interpersonal channels, and, to a lesser extent, through media channels. Interpersonal channels are defined as communication capable of two-way and individually altered delivery. Interpersonal channels include face to face communication, phone calls, text messages, and other personal computer mediated communication (Skype calls, Facetime, instant messaging services). Media channels are defined as one-way communication from a source to potential adopters that are not capable of personally-altered messages. Media channels may include email listservs, webpage postings, direct mailing pieces, news outlets (radio, TV, newspaper, magazines), and social media postings (Facebook, Twitter, blogs). 4.2.2.1. Subcategory 2.3: diffusion through interpersonal channels The Pearlstone Farm primarily diffuses through interpersonal channels. Interviewees emphasize the prevalence of interpersonal communication as the Pearlstone Farm's dominant diffusion channel: ?Face to face communication definitely plays the largest and most important role in the way this movement is spread and who adopts. It is much more important in the diffusion phase. When you are able to experience something first hand and learn and speak directly to those who have adopted the movement, it gives you a much deeper connection to the movement and a more influential experience? (Interviewee #1, 2011). ?But in the first few years it was all word of mouth. The only media stuff we did was the articles that were wrote about us, and we didn?t really even help reach out to publications. People came to us? (Interviewee #2, 2011). ?Here in Baltimore having relationships person to person is the best way to market anything. People talking to other people about their experience up there [at the Pearlstone Farm]? (Interviewee #9, 2011). ?Lots of word of mouth. We have postings on different websites, but that?s not necessarily where Jewish, foodie people come in? (Interviewee #4, 2011). 151 Interpersonal communication has been strong amongst professional networks in the Jewish community of the Greater Baltimore Metropolitan Area. For example, it was interpersonal communication amongst Baltimore Jewish institutions that generated initial interest for the Pearlstone Farm's Jewish Community Gardening Collective: ?We were planning on this [Jewish Community Gardening] application brochure to blast that on the Associated listserv. But we decided not to because we quickly had more than five applicants, and we knew within the first month that we were going to have to say to some institutions ?sorry, we can?t.? So we never did an email blast, or any emailing of the information, other than contact-person emailing. We never set down advertising or marketing. I think that the Associated and BJEN did nothing formal, but it was more them knowing about the Community Gardening project and being an ally and working together with us? (Interviewee #3, 2011). Opinion leaders from the institutional Jewish community are important for interpersonal diffusion. As an interviewee explains, ?Having a few key leaders in a community to set that example?is huge....they inspire those people in those organizations, institutions and constituencies? (Interviewee #8, 2011). Several interviewees specifically named Rabbi Nina Beth Cardin as a central opinion leader for the Pearlstone Farm. As the founder of the BJEN, a community leader, and a ?voice who is very trusted, and respected, and one of the stronger voices in Baltimore? (Interviewee #9, 2011), Cardin?s sponsorship is critical to the Pearlstone Farm?s diffusion throughout Jewish Baltimore (Interviewee #6, 2011; Interviewee #3, 2011; Interviewee #8, 2011; Interviewee #9, 2011). Cardin sits on the Green Task Force of the Associated with other Jewish lay and institutional leaders to give input and advice on the Pearlstone Farm and other Baltimore Jewish environmental initiatives. The Farm also receives support of opinion leaders through the Pearlstone Board, made up of Jewish community leaders who serve as ?emissaries? to raise and maintain interest in the Farm. According to the online 152 survey, 47% of individuals first heard about the Pearlstone Farm from an opinion leader in the Baltimore Jewish community. 4.2.2.2. Subcategory 2.4: diffusion through media channels Although it is not considered a great strength, the Pearlstone Farm does have a media marketing initiative. An interviewee explains, "Marketing is one of our weakest skills. We know we haven?t succeeded because of our marketing, so we must actually be doing valuable things because of this word of mouth? (Interviewee #2, 2011). Media channels, including the Baltimore Jewish Times, the Baltimore Sun, and Hadassah Magazine, have run stories on the Pearlstone Farm. The Farm sends a monthly electronic newsletter to a listserv (of roughly 1,700 email addresses), posts on its own and other institutions? blogs and websites, tweets, and maintains a Facebook page. Interviewees recognized the Baltimore Jewish community and specifically the Associated as key partners in media diffusion. The researcher used structured phone interviews and online surveys to gather data about the variation of diffusion channels between institutional and individual Pearlstone Farm participants. Results show that show 70% of participating institutions (phone interviewees) and 81% of participating individuals (online survey takers) first heard about the Pearlstone Farm from an interpersonal channel. 4.2.3. Property: geographic scale of diffusion The "community" in most community gardens in the United States refers to a group that is spatially proximate to the garden's location. Geographic proximity is often bound by certain neighborhoods, school districts, or local areas of interest. The Pearlstone Farm has largely diffused to a local area, however it draws a relatively sizeable nonlocal participant base. The labels ?local? and ?non-local? are subjective, based on social interpretation of space (Allen et al 153 2003; Hinrichs 2003; Giovannucci, Barham, and Pirog 2009). The term ?local? has received much attention as an agricultural concept due to the increasing awareness of ?food miles? and the growth of the ?local food movement.? However, definitions of ?local? vary, ranging from regional perspectives of ecosystems and human clusters, to political definitions of state and regional boundaries, to discrete radial distances (for a comprehensive summary, see Giovannucci, Barham and Pirog 2009). In this study, interviewees use the terms ?local community? to refer to the Jewish community of the Greater Baltimore Metropolitan Area (JCGBMA). The following excerpts highlight interviewees using the terms "the community" and the "local community" to describe the Baltimore Jewish community (emphasis is added in each quote to highlight the references to the Baltimore Jewish community as the local community). Table 39: Interview excerpts indicating the Baltimore Jewish community as the ?local community? for the JFM in Baltimore ?We have a lot of local Jewish people who participate in on farm programs. [A different Jewish Farm in the United States] doesn?t have that benefit. The Jewish community who goes to [A different Jewish Farm in the United States] lives two hours away. It?s not like you can bop out after school, farm for two hours, then go home again. You can do that here? (Interviewee #1, 2011). ?Which is why we?re now calling ourselves a Jewish community farm, and as we fully develop our identity of using that nomenclature, we see our role as being of and for the Baltimore Jewish community? (Interviewee #5, 2011, emphasis on original). ?We?re 20 minutes from the center of Jewish Baltimore. Looking at [a different Jewish Farm in the United States] for example, they are one and half to two hours from [a major US city], three hours from [a major US city], an hour from [a major US city]. By no means too far away to host retreats for a week or weekend, but the way we?re situated relative to the Baltimore Jewish community means we can be a regular part of the Baltimore Jewish community. So, for [the Pearlstone Farm], it means that, day schools, synagogues, youth groups, and other folks can very realistically come here for a two to three hour program and then go back in the same day. At [a different Jewish Farm in the United States] that just can?t happen. So that relationship with the Baltimore Jewish community is unique and one of the best ways we feel we can serve as a model for how a Jewish outdoor environmental educational center can function in a Jewish community. Hopefully, ideally, as a really integral part of that community. And I think that we are making huge strides in that direction. We?re not fully there yet. But our hope and goal is 154 for us to be fully integrated and just be seen as a vital, core part of who and what the Baltimore Jewish community is" (Interviewee #5, 2011). ?I think it?s true for many people in this community. We have a farm and that?s part of being Jewish. And we have kids who live in Baltimore who every year go to the Jewish farm and that?s part of what their Jewish youth is? (Interviewee #2, 2011). ?And we were pretty skeptical about Baltimore when we moved here. But there?s a lot of good things about Baltimore and that?s so much about what this work is. Day school teachers and JCC professionals and local Jewish community professionals are, kol kavod, they reeeally work hard and are committed to this and for this movement to really make an impact spiritually, culturally, intellectually, and environmentally? (Interviewee #2, 2011). ?So, the Jewish community of Baltimore IS the network that not just supported us but, like, linked us to all these different groups? (Interviewee #2, 2011, emphasis on original). ?I think that in order for [the Pearlstone Farm] to reach as many Jews in this community as possible, I think that [the Pearlstone Farm] would like to see its values incorporated into mainstream Jewish Baltimore?s values, infrastructure, institutions, behavioral norms, expectations? (Interviewee #3, 2011). ?And, so I guess the vision is the Baltimore Jewish community is one that is an exemplary model of that close relationship between Judaism and sustainability. And [the Pearlstone Farm] is at the core of that. And the relationship between [the Pearlstone Farm] and the Baltimore Jewish community is fully engrained an inalienable, and other Jewish communities can look to Baltimore and [the Pearlstone Farm] as a model for how that can happen? (Interviewee #5, 2011). "We are situated relative to the Baltimore Jewish community? and can thus ?be a regular part of the Baltimore Jewish community? (Interviewee #1, 2011). ?We?re so close to the Baltimore Jewish community that people can come here and take it back with them? (Interviewee #3, 2011). Local and nonlocal Pearlstone Farm participants are distinguished in this research as those within the JCGBMA and those beyond the JCGBMA. As noted in the introduction to this project, this study defines "innovation diffusion" as participation in the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore, and thus "diffusion" is measured based on the extent of innovation adopters (Pearlstone Farm participants). 4.2.3.1. Subcategory 2.5: diffusion within the JCGBMA The Pearlstone Farm strives first and foremost to provide a local experience to local Jewish groups. A Pearlstone Farm employee emphasizes, "That?s really our foundation: local groups, Jewish groups, coming here for a local farm experience? (Interviewee #2, 2011). The 155 Pearlstone Farm has indeed diffused locally from its center of propagation in Reisterstown, Maryland. Individuals and institutions from the Baltimore Jewish community account for the majority of the Farm's participants. The Farm's Jewish Community Gardening Collective (JCGC) was created in 2011 to engage a greater portion of the local community. Interviewees describe the JCGC as a way to empower the Baltimore Jewish community to implement Jewish agricultural education at their home institutions. According to one interviewee, ?The impetus for requesting the grant to work with Jewish institutions to help them create Jewish Community Gardens on their property has a lot to do with the impact of [the Pearlstone Farm] in its first five years. In terms of the grant proposal, we had a number of institutions, a school, or a day school, or a synagogue, or a JCC, comes out here to have an experience, a three day or a whole day or a two hour experience, and we usually get positive feedback and they have a great time and they love it. And then they drive back, 20 or 40 minutes or an hour to their home institution and it?s difficult to build off what was done here" (Interviewee #5, 2011). The Collective is meant to engage a larger part of the Baltimore Jewish community, and to do so on a more regular basis. The same interviewee from above explains: ?So to me the Jewish Community Gardening initiative is a huge step in the right direction because it allows us to engage that much further with the Baltimore Jewish community. And to grow and develop this model of how Jewish outdoor environmental community center, functions as a part of Jewish community? (Interviewee #5, 2011). ?Participants who come out [to the Pearlstone Farm] for a day at a time, it?s just a brief glimpse at that place. But pedagogically what we?re really trying to develop is a sense of place. So, from an educational perspective, the opportunity to be engaging in a set piece of land, that ideally participants are coming back to regularly, they are really developing a sense of place with that, and developing a nuanced understanding of how that place and those plants and soil change during and between seasons. It's educationally really powerful and something we at [the Pearlstone Farm] are working on, with the Community Gardening Collective as a huge step forward with that. Because the truth is most of our participants come out only for a few hours to the Farm, and have a singular experience and then go back home to Baltimore? (Interviewee #5, 2011). 156 The Pearlstone Farm set up JCGC sites at a diverse set of local Jewish institutions, including: the Johns Hopkins Hillel, the Owings Mills JCC early childhood education center, Nitivot Shalom (Modern Orthodox synagogue), Beth El congregation (Reform temple), the Weinberg Village senior center, the Beth Tfiloh Jewish day school, the Bolton Street Synagogue (unaffiliated synagogue), Learning Ladder at Temple Oheb Shalom (Reform temple), the Harford Jewish Center and Needs to Grow at Carriage House Farms. The map below displays the community garden locations in relation to the Pearlstone Farm. Figure 27: Map of the Pearlstone Farm and Pearlstone Farm Community Gardens of the 2011 ? 2013 seasons County shapefile data source: United States Census Bureau (http://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/comp-sub.html); Pearlstone Center Farm and Jewish Community Garden data source: Rachel Berndtson 157 The institutions involved in the Jewish Community Gardening Collective receive assistance and training from Pearlstone Farm staff, such as: ??the technical advice and garden design and plant questions and soil testing and that kind of stuff. From consulting, teaching, and sharing to empowerment, and Jewish education, and modeling successful Jewish education lesson plans. And consulting with them about integrating the topics we teach out [at the Pearlstone Farm] into [their] curriculum back at [their] synagogue or day school? (Interviewee #3, 2011). 4.2.3.2. Subcategory 2.6: diffusion beyond the JCGBMA Although the local community is the Pearlstone Farm's primary focus, its diffusion (universe of participants) expands beyond the Jewish community of Baltimore. The Farm hosts many non-local groups who visit for several days or a weekend to participate in programming. The Pearlstone Center is a major factor in drawing out of town participants, as it offers overnight accommodations, conference rooms, and certified kosher food service for up to 300 guests. According to interviewees, Beit Midrash and Summer Kollel participants, and the current and previous Pearlstone Farm staff are vastly non-local. The wide-spread geographic scale of Pearlstone Farm participants makes it unique amongst other JFM programs in the United States. As an interviewee describes: "And I think that the fact that this farm is at Pearlstone, it being a retreat center, like, you have people from out of state coming to stay for weeks at a whole time or a whole summer. Like, that?s a cool aspect to this specific program because you meet people from all over" (Interviewee #7, 2011). The researcher reviewed Pearlstone Farm grey literature and collected online surveys to get more information on the extent of the Pearlstone Farm's geographic diffusion. Diffusion is based both on mileage away from the Farm and geographic location either within or outside the Jewish Community of the Greater Baltimore Metropolitan Area (JCGBMA). The spatial extent of the JCGBMA is based on a metric from the Associated?s 2010 Greater Baltimore Jewish 158 Study. In the Associated?s study, the Jewish community of Baltimore is defined as ?eleven geographic sub-areas? which were created using a ?combination of zip code data and respondent answers about the name of the neighborhoods in which they live? (Ukeles and Miller 2010, 17). The eleven geographic subareas span Baltimore County, Baltimore City, and Carroll County. The researcher used the two counties and Baltimore City as boundaries of the JCGBMA for this study. The Pearlstone Farm's grey literature provided a list of institutional Pearlstone Farm participants. The researcher used Google Maps to calculate the distance between these institutions and the Farm, and to record their X, Y location to determine whether they are within or outside the JCGBMA. Online surveys were used to identify individuals who participate with the Pearlstone Farm. The online survey asked individual participants their home zip codes. The zip code (rather than a specific address) was used as the geographic scale of choice to protect the identities of survey takers, and because it was a practical method of providing one's geographic location62. The researcher used Google Maps to calculate the distance between those home zip codes and the Pearlstone Farm, and to determine whether they are within or outside the JCGBMA. Results show that the majority of individual and institutional Pearlstone Farm participants are local, meaning they are located within the JCGBMA. Local individuals account for 71% of all individual participants and local institutions account for 54% of all institutional participants. Although the majority of both individual and institutional Pearlstone Farm participants are ?local," sizeable nonlocal minorities exist in both cases. The online surveys and structured phone interviews were used to compare the geographic extent of diffusion between institutional and individual Pearlstone Farm participants, as well as to explore the relationships across diffusion properties. Results show that diffusion channels vary 62 In a pilot survey, the researcher asked for survey takers to use the internet to look up their Census block in order to get a very specific geographic scale. However, this proved too cumbersome on survey takers. 159 between local and nonlocal Pearlstone Farm participants, and also by institutional and individual participants. Nonlocals are more likely to hear about the Pearlstone Farm through media, versus interpersonal channels. Media channels account for the majority of Pearlstone Farm diffusion to nonlocal institutions (55%), while interpersonal channels account for the majority of Pearlstone Farm diffusion to local institutions (84%). Although media channels also play a more prominent role in Pearlstone Farm diffusion to nonlocal, versus local, individual participants, they do not account for the majority of this diffusion. Interpersonal diffusion are the mechanism through which the majority of both local (83%) and nonlocal individuals (68%) first hear about the Pearlstone Farm. The aforementioned results are displayed below on the figures below. Figure 28: Institutions' (N=93) and individuals' (N = 147) distance from the Pearlstone Farm 20 54 30 3 2 5 3 3 1 1 8 3 6 8 5 21 20 4 7 14 3 4 10 1 2 2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 C o u n t Miles away from the Pearlstone Farm Individual Participants Institutional Participants 160 Figure 29: Institutions (N=93) and individuals (N = 147) within and beyond the JCGBMA Figure 30: Map of institutions (N=50) and individuals (N = 105) within the JCGBMA Zipcode shapefile data source: United States Census Bureau (http://www.census.gov/geo/maps- data/data/comp-sub.html); Pearlstone Center Farm, Jewish Community Garden, institutional and individual participant data source: Rachel Berndtson 105 50 34 43 8 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Individual Participants Institutional Participants N u m b er o f p a rt ic ip a n ts Participant Type Within Beyond No Data JCGBMA 161 Figure 31: Map of institutions (N=93) and individuals (N = 147) within and outside of the JCGBMA in the Baltimore-Washington corridor Zipcode shapefile data source: United States Census Bureau (http://www.census.gov/geo/maps- data/data/comp-sub.html); Pearlstone Center Farm, Jewish Community Garden, institutional and individual participant data source: Rachel Berndtson JCGBMA 162 Figure 32: Map of institutions (N=93) and individuals (N = 147) within and outside of the JCGBMA in New England and the Mid-Atlantic states Zipcode shapefile data source: United States Census Bureau (http://www.census.gov/geo/maps- data/data/comp-sub.html); Pearlstone Center Farm, Jewish Community Garden, institutional and individual participant data source: Rachel Berndtson JCGBMA 163 Figure 33: Diffusion channels for local and nonlocal institutional Pearlstone Farm participants (N = 30) Figure 34: Diffusion channels for local and nonlocal individual Pearlstone Farm participants (N = 147) 4.3. Major category #3: adoption by participants Major category #3 was saturated using open interviews, online surveys, grey and scholarly literature reviews, and semi-structured interviews. The researcher used open theoretical sampling amongst the initial open interviewees. Once the researcher identified properties and 11% 55% 84% 36% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Local (N = 19) Nonlocal (N = 11) P er ce n t o f p a rt ic ip a n ts Geographic location of participants Media Interpersonal 17% 26% 83% 68% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Local (N = 105) Nonlocal (N = 34) P er ce n t o f p a rt ic ip a n ts Geographic location of participants Media Interpersonal 164 dimensions, relational/variational theoretical sampling was used to collect data from additional open interviewees and online survey takers who demonstrated dimensional range across demographic properties, and also to gauge the extent to which impacts were perceived to have occurred. To fully saturate major category #3 the researcher used the systematic comparison technique, and returned to previous sources to saturate specific elements of the category. The systematic comparison technique involved comparing the case at hand to similar cases from the scholarly and grey literature and structured interviews, to raise sensitivity about the properties defining the developing theory, and to create boundaries for the developing theory. The researcher returned to several open interviewees to ask structured questions, and also returned to online survey results. The diagram below displays the theoretical sampling for major category #3. 165 Figure 35: Theoretical sampling for major category #3 166 The major category "adoption by participants" falls under each core category. The Pearlstone Farm is a new social space for a new Jewish community that brings together a demographically diverse set of participants over a common interest in the environment and agriculture. As a new social space, this new Jewish community engages previously under or unengaged members of the Jewish population thus serves as a mechanism for Jewish cultural sustainability. The Farm also enhances Jewish cultural and environmental sustainability by influencing individual participants based cognitive, affective, and behavioral aspects of their Jewish identifies and pro-environmental lifestyles. The figures below display the properties and subcategories of major category #3, as well as its position in the final theory. Figure 36: Properties and subcategories of major category #3 167 Figure 37: Major category #3 in the final theory 4.3.1. Property: participant characteristics The Pearlstone Farm is a socially produced space that brings together a diverse set of individuals to form a new Jewish community. Therefore, the Farm is not only the result of the Jewish communities (as indicated under major categories #1 and #2), but also results in a new Jewish community. The Pearlstone Farm was established in Baltimore with the intent to create something that would benefit and give ownership to the Baltimore Jewish community. An interviewee emphasizes this communal goal, saying ?...we?re now calling ourselves a Jewish community farm, and as we fully develop our identity of using that nomenclature, we see our role as being of and for the Baltimore Jewish community? (Interviewee #5, 2011, emphasis on 168 original). Community-based agriculture often involves face to face interaction, teamwork, and bonding. Even if a Pearlstone Farm participant does not explicitly seek Jewish community- building, it may come as a happenstance consequence of group bonding there. For instance, an interviewee explains that on the Pearlstone Farm: ?There?s such a strong Jewish community involved, and you let those conversations wash over you. I don?t think you have much of a choice to be influenced by it a little bit. I think that can enhance a lot of people?s knowledge and change and mold opinions if you just listen to who you?re working with and spending six plus hours with a day? (Interviewee #7, 2011). The Farm provides a new structure for Jewish community by bringing together individuals who may not otherwise interact, with an interest in agriculture, a shared place, and a common experience as uniting factors. As described by an interviewee: "The environmental piece of it makes it??universally human.? It has a part of it which attracts people, regardless of their involvement or level of Jewish observance. And I think what seems to be happening is it's connecting people more deeply with issues of environmentalism, sustainability, food justice, while at the same time allowing people to explore aspects of their Jewish connection as well" (Interviewee #9, 2011). The new Jewish community formed through the Pearlstone Farm is made of participants who vary by age, marital status, sex, socioeconomic status, Jewish denomination, self- perceived importance of being Jewish, Jewish affiliation, and self-perceived dedication to pro-environmental living. 4.3.1.1. Subcategory 3.1: age Although Pearlstone Farm participants range inter-generationally, younger cohorts are most representative of the adult participant base. The national Jewish farming movement has engaged a large segment of the young adult Jewish population, and the same is true in its manifestation in Baltimore through the Pearlstone Farm. Interviewees describe the Pearlstone Farm population as young: 169 ?The age tends to be young adults down to like, I?m 18. But as far as volunteers that come, like, my mom?s group, they are adults. They?re in their 40s and 50s, but I think primarily you see a lot of under 30s? (Interviewee #7, 2011). ?Jewish farming is a ways to give young Jews this Jewish connection they desire? (Interviewee #1, 2011). ?People who come here are young. But there is an older crowd we?re trying to draw in. But like young, married, hetero-normative? (Interviewee #4, 2011). Interviewees suggest the young age of Pearlstone Farm adult participants may be due to the labor-intensive and outdoor nature of the programs. Additionally, younger Jews may be more likely to be in an exploratory stage of their Jewish identity, and seek to explore through nontraditional Jewish programs like the Pearlstone Farm. An interviewee explains this notion, saying: ?I think [the Jewish farming movement] very attractive to people trying to figure out what role Judaism is going to play in their life. And maybe by the time, for most people, by the time you?re 40, maybe you feel a little bit beyond the exploration. I do think it is something that 18 to 30 year olds are on top of exploring? (Interviewee #3, 2011). Online survey results reflect this trend with the majority of Pearlstone Farm adult participants (61%) between ages 18 ? 34. 4.3.1.2. Subcategory 3.2: marital status Pearlstone Farm participants vary by marital status. However, the Farm is unique in its engagement of the post-college and pre-marriage segment of the Jewish population, which is traditionally an under-engaged group in Jewish communal activity. An interviewee recognizes the Pearlstone Farm?s uniqueness in this aspect in saying: "That generation of us that?s in our 20s and in our early 30s, too, is an emerging cadre, cohort of Jewish leadership that is unusual. Because often in the community studies we find, that time, post bar mitzvah, bar or bat mitzvah, and before you have kids, it?s like potentially 20 years. Never see us again in a synagogue. Never see us in the Jewish community. Right? So here?s a way to engage that post college or during college young adult, crucial, formative time in 170 people?s lives this is a way of life?So it?s engaged a whole segment of the young Jewish adult population that is empowering them to be leaders and that they?re really now actively engaged in the Jewish community, which speaks to that Jewish identity? (Interviewee #2, 2011). Online survey results show a nearly equal balance between married (42%) and non-married (49%) Pearlstone Farm participants. 4.3.1.3. Subcategory 3.3: sex The Pearlstone Farm draws participants from both sexes, with neither perceived by open interviewees as dominant. Programming brings together those of ?different sexes, ages, religious backgrounds?working together and learning from each other? (Interviewee #1, 2011). However, online survey results indicate that females represent the majority of Pearlstone Farm participants at 65%. 4.3.1.4. Subcategory 3.4: socioeconomic Status (SES) Interviewees acknowledge finances as a potential barrier to Pearlstone Farm participation, and describe participants on the wealthier end of the SES spectrum: ?If [Baltimore wasn?t] an affluent Jewish community, and if the 20-somethings didn?t have very supportive parents who let their kids spend many years without making a living, you could not do this? (Interviewee #1, 2011). ?Our summer program was largely staffed with people who, 25 years ago would have been out making a living. And it?s only the affluence of the family to which they were raised that they have the luxury not to be forced to do that? (Interviewee #1, 2011). ?Socioeconomic is definitely upper-middle class. It?s hard to get anyone tied to an urban center out here just because we?re very far removed? (Interviewee #4, 2011). According to one interviewee, the volunteers and employees who are ?essential? to the Farm's existence have the luxury to contribute many hours for little or no pay (Interviewee #1, 2011). Additionally, purchasing and producing sustainably-grown products is expensive. Pearlstone 171 Farm CSA members are limited to those with enough financial resources to supply large sums of money upfront to receive food throughout the growing season. Jewish Community Gardening Collective participants must also supply funds to participate. Although the JCGC grant from the Covenant Foundation provides $300 to each institution, institutions are expected to provide funds beyond the $300, ?because realistically, $300 will not cover an institution going from scratch even if you start small? (Interviewee #3, 2011). Online survey results show the Pearlstone Farm participant base as a well-distributed range of SES levels with no one SES level receiving a majority. An explanation for this anomaly may be that the vast majority (82%) of Pearlstone Center participants making less than $50,000 a year are single, and thus may not have a family to financially support. 4.3.1.5. Subcategory 3.5: Jewish denomination The Pearlstone Farm is a non-denominational program and attracts participants from across the Jewish denominational spectrum. The Farm thus becomes a Jewish space that fosters a transdenominational Jewish community, as engagement with the land becomes ?the common denominator,? between Jewish groups who may not have otherwise connected. An interviewee describes the trandenominational nature of the Pearlstone Farm saying, ?It has attracted people from across the Jewish spectrum: involved, not involved, culturally Jewish, Orthodox, non- religious? (Interviewee #9, 2011). Other interviewees describe Pearlstone as a welcoming space for non-denominational Jews, and a space that fosters a transdenominational Jewish community: ?We have these different groups of people, that the land, and engaging in the land, becomes the common denominator, and brings those two [denominationally diverse] groups to a place they may not have come on their own, and also hopefully facilitates interaction between each other? (Interviewee #5, 2011). ?As a whole a Reform Jew from a synagogue, or an unidentified senior, or an Orthodox day school kid can all come to the same place and share a common experience. That builds community. So that when those three folks are in the 172 same room and they're deciding what to talk about, maybe talking about the [Pearlstone] Farm will be a bridging connection. That?s big for Jewish identity! If you feel like you can relate to all sorts of Jews, then Jewish community is really Jewish community and not different Jews in their own Jewish bubbles? (Interviewee #3, 2011). ?This site, location, farm, and volunteer location provides an outlet for people to be part of the Jewish community that is 100% non-denominational? (Interviewee #1, 2011). ?For the programs we create, the Beit Midrash, Kollel, and Moshav, it?s a pretty wonderfully collective, pluralistic, diverse, intergenerational group. So one of our great strengths is the diversity of people who are engaged and excited? (Interviewee #2, 2011). One interviewee uses a specific case to describe the Farm as a medium for transdenominational: ?We had a number of volunteers who were from the very frum63 Orthodox community, you know beards, peahs, black coats on Shabbos, really frum, but we also had very secular teenagers. Young girls, in hot weather, out in shorts and cutoff blouses, and people came as who they were. And we had this very frum man, who has grandchildren, working next to this very young teenager who was very secular, and not at all committed or involved in the Jewish community, and they?re working together bringing in soil, talking, laughing. Different sexes, ages, religious backgrounds, and they were working together and learning from each other. The girl told us how meaningful that was, and how it really connected her to the Jewish community she now comes back to volunteer. And the gentleman, who is one of our most ardent volunteers?said it so opened him up to how to be Jewish without being frum, and accepted the different way you can be Jewish? (Interviewee #1, 2011). The Jewish community produced through the Pearlstone Farm is also unique amongst other Jewish environmental and farming programs in the United States due to its relatively high Orthodox (most religiously observant) population. The Jewish environmental, food, and farming movements have been traditionally aligned with left-leaning, less traditional Jewish denominations. As interviewees explain: ?I?ve seen that people attracted to Jewish farming can come from a wide range of the Jewish spectrum. Although I think it is slightly more tilted to the left? (Interviewee #3, 2011). 63 "Frum" is a Yiddish term used to describe pious and observant Jews. 173 ?For a long time, the movement was, and has been, and in many ways continues to be less so, has been really geared towards and developed by the liberal end of the Jewish spectrum? (Interviewee #5, 2011). The Pearlstone Farm has created a welcoming space for Jews from the more observant side of the denominational spectrum. This space is particularly important for a JFM program in Baltimore, given Baltimore?s relatively high percentage of Orthodox Jews. Orthodox Jews make up 21% of the total Jewish population in Baltimore (Ukeles and Miller 2010), as compared to 13% of the national Jewish population (Ament 2005). Conservative and Reform (the two other dominant Jewish denominations) Jews account for 25% and 27% of the Baltimore Jewish population64, respectively (Ukeles and Miller 2010). The Pearlstone Farm has created a more relevant and welcoming space for observant Jews by including in-depth, Jewish textual study of the environmental issues discussed. Interviewees describe the inclusion of Orthodox Jews at the Pearlstone Farm: ?A very significant number of [the Baltimore Jewish population] is on the Orthodox and very Orthodox side of the Jewish religious spectrum. So, what that means is that there?s certainly a full range of Jewish observance and community in the Baltimore Jewish community, but a very core piece of that identity is the Orthodox population. So, one of? the niches that [Pearlstone Farm] has created for itself and also found itself in, is opening the space for more religiously observant Jews to engage in a Jewish environmental movement...The response has come and who is getting excited about these things is tapping into a whole, new subset of the Jewish community, that in many ways before this, I think felt at best, that the Jewish environmental movement didn?t apply to them, and in many cases, rejected them, or just a place that was not welcome. That they did not feel welcome, in many ways because a lack of serious learning and engagement in Jewish texts. And if you?re coming from a more observant and traditional Jewish background, texts are primary, and learning is primary, and if you?re going to be doing Jewish learning, it?s got to be grounded in the texts? (Interviewee #5, 2011). 64 The unaccounted for 27% of the Baltimore Jewish population is made of the less dominant Jewish denominations, including non-denominational (12%), secular but Jewish (8%), traditional (5%) and Reconstructionist (1%) (Ukeles and Miller 2010, 78). 174 ?The [Pearlstone] Farm focuses on Jewish texts and Jewish learning, and is in many ways a direct relation to the character of the Baltimore Jewish community that has one of if not the largest Orthodox per capita? (Interviewee #2, 2011). Results from the online survey reflect Jewish denominational diversity. Survey takers were given the option to "select all that apply" in regards to denominational identification. Amongst Pearlstone Farm participants, no single Jewish denomination has a majority, alluding to the Farm's transdenominational nature. The largest proportion of survey takers (at 34%) identify as non-denominational only, or non-denominational and at least one traditional denomination (Orthodox, Conservative, Reform or Reconstructionist), speaking to the Farm's provision of a Jewish communal space for non-denominational Jews. 4.3.1.6. Subcategory 3.6: Jewish formal affiliation Analyses of Jewish community and identity often include the notion of "affiliation," resulting in categorization of Jews into two groups: "the affiliated" and "the unaffiliated." Formal affiliation refers to participation in Jewish communal institutions and organizations. Affiliation is considered a crucial element to Jewish community and a significant factor in larger Jewish engagement (Kotler-Berkowtiz et al 2004). A United Jewish Communities (UJC) Report on the 2000 - 2001 National Jewish Population Survey describes the rationale behind affiliation metrics: "Traditionally, formal institutions have been vital to the Jewish community. The centrality of synagogues, JCCs and other Jewish organizations is so profound that Jewish leadership frequently distinguishes between ?affiliated? and ?unaffiliated? members of the Jewish population. Institutional affiliation is not a constant over the life course. Marriage and parenthood, economic status, friends, residential location, Jewish commitment and other factors combine to influence who joins Jewish institutions. Though causal directions are difficult to determine, institutionally affiliated Jews more often engage in other domains of Jewish life than Jews who are not organizational members." (Kotler-Berkowtiz et al 2004, 10). The majority of Pearlstone Farm participants are already ?affiliated:? they participate in the larger Jewish community through synagogues, JCCs, day schools, or other organizations. The 175 Pearlstone Farm?s programming is set up to accommodate the affiliated. As interviewees explain: ?But we?ve overall sought out partnerships with institutions, and we don?t do much private work. And that?s an interesting side discussion with community gardening. Does or will it fit into our mission to work with individuals? Let?s say you have a Jewish family who wants a garden. For now we?ve stayed away from that. My opinion is it doesn?t fit the education piece, but it could be adaptable. But for now [the Pearlstone Farm] focuses on synagogue groups, and day school groups, and senior groups, and interfaith groups as opposed to individuals? (Interviewee #3, 2011). ?We have connections with the JCC, the Associated, the day schools, and the synagogues, and have many programs where kids are involved. We have a lot of outreach going to these Jewish organizations in Baltimore? (Interviewee #1, 2011). ?But that?s really the foundation: local groups, Jewish groups coming here for a local farm experience? (Interviewee #2, 2011, emphasis added). Additionally, certain Pearlstone Farm programs call for participation specifically from pre- established groups. For example under the "community education," section of the Farm's website it encourages interested individuals to: "Bring your group out to the Farm at Pearlstone for a unique, awe-inspiring experience, grounded in Jewish tradition, environmental sustainability, and rich, brown dirt! Who should schedule a field trip to the Farm at Pearlstone: Hebrew Schools, Jewish Day Schools, Early Childhood Centers, Hillels and other college groups, Seniors, Youth Groups, JCC groups, Interfaith and multicultural groups, Any group interested in hands-on, experiential, Jewish environmental education" (Pearlstone Center Community Education 2013). The mechanism through which affiliation was measured in the online survey is a limiation of this research. The online survey measures affiliation based on membership in two traditional organizations: synagogues and JCCs. However, Jewish communal participation is not limited to membership in these two institutions, and includes educational organizations, social gatherings, advocacy groups, and other Jewish organizations. The online survey did not ask 176 about membership in these additional organizations and thus potentially leaves out a proportion of Pearlstone Farm participants who are affiliated in those ways, but not through JCCs and synagogues. Future renditions of this research will explicitly ask whether Jewish farming movement participants are "affiliated" or "unaffiliated" through participation in formal Jewish institutions beyond synagogues and JCCs. However, because interviewees indicate that the Farm hosts groups from day schools, interfaith organizations, youth organizations, senior organizations, and other organizations, and because the Pearlstone Farm's grey literature on participating institutions also lists these groups, it is reasonable to believe the proportion of affiliated Pearlstone Farm participants is higher than the survey results show. Online survey results indicate that most Pearlstone participants are already affiliated through synagogues and JCCs. The majority of individuals (at 56%) are either members of synagogues, JCCs, or both. This affiliation dataset is similar that of the larger Baltimore Jewish community. According to its 2010 Jewish Community Study, the Associated found that 58% of Jews are affiliated with some Jewish organization (Ukeles and Miller 2010). Although most of its participants are already affiliated, the Pearlstone Farm does reach out to the unaffiliated, and offers several programs that do not necessitate affiliation with a Jewish organization for participation. As described by an interviewee, ?But this is really one of the first programs to really engage with the unaffiliated, through the context of sustainability and environmental education. As a comprehensive action to engage people through that lens, rather than the lens of a specific institution. [The Pearlstone Farm] has been doing that all along? I think we?re bridging the gap between those who are engaged through environmental Jewish outreach through institutions, and those who would be interested in being involved in Jewish environmental outreach who are otherwise unaffiliated. And I think that?s the bridge we?re building right now? (Interviewee #8, 2011). The Associated is particularly interested in reaching the unaffiliated and realizes the Pearlstone Farm's potential to do so. For example, an Associated advertisement for a particular Pearlstone 177 Farm event describes it as: "an opportunity to use the environment and sustainability to inspire unaffiliated members of community. It?s a fresh, cutting-edge image of what Jewish Baltimore can be" (Impact, Associated 2013). 4.3.1.7. Subcategory 3.7: perceived importance of being Jewish Interviewees describe some Pearlstone Farm participants not as Jewishly disengaged on a psychological level, but rather as Jewishly uninvolved on a social or behavioral level. Many of these participants use the Farm as their way to become active in the Jewish community. For example: ?I think there are some individuals within the Jewish community, the young people, who want a sense of Jewish belonging and community, which they aren?t finding in synagogues, but who were raised and have a real sense of belonging, but don?t know to what they are belonging. And I think this farm movement addresses that. It gives you a place of belonging and it fills the need for some people that synagogues fulfilled in the past, but the synagogues aren?t doing it anymore? (Interviewee #1, 2011). ?I also think that a lot of people who are into farming and into environmentalism think like, well, this is a good way to connect to Judaism. This will be the access point back into Judaism, and farming and environmentalism will be the access- point back in? (Interviewee #3, 2011). ?Because if, if you?re completely [Jewishly] disengaged, you could go to any organic farm or commune or other place that does wonderful things. But I think there is that desire to connect, or reengage or explore. I?m Jewish, I grew up Jewish, but what does that mean? Now that it?s in my control to really decide what it means to be Jewish and not just what my parents say. Then this is a good place to explore that? (Interviewee #3, 2011). ?[Pearlstone Farm participants] are people who are inspired by the issues of producing healthy food, eating healthy, growing food in a free, sustainable way and eating good food, but who also want to return to the soil, enjoy working with their hands, enjoy growing things, AND are motivated in part or largely by Jewish values and Jewish experiences. It?s not an essential or necessary element but it?s important? (Interviewee #1, 2011, emphasis on original). "In Baltimore there are a lot of different organizations that help you do that, how to start urban gardens, and now this whole urban farming initiative in Baltimore. And [the Pearlstone Farm] seems like a way people can get involved in the Jewish 178 community, because its more comfortable, or they know we?re doing it and we?re Jewish, so it's going to be more specialized to what they want" (Interviewee #4, 2011). "So even ostensibly if people would not want to grow up to be a farmer, they find that the people who are attracted to the movement are people they are attracted to, that they want to be a part of that, and that its rewarding" (Interviewee #1, 2011, emphasis on original). "But what makes the Jewish farming movement Jewish? What is it? It?s being around other Jews and working towards a common goal that connects Jews who participate in farming" (Interviewee #1, 2011). Although the unaffiliated aren?t participating in Jewish communal activities, they may still feel as though being Jewish is important. Participation in the Pearlstone Farm provides an external expression of Jewishness and a way to identify with the culture. The online survey asked participants how important being Jewish was to them prior to their Pearlstone Farm participation in order to capture the psychological aspects of Jewishness. The majority of Pearlstone Farm participants feel as though being Jewish is ?very important,? at 71%. Additionally 12 out of the 13 survey takers who feel as though being Jewish is ?not very? or ?not at all? important are themselves not Jewish. 4.3.1.8. Subcategory 3.8: perceived level of pro-environmental dedication Interviewees describe Pearlstone Farm participants as sharing an interest in sustainable agriculture and the environment. Individuals choose to participate on the Pearlstone Farm due to this shared interest. This "unifying factor" brings together a group diverse on many other levels, as seen in the other demographic indicators above. An interest Jewish community and exploration is complemented by an interest in the environment and agriculture. As interviewees explain: ?There are people who are not as Jewishly engaged who are moved by and inspired by and called to action by environmental issues, and there are folks that are deeply committed and secure in their Jewish identity? (Interviewee #3, 2011). 179 "And we get students and idealistic impassioned people who like working on a farm and with their bodies for environmental reasons" (Interviewee #4, 2011). ?One is that ?I?m an environmentalist first and foremost and if I?m going to be Jewish, it has to be in a way that my environmentalism informs how I?m Jewish.? So the environmentalist identity is first and foremost and being Jewish, if it happens to fit in that, ?cool! I?m going to explore more of what that means and what that looks like.? On the flip side, ?first and foremost I am Jewish, and if environmental values correspond with my Jewish values, then I will bring them in to my Judaism and explore what that looks like?? (Interviewee #5, 2011). ?What I call the ?funky frum contingent,? of [participant name] and [participant name]: Orthodox Jews who are gardeners and designers, and healthy food, and organic, who have the same values of any of us, and who also have a very rich cultural toolkit to work with? (Interviewee #2, 2011). Online survey results help to clarify the extent to which Jewish and environmental motivations draw Pearlstone Farm participants. Online survey takers were asked their motivation for participating on the Pearlstone Farm, and the most frequently appearing answers (survey takers could "check all that apply") fall under environmental and agricultural categories, rather than Jewish categories. The top three motivations for participating on the Pearlstone Farm are: "to engage in pro-environmental activity for the sake of my local community" (68.1%), "to maintain/increase my level of environmental education" (67.3%), and "to gain access to fresh, local, organic, and healthy food" (61.0%). The total motivation responses are seen below: 180 Table 40: Pearlstone Farm participants? motivation for participating (N = 141) Motivation category Specific motivation % N Jewish To maintain/explore my own Jewish identity 52.5% 74 To become more connected/involved in the Baltimore Jewish community 38.0% 53 To become more connected/involved with the Jewish peoplehood worldwide 21.3% 30 To maintain/explore the Jewish religion 35.5% 50 To maintain/increase my level of Jewish education 40.4% 57 Environmental and agricultural To engage in pro-environmental activity for the sake of my local community 68.1% 96 To engage in pro-environmental activity for the sake of the global community 53.2% 75 To maintain/increase my level of environmental education 67.3% 95 To decrease my level of environmental anxiety/fear 15.6% 22 To gain access to fresh, local, organic and healthy food 61.0% 86 More survey-takers say they are motivated to participate on the Pearlstone Farm for environmental and agricultural reasons than Jewish reasons. Of all survey takers who answered this question (N = 141), 95% listed at least one environmental/agricultural motivation, whereas 74% listed at least one Jewish motivation. Follow up questions with original interviewees and research gatekeepers saturate this trend. Interviewees suggested that the lower numbers for Jewish motivations is due to the fact that many Pearlstone Farm participants are already satisfied in their Jewish lifestyles, and thus Jewish items from the survey are not motivations to participate. As interview data from the previous section suggest, individuals may prefer participation on the Pearlstone Farm over other environmental and sustainable agricultural programs because they are comfortable operating in a Jewish atmosphere and amongst other Jews. For example, an interviewee explains her motivation to participate on the Pearlstone Farm as stemming primarily due to environmental and agricultural reasons, but the Jewish piece of it was still important: 181 "But I came into the scene because I was Jewish and I was interested in developing myself as an environmental educator, not because I was interested in Jewish environmental education. And there were there nice options that were around that some of my friends were involved in. It?s Jewish, I?m Jewish. I kind of fit the mold and I can conduct myself very well in these situations because I have the Jewish background, I speak Hebrew, and I?m really into farming and have farming experience, and now an education experience. And working in the Jewish community is and was never really a goal of mine even though I?ve been working in it for like 3 years...So it was because the farming and education, the marriage as the two, and I was well positioned to be here and there wasn?t a learning curve for me, and I can teach other people about it" (Interviewee #4, 2011). Although the majority of Pearlstone Farm participants are motivated to participate based on environmental and agricultural issues, they come to the Farm with varying levels of self- identified pro-environmental lifestyle dedication. Interviewees describe this variation in participants' prior levels of pro-environmental dedication: "So some feedback we got [from Pearlstone Farm program participants] was from a sustainability perspective, learning about food systems, and food justice, and the interconnectedness. A further development there for sure. But also, maybe even more so, feedback saying, they already knew about sustainability and land-based relationships, but the experience of doing it in a Jewish way was really, really powerful, and saying wow, this is a way to be Jewish. A way that engages in a more holistic range of sense and learning styles and not only texts and not only [praying]" (Interviewee #5, 2011). "I think if you have very little knowledge of how to go about gardening and planting, it's wonderful to have a guide and have someone to come along and help and show you what to do and how to do it, and how to save your plants and what to plant and what to plant when. It's guidance of how to farm" (Interviewee #6, 2011). "This is my first experience volunteering in a farm work setting....well I know I?m learning a lot about crops in general. My mom's into gardening but it was never my thing, and so I?m learning a lot from being out here. Even overhearing the little tours the Milldale campers get. The fact this is an organic farm and we can just be picking peas and eating them right there" (Interviewee # 7, 2011). "It?s not one of these scenes that are like anarchist, and those places for sure exist in Baltimore, like more radical. [The Pearlstone Farm] is a more mainstream gentle way to get into it that, like, slightly left of mainstream. For people who are 182 excited and ready to get on the boat and realize this is important. There?s almost a range of different avenues you can go through to make local food more a part of your life, and this is like local food and growing your own food and learning where your food comes from" (Interviewee #4, 2011). Online survey takers were asked to rank their self-perceived "level of dedication" to living an environmentally friendly and sustainable lifestyle prior to their Pearlstone Farm involvement. This question was intentionally broad in scope in order to incorporate any activities or attitudes participants felt contributed to an environmentally-friendly way of life. Results show that the majority of Pearlstone Farm participants (57%) had a moderate to low level of self-perceived pro-environmental dedication before participating on the Pearlstone Farm. 4.3.2. Property: individual-level impacts The Pearlstone Farm influences its participants on an individual level in terms of their Jewish identities and pro-environmental lifestyles. An interviewee explains this dual-level influence, stating: ?We?re trying to change a food system and the face of what Judaism is or can be?we inspire people Jewishly and we inspire people environmentally? (Interviewee #2, 2011, emphasis on original). Individual level impacts on Jewish identity and pro-environmental lifestyle are further categorized by cognitive, affective and behavioral impacts. 4.3.2.1. Subcategory 3.10: Jewish identity impacts As an educational program, the Pearlstone Farm provides learning opportunities on Jewish culture and religion. Participants can use their experiences on the Farm to figure out how Jewish culture and religion fit in their lives. Interviewees describe Jewish learning opportunities on the Pearlstone Farm: ?It is not just about farming and connections between Jews and farming, but about exploring Jewish identity, and spiritual practice, and pluralistic communities. Inclusive, pluralistic, inclusive, open-minded, explorative Jewish communities I 183 think is very attractive to people trying to figure out what role Judaism is going to play in their life? (Interviewee #3, 2011). ?A lot of people think that Judaism is irrelevant to them. But Judaism is not just a system of outdated laws, or a system of Semitic, foreign religion with no relevance. I think that when people start to learn about the eco and social justice wisdom found in traditional and modern Jewish texts, all of the sudden the conversation between their current food and environmental values and their current Jewish identity resumes. Then, once Judaism feels relevant again, a number of doors open? (Interviewee #3, 2011). "I grew up pretty Jewish, with a lot of Jewish background. I went to Jewish day school. I had a strong connection to Israel. So Judaism was this thing that was always a part of me, and I was trying to figure out how I wanted to be a part of it. And I was always straying more away from it and, like, just like trying new things because I had done it all my life, and something I had sort of grappled with. And back then it wasn?t as much a part of my identity as it is now which is now. Which is something I sort of gained from being here" (Interviewee #4, 2011). ?When I talk to [a Pearlstone Farm participant] about his Jewish identity, it was something...it was never really exposed to him. And when he came [to the Pearlstone Farm] he was trying to connect to his father and understand what his dad is doing. Because his dad is Jewish but his mom isn?t, and his dad has become more and more religious over time, and so this is a cool place to learn about things that his dad might be learning about. And um, yeah, it?s like he has more of a sense of it being approachable and embodying so many different things? (Interviewee #4, 2011). The Pearlstone Farm also provides a new mechanism for affective connections to Jewish identity. The Farm serves as an affective ?access point? to Judaism for those feeling previously unconnected to the group. An initial connection through agricultural interests may lead to a deeper sense of Jewish connection on the affective level. As an interviewee explains, some participants think, ?[environmentalism] is a shared common value of the people in this community, and maybe I?ll also be able to make those Jewish connections and feel strengthened in Jewish identity? (Interviewee #3, 2011). A second interviewee describes group interactions on the Farm leading to a deeper sense of Jewishness: ?It?s definitely that Jewish connection when everyone?s working together and that sense of Jewish community? (Interviewee #7, 2011). The 184 Pearlstone Farm is a space that serves as a new source of Jewish community, which may instill a sense of belonging for Jews feeling previously disconnected. An interviewee describes this connection to Jewishness, stating: ?But people who aren?t already connected to Judaism and haven?t found an ?in? in other ways, and they?re attracted to farming, probably feel a lot stronger a connection to Judaism through farming. Because, like, nothing else has turned them on to it, so once they?ve found an in and an on?like, people want to connect to their Judaism, but for people who haven?t really found a way this place, like, works to do that and achieve that. And, they can be here and understand more about what it means to be Jewish and feel comfortable about being Jewish and they don?t have to feel like, ?well, why don?t I like going to shul,? or like ?there are so many things I don?t know about Judaism,? but that doesn?t really matter so much, because you?ve already felt like you?re a part of something and you?ll learn? (Interviewee #4, 2011). In addition to providing a new source of information and feeling of connection, the Pearlstone Farm provides participants with a new ?way to be Jewish." For some, the Pearlstone Farm is ?just another level of participating in the Jewish community? (Interviewee #7, 2011). As interviewees describe, the Farm provides a forum for non-traditional Jewish communal participation: ?I think that people come from a point of, ?I?m Jewish. I?m not feeling Jewishly engaged. I?ve felt that maybe the Jewish communities I belong to have not met my needs, so maybe this Jewish community will meet my needs?? (Interviewee #3, 2011). ?We need a way to be Jewish that is open to all those who want it. Farming can provide this? (Interviewee #1, 2011, emphasis added). The Pearlstone Farm is a space for Jewish communal bonding, which results in new personal and professional relationships. When describing the 18-35 year old presence on the Farm, an interviewee says, "So that demographics [group] is interested in potentially meeting people, and someone who they eventually will partner up with" (Interviewee #3). A second interviewee lists several bonding opportunities he's witnessed amongst Pearlstone Farm participants: 185 "I?ve seen people who have made life changing decisions after face to face experiences here. Some people meet their husbands, wives, people make friends. Some people have changed their graduate education. It has inspired some to go to rabbinical school. I?ve seen many change their jobs. People get more involved in the community" (Interviewee #1, 2011). 4.3.2.2. Subcategory 3.10: pro-environmental lifestyle impacts The Pearlstone Farm provides learning opportunities on environmental issues and sustainable agriculture. For example, interviewees recognize the importance of environmental knowledge as a key step towards for pro-environmental living: ?A volunteer here asked, ?why don?t you use pesticides?' So I told him the whole thing and that?s just new information for him, and he?s in 10th grade. So that will make him think, but he doesn?t necessarily have the purchasing power to go out and decide what to buy. But it can definitely be a starting point? (Interviewee #4, 2011). "Volunteers I work with, especially high school interns, people don?t often think about where their food comes from. So it's just like thinking about where your food comes from and realizing it comes from a farm, and what those farms look like. And this is one model and an industrial model being another one" (Interviewee #4, 2011). ?I don?t think people will get it unless they?re told. ?Let me tell you some other ways to be green. Let me give you some examples of things that are helpful to you.? I don?t think they would just get it on their own? (Interviewee #6, 2011). According to interviewees, the Pearlstone Farm's educational programming has raised environmental awareness in a variety of areas including: runoff prevention, pesticide use, recycling, composting, healthy food choices, garden techniques, and sustainable farming practices. The availability of an operational, educational farm enables this learning to take place amongst the Baltimore Jewish community. The Farm?s service as a community field for environmental issues amongst the Baltimore Jewish community makes it a central source for environmental knowledge, which has led its role modeling for the larger Jewish greening movement in Baltimore. As an interviewee explains, ?So just, like, people knowing that we?re 186 here with information, we?re living a certain way, we?re doing certain things, so we?re going to have information that people can tap into? (Interviewee #4, 2011). Pearlstone Farm participants may also be inspired to continue their environmental and agricultural learning once they?ve physically left the farm. As an interviewee points out: ?I think it can also influence people to learn more. Even what you don?t get here you can choose to look more into it? (Interviewee #7, 2011). Pearlstone also influences affective facets of its participants? pro-environmental lifestyles by addressing the internal barriers living "green." The Farm does so by increasing participants' comfort levels with the environmental movement and their personal responsibilities for pro- environmental living. One interviewee observed many feelings of anxiety surrounding environmental behavior in the Baltimore Jewish community. She explains: "In terms of just decreasing that misconception, or decreasing the anxiety associated with certain environmental movements, I encountered a tremendous amount of fear and anxiety about, one, changing your behavior. Even if it's costing them more money or bad for their health, people are much more likely to remain status quo and not change because it's easier...People also have a lot of fear and anxiety about cost. There?s a lot of fear of environmentalism as costing more. And breaking those barriers to make these issues more accessible to people is the way to both role model and then inspire those people in those organizations, institutions, and constituencies" (Interviewee #8, 2011). By making environmental knowledge and experiences more accessible and tailored to individual situations, the Farm is breaking the barrier between lack of knowledge, feelings of fear, and motivations to act. Several interviewees cite the Pearlstone Farm?s Jewish Community Gardening Collective as a method of defusing some of this anxiety. Until the JCGC, the JFM in Baltimore was limited to a single rural location (the Pearlstone Farm), which is not only physically inaccessible to many (due to lack of easily accessible public transportation), but also 187 posed a psychological barrier to adopting a pro-environmental lifestyle. For example, the Pearlstone Farm's displaced location was: ?almost propagating that idea of ?you can do [farming and pro-environmental activities]?out there.? ?You can do this if you have 100 acres.' 'You can do this if you don?t have to live within walking distance of a synagogue,' and ?you can do this ?if this,? ?if that.' 'Those people over there do that.' 'If you go out there you can do that, but in our home it?s status quo' ? (Interviewee #8, 2011, emphasis on original). The Jewish Community Gardens, which are dispersed throughout the larger Baltimore Jewish community, enable more frequent and more situated agricultural experiences. As interviewees explain: The Jewish Community Gardening Collective ?shows the practicality of how all the lessons established in Reisterstown can be applied, and how you don?t have to live with acres and acres around to participate and to be farming or to use agricultural practices. You can be in an urban environment and still be very involved in agricultural sustainability, food access, and tie that all into a Jewish education component? (Interviewee #8, 2011). ?The goal [of the Community Gardening Initiative] is for these institutions to feel comfortable and confident in embodying the values we stand for here and teaching, passing those values in a way that meets the needs and interests of their constituency? (Interviewee #3, 2011). The Pearlstone Farm strives for the Jewish community of Baltimore to feel comfortable enough with the Jewish farming movement for it to become a regular aspect of being Jewish in Baltimore. An interviewee explains this vision stating: ?I think that [the Pearlstone Farm] would like to see its values incorporated into mainstream Jewish Baltimore?s values, infrastructure, institutions, behavioral norms [and] expectations. And so what that means is that this community doesn?t just feel like, ?oh [the Pearlstone Farm] is a nice place to go, slightly out of touch with reality out there, farming, ok it?s good for a couple of people, but it?s more of an experience than something that is a model" (Interviewee #3, 2011). The Pearlstone Farm influences the behavioral aspects of participants? pro-environmental lifestyles by addressing external barriers to green living. The Farm addresses these external 188 barriers by providing the necessary infrastructure (the farm, gardens, seeds, tools, etc.) for action, as well as creating community norms for action by linking Judaism and agriculture. As noted above, the JCGC makes environmental and agricultural practice more physically accessible to more Jews in Baltimore. Individuals no longer need to travel to Reisterstown to participate. The infrastructure provided through the Pearlstone Farm also enables action. Jewish farming movement activities could not have taken place in Baltimore due to the lack of infrastructural capabilities and resources with which to act. The Farm has also created a cultural climate in which sustainable consumption is acceptable, which is inclusive of Jews across the denominational spectrum. A central goal of the [Pearlstone] Farm is, ?empowering and mobilizing the Jewish community to be more sustainable and make healthier choices and eat local food? (Interviewee #2, 2011). According to interviewees, Pearlstone Farm participants? food choices are the most noticeable behavioral changes. Other behavioral changes that Jewish Baltimoreans have begun to internalize include: recycling, composting, gardening, joining a CSA, attending farmers markets, shopping within the local economy, eating healthier food, using renewable energy sources, advocating for environmental causes, and improving land-use practices. The online survey provides a method for examining the extent of individual-level Jewish identity and pro-environmental lifestyle impacts on Pearlstone Farm participants, and also how these impacts vary across participant characteristics. The researcher used empirical data from the open interviews to create cognitive, affective, and behavioral indicators of Jewish identity and pro-environmental lifestyles, which are displayed in the tables below. 189 Table 41: Indicators of Jewish identity Indicators Cognitive Exploration of Jewish religion Exploration of Jewish culture Affective Feeling of connection with the Jewish peoplehood Feeling of connection with the Baltimore Jewish community Feeling of connection with the Baltimore Jewish environmental or agricultural community Sense of personal Jewish identity Behavioral Personal interactions/connections with other Jews Professional interactions/connections with other Jews Participation in Jewish events/activities/organizations Table 42: Indicators of pro-environmental lifestyles Indicators Cognitive Exploration of other pro-environmental causes/knowledge/issues Level of pro-environmental knowledge Affective Level of anxiety/fear of environmental issues/situations decrease Level of pro-environmental attitude Behavioral Making ?greener? personal or institutional food choices (ex: local, organic, non-packaged, low petroleum) Making ?greener? personal or institutional energy choices (ex: public transportation, biking/walking, shutting off electricity, lower water use) Making ?greener? personal or institutional purchase choices (ex: less plastic packaging, more recycling, more reusing, less non-recyclable purchases) Making ?greener? personal or intuitional land-use choices (ex: composting, creating rain gardens, decreasing impervious surfaces, decreasing non-native species) Level of pro-environmental advocacy (ex: spreading the word, donating, fundraising, signing petitions, protesting) Online survey takers were asked to rank the level of self-impact they perceived to occur under each specific indicator, based specifically on their Pearlstone Farm participation. The impact measurement is based on the extent to which survey takers perceived an ?increase? to each specific indicator (0 being no increase at all and 5 being the greatest increase). The figures and tables below display average rankings and descriptive statistics for each specific indicator, as well as descriptive statistics for the summative indices of the nine Jewish identity and pro- environmental lifestyle indicators. Summative indices were created by adding each of the nine 190 indicator scores. Summative index scores range from 0 to 45 possible points for both Jewish identity and pro-environmental lifestyle. 191 Figure 38: Average ranks (0 - 5) of increase to each Jewish identity indicator (N = 140-14365) Figure 39: Average ranks (0 - 5) of increase to each pro-environmental lifestyle indicator (N = 140-14266) 65 See descriptive statistics for N of each indicator 66 Ibid 2.61 2.7 2.49 2.18 2.88 2.61 2.89 2.49 2.7 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Cognitive Affective Behavioral 3.24 2.97 2.78 2.04 2.67 2.88 2.98 2.86 3.35 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Cognitive Affective Behavioral Exploration of Jewish culture Exploration of Jewish religion Feeling of connection with Jewish people hood Feeling of connection with Baltimore Jewish community Feeling of connection with Baltimore Jewish environmental and agricultural community Sense of personal Jewish identity Personal interactions and connections with other Jews Professional interactions and connections with other Jews Participation in other Jewish organizations Level of pro- environmental knowledge Exploration of other environmental causes, problems or issues Level of pro- environmental attitude Level of anxiety or fear of environmental issues decrease Making greener personal or institutional food choices Level of pro- environmental advocacy Making greener personal or institutional land use choices Making greener personal or institutional purchase choices Making greener personal or institutional food choices Making greener personal or institutional energy choices 192 Table 43: Descriptive statistics of each single indicator N Min Max Mean Std. Dev. Feeling of connection to Jewish peoplehood 143 0 5 2.49 1.648 Feeling of connection Baltimore Jewish community 142 0 5 2.18 1.599 Feeling of connection Baltimore Jewish environmental/agricultural community 143 0 5 2.88 1.642 Personal connections with Jews 143 0 5 2.89 1.615 Professional connections with Jews 143 0 5 2.49 1.744 Participation in other Jewish events/activities/orgs 141 0 5 2.70 1.603 Sense of personal Jewish identity 142 0 5 2.61 1.671 Exploration of Jewish religion 140 0 5 2.70 1.737 Exploration of Jewish culture 142 0 5 2.61 1.624 Greener food choices 142 0 5 3.35 1.655 Greener energy choices 142 0 5 2.86 1.789 Greener purchase choices 142 0 5 2.98 1.784 Greener landuse choices 142 0 5 2.88 1.870 Exploration other pro-environmental causes/knowledge/issues 141 0 5 2.97 1.744 Level of pro-environmental advocacy 142 0 5 2.67 1.809 Level of pro-environmental knowledge 142 0 5 3.24 1.593 Level of anxiety/fear of environmental issues/situations decrease 140 0 5 2.04 1.819 Level of pro-environmental attitude 141 0 5 2.78 1.728 Table 44: Descriptive statistics of each summative index Jewish identity summative index Pro-env. lifestyle summative index N Valid 143 142 Missing 4 5 Mean 23.3986 25.6972 Median 24.0000 27.0000 Mode 27.00 45.00 Std. Deviation 11.66742 13.82207 Variance 136.129 191.049 Skewness -.232 -.262 Std. Error of Skewness .203 .203 Kurtosis -.735 -1.086 Std. Error of Kurtosis .403 .404 193 Figure 40: Jewish identity summative index histogram Figure 41: Pro-environmental lifestyle summative index histogram Frequency of index scores (N) Jewish identity summative index score (0-45) Frequency of index scores (N) Pro-environmental lifestyle summative index score (0-45) 194 In addition to providing a way to gauge the extent to which each indicator was perceived as an impact, the quantitative data from the online survey enables exploration what type of participants are impacted to what extent. The researcher ran multivariate regression models through the SPSS statistical analysis software to investigate which participant characteristics influence Jewish identity and pro-environmental lifestyle rankings. In order to do this, data from the online survey were downloaded into an Excel spreadsheet, and cleaned to transform text responses to numeric values. The Excel sheet was imported into SPSS, and two multivariate linear regression models were run for each of the two summative indices. The summative index scores were the single dependent variables for the own, separate regressions. Eleven participant characteristics were the independent variables in each of the regressions. These independent variables include six interval/ordinal variables and five nominal variables. The six interval/ordinal independent variables are: age, socio-economic status, perceived importance of being Jewish, perceived dedication to pro-environmental living, length of Pearlstone Farm participation (in cumulative years), and frequency of Pearlstone Farm participation (in number of days per year). The table below shows the transformation of survey responses into numeric values for each interval variable: Table 45: Transformation of online survey responses from text to numeric format Independent variable Text response from survey Numeric equivalent for multiple regressions Age 18 ? 34 1 35 ? 54 2 55 ? 74 3 75+ N/A67 Socioeconomic $49,999 or less 1 67 Variable categories ?55 ? 74?and ?75+? are combined to be interpreted as ?55+,? because only one ?75+? participant filled out a survey. 195 status (total and pre- taxed annual household income) $50,000 - $99,999 2 $100,000 - $149,999 3 $150,000+ 4 Perceived importance of being Jewish Not at all 1 Not very N/A68 Somewhat 2 Very 3 Perceived dedication to a pro- environmental lifestyle None 1 Very low Low 2 Moderate High 3 Very high Length of Pearlstone Farm participation Less than one year 1 One to two days a year 2 Two to three days a year 3 Three+ days a year 4 Frequency of Pearlstone Farm participation Less than once a year 1 One to ten days a year 2 Ten+ days a year 3 The five nominal independent variables are: marital status (dummy), sex (male = 0, female = 1), Jewish denomination (dummy), Jewish formal affiliation (nonaffiliated = 0, affiliated = 1), and locality (nonlocal = 0, local = 1). Dummy variables were created for marital status (single, married, other) and Jewish denomination (not Jewish, non-denominational, Orthodox, Conservative, Reform or Reconstructionist). The category of "single" was the omitted category for the marital status dummy variable, and the category of "non-denominational" the omitted category for the Jewish denomination dummy variable. The table below displays how this research meets the assumptions of linear regression, as identified by Paul D. Allison (1999). These include: linearity, independence, homoscedasticity, normality, and multicollinearity. 68 Variable categories ?not very? and ?not at all? are combined to be interpreted as ?not very or not at all,? because only two ?not very? participants filled out the survey. 196 Table 46: Assumptions for linear regression (table compiled by Rachel Berndtson; sources cited within table) Assumption Test used Result Jewish identity model Pro-env. lifestyle model Linearity: relationship between predictor and outcome variables should be linear Scatterplots of residuals and predicated values (Yang 2012). Randomness of residuals over the range of predictor variables, or the predicted Y value (Yang 2012). Mean independence: the x variables are unrelated to the random disturbance of U For non-experimental data, ?there?s nothing in the data that will enable you to determine whether or not such violations are present. The only thing you have to go on is your knowledge of the phenomenon you?re studying? (Allison 1999, 125). Using a simple randomized or probability sample makes this assumption less likely to be violated (Allison 1999). The sample in this research was collected using theoretical sampling to find significant variations amongst property dimensions (Strauss and Corbin 1998). A violation of this assumption leads to an unbiased model, which cannot be generalized to the larger population (Allison 1999). However, grounded theorists using quantitative analysis need to ?relax the rules? of those analyses in order to generate theory (Glaser 2007), and will not generalize the theory beyond the population studied. Homoscedasticity: the variance of errors cannot depend on the x variables. Scatterplots of residuals and predicated values (Hoffman 2005; Yang 2012). Pattern of residuals show a ?uniform degree of scatter? (Allison 1999, 133). Uncorrelated disturbances: the value of error for any individual sample is uncorrelated to the of error for any other individual Durbin-Watson statistic to test correlation of residuals (Hoffman 2005). Statistic should be close to the value of two. Values nearing zero indicate positive autocorrelation, and values nearing 4 indicate negative autocorrelation (Hoffman 2005). Durbin-Watson statistic: 2.052 Durbin-Watson statistic: 1.774 197 Normality of errors: Errors have a normal distribution Histogram of regression standardized residuals with normal curve (Yang 2012). Distribution of residuals reflects the normal curve and is "reasonably symmetric" (Yang 2012, 33). Normal P-P plots of regression standardized residuals (Hoffman 2005). Observed cumulative probability is symmetrically distributed around the expected cumulative probability (Hoffman 2005). Multicollinearity: independent variables are not too highly correlated with one another Tolerance and VIF statistics. Assumption is met if VIF is under 2.5 and tolerance is over .40 (Allison 1999). Tolerances: all ? .417 VIFs: all ? 2.401 Tolerances: all ? .419 VIFs: all ? 2.386 In the Jewish identity summative index regression model, 23.6% of the variance in the summative index score can be explained by the eleven independent variables. Three independent variables (locality, Jewish denomination-not Jewish, and length of participation) significantly (p <.05) influence the mean of the Jewish identity summative index score. These variables are bolded in the regression result table below. Table 47: Regression results of participant characteristics on Jewish identity summative index Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error Beta (Constant) 28.436 9.352 3.041 .003 Affiliated -.484 2.445 -.021 -.198 .844 Age -1.830 1.876 -.124 -.975 .332 Sex 3.356 2.218 .137 1.513 .133 Local -5.909 2.744 -.216 -2.153 .034 Socio-economic status -.151 1.185 -.015 -.127 .899 Dedication to pro-environmental lifestyle -1.251 2.234 -.059 -.560 .577 Importance of being Jewish .024 2.228 .001 .011 .992 Length of participation 2.300 1.045 .214 2.201 .030 Frequency of participation .842 1.044 .075 .807 .422 Denomination: Not Jewish -10.919 4.778 -.289 -2.286 .024 Denomination: Reform or Reconstructionist 1.288 3.332 .042 .387 .700 Denomination: Conservative -.331 3.212 -.011 -.103 .918 Denomination: Orthodox 2.888 3.326 .084 .868 .387 Marital: Married -1.718 3.110 -.072 -.552 .582 198 Marital: Other .963 4.593 .020 .210 .834 In the pro-environmental lifestyle summative index regression model, 22.7% of the variance in the summative index score can be explained by the eleven independent variables. Three independent variables (socioeconomic status, Jewish denomination-not Jewish, and frequency of participation) significantly (p <.05) influence the mean of the pro-environmental lifestyle summative index score. These variables are bolded in the regression result table below. Table 48: Regression results of participant characteristics on pro-environmental lifestyle summative index Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) 19.530 11.042 1.769 .080 Affiliated -2.934 2.892 -.107 -1.015 .313 Age .655 2.206 .037 .297 .767 Sex -.034 2.609 -.001 -.013 .990 Local -3.335 3.256 -.103 -1.024 .308 Socio-economic status 2.857 1.397 .243 2.046 .043 Dedication to pro- environmental lifestyle -1.806 2.636 -.072 -.685 .495 Importance of being Jewish .498 2.637 .023 .189 .851 Length of participation 1.694 1.230 .135 1.378 .171 Frequency of participation 2.734 1.229 .207 2.225 .028 Denomination: Not Jewish -11.645 5.654 -.262 -2.059 .042 Denomination: Reform or Reconstructionist 4.470 3.935 .123 1.136 .259 Denomination: Conservative -1.517 3.809 -.043 -.398 .691 Denomination: Orthodox -.560 3.941 -.014 -.142 .887 Marital: Married -5.607 3.670 -.201 -1.528 .130 Marital: Other -3.417 5.418 -.062 -.631 .530 Complete regression statistics and residual plots are listed in Appendix F. 4.4. Quality checking 199 The researcher checked data results with committee members and research gatekeepers through a private Facebook page, in-person meetings, and phone and email exchanges. The researcher used Facebook to ?invite? several core informants and gatekeepers to a private page for research updates and feedback. Privacy was maintained by making the Facebook page unsearchable by the general Facebook public, and by restricting members from seeing who else is a page member. The researcher requested all feedback be given through direct emails or Facebook messages, so as to uphold the highest degree of anonymity on the Facebook page. During the open coding process, the researcher posted each of the three major categories and requested participant feedback. The researcher also checked data collection results and analysis with core and gatekeeper research participants through email and phone exchanges and in person meetings. The researched used email, phone and in-person exchanges with research gatekeepers to clarify the coding analysis and theoretical scheme. 200 5. Chapter 5: Answering research questions This chapter uses the final substantive theory developed in Chapter Four to answer the study's nine research questions. These include the four broad questions that structured this work from the beginning, as well the five questions that emerged once the grounded theory began to take shape. The four original research questions include: 1. What is the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore, why did it begin, and what factors contributed to its original invention? 2. How is the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore diffusing through the Jewish community of the Greater Baltimore Metropolitan Area? 3. What are the impacts of the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore on its participants? Jewish identities and pro-environmental lifestyles? 4. How does the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore compare to other, similar movements in the United States? The five additional research questions include: 5. How is the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore creating a new form of Jewish community, and who is part of this community? 6. What role do Jewish communities play in the creation, diffusion and operation of the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore? 7. What features specific to the Jewish community of the Greater Baltimore Metropolitan Area make the Jewish farming movement possible and successful there? 8. How, and for whom is the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore enabling Jewish cultural sustainability? 201 9. How, and for whom is the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore enabling environmental sustainability? Research questions #1, #2, #3, and #5 provide a larger structure for the analysis below. Answers to research questions #4, #6, #7, #8 and #9 are embedded within the four framing questions. Research question #4 (comparing the JFM in Baltimore to other, similar movements) is answered by comparing Pearlstone Farm results to data from structured interviews, and grey and scholarly literature reviews from other community farms and gardens in the United States. The components of the final theory used to answer each research question are displayed through figures in each section below. 5.1.Research question #1: What is the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore, why did it begin, and what factors contributed to its original invention? 5.1.1. What is the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore? Figure 42: Components of the final theory used to answer the "what" of RQ#1: 202 The Jewish farming movement in Baltimore is one community?s rendition of a larger, national movement that provides experiential Jewish agricultural education through a diversity of programs. The physical sites at which the JFM in Baltimore operates include one primary (the Pearlstone Farm) and several secondary (Jewish Community Garden Collective organizations) Baltimore Jewish organizations. In delivering JFM programming, these social spaces result in new social processes (Jewish identity and pro-environmental lifestyle formation) amongst program participants. This research describes the programs offered through these new social spaces as traditionally environmental/agricultural programming reinterpreted and reapplied through a new Jewish lens (subcategory 1.3), and traditionally Jewish programming reinterpreted and reapplied through a new environmental/agricultural lens (subcategory 1.4). The Pearlstone Farm merges the topics of Jewish religion and culture with the environment and sustainable agriculture to enhance the relevancy of each. The Farm?s two branches of programming also broadly address the ?how? of research questions #8 and #9, concerning how the movement in Baltimore enables both (8) Jewish cultural and (9) environmental sustainability. The JFM in Baltimore enables Jewish cultural sustainability by providing a space for Jewish learning, and for cultural group socialization. The JFM in Baltimore enables environmental sustainability by providing a space for pro- environmental learning and practice. As a "grassroots innovation," the Pearlstone Farm offers bottom-up action towards sustainable development rooted in a particular social and cultural context (Seyfang and Smith 2007). Grassroots innovations are community-based niches for sustainable development, that provide experimental spaces for new innovations (Seyfang and Haxeltine 2012).The spaces of the JFM in Baltimore are new places for social learning towards pro-environmental sustainability. These spaces offer meaningful environmental experiences by 203 embedding those experiences within a cultural context, and offering learning through doing. Meaningful environmental experiences, rather than ?externally imposed regulations and incentives," are more likely to result in long-lasting pro-environmental behavior (Maitney 2002, 304), and community-based organizations have been recognized for their provision of meaningful environmental experiences (Georg 1999; Maiteny 2002; Barraket 2005; Middlemiss 2010a). Like many grassroots innovations, the Pearlstone Farm provides first and second order learning towards pro-environmental living (Seyfang and Smith 2007). Pearlstone programs offer ways to learn about the environment and sustainable agriculture (first order), as well as opportunities to reflect upon cultural, normative, and societal features influencing pro- environmental and/or unsustainable attitudes and behaviors (second order). Second order learning is a critical element in successful niche growth and emergence, because it prompts individuals to question the existing regime (Kemp et al 1998 in Seyfang and Haxeltine 2012, 384). Religious organizations in particular can shape participants? pro-environmental lifestyles by providing cultural templates through which to interpret and act on environmental issues (Hart 1996). Environmental issues inherit a greater meaning when framed through a value-based theological perspective (Brockelman 1997; Rockefeller 1997; Jacobs 2002; Maiteny 2002; Macnaghten 2003; Middlemiss 2008; Smith and Pulver 2009). By situating environmental sustainability within meaningful frameworks, religious groups can alter the normative group culture surrounding the environment (Middlemiss 2010a). The Pearlstone Farm is a community- based organization that uses religious texts and symbols to deliver environmental experiences and education. Cultural group members create their own meanings from the symbols embedded in the physical environment, and thus spaces are a reflection of their understanding of the relationship between themselves and the environment (Soja 1989; Greider and Garkovich 1994; 204 Mazumdar and Mazumdar 2012). The spaces created through the JFM in Baltimore are laden with religious and cultural symbols, which members of the group interpret as meaningful through their Farm experiences. Theories of learning have recently shifted from general principles to a more contextual nature (Hart 2007 cites several examples, including: Brown and Duguid 2000; Davis et al 2000; Wenger 1998). Learning, as understood by critical and postmodern theorists, places responsibility on the individual to construct meaning, but this construction occurs within specific social contexts (Hart 2007). A contextual emphasis on learning includes efforts to better understand the complex interplay of personal and social learning conditions, including cultural emphases and interactions (Rogoff et al 2003 in Hart 2007, 316). Social learning on the Pearlstone Farm involves a Jewish cultural emphasis and an environment shaped by the culture. One way the Pearlstone Farm reinterprets and reapplies environmental and agricultural concepts through a new Jewish lens is by altering the landscape of its space to reflect the Jewish culture. Landscapes, as socially produced spaces, are based on the symbolic meaning that humans derive from the physical environment, by experiencing those spaces "through a special filter of values and beliefs. Every landscape is a symbolic environment. These landscapes reflect our self-definitions that are grounded in culture" (Greider and Garkovich 1994, 1). For example, culturally-specific crop varieties and farm/garden structures add to the Pearlstone Farm's Jewish cultural landscape, and thus the cultural meaning derived from it. Other community gardens and farms in the United States are also agricultural spaces that reflect specific group cultures. Community gardens that serve particular ethnic groups, such as Vietnamese, Italian, Hispanic, Chinese, and African American (Airriess and Clawson 1994; Saldivar-Tanaka and Krasny 2004; French 2008), offer environmental and agricultural programming in a new cultural way. Group culture is reflected on agricultural landscapes through garden/farm crop variety and physical 205 garden structure, and in this way cultural groups use gardens as an assertion of cultural identity (Baker 2004; Mazumdar and Mazumdar 2012). Cultural and ethnic gardens produce crops used in culturally-specific dishes and medicines, which are often cheaper to grow than to buy in specialty grocery stores (Airriess and Clawson 1994; Saldivar-Tanaka and Krasny 2004; French 2008). For example, in their research on Puerto Rican community gardens in New York City, Laura Saldivar-Tanaka and Marianne E. Krasny found ethnic vegetable crops, such as brujo oregano and sweet peppers, growing in the gardens. In her research on Hmong ethnic gardens in the Sacramento Valley, Jennifer Helzer found many crops traditional to Hmong culture that cannot be found in local grocery stores (1994), such as ginger, taro, Chinese cabbage and cilantro, coriander, and aromatic leaves. An interviewee from Site B in this research uses vegetables from her church?s garden to produce chow chow: a community-traditional pickled vegetable relish. Two other faith-based Baltimore City gardens (Sites C and D) grow plants that reflect participants? religious beliefs. For example, as an interfaith space, Site D has "five gardens: Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Native American and Eastern religions gardens. Planted with plants that are referred to in the sacred writings in each of those traditions, with a little sign in each that has sacred writings on it? (Site D Interviewee, 2012). Cultural influences on agricultural spaces also come through physical structure (Lawson 2005). Symbols and construction-techniques, such as flags, artwork, ceremonial gateways, decor, and plot styles, reflect the culture of gardens' occupants (Rishbeth 2004). For example, all 20 gardens in Saldivar-Tanaka and Krasny's study have "casitas" or small wooden houses to display pictures, store instruments, socialize and play games (2004). Casitas are a physical element of Latino gardens that make them recognizable from gardens of other ethnic groups (Saldivar-Tanaka and Krasny 2004; French 2008). Other garden structures reflecting group culture include religious 206 statues in Italian gardens, and lattices in Chinese gardens (French 2008). The physical structures of garden Sites C and D from this research reflect faith traditions. For instance, the interviewee from Site C explains that in each separate section of her church?s garden there are mini gardens representing, ?what we call a 'mystic cross,? which is a cross that has each chakra on it, and the color of the chakras. So we've taken [the garden structure] from the mystic cross? (Site C Interviewee, 2012). Several of the community gardens from the grey literature have photos on their websites and/or Facebook pages that display garden symbols or structures reflecting their religion. Examples include bible passages on garden signs, cross structures, and specified prayer sites. The presence of gardens themselves can reflect a culture amongst the larger community landscape. For example, in the case of Vietnamese gardens in New Orleans, the gardens themselves became an "iconic cultural landscape of the community" (Airriess et al 2008, 1343). By including group-specific structures, symbols, and crop varieties, agricultural spaces can simultaneously be religious and cultural spaces, thus serving as sites of for cultural identification, religious practice, and ecological consciousness (Mazumdar and Mazumdar 2012). In addition to enhancing the meaning of pro-environmentalism through a Jewish lens, the Pearlstone Farm also strives to enhance the relevancy of Jewish life and community in the 21st century by aligning it with sustainable agriculture and the environment. The Pearlstone Farm and the Jewish Community Gardens are therefore new, environmentally-situated spaces for Jewish identification. For many American Jews, meaningful Jewish experiences have shifted from externally bounded religious norms to internally driven, personal concepts (Horowitz 2002; Woocher 2009), and environmental engagement is an interest-based approach to Jewish identification (Intrator and Rosov 1998; Kaplan 2009; Mann 2012). The Pearlstone Farm uses the environment and sustainable agriculture as common interests to unite Jews from across 207 demographic spectrums. One of the ways the Pearlstone Farm uses the environment to enhance the meaning of Jewish life is by offering a new form of informal Jewish education through its Jewish agricultural education programs. In contemporary open society, many diaspora groups use cultural education to sustain group culture, and community-based organizations are sources of cultural education (Bekerman and Kopelowitz 2008; Totoricaguena 2008; Firkatian 2008). Community-based organizations that offer cultural education provide a space for individuals to learn about, connect with, and thus maintain, the culture. The North American Jewish community has recognized and promoted Jewish education as a means for group survival and continuity (Pomson 2008; Bekerman and Kopelowitz 2008), and informal education is one format through to enhance Jewish relevancy (Reimer 2011; Woocher 2012). As put by Chazan, "Informal Jewish education, as an approach that maintains that people learn by being actively involved, is a good fit with the diversity, mobility, and longevity that characterize the twenty-first century Jewish world. With its emphasis on experience and values, informal Jewish education seems uniquely equipped to help people on that most important of human endeavors?the search for personal meaning" (2003, 27). The Pearlstone Farm is a community-based organization that delivers informal Jewish education through a variety of programs and for a diversity of students. In using the environment and sustainable agriculture as a basis for informal Jewish education, the Pearlstone Farm actively engages its participants in programs that offer personally meaningful experiences. Aside from providing culturally-relevant content through informal education, community-based cultural organizations also enhance cultural sustainability by offering new spaces through which participants engage in the culture and socialize with other group members. Ethnic spaces vary in form, and are created by imposing "tangible symbols of ethnic identity" in the space to imbue them with group-specific meaning (Chacko 2003). Institutions serving 208 particular ethnic groups can foster social interactions amongst group members by expanding the social links through institutional participation and collective time and energy investments (Kaya 2004 in Kaya 2005, 435; Chacko 2003; Mazumdar and Mazumdar 2009a). The Jewish farming movement in Baltimore operates through several Jewish institutional spaces which expand group social links. In her work on "Space and Place in Jewish Studies," Barbara Mann notes that "The emergence of these new Jewish forms of eco-observance?synagogues hosting organic food cooperatives and Community Supported Agriculture, JCCs sponsoring locavore cholent cook- offs, the ethical slaughter movement?seems to represent a near seismic shift in Jewish attitudes toward land and space? (2012, 151). The natural environment is increasingly considered a space through which individuals derive Jewish meaning. In order for cultural or ethnic groups to survive, members of the group must maintain a group identity, which is accomplished by recognition from both the ethnic individual and the social ?other? to distinguish and legitimate the ethnic identity. Without social structures and social interactions, one?s self-constructed identity is not meaningful (Taylor 1991, 35; Bellah et al 1985; Tuan 2002; Lawler 2008). Therefore, ?ethnic identity requires the maintenance of sufficiently consistent behavior so that others can place an individual in or a group in some social category? (De Vos and Romanucci- Ross 2006, 386; Herman 1989; Tuan 2002; Walford 2008). Places and physical settings ?reflect and shape people?s understandings of who they are as individuals and as members of groups? (Brown and Perkins 1992 in Mazumdar and Mazumdar 2009b, 310). Physical places help shape identity by reinforcing the identity of the "other," and also by serving as an expression of a cultural group's values and beliefs (Relph 1976 in Mazumdar and Mazumdar 2009b, 310). The Pearlstone Farm offers a new physical space through which cultural group members connect and socialize, and act in ?Jewish ways,? and thereby externally legitimate their ethnic identities. 209 Other community gardens and farms in the United States also use agricultural spaces to practice cultural traditions and maintain identities. For example, Latino gardens in New York City and Boston offer new spaces to celebrate traditional holidays (Saldivar-Tanaka and Krasny 2004; French 2008). African American gardens in Boston host informal barbeque gatherings, described as an "integral part" of neighborhood life (French 2008, 87). In this research, all three faith-based Baltimore City community gardens (Sites B, C, and D) are spaces for religious school programming. Aside from hosting religious school classes, the level of faith-specific practice and programming in each garden varies. Site C is entirely dedicated to that church?s religious practice, which involves yoga and "unfolding." An interviewee from this garden explains: "This whole garden is tremendous support and encouragement in unfolding ourselves in mediation. So the garden is important in unfolding all four paths of yoga... [Religious Leader] wanted a garden where people could come and meditate...it's about opening the chakras and realizing our true divine nature. And realizing who we truly are, which is divine. And he wanted a garden that would help people in this process" (Site C Interviewee, 2012). While no specific religious rituals take place in Site D, it offers spirituality on a more general level by serving as a sacred space. Site D honors the faith traditions of several religions, including Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Native American religions, and Eastern religions. Site D?s interviewee explains the sacredness of the space: "I don't know, I just, to me it's the epitome of sacred space. That idea of just being in a place where you know when you walk in the energy shifts a little bit. You just know you're in a different place from the bus stop" (2012). Site B serves as a space through which to practice the ministry of tithing and charity, rather than as a sacred space, or space for religious ritual practice. When asked if her religion is reflected in the garden itself or the garden programming Site B?s interviewee answers: 210 "Well, not really. According to the bible, we know about the gardens in the bible and how the garden started in the bible and all that. But we believe that what we do in this garden in helping people. That's what it's all about! It's helping people in need in the community. That's what we try to do is serve this community" (2012, emphasis on original). Tithing produce for the needy is a common way in which many faith-based community gardens and farms use agricultural spaces for traditional religious practice. Although the grey literature on only eight out of the 35 USDA faith-based People?s Gardens describe prayer-oriented or ritualistic religious programming occurring within their agricultural spaces (such praying, or celebrating patron saint days), over half (N=18) list tithing for the needy as part of their programming. The traditional religious practice of tithing is being realized through hands-on food production and harvest in religious community gardens. 5.1.2. Why did the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore begin? Figure 43: Components of the final theory used to answer the "why" of RQ#1: 211 Two larger contexts influenced the Pearlstone Farm's creation. These are: a changing 21st century Jewish community (subcategory 1.1), and an increased interested in the larger, secular environmental movement (subcategory 1.2). The contextual factors surrounding an innovation should be accounted for when analyzing its diffusion. Citing Ormrod (1990), Barbara Wejnert iterates this: "A fundamental element in adoption theory is recognition that innovations are not independent of their environmental context but that they rather evolve in a specific ecological and cultural context and that their successful transfer depends on their suitability to the new environments they enter during diffusion? (2002, 310). New socio-technical systems do not fall from thin air, but rather emerge within the contexts of existing regimes (Belz 2004; Geels 2004b). The two larger contexts of a changing Jewish community, and the larger environmental movement made the JFM suitable to diffuse to and take root in the Baltimore Jewish community. These contexts represent the social processes responsible for the creation the JFM as a new socially produced space, in order to change the regimes surrounding Jewish identification and pro-environmental living. Regime changes begin with experimental activities and learning fostered through small niche spaces. Niches can be stabilized into larger socio-technical regimes once they are further institutionalized and adopted (Geels 2004b). As a grassroots innovation, the Pearlstone Farm is niche space with the potential to transform the pro-environmental and Jewish identification regimes. The Pearlstone Farm is a program created out of a context of a changing 21st century American Jewish population, and a concern over the sustainability of a Jewish future. Declining relevance of the once strongholds of Jewish identification have resulted in an American Jewish population that is reinterpreting what it means to be Jewish (Cohen and Eisen 2000; Kirshenblatt-Gimblett 2005; Kaplan 2009). Although many American Jews still identify as 212 Jewish internally, emotionally, and affectively, fewer find meaningful opportunities to identify through social and behavioral mechanisms (Cohen and Eisen 2000), which are key components to maintaining any ethnic identity (Hollinger 2000; Totoricaguena 2008; Alba 2006 in Friedlander et al 2010, 357; Altman et al. 2010 in Friedlander et al 2010, 357). The porous boundaries, contextual relationships, and connections without affiliation that many American Jews seek are not attained through traditional Jewish organizations (if their programming remains unchanged), but rather through ?intermittent involvements structured around common interests? (Cohen and Kelman 2005 in Kirshenblatt-Gimblett 2005, 6; Grossman 2009). The Pearlstone Farm was created as a new "way to be Jewish? that aligns with these communal trends. Rather than a rejection of the religion and culture, Pearlstone Farm participants seek a more meaningful way to experience Judaism and Jewish life, or "a way of being Jewish in the world that is relevant to us" (Interviewee #2, 2011). A desire for increased community involvement and sociability also underlies the contexts for establishing many non-JFM community gardens and farms in the United States. However, whereas the Pearlstone Farm grew from a context to sustain community and social ties for a specific cultural group (American Jews), other community farms and gardens seek to sustain community and social ties for specific geographic groups. In some cases these geographic groups also include a cultural component, such as the Puerto Rican community in New York City (Saldivar-Tanaka and Krasny 2004), the Chinese community in Boston (French 2008), and the Vietnamese community in New Orleans (Airriess et al 2008). However, the literature on these community gardens provides no indication of uniting cultural group members beyond the geographic bounds of those cities, or neighborhoods within those cities. In contrast, the Pearlstone Farm provides Jewish cultural connection, experience, education, and bonding for 213 Jews throughout the United States. Although the majority of its participants are local to the Baltimore Jewish community, a significant minority are nonlocal, and the Farm's structure is set up to encourage and accommodate nonlocal participants. The uniting factor is therefore cultural, rather than solely geographic, or cultural and geographic. Non-JFM community gardens are often created as mechanisms to unite once socially-distant geographic neighbors. By creating "socio- ecological spaces," community gardens enable community members to interact and collaborate, and foster a greater sense of community (Armstrong 2000; Hanna and Oh 2000; Schukoske 2000; Ferris, Norman, and Sempik 2001; Kurtz 2001; Glover 2004; Saldivar-Tanaka and Krasny 2004; Tidball and Krasny 2007; Draper and Feedman 2010). None of the four interviewees from the Baltimore City gardens/farms report ?neighborhood sociability? as a motivation for establishment. However, 45% (N = 33) of community gardens from the grey literature69 were established out of a motivation of enhanced neighborhood sociability. The establishment of the Pearlstone Farm was also due to an increased interest in the secular environmental movement. The Pearlstone Center internalized this larger social movement from secular society, which is not an uncommon practice for religious institutions. For example, in his research on the diffusion of female ordination amongst Christian denominations, Chaves suggests: "a denomination's formal policy permitting female clergy should be understood as a symbolic marker signaling orientation to and cooperation with a broader movement for women's equality. The diffusion of women's ordination is, at least in part, the result of an externally generated norm of gender equality working its way through an organizational population" (1996, 845 - 846). In a similar way, the Pearlstone Farm was partially created as a result of an "externally generated norm" of the environmental movement that worked its way through the Jewish community of 69 The number of community gardens from the grey literature with information about "motivation to begin" include N = 80 sites. This number of sites is due to the Baltimore Green Space Excel sheet, which provides motivation information on seven of its sites that do not have online grey literature. 214 Baltimore. Previous research on Jewish environmental education acknowledges the importance of secular environmental education for its pedagogical basis (Intrator and Rosov 1998). In the United States, an increasing amount of individuals are taking part in pro-environmental action at the local level (Lawson 2005; Martinez et al 2010), and community-based organizations enable this action. Benefits of environmental activity through community-based organizations include the contextualization of issues, the provision of meaningful environmental experiences, and the normalization of environmental action into local culture (Georg 1999; Maiteny 2002; Barraket 2005; Middlemiss 2010a). The larger environmental movement also influences the creation of other community gardens and farms in the United States. Community gardens are often created to provide environmental, ecological, and sustainable farming education (Peters 2010; Kaufman and Bailkey 2000; Hanna and Oh 2000; Saldivar-Tanaka and Krasny 2004; Lawson 2005), and ecological improvement (Feenstra 2002; Milburn and Vail 2010; Emmett 2011). Although only one of the four Baltimore City community gardens and farms (the non-faith-based site) was created with pro-environmental goals, over half of the gardens and farms from the grey literature cite at least one pro-environmental issue as their motivation to begin. Pro-environmentalism is a goal embedded into USDA People's Gardens and Baltimore Green Space gardens. For example, all USDA People's Gardens, "should incorporate sustainable practices. The gardens might use compost or mulch made by participants. They might contain native plants or encourage beneficial insects. They also might exemplify water conservation, for instance, capturing rain in a barrel to water the garden" (People's Garden 2013). Baltimore Green Space describes itself as "land conservation oriented organization," and cites ecological improvement as one of the benefits to joining the trust. Although the People's Garden and BGS sites include pro-environmental features, it is unclear whether pro-environmentalism is 215 an original motivation for their establishment. The table below lists the number70 of farms and gardens from the grey literature that specifically site pro-environmental motivations for establishment. Table 49: Gardens and farms from the grey literature that started out of pro-environmental motivations Environmental motivation # of gardens from grey lit % of gardens from grey lit Air/water/soil quality 18 23% Connecting to the land 7 9% Environmental education 27 34% Ecological sustainability 22 26% At least one of the above 45 56% An additional context surrounding the comparison community gardens and farms in the United States, but not the Pearlstone Farm, is community development. Laura Lawson defines community development as "a broad term that encapsulates a variety of social, economic, and physical improvements meant to empower a neighborhood or group so it can advance itself" (2005, 294). Community development is a very common establishment motivation for comparison community gardens and farms. Three of the four Baltimore City community gardens and farms from interviews, and 71% (N = 57) of the community gardens from the grey literature indicate some form of community development as their motivation for establishment. Forms of community development associated with gardens include: healthy and affordable food access, job and skill training, local economic growth and opportunity, education, sense of community, and neighborhood beautification (Kaufman and Bailkey 2000; Schukoske 2000; Ferris, Norman, and Sempik 2001; Kurtz 2001; Feenstra 2002; Glover 2004; Saldivar-Tanaka and Krasny 2004; 70 Ibid. 216 Metcalf and Widener 2011). The Pearlstone Farm was not established out of a motivation for community development, and this may be due to its intended participant population. As addressed in greater detail under research question #5, the Pearlstone Farm participant base is not a disempowered or marginal group that struggles with issues of food access, neighborhood beautification, or economic opportunity. Food access may be the most fundamental asset community gardens provide for marginal populations. "Food deserts," areas with little to no access of affordable, healthy food (Cummins and Macintyre 2002 in Walker, Keane, and Burke 2010, 876), are prominent amongst low- income and racial/ethnic minority populations (Chung and Myers 1999 in Walker, Keane, and Burke 2010, 878; Hendrickson, Smith, and Eikenberry 2006 in Walker, Keane, and Burke 2010, 878; Powell et al 2007 in Walker, Keane, and Burke 2010, 878; Zenk et al 2005 in Walker, Keane, and Burke 2010, 878). Food production is a particularly important goal for community gardens with low-income populations (Armstrong 2000; Kurtz 2001; Allen et al 2003; Twiss et al 2003; Kaufman and Bailkey 2000; Lawson 2005; Draper and Freedman 2010). Community gardening may be the best food security options for low income populations with few good food alternatives (Gottlieb & Fisher 1996; Lyson 2004 in Corrigan 2011, 1234). Interviewees from Baltimore City community gardens and farms, and data from the grey literature indicate similar trends. For example, when explaining the need for his Baltimore City community farm the interviewee from Site A says, ?as people left [Baltimore], so did a lot of the grocery stores and sources of food. So a lot of the neighborhoods in Baltimore don't have as much fresh healthy food as they used to? (2012). The interviewee from Site B describes her garden as created in response to healthy food access issues: "But a lot of the churches now have gardens. I don't know why. Just something that started. I think it's because they're dwelling so much on obesity and they need 217 kids to know about healthy foods and what to eat, and how they eat, and why they eat. And they need to know because it?s causing too many people to be sick. You know what I'm saying? With different diseases not eating the proper food. I'm sure you've seen a lot advertised on TV about eating the proper food....It started because Reverend [Name] wanted to introduce to the kids of the church how to go about working in the garden and starting the garden, and um, for health reasons" (2012, emphasis on original). Food access and healthy food options are motivations for over half of community gardens (N = 42) from the grey literature. Community development through gardens also includes job creation (Kaufman and Bailkey 2000; Ferris, Norman, and Sempik 2001; Feenstra 2002), skill training (such as organic agriculture, carpentry, entrepreneurship, marketing, economic development) (Kaufman and Bailkey 2000; Ferris, Norman, and Sempik 2001; Saldivar-Tanaka and Krasny 2004; Metcalf and Widener 2011), health benefits (Armstrong 2000; Hanna and Oh 2000; Draper and Freedman 2010; Corrigan 2011; Okvat and Zautra 2011) and neighborhood beautification and improvement (including urban revitalization, and diversion from drugs, violence and crime) (Schukoske 2000; Ferris, Norman, and Sempik 2001; Tidball and Krasny 2007; Metcalf and Widener 2011). Two interviewees from Baltimore City community gardens and farms point to economic incentives for the creation of their spaces: ?We had also been working in these communities, and knew that food access and jobs were really important to our communities here, and it was something folks wanted as a resource in their neighborhood...So part of [the motivation to create this farm] is reutilizing the space that isn?t utilized, and providing tax money and jobs in Baltimore, and feeding our community? (Site A Interviewee, 2012). "We want to try to make the garden into an economically beneficial activity. We want to try to do that for the local community. We are located in an area that has a very high, disproportionate unemployment or underemployment rate. And if we can help out that way. Like taking it to the next level with the preserved products, or fresh vegetable sales. But that's a whole other ministry in and of itself!" (Site B Interviewee, 2012) 218 Baltimore City community garden interviewees also refer to urban deterioration, crime, and neighborhood beautification as motivations to create their sites. For example: ?So, Baltimore was built for a million and a half, maybe two million people. And there are about 600,000 people in it now. So we?ve had a serious depletion of population, mostly coming out of after the riots, the MLK riots, and the 60s and white flight, a whole series of race bating real estate tactics...So as that happened, the population declined. The city is now looking at 30 acres of land that is good for farming and under that definition, at least an acre contiguous? (Site A Interviewee, 2012). "The garden started because in this neighborhood there was, I thought, a need for a quiet reflective space in the midst of an area, a neighborhood, that had been at one point very suburban, but was gradually becoming more urban. And so many of the problems of urban living came to this neighborhood" (Site D Interviewee, 2012). The table below indicates the number of community gardens from the grey literature that were created to address each community development issue: Table 50: Gardens and farms from the grey literature that started out of community development motivations Community development motivation # of gardens from grey lit % of gardens from grey lit Job creation and skill training 23 29% Education (general) 24 30% Nutrition, active recreation and health benefits 21 26% Neighborhood beautification, reducing dumping and trash 36 45% Push out drugs, violence, and crime 17 21% Food access and healthy food options 42 53% At least one of the above 57 71% 219 5.1.3. What factors contributed to the original invention of the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore? Figure 44: Components of the final theory used to answer the "what factors" of RQ#1: Answering the third part of research question #1 also addresses research questions #6 and #7 on the role Jewish communities play in the creation of the JFM in Baltimore, and the features specific to the Jewish community of Baltimore that make the JFM possible and successful there. Factors contributing the Pearlstone Farm's original invention include capacity (subcategory 1.5) and power (subcategory 1.6) resources. These resources are provided through two separate institutional Jewish communities: the Baltimore Jewish community, and the larger Jewish environmental, food, and farming community. The development of any socio-technical system is a "highly social, collective process," and requires a socially diverse set of actors to stabilize the 220 innovation (Smith et al 2005 in Seyfang and Smith 2007, 588). Introducing a pro-environmental norm onto an existing regime requires coordination efforts amongst different actors, institutions, and infrastructures within and beyond that regime (Seyfang and Smith 2007; Kemp et al 1998 in Seyfang and Haxeltine 2012, 384). Through their provision of capacity and power resources, Jewish institutions both within and beyond the Baltimore Jewish community enabled the social processes necessary for the JFM to take root in Baltimore through the Pearlstone Farm as a new social space. Institutional support has also enabled the Pearlstone Farm to begin the transition from a new and experimental socio-technical niche, to an institutionalized and more stable socio- technical regime (Geels 2004b; Seyfang and Smith 2007). The Pearlstone Farm relies on capacity resources provided through larger institutional actors. It is often challenging for grassroots innovations to secure financial and human resources, as well as maintain the sustainable technology through which they operate (Seyfang and Smith 2007). Finding an "institutional fit" within a larger network can help to overcome these challenges. Scaling up operations at levels larger than the niche can lead to alterations of the original niche rules and norms. However, in order to bring regime change, niches require transposition at larger scales (Seyfang and Smith 2007; Seyfang 2010). As Seyfang and Smith explain: "Paradoxically, a key benefit of grassroots innovations, namely, the ?world within a world?, undermines diffusion. Whilst practices where ?the rules are different? have certain strengths, those strengths become barriers when in concerted opposition to incumbent regimes" (2007, 597). The Pearlstone Farm was made possible largely through capacity resources from the Associated and the network of Jewish environmental, food, and farming institutions. In this way, the Pearlstone Farm is quite similar to other community gardens and farms in the United States that 221 also rely on institutional resources for initial establishment and continued success (Lawson 2005). In contrast to community gardens of previous eras, the majority of today's gardens receive organizational support ranging from small volunteer organizations, to million dollar budget nonprofit organizations, to public agencies (Kaufman and Bailkey 2000; Twiss et al 2003; Saldivar-Tanaka and Krasny 2004; Lawson 2005). Nonprofit organizations provide institutional support to help community gardens organize their efforts, gain land tenure, access technical and material support, and offer education and information (Saldivar-Tanaka and Krasny 2004). Results from this research highlight the Associated and the Pearlstone Center as essential nonprofit institutional partners to the Pearlstone Farm's success. These nonprofits organized and implemented the JFM in Baltimore, and in doing so were monumental to producing the Farm's "representational space," which are the spaces imagined through planning and discourse (Lefebvre 1991). Similarly, all of the interviewees from Baltimore City community gardens and farms emphasize institutional support as a large part of their sites' success, whether it is from a municipal organization (Site A Interviewee, 2012), a nonprofit organization (Site A Interviewee 2012; Site D Interviewee 2012), a religious institution (Site B Interviewee; Site C Interviewee; Site D Interviewee), a family foundations (Site D Interviewee), or some combination of all. For example, Site A?s interviewee acknowledges that his farm and the Pearlstone Farm both require a larger institution to operate: "Yeah, I guess [the Pearlstone Farm is] also part of a larger organization. So the Retreat Center has a lot of stuff going on that doesn?t directly have to do with the Farm, and [Site A's Nonprofit Organization] can be that way as well. They both provide resources and stability and that name that people have known for a long time. But it can also complicate it, because it's not just a farm on an island that can exist within its own framework. It has to be part of a larger structure" (2012). Community farms and gardens from the grey literature are also supported by larger institutions. It was these supporting institutions that provided a systematic way for the researcher to find and 222 study each site. Information on the names, locations, and websites for the farms and gardens were organized and listed on the websites of these larger, supporting institutions (BGS, Farm Alliance, and People's Garden). In addition to the large scale support they receive from the People's Garden, BGS, and Farm Alliance, community gardens within these initiatives receive additional institutional support at a more local scale. Additional support comes from the faith- based centers, municipal programs, city governments, higher education institutions, local housing authorities, and environmental nonprofits that physically house the initiatives and provide on on-the-ground support. Local institutional support is a BGS requirement, as its community gardens must have a "partner organization," defined as "a community association, church, social club or other organization that is active in the neighborhood" (BGS 2013) to help sponsor and maintain the site. Similarly to the Pearlstone Farm, partner institutions support community gardens and farms with land, financial, and human resources. Although securing land is an essential step for community garden and farm success, land tenure is one of the most prominent challenges community farms and gardens face (Lawson 2005; Milburn and Vail 2010). The history of community gardens in the United States has been one of interim land use (Lawson 2005; Milburn and Vail 2010). Land is often leased from a city municipality, privately owned, or owned by a nonprofit organization or land trust. Gardens and farms in urban areas are often vulnerable to eviction due to more economical uses of space for tax revenue (Kaufman and Bailkey 2000; Lawson 2005; Borrelli 2008; Milburn and Vail 2010). Community gardens that partner with an organization for acquiring land often enjoy longer term success and stability (Lawson 2005). This is very much the case with the Pearlstone Farm on the Pearlstone Center land, and the Jewish Community Gardens on synagogue, day school, JCC, senior center, and other institutions' land. All are located on the grounds of larger and long- 223 established Baltimore Jewish institutions. Similarly, the three faith-based Baltimore City community gardens are located on church-owned land. The non-faith-based Baltimore City community farm (Site A) is located on Baltimore City government property. Government partners, while a good initial option for land tenure, tend to be less stable in leasing land to community gardens. Government leases tend to be two years or less, because governments may want to develop that land to increase the tax base (Lawson 2005; Naimark 1987 in Milburn and Vail 2010, 76). Land trusts are a third common option for community garden land acquisition. The Baltimore Green Space land trust purchases land on which community gardens reside in order to protect it from future development. The majority of BGS community gardens are located on spaces previously owned by the Baltimore City government. The land trust can purchase spaces from Baltimore City at $1, which makes the land ownership a somewhat seamless transition. Privately owned abandoned sites, although not excluded from the trust, are much more difficult to acquire. According to Baltimore Green Space (BGS), the trust: ?works to protect community gardens, pocket parks, and other open spaces created and cared for by city residents. At the request of community groups, Baltimore Green Space acquires community-managed open spaces and provides support to those who care for them. This allows communities to ensure that their urban oases endure without taking on the responsibilities of acquisition, ownership, and liability? (BGS 2013). Institutional partners also offer financial stability for community gardens and farms ? a second critical component to their success. This study's results detail the importance of the Associated's annual capital fundraising campaign and individual donations to the Pearlstone Farm's success. As noted in Chapter Four, these financial resources are "what makes [the Pearlstone Farm] possible" (Interviewee #1, 2011). However, securing short-term and startup grants only satisfy one hurdle to community garden longevity. According to Kaufman and Bailkey, ?the lack of a steady and consistent stream of outside funding may be the single biggest 224 procedural obstacle to the continued advancement of urban agriculture? (2000, 59). In her investigation of "What it takes to create and sustain successful, sustainable food systems," Gail Feenstra advises a proactive approach to securing financial resources (2002, 99). Feenstra notes that although agricultural organizations may easily secure seed grants, the most vulnerable financial period is between start up and stability, or until the agricultural site is institutionalized (2002). For example, the People's Garden initiative offers financial support to the community gardens it hosts. People's Garden grants range from $1,500 to over $100,000. However, according to its website, People's Garden grants are designed to "facilitate initial investment needed in these communities, not long-term support" (People's Garden 2013). Lastly, institutional partners provide community gardens and farms with human resources. Results show that the Pearlstone Farm relies on institutional support from the Associated and the other Jewish environmental, food, and farming institutions for sourcing program participants, volunteers, and staff. Non-JFM farms and gardens in the United States also benefit from human resources provided through partner institutions. In their review on the California Healthy Cities and Communities (CHCC) initiative, Twiss et al cite local leadership, staffing, volunteers, and community partners among key elements to successful community gardens (2003). City governments and partner institutions provide support through leadership and staffing, and also help to garner broader community support through public outreach campaigns (Twiss et al 2003; Lawson 2005). Lawson suggests that community gardens use neighborhood associations, local organizations, and businesses to expand outreach beyond those who are already "converted" (2005). As described further under research question #2, interviewees from Baltimore City community gardens and farms utilize their institutional partners to recruit volunteers and program participants. 225 In addition to capacity resources, institutional partners also provided the Pearlstone Farm with the necessary power resources to begin, by garnering support from leaders and community members. The original Jewish environmental, food, and farming institutions are responsible for institutionalizing JFM before it diffused to the Baltimore Jewish community. Two levels of institutionalization occurred before the JFM came to Baltimore: the larger Jewish environmental and food movements paved the way for the creation of the national JFM, and the original JFM program, Adamah, paved the way for the Pearlstone Farm. Research results explain how the Jewish environmental movement influenced the creation of the Jewish food movement, which influenced the creation of the Jewish farming movement. The influential nature of these consecutive movements qualifies as what Meyer and Whitter call, "social movement spillover" (1994). Social movement spillover is "a product of both contemporaneous and successor effects, as movements influence each other directly, alter successive challenges, and affect the larger terrain on which they struggle" (Meyer and Whitter 1994, 280). An original movement can influence subsequent movements by "altering the political and cultural conditions it confronts in the external environment, and by changing the individuals, groups, and norms within the movement itself" (Meyer and Whittier 1994, 281 - 282). The original movement institutionalizes once marginal norms amongst a broader community, thus shifting the boundaries of legitimate and accepted behavior within that community (Meyer and Whittier 1994). Early pioneering organizations, such as the Teva Learning Center, institutionalized the idea of incorporating pro- environmentalism into Jewish communal activity and discourse. The normalization and acceptance of the Jewish environmental movement led to the creation of the subsequent Jewish food, and farming movements. Meyer and Whittier also explain that the original movement enables diffusion of innovations between successive movements. For example, social movement 226 communities may overlap in contacts, institutions, and actors, which influence innovation diffusion amongst them (Meyer and Whittier 1994). The institutionalization of the Jewish environmental movement spurred the Jewish food and farming movements, and also enhanced their diffusion. The normalization of the JFM through Adamah was also critical to the Pearlstone Farm's establishment. The first rendition of the JFM came through the Adamah Fellowship at the Isabella Freedman Retreat Center in Connecticut. The Pearlstone Center adopted the JFM after a Pearlstone Center employee witnessed its success in Connecticut. According to Strang and Meyer, theorized and institutionalized concepts of formal organization can lead to rapid diffusion (1993). Theorization is defined as "the self-conscious development and specification of abstract categories and the formulation of patterned relationships such as chains of cause and effect. Without general models, cultural categories are less likely to arise and gain force" (1993, 24). If theorized models are institutionalized and standardized by becoming built into authoritative and accepted schemas, they are more likely to rapidly diffuse (Strang and Meyer 1993; Strang and Soule 1998). One of the barriers to the diffusion of grassroots innovations is the potential risk of failure they pose to new adopters (Seyfang and Smith 2007). Because the grassroots innovation of the JFM was institutionalized into the Isabella Freedman Retreat Center, there was less risk in adoption for the Pearlstone Center. The Pearlstone Center adopted a similar approach by creating a JFM program that was also connected to a Jewish conference and retreat center. Much of the Pearlstone Farm's original programming and operations were derived from this already theorized and institutionalized JFM success story in Connecticut. The Adamah Fellowship therefore provided the Pearlstone Farm planners with a "conceived space" before the Farm was created (Lefebvre 1991). The conceived space is occupied by sensory phenomena (such as the 227 imagination), exists in the mental realm, and produces ?ideal spaces? (Lefebvre 1991). Conceived spaces organize the articulation of space and shape the activities occurring in spaces, and are a prerequisite to perceived spaces (Schmid 2008). Power resources also include support from opinion leaders and the larger community. Opinion leadership is ?the degree to which an individual is able to influence other individuals? attitudes or overt behavior informally in a desired way with relative frequency? (Rogers 2003, 27). Opinion leadership is particularly influential in religious communities (Smith 1966 in Wejnert 2002, 313). This proved true in Lucy Middlemiss's study of the Christian Ecology Group, as it gained legitimacy in the church after receiving support from the Rector and seniors members of the Church of England (2010a, 2010b). Middlemiss attributes organizational leadership as a key element in influencing an individual's ability to act sustainably (2010b). Grassroots innovations require "champions," and support to survive (Seyfang and Smith 2007). The Pearlstone Farm benefitted from the championing and opinion leadership of institutional actors including Associated employees and Rabbi Nina Beth Cardin. Leadership and community support is also critical for the establishment and maintenance of non-JFM community gardens and farms. Support from community leaders and the local government in particular can be influential for gardens and farms (Twiss et al 2003; Lawson 2005). If government officials do not support gardening projects they are vulnerable to replacement for more tax generating uses of city space. This notion very much aligns with the Pearlstone Farm?s requirement of ?garden captains? for the Jewish Community Gardens. Garden Captains must hold some leadership position in the organization or the community so to defend the garden against other uses of the space. Lawson recommends a balance between bottom up and top down investments and support (2005). While "top down" support brings skills, money, 228 and social connections, too much leadership from the top can undermine the project?s local leadership. Gardens will cease to exist without support and interest from the local community in which they operate (Lawson 2005; Corrigan 2011). 5.2. Research question #2: How is the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore diffusing through the Jewish community of the Greater Baltimore Metropolitan Area? Figure 45: Components of the final theory used to answer RQ#2: This study defines "innovation diffusion" as participation in the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore. The "innovation" is the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore (the Pearlstone Farm and JCGC) and "diffusion" is measured based on the extent of participants. The research results explain the diffusion of the Pearlstone Farm based on networks, channels, and geographic extent. Embedded in research question #2 is research question #6, concerning the role Jewish communities play in the diffusion of the JFM in Baltimore. The mechanisms through 229 which the JFM diffuses through and beyond Baltimore (explained through subcategories and relational statements) builds an understanding of the "spatio-temporal contexts" surrounding the production of the Pearlstone Farm as a social space (Unwin 1992, 204). The social processes surrounding diffusion are both a condition to and a result of the Pearlstone Farm as a new social space. The production of the space requires participation from social actors, who first heard about the Pearlstone Farm through various mechanisms of diffusion. Additionally, the experiences and meanings Farm participants derive from the space also result in new processes of diffusion, as those actors tell others about their experience. As a socio-technical system, the JFM in Baltimore is both "socially shaped and society shaping" (Hughes 1987 in Berkhout, Smith, and Stirling 2004, 52). This research categorizes the networks for Pearlstone Farm diffusion as specifically Jewish networks that are either ?professional? (subcategory 2.1) or ?personal? (subcategory 2.2). The largely Jewish (versus non-Jewish) nature of these networks brings a level of homophily to the Pearlstone Farm's diffusion process. According to Everett Rogers, diffusion is more successful based on communication with one of similar status, or one who is ?homophilous? (2003). Alternatively, heterophilous communication (between individuals who vary based on certain attributes) may result in cognitive dissonance, because the sender?s message may not be consistent with the receiver?s beliefs, causing a state of psychological discomfort (Rogers 2003). Diffusion is usually rapid between actors of a similar culture (Strang and Meyer 1993), and innovations that align with larger cultural understandings of a network diffuse more quickly than those that do not (Strang and Soule 1998). Religious social systems in particular include networks of those with similar perceptions, which can help to unify behavior and encourage adoption (Zald 1982). 230 Interview data show that the Pearlstone Farm has largely diffused through professional Jewish networks, including the Associated, institutional Farm participants, and organizations within the Jewish environmental, food, and farming network. Structured phone interview results amongst participating institutions are consistent with open interviews, in that the majority of institutional Pearlstone Farm participants (JCCs, schools, synagogues, and other organizations) heard about the Pearlstone Farm through a professional network. However, online survey results amongst individual Pearlstone Farm participants are inconsistent with open interviews, in that there is a near even split between professional (51%) and personal (43%) diffusion networks. Due to this inconsistency, the researcher contacted several open interviewees in order to clarify whether this discrepancy is a true contradiction or an extreme variation. According to interviewees, the inconsistency is based on the researcher's misunderstanding about the nature of Pearlstone Farm diffusion networks. It is difficult to separate professional and personal networks. For example, two individuals who are connected through a professional network are often also connected through a personal network. The dimensions of "professional" and "personal" are thus not always mutually exclusive. For example, as one interviewee posits, the same person may be an individual's rabbi (professional network) and also his friend (personal network). When that rabbi tells the individual about the Pearlstone Farm, is it coming through the professional network of the synagogue or the personal network of the friendship? Unaware of this before open coding or creating the online survey, the researcher split the property of "Jewish networks" into two mutually exclusive dimensions, without leaving the possibility of overlap. Based on original and follow up interview data, the research points to the importance of professional Jewish networks for Pearlstone Farm diffusion. However, the categorization of personal networks as a mutually exclusive alternative is not an accurate way to theorize about Pearlstone 231 Farm diffusion. More research is necessary to determine the extent to which Jewish diffusion networks are purely professional, personal, or a combination of both. Due to the inaccuracy of the mutually exclusive "personal" label, analysis on diffusion networks is limited to professional networks. Lawrence A. Brown describes an innovation's strategy for diffusion to the larger population as its "diffusion agency," and categorizes agencies as either one centralized structure, many decentralized structures, or many decentralized structures with a centralized coordinating propagator (1981). The Pearlstone Farm?s diffusion agency is a decentralized structure with a centralized coordinating propagator. The Pearlstone Center is the centralized coordinating propagator, and the Associated and its organizations are the decentralized structures. Innovations that diffuse through a pre-existing network based on outlets that are organizationally linked are characteristic of decentralized structures with a coordinating propagator (Brown 1981). According to Mayer Zald, religious organizations in particular provide an infrastructure which eases the mobilization of social movement activity (1982). Julie Berger points to religious nonprofit organizations (RNGOs) as valuable channels for diffusion. Berger identifies the horizontally and vertically organized networks of congregations, affiliates, organizations, and individuals as leading to: "highly effective channels of communication as well as human and financial resources, attesting to the wealth of RNGOs' social capital. Unlike secular NGOs, which must build their networks from the ground up, RNGOs often attach to existing infrastructures from which to recruit human and financial resources, appealing to people on the level of moral duty rather than pure rationality" (2003, 35). The Pearlstone Center, the Associated, and other Baltimore Jewish organizations, are professional organizations that provide the Pearlstone Farm with an extensive pre-existing infrastructure through which to effectively diffuse. The Farm also diffuses through the 232 professional networks of Jewish environmental, food, and farming organizations, as well as through non-local institutions that participate on the Farm. A diffusion agency through networks of professional Jewish organizations is logical due to the Pearlstone Farm's operational structure and intended participant base. Because the majority of Pearlstone programming is intended for pre-established groups from organizations, rather than individual participants, a diffusion agency and network that largely utilizes professional actors makes sense. The diffusion agencies for other, non-JFM community gardens and farms share similarities and differences to that of the Pearlstone Farm. Similarly to the Pearlstone Farm?s diffusion agency through the Pearlstone Center and the Associated, partner organizations provide important diffusion networks for non-JFM community gardens and farms in the United States. Agricultural organizations, higher education institutes, nutrition groups, the health sector, and religious organizations are equipped with pre-established networks and outreach channels through which local food initiatives may diffuse (Feenstra 2002). The three faith-based Baltimore City community gardens from this research diffuse through single, centralized structures - either the religious institution at which they are located (Sites B and C), or a nonprofit organization (Site D). Whereas the three faith-based Baltimore City gardens diffuse through single, centralized structures, the Pearlstone Farm diffuses a central coordinating propagator and decentralized structures. In addition to its diffusion through the Pearlstone Center, the Pearlstone Farm utilizes a larger diffusion network through the Associated, participating institutions, and the Jewish environmental, food, and farming institutions. This diffusion network is larger than those of Sites B, C, and D based on the number of propagators involved. The larger number of propagators reflects the Farm's operational structure geared towards participating groups, rather than participating individuals. Thus the institutions that 233 house those groups act as part of the diffusion network. The Pearlstone Farm's comparatively larger diffusion network also reflects its goal of regime change. Grassroots innovations operate for two primary purposes: to provide intrinsic value to their constituents through social and environmental benefits, and to bring regime change through larger diffusion. Seyfang and Smith categorize these as "simple niches" and "strategic niches," respectively (2007). The three faith- based comparison community gardens are simple niches whose primary goal is to bring intrinsic social and (to a lesser extent) environmental benefits to participants. Interviewees from these gardens did not express goals of religious, environmental, or agricultural regime change. In contrast, the Pearlstone Farm strives to provide its participants with intrinsic benefits, while also trying to bring regime change. An open interviewee expresses the regime level goal, stating: ?We?re trying to change a food system and the face of what Judaism is or can be? (Interviewee #2, 2011). The Pearlstone Farm's larger diffusion network is logical based on its additional motivation of regime change. Moving from an experimental niche to a more stable and institutionalized regime is a transition that requires a greater number of actors (Seyfang and Smith 2007). This transition represents the socio-technical transformation from "emergence" to "technical specialization." During technical specialization, niche actors form a dedicated community of users who interact, engage in social learning, and institutionalize the innovation (Geels 2004b). While niches are sources of innovation, additional vertically bridged organizations can bring the innovation into the mainstream (Seyfang and Smith 2007). The vertical bridging of the Pearlstone Farm at a national scale presents a second element of diffusion agency contrast. The Pearlstone Farm's diffusion network is also comparatively larger based on the geographic scale of actors involved. The diffusion agency of the non-faith-based Baltimore City 234 community farm (Site A) is more comparable to the Pearlstone Farm's. Site A diffuses through a decentralized agency with a central coordinating propagator. Site A's partner nonprofit organization is the central coordinating propagator. Similarly to the Associated, this nonprofit organization is an umbrella institution over a network of several, smaller organizations and initiatives throughout Baltimore City. Site A also diffuses through the local government and area environmental organizations. Municipal organizations (such as city and state governments) and organizations specific to gardening and greening (such as nonprofit land trusts, and environmental education groups) provide effective outreach networks for community gardens and farms (Peters 2010; Corrigan 2011). According to the interviewee from Site A, ?we tend to get a lot of attention directly from the city government. So the [Baltimore City] Office of Sustainability really incorporates us into their reports and programs and has us on a lot of the tours they do? (2012). Site A diffuses through several community greening nonprofit organizations, the Baltimore City Department of Parks and Recreation, Baltimore City Public Schools, and an area higher education institute. In contrast to the other Baltimore City community gardens, Site A is a "strategic niche" grassroots innovation, as it is part of the larger urban agriculture movement in Baltimore City. Although they share similarities, the Pearlstone Farm remains unique from Site A in the geographic scale of its diffusion agency. Site A's diffusion agency includes Baltimore City organizations, whereas the Pearlstone Farm's agency includes actors at a national scale. Similarly to the larger number actors within its diffusion network, the larger scale of diffusion also reflects the Pearlstone Farm's operational structure. The Farm hosts and can accommodate participants from a much larger geographic scale, reflecting the more geographically diverse diffusion network. 235 A second feature defining Pearlstone Farm diffusion is its diffusion channels. Diffusion channels are classified in this research as interpersonal (subcategory 2.3) or media (subcategory 2.4). Interpersonal channels allow for the transmission of more detailed messages and also allow for individually altered delivery (Coleman, Katz, and Menzel 1957, 1959, 1966 in Brown 1981, 108; Arndt 1967 in Brown 1981, 108; Howard and Sheth 1969 in Brown 1981, 108), while media channels reach larger numbers of people over a larger spatial range (H?gerstrand 1967 in Brown 1981, 108). The Pearlstone Farm largely (but not exclusively) diffuses through interpersonal channels. Much of this interpersonal diffusion is fostered through local Jewish institutions and opinion leaders. Interviewees describe the first several years of Pearlstone Farm programming operating almost entirely based on word of mouth, with little to no media outreach. Local opinion leaders and Jewish institutions hosted coming out events for the new Jewish agricultural initiative. Additionally, Jewish institutions reached out to Pearlstone Farm employees to schedule field trips and sign up for programs even before the Farm was built. Although interpersonal diffusion channels are most prominent, media channels play an important role in the Pearlstone Farm's diffusion to nonlocal participants. Media channels were the source of Pearlstone Farm diffusion for the majority of nonlocal participating institutions (55%), and, although not the majority, were a more prominent channel of diffusion for nonlocal individuals (26%) when compared to local individuals (17%). Many non-JFM community farms and gardens in the United States share the Pearlstone Farm's trait of prominent interpersonal diffusion channels. Although the scholarly literature does not include analysis specific to the channels through which community gardens and farms in the United States diffuse, structured interviews with Baltimore City community gardeners and farmers provide data for comparison. Three out of the four Baltimore City initiatives rely almost 236 entirely on interpersonal communication channels. These three represent the faith-based community gardens. For example: "There is a good bit of word of mouth that happens. We don't have huge media campaigns, but periodically we'll contact all the churches in the area to tell them we're here, and explain to them what it's about. So we'll do that for local businesses, churches, so we do that kind of outreach. When the school is settled in, we'll talk to the parents about the garden. God knows we don't have money for a huge media campaign, but we do a little like that" (Site D Interviewee, 2012). "Well, once we had gardeners, I would sometimes send out emails to communicate to the gardeners, but it isn't how they found us. It was all the law of resonance. Who resonated with it. It was done more subjectively. Sometimes somebody would come forward and would say ?I love this garden, I would love to help.? But we had to become aware to that person's level of commitment and their desire to serve. They were all already participants of the church, we don't have a membership, but they were participating first" (Site C Interviewee, 2012). The non-faith-based Baltimore City community farm also diffuses through word of mouth, but additionally runs a strong media campaign. For example, Site A's interviewee explains, "We do a lot of neighborhood door knocking to increase presence and awareness in our neighborhoods. Community organizations, going to their community meetings...so we go to all of those [community meetings] once a month" (2012). However, he also describes a strong media element: "We started and got a lot of media attention. We were in the Sun and the City Paper, and people, that?s how people originally found us. Eventually we invested and were donated a very nice website, probably like $10,000 value. So we have a pretty interactive website....Social media is actually pretty important for us. Facebook. We don?t Twitter as much. Facebook we have a few thousand folks like us. A lot of the volunteer days we post as an event, and we try to actively upload photos every day or two, showing people what's going on the farm....Some people just Google us! Most of the time volunteers hear about us through Googling 'urban farm Baltimore.' And the City Paper had an urban farm spread that detailed each urban farm and how to get into contact" (2012). Although two of the three faith-based gardens (Sites C and D) have websites, neither are as informative or interactive as Site A's. Similarly, although one of the faith-based gardens (Site D) 237 has its own Facebook page, it is not as regularly updated as Site A's, and has a fraction of "likes" and group members. The researcher used Google searches to look up the farms and gardens from the grey literature. Out of an original list of 131 community gardens and farms, less than half (N = 62) have their own website or a page on their partner institution's website, and less than a third (N = 34) have their own Facebook page or are included on their partner institution's Facebook page. Those gardens and farms without websites or Facebook pages likely rely on interpersonal diffusion channels, although this cannot be confirmed without further research. The gardens and farms with websites and/or Facebook pages provide evidence of some level of media diffusion channels, however, more research is necessary to determine the prominence of these verses interpersonal channels for diffusion. For example, although the Pearlstone Farm has a website and Facebook page, data from interviews and online surveys reveal interpersonal channels as more prevalent. In addition to interpersonal and media communication channels, two of the three faith- based Baltimore City community gardens diffuse in a way unique from the Pearlstone Farm: unintentional public observation. Interviewees explain that some individuals first learn of the gardens as they walk or drive past. Site D's interviewee explains: "As people walk down the road - you may have noticed this particular garden faces the sidewalk - you see it when you're walking up [Street Name] Avenue" (2012). This interviewee goes onto explain: "Well I think the biggest thing to know about the garden is its not gated and its open 24/7 and we advertise it that way. We want people to know there's no time you can't come, including at night. We were pretty careful to make sure there's lighting in the garden, even at night. So, again, it's right on a public bus route, it's right by a very busy city street, but we still wanted to make sure it was absolutely open" (2012). The interviewee from Site B explains: "People will walk by the garden and the church and see [Gardener Name] in the garden and then stop by. They see her working in there first and that's 238 how they learn about it. It's a great way to meet people, is in the garden" (2012). In contrast to these spaces, the Pearlstone Farm is situated in a very private, secluded, and rural atmosphere that is inaccessible by foot from the nearest public transportation, and not visible from the nearest public road. One would not simply pass by the Pearlstone Farm without intentionally meaning to visit the Farm or the Pearlstone Center. The final feature defining the diffusion of the Pearlstone Farm is its geographic extent of diffusion, and participants are either local (subcategory 2.5) or nonlocal (subcategory 2.6). The spatial proximity of an innovation can influence its applicability and thus adoption within a given setting (Wejnert 2002). This is particularly true for agricultural innovations as certain ecological infrastructures are necessary for adoption (Brown 1981; Fliegel 1993 in Wejnert 2002, 311; Saltiel et al. 1994 in Wejnert 2002, 311). Brown defines this type of innovation as "infrastructure constrained,? in that individuals must have physical access to the specific infrastructure to adopt the innovation (1981). Infrastructure constrained innovations are often characteristic of spatially proximate diffusion patterns (Brown 1981). In the case of the Pearlstone Farm, individuals must be able to physically access the farm or community garden spaces in order to participate. Although the idea of the Pearlstone Farm can diffuse throughout and beyond Baltimore, participation on the Pearlstone Farm relies on access to its constrained infrastructure. Although the Pearlstone Farm?s participant base is primarily local, it includes a significant minority of nonlocal individuals (29%) and institutions (46%). The Farm?s distinctive programming and operational structure underlie this geographically stretched participant base. As a relatively new innovation, the JFM operates through a limited number of spaces in the United States. Although spatial proximity is a positive influence on innovation diffusion and is "Perhaps the most common finding in diffusion research" (Strang and Soule 1998, 275), 239 "common status and purpose" also influence diffusion (Strang and Soule 1998, 275; McAdam and Rucht 1993 in Strang and Soule 1998, 275; Soule 1997 in Strang and Soule 1998, 275; Chaves 1996). Although growing in number, JFM spaces are still sparse throughout the United States. For example, if a JCC group from Philadelphia wants to participate in JFM programming, the Pearlstone Farm (although not "local") is their most spatially proximate option. Individuals wanting to engage in the JFM are therefore geographically limited in their options for participation. The maps below show locations of JFM programs and estimates71 of Jewish population in the United States in 2011 by county. The first map shows JFM sites at a national scale and the second map shows Jewish farming movement sites at a regional scale. 71 The data for the 2011 Jewish Population estimate is based on research from Dr. Joshua Comenetz as a fellow at the Mandell Berman Institute - North American Jewish Data Bank at the University of Connecticut. The estimates are based on multiple data sources including: Jewish community studies available at the Data Bank, the Data Bank's Current Jewish Population Report series, and American Community Survey data analyzed by Dr. Comenetz. 240 Figure 46: National map of Jewish farming movement sites in the United States County shapefile data source: United States Census Bureau (http://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/comp-sub.html); JFM site data source: Rachel Berndtson; Jewish population estimate data source: Comenetz 2011 241 Figure 47: Regional map of Jewish farming movement sites in the United States County shapefile data source: United States Census Bureau (http://www.census.gov/geo/maps- data/data/comp-sub.html0; JFM site data source: Rachel Berndtson; Jewish population estimate data source: Comenetz 2011 242 Even when spatially proximate JFM sites are available to groups or individuals, the Pearlstone Farm offers a unique experience due to its structure and operations. The Pearlstone Farm is a rural space that offers overnight accommodations, robust infrastructure and resources, a pedagogically sound and tested curriculum, and trained staff. Not all JFM spaces are capable offering the same experience to out of town (or even local) participants. Some JFM spaces are limited to less than an acre of land and are confined to an urban atmosphere. The Pearlstone Farm offers a unique experience through its five acres of land, pastures with goats and chickens, multiple greenhouses, and bucolic setting. The Pearlstone Center?s overnight and certified kosher accommodations also distinguish it from many other JFM spaces. The Farm also enjoys the consistent support from the Jewish community in which it operates, which has led to a robust infrastructure and well established programmatic offerings. Lastly, the Pearlstone Farm maintains a full-time, well-trained staff for educational programming, event coordination, and farm management. As open interviewees explain, the Pearlstone Farm's model of Jewish agricultural education cannot be replicated everywhere due to its unique geographic and operational features. In contrast the Pearlstone Farm, none of the Baltimore City comparison sites host out of town groups. Additionally, there is no obvious indication of nonlocal participants on the websites of gardens and farms in the grey literature. Data from the grey and scholarly literature indicate that community gardens and farms attract local participants, with neighborhoods as a common geographic boundary for participant bases (Kaufman and Bailkey 2000; Schukoske 2000; Kurtz 2001; Twiss et al 2003; Saldivar-Tanaka and Krasny 2004; Corrigan 2011). The location of a community garden is usually in close proximity to its intended gardeners, as they are often built in order to improve healthy and affordable food access to low-income or disadvantaged 243 populations (Kaufman and Bailkey 2000; Twiss et al 2003; Lawson 2005; Eizenberg 2009; Corrigan 2011). Therefore, gardens are usually located in nearby neighborhoods or on public property making access to that food convenient (Twiss et al 2003). Interviewees from Baltimore City community gardens and farms describe their participant populations located within the "neighborhood," or the ?community.? The following excerpts highlight Baltimore City farm and garden interviewees using the terms "community" and "neighborhood" to describe the areas they serve (emphasis is added in each quote to highlight the references to the Baltimore city neighborhoods community as the local community): Table 51: Indications of the community as ?local? from Baltimore City garden and farm interviewees "So one of the things that we decided we wanted to do, as part of this project, is to have a space in the community where forgiveness, the idea of forgiveness, is really visible to people" (Site D Interviewee, 2012). "And the idea there was, we really are becoming a much more multiethnic and interfaith neighborhood, so we wanted there to be a place where people could come and know their faith tradition was honored and welcomed and respected" (Site D Interviewee, 2012). "The garden started because in this neighborhood there was, I thought, a need for a quiet reflective space in the midst of an area, a neighborhood, that had been at one point very suburban, but was gradually becoming more urban. And so many of the problems of urban living came to this neighborhood. And so I felt as though there was a need for a quiet, reflective space" (Site D Interviewee, 2012). "So, um, it's an opportunity to unfold, and to work together as a community. To become much more attuned to nature, gives us a greater sense of ourselves in the world, because it's all part of life. And it helps us unfold together, because we, sometimes we have to work together to have a garden go through something" (Site C Interviewee, 2012). "They live in this community. Some of them do walk, but most of them drive" (Site B Interviewee, 2012). "It's helping people in need in the community. That's what we try to do is serve this community" (Site B Interviewee, 2012). "The community is excited about it, and they can come and get whatever they want" (Site B Interviewee, 2012). "We want to try to make the garden into an economically beneficial activity. We want to try to do that for the local community" (Site B Interviewee, 2012). "Yeah, so there?s the neighborhood cooking classes with the community, getting our produce 244 into the kitchens and having residents co-teach a class with nutritionists" (Site A Interviewee, 2012). "We do a lot of neighborhood door knocking to increase presence and awareness in our neighborhoods. Community organizations, going to their community meetings. There are five neighborhoods around the park. In a normal city there might just be one, but there are five and five different community meetings so we go to all of those once a month" (Site A Interviewee, 2012). Additionally, many community gardens from the grey literature cite specific neighborhoods and communities in terms of "who they serve." Out of 73 community gardens from the grey literature (with online information), 38 provide information about the community they serve, and all of these indicate a "local" population. Examples include referencing a specific neighborhood ("Reservoir Hill residents" or "the Southside community"), a small-scale geographic region ("Northeast Baltimore,? "Kittas County," or "the parish"), or other terms to describe a local area ("the local community," or "area food banks"). 245 5.3. Research question #5: How is the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore creating a new form of Jewish community, and who is part of this community? 5.3.1. How is the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore creating a new form of Jewish community? Figure 48: Components of the final theory used to answer the "how" of RQ #5: Due to its open structure and environmental emphasis, the Pearlstone Farm is a space that has resulted in the production of a new Jewish community diverse across many demographic characteristics, including members of the Jewish population traditionally under or unengaged in Jewish communal life (young and single adults, nondenominational Jews, and the unaffiliated (Horowitz 2000; Kotler-Berkowitz et al 2004; Ukeles, Miller and Beck 2006; Cohen 2005a in Ukeles, Miller, and Beck 2006, 16; Sheskin and Kotler-Berkowitz 2007; Ukeles and Miller 2010)). As a space fostering a 246 new Jewish community, the Pearlstone Farm is enabling Jewish cultural sustainability by providing an external mechanism for cultural experience and identification. Contemporary American Jews live in a society with fewer social and physical religious boundaries that once maintained group distinctiveness (Alba 2006). In order to maintain cultural distinction, cultural groups in general, and Jews in specific, have used community organizations as spaces to create and maintain group boundaries, and provide mechanisms for group interactions (Kaya 2005; Chacko 2003; Teutsch 2007; Firkatian 2008; Totoricaguena 2008). Thus, Jewish community organizations are a key component to Jewish cultural sustainability. However, contemporary American Jews seek a balance between individualism and community, with the challenge being to find meaning in a mode of Jewish society that is also workable with 21st century lifestyles. The Pearlstone Farm is uses the environment and sustainable agriculture to provide a meaningful and workable mode of Jewish community that revolves around participants' interests and individualistic lifestyles. Unique from traditional Jewish organizations, the Pearlstone Farm is a space void of denominational boundaries or membership requirements. As noted previously, Jewish identities based on personal meaning do not well align with hierarchically established denominational labels such as ?Conservative? or ?Reform,? making nondenominational and transdenominational organizations attractive (Kirshenblatt-Gimblett 2005; Ellenson 2009; Heller 2009; Grossman 2009). Because the Pearlstone Farm is a nondenominational Jewish space, it attracts a participant base spanning traditional Jewish denominations, and includes a large proportion of those who identify as nondenominational. Additionally, the Pearlstone Farm?s lack of membership 247 requirements makes it a viable form of engagement for Jews who are not interested in long-term commitments. American Jews increasingly make Jewish connections over loose social ties (Heilman 2004; Cohen and Kelman 2005 in Kirshenblatt-Gimblett 2005, 6), and through ?intermittent involvements structured around common interests? (Cohen and Kelman 2005 in Kirshenblatt-Gimblett 2005, 6; Grossman 2009). Nontraditional forms of Jewish engagement, such as the JFM, allow intermittent involvement without the guilt of not returning (Kirshenblatt-Gimblett 2005; Ukeles, Miller, and Beck 2006). In addition to its relatively open structure, the Pearlstone Farm attracts a diversity of participants due to its focus on a ?universally human? concept ? the environment. As noted previously, many American Jews want to be Jewish based on a personal meaning rather than a communal obligation (Azria 1998; Cohen and Eisen 2000; Horowitz 2000; Heilman 2004; Kirshenblatt-Gimblett 2005; Windmueller 2007), and an interest in the environment is one basis for doing so. In recent years there has been an "explosion" of Jewish environmental programs (Mann 2012), which have been lauded for offering experiential and spiritually fulfilling experiences based on individual interests (Intrator and Rosov 1998; Kaplan 2009; Mann 2012). Non-JFM community gardens and farms in the United States are also spaces that result in community creation and strengthening (Hannah & Oh, 2000; Feenstra 2002; Smith and Kurtz 2003; Glover 2004; Draper and Freedman 2010). Gardens bring together an otherwise distant set of social actors (Jamison 1985 in Glover 2004, 143) who bond over gardening, grant seeking, fundraising, cookouts, and other activities. Community- based agriculture has been associated with higher levels of communal participation and social capital construction (Feenstra 1997; Wells, Gradwell and Yoder 1999; Cone and 248 Myhre 2000; Hinrichs 2000; Lacy 2000; Hendrickson and Heffernan 2002; Feagan 2007; Feagan and Henderson 2009). Therefore, many contemporary community gardens "are less about gardening then they are about community" (Glover 2004, 143). Three out of the four Baltimore City sites (A, C, and D) have resulted in community-building. For example, the interviewee from Site C describes how her church's garden unites members of the faith through the common goal of spiritual "unfolding": "Being a gardener is an awesome way for unfoldment, and being able to serve is a privilege, because we unfold together so much, we really do....So we are, um, we are all working together and different people play different parts. We have someone who loves using the lawnmower and keeping the grass cut, and we have someone who weed whacks, and yeah. We have somebody who oversees all the landscaping. So we all work together and it's all volunteers!...So sometimes a garden has three people working on it, so they can arrange to take turns. They each may have a day they come to water. And yeah, but it's so much more than that. It's supporting each other through life" (2012). Site D?s interviewee describes her garden as uniting neighbors in the increasingly diverse neighborhood surrounding the garden: "So in the summer time, or when the garden is really active, we try to have something every month. So maybe a labyrinth walk for the community. It might be African dance. We've had chi gong, tai chi instruction. We've had neighborhood walks. We've done clean-up walks in the City. So, um, what else...the story telling, the dance, we've had movies, music, a flea market....And there's also the sacred writings garden, only put in in 2008. And the idea there was, we really are becoming a much more multiethnic and interfaith neighborhood, so we wanted there to be a place where people could come and know their faith tradition was honored and welcomed and respected" (2012). Site A?s interviewee describes his community farm as uniting area neighbors: "We get a lot of volunteers on Saturday. We have open hours. So people can come whenever they want during open hours. So people just come to become involved and feel like they?re a part of this network. We have a bunch of core volunteers who come every Saturday and they?ve taken it into their own to create this community. So they?ve organized a potluck lunch at the end of every Saturday" (2012). 249 The new Jewish community produced as a result of the Pearlstone Farm includes participants who vary across several demographic characteristics including: age (subcategory 3.1), marital status (subcategory 3.2), sex (subcategory 3.3), socioeconomic status (subcategory 3.4), Jewish denomination (subcategory 3.5), Jewish affiliation (subcategory 3.6), self-perceived importance of being Jewish (subcategory 3.7), and self- perceived level of pro-environmental dedication (subcategory 3.8). The scholarly literature on community gardens and farms in the United States does not provide summative information on who gardens. According to Lawson, "Researchers have conducted studies to understand who gardens and why, but the small sample sizes and the particularities of most gardens due to location and social context make it difficult to generalize to gardeners nationally? (2005, 266). Therefore, although the literature does not provide a comprehensive review on the type of individuals in the larger American community gardening population, trends from case studies are highlighted in the analysis below. 250 5.3.2. Who is a part of the community created through the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore? Figure 49: Components of the final theory used to answer the "who" of RQ #5: The Pearlstone Farm is part of a trend of non-traditional mechanisms for Jewish engagement that attract a high proportion of young adults (Kirshenblatt-Gimblett 2005). This comes at a time when it is largely the youngest generation of American Jewish adults (ages 18 - 34) who are losing touch with traditional measures of Jewish community building (Horowitz 2000; Kotler-Berkowitz et al 2004; Ukeles, Miller and Beck 2006; Cohen 2005a in Ukeles, Miller and Beck 2006, 16; Sheskin and Kotler-Berkowitz 2007). This large young adult population makes the Pearlstone Farm unique from the comparison Baltimore City sites. Interviewees from the three faith-based Baltimore City 251 community gardens report adult participant bases towards the older end of the age spectrum. An interviewee from Site C explains: "The youngest might be in their late 30's, the oldest might be in their 80's. Definitely on the older side" (2012). Site B's interviewee explains it?s difficult for young adults to take time off work and night classes in order to garden: "A lot of the students are in school, people are working. When they have time they come and work in the garden. There may not be anyone there, but at the beginning of spring everyone comes together in the garden to get the garden started, you know what I'm saying? And then after that, there's about four or five [people] out here. But everyone can't come at one time because of their situations. Everybody's working. The kids are in school, and a lot of them are taking classes in the evening. So that's the way it operates. More of a drop in basis. I'm there more than anybody else! I'm retired, see it makes a difference" (2012). Site D's interviewee describes a similar age range: "We have kids up to about the eighth grade who seem to be here fairly frequently, and then we have older people; about fortyish and older. But that long population of people who is occupied with other aspects of life. We don't see them as much. Unless they're coming here with children" (2012). The non-faith-based Baltimore City community farm attracts a more evenly distributed adult population, as staff and volunteers range from young adults to senior citizens. However, Site A's interviewee did not make it a point to particularly emphasize a young adult presence, as did Pearlstone Farm interviewees. The Pearlstone Farm hosts an almost even split of single (49%) and married (41%) adult participants. The large representation of single participants adds to the Farm's uniqueness amongst other Jewish programs, as singles are less likely than married individuals to be engaged in Jewish programming (Horowitz 2000; Cohen 2005a in Ukeles, Miller, and Beck 2006, 16; Sheskin and Kotler-Berkowitz 2007). The literature 252 on community gardens does not specify marital status aside from describing gardens as a way to supplement family food costs (Lawson 2005; Tidball and Krasny 2007). Baltimore City community garden and farm interviewees also mention family participants, but do not otherwise distinguish between married or single individuals. Traditional Jewish law separates the sexes for many activities, and many leadership roles (for example: rabbis, cantors) are allotted to men (Kaplan 2009). However, the Pearlstone Farm brings together males and females as program participants. Results from open interviews indicated an even split of male and female Pearlstone Farm participants. However, online survey results indicate that females represent the majority of Pearlstone Farm participants at 65%. The researcher checked this inconsistency with an open interviewee and research gatekeeper, who agrees that Pearlstone Farm programming draws a slightly larger number of females, but also believes the 65:35 ratio is still too highly skewed. Therefore, this inconsistency is a true contradiction to a certain extent. Two of the four Baltimore City farm and garden interviewees spoke about the sex distribution at their sites. At both sites (Sites C and D), interviewees noted a higher proportion of female participants. These two sites also represent two of the faith-based sites, and as one interviewee notes women tend to be more open to spiritual experiences. For example: "Well, definitely more females here. I think it's just a function of how females approach spirituality, and that's a global blatant statement. Women tend to be more focused right-brain wise. A little more open to the mystical and spiritual. Which isn't to say that guys don't come through, but clearly there's more females than males" (Site D Interviewee, 2012). "We have more females than males. Let me just think this through because I don't even think of them in terms of gender. Um...we may have only had one man! We've had a handful of auxiliary men...I would consider the grass caretakers...those are two guys" (Site C Interviewee, 2012). 253 The participant characteristic of socioeconomic status (SES) not only addresses research question #5 on who makes up the Pearlstone Farm community, but also addresses research question #7, concerning the factors specific to the Baltimore Jewish community that make the JFM possible and successful there. Socioeconomic status is an external barrier to living a pro-environmental living, as it requires financial flexibility (Hinrichs 2000; Seyfang 2005, 2006a, 2006b; Macias 2008). Those of higher socioeconomic statuses can afford to dedicate time and financial resources to pro- environmental living, especially when such lifestyles are not financially incentivized or infrastructurally supported by governments. Interview results from this research describe Pearlstone Farm participants as towards the wealthier end on the SES scale. Although online survey data show the largest proportion of individuals (N = 55) are in the lowest income bracket ($49,999 or less), 82% (N = 45) of those individuals are single, and therefore may not have a family to support. The SES of Pearlstone Farm participants is significantly different from many non- JFM community gardens and farms in the United States, which largely focus on social reform for low income and disempowered populations (Kaufman and Bailkey 2000; Schukoske 2000 in Borrelli 2008, 274; Allen et al 2003; Lawson 2005; Eizenberg 2009). Community gardens are often located in urban areas that have experienced deterioration, with vacant lots as spaces for a "remarkable proliferation" of community gardens since the 1990s (Nemore 1998 in Kurtz 2001, 656; Kirschbaum 1999 in Borrelli 2008, 275). Urban decline and vacancy are the consequence of closed businesses, job losses, and population shifts from cities to suburbs (Bowman and Pagano 1998 in Schukoske 2000, 254 353; Kaufman and Bailkey 2000; Goldstein, Jensen, and Reiskin 2001). Vacant lots are a burden for cities due to loss of tax revenue, management costs and general aesthetics, and are often sites of arson, deterioration, public health problems, crime and disease (Kaufman and Bailkey 2000; Schukoske 2000; Kivell 1993 in Goldstein, Jensen, and Reiskin 2001, 3; PHS 1995 in Goldstein, Jensen, and Reiskin 2001, 3). The prominence of vacant land is apparent in large cities, including Chicago, Boston, New York, Baltimore, Minneapolis, New Orleans, and Philadelphia, as well as in smaller urban areas (especially in old industrial and manufacturing areas) including Trenton, New Jersey and Buffalo, New York (Armstrong 2000; Hannah and Oh 2000; Kaufman and Bailkey 2000; Peters 2010; Corrigan 2011; Metcalf and Widener 2011). It is often low income and minority populations who remain in deteriorating urban areas (Bullard 1994 in Ferris, Norman, and Sempik 2001, 67; Gottleib 1993 in Ferris, Norman, and Sempik 2001, 67; Kaufman and Bailkey 2000; Goldstein, Jensen, and Reiskin 2001; Corrigan 2011), and community gardens reclaiming vacant urban lands therefore constitute similar populations (Armstrong 2000; Peters 2010). The literature on community gardening includes several case studies specifically on low income populations (Hanna and Oh 2000; Kaufman and Bailkey 2000; Kurtz 2001; Eizenberg 2009; Corrigan 2011; Metcalf and Widener 2011). However, although there is a "general assumption that most community gardens are in low-income communities... they also appear in the middle- class and gentrifying communities" (Lawson 2005, 266). Many gardens and farms from the grey literature target low-income populations. For example, according to its website, "The People's Garden Grant Program was designed to invest in urban and rural areas identified as food deserts and/or food insecure 255 areas, particularly those with persistent poverty" (People's Garden 2013). Similarly, many of the Baltimore Green Space gardens were once vacant lots. Baltimore Green Space highlights financial security and longevity as a benefit to membership. According to the land trust, BGS: "acquires land on behalf of committed community groups that have established gardens and pocket parks on what were once vacant parcels. By doing so, Baltimore Green Space ensures that the community project is not displaced by development, and eases the burden of local groups by shouldering the responsibilities of acquisition, ongoing ownership, and providing basic insurance liability coverage" (BGS 2013). The following table compares the median household income of the zip codes in which each Baltimore City community garden and farm is located, as well as the Pearlstone Farm. Table 52: Median household income comparison amongst for Baltimore City gardens and farms and the Pearlstone Farm Community Garden/Farm Median Household Income (ACS 5 yr. estimates 2007- 2011) Site A $34,499 Site B $64, 931 Site C $70,957 Site D $47,472 Pearlstone Farm $72,840 The Pearlstone Farm is located in the zip-code area with the highest median income, although it is very comparable to Site C. Sites A, B, and D are located in zip-code areas with lower median incomes. These three sites are also the gardens and farms that were established specifically for some form of community development. For example, the Pearlstone Farm was established out of contexts of cultural group change and the larger environmental movement. Site C was established so that church members may reach a 256 deeper level of spirituality. In contrast, sites A, B, and D were established to alleviate local food shortages, increase access to affordable and healthy food, bolster local economies, provide job/skill training, and combat urban neighborhood deterioration. These three sites are more similar to those described in the literature as "disempowered groups," whereas the Pearlstone Farm and Site C represent the exception that Lawson (2005) cites. The non-denominational nature of Pearlstone Farm programming adds to its transdenominational participant base, including a significant proportion of individuals who identify as non-denominational. The Farm also provides a new form of Jewish engagement for unaffiliated Jews ? those who are not formally members of Jewish institutions and organizations. Affiliation is considered a crucial element to Jewish community and a significant factor in larger Jewish engagement (Kotler-Berkowtiz et al 2004). A report from the United Jewish Communities (UJC) found 44% of American Jews as unaffiliated, 28% as moderately affiliated (members in one Jewish organization), and 28% as highly affiliated (members in two or more Jewish organizations) (Kotler- Berkowtiz et al 2004). This report and others (Cohen and Davidson 2001; Mayer, Kosmin and Keysar 2001; Sheskin and Kotler-Berkowitz 2007) have linked affiliated Jews with higher levels of Jewish engagement and religiosity. For example, the table below displays the UJC findings that the highly affiliated are more connected to other areas of Jewish life than the moderately affiliated, who are more engaged than the unaffiliated. 257 Table 53: Jewish connections by institutional affiliations (table compiled by Rachel Berndtson; source: NJPS 2000 ? 2001 data in Kotler-Berkowtiz et al 2004, 10). At the local level, according to its 2010 Baltimore Jewish Community Study, the Associated found that 46% of respondents feel that Jewish organizations are "remote" and/or "not relevant, and 80% from that population are non-denominational Jews (Ukeles and Miller 2010). The majority of Pearlstone Farm participants (56%) are already affiliated through synagogues or JCCs, and a potentially larger percent of the Pearlstone Farm population may be affiliated through other formal Jewish organizations72. The Farm's operational structure through pre-established groups is geared towards those who are already affiliated, however several Pearlstone Farm programs do not require membership with a pre-established group. Additionally, results from open interviews and grey literature suggest the Pearlstone Farm seeks participants who are unaffiliated. 72 As noted in the results above, the online survey only accounts for Jewish affiliation through JCC and/or synagogue membership, leaving out a potentially large population of individuals who are affiliated through other Jewish organizations (educational, social, advocacy etc.). 258 The researcher used religious institutional membership amongst the three faith- based Baltimore City community gardens as a mechanism for comparison to the notions of Jewish denomination and affiliation. The three gardens vary by the proportion of church members that constitute each participant base. All of Site B's participants are church members. Church members are the primary (and intended) participants for Site C, but non-members are not turned away. For example, as the Site C interviewee explains: "It's a sacred space, and it's really for those who participate in the church. The neighbors have asked if they could come and use it, but they asked kindly and [Religious Leader] said yes....Harmony is our way" (2012). Site D's participants are largely not church members, but rather are neighborhood residents. For example, when describing who participates the interviewee from Site D says: "So when you say, 'church members,' historically it has been more community members. But I don't know that it's really ever been a really big church thing. People in the church who feel called to use it, use it. And they're always very good about contributing, whether it's a clothes drive or a food drive. But I don't think that many of the people who just walk through are necessarily church members. It's really much larger in the community than just the church" (2012). The faith-based institution at which the Pearlstone Farm is located, the Pearlstone Center, is not member-based. Rather, affiliation is scaled up to account for formal participation in any communal Jewish organization. However, the Jewish Community Garden Collective takes place at Jewish institutions that are member-based, and participants in the JCGC are members of those institutions. American Jewish population studies (ex: National Jewish Population Study, Associated's Baltimore Community Study) use the indicator "importance of being Jewish" as a way to capture the affective aspect of Jewish identity. More American Jews 259 are identifying with being Jewish through the sovereign self, and as individually determined meaning becomes a more prominent mechanism of Jewish identification it is important for studies of Jewish identity to capture. Self-perceived importance of being Jewish may be a particularly relevant mechanism of identification for unaffiliated Jews. For example, unaffiliated Jews may not necessarily not feel Jewish or not want to be a part of the Jewish community, but rather some have opted to do so in the privacy of their own homes and through affective rather than behavioral mechanisms. Cohen and Eisen explain that although modern American Jews are not using the same methods to maintain a Jewish identity, many are still looking for meaning within a Jewish frame of life (2000). Results from this research indicate a Pearlstone Farm population that largely (at 71%) believes being Jewish is "very" important. Some from this population represent the unaffiliated who still feel a Jewish connection, but hadn?t previously found a means to realize that connection through participation in Jewish organizations or institutions. For example, of all unaffiliated and Jewish survey takers (N = 46), 70% (N = 32) perceive being Jewish to be "very" important (as opposed to "somewhat," "not very," or "not at all"). Lastly, Pearlstone Farm participants are characterized by their self-perceived dedication to living a pro-environmental lifestyle. Results show that participants come to the Pearlstone Farm with a range of pro-environmental backgrounds, with the majority of participants (57%) ranking themselves as having "low" or "moderate" levels of dedication. Non-Jewish Pearlstone participants come to the Farm with higher levels of pro-environmental dedication. Of all non-Jewish Pearlstone Farm participants (N = 14), 64% come with already "very high" or "high" levels of pro-environmental dedication, 260 compared to only 35% (N = 130) of Jewish participants. This distinction was discovered after regression results pointed to non-Jewish Pearlstone Farm participants as averaging 11.645 points lower in the mean of the summative pro-environmental lifestyle index score than nondenominational Jews (while no statistically significant difference in mean score existed between Jews of different denominations). Given their already high levels of dedication to pro-environmental living, non-Jewish Pearlstone Farm participants may not have as much room to grow in the pro-environmental lifestyle arena. Although the scholarly literature does not specify gardeners' levels of pro- environmental dedication, several cases describe community gardeners as ranging in agricultural experience levels (Corrigan 2011; Metcalf and Widener 2011). Three of the four Baltimore City community garden and farm interviewees also describe a range of agricultural experience levels amongst their populations. For example: "And some come in with a large amount of experience and some come in with a little. But [they were] providing the experience and accommodating the staffing that provides regular solid programming. But also an influx of new people who give us energy and adds a new wrinkle to the farm" (Site A Interviewee, 2012). "Some do. Some come with experience and others don't. They learn it, too!" (Site B Interviewee, 2012). "Most of us haven't been professional gardeners. [Participant Name] has just created a garden care guide for each gardener. It gives the gardeners what they need to know to take care of it....And she's given us the more technical things we need to know. It's just perfect that she popped in. Until she came, I was called 'the mother of the garden,' because I was just learning, but I was mothering" (Site C Interviewee, 2012). None of the three faith-based Baltimore City community gardeners describe their spaces as sites for ecological improvement or environmental education. However, the non-faith- based Site A offers environmental education on topics including watershed protection, 261 sustainable farming techniques, and local food systems. Site A is dedicated to "growing farmers" who become familiar in sustainable methods and techniques (2012). As spaces for environmental and sustainable agricultural education it is logical that not all participants from the Pearlstone Farm come with already high levels of commitment to sustainable living. Rather, they are there to learn. 5.4. Research question #3: What are the impacts of the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore on its participants' Jewish identities and pro-environmental lifestyles? Figure 50: Components of the final theory used to answer RQ #3: Community-based organizations have been recognized as a means for enabling cultural sustainability (Bekerman and Kopelowitz 2008; Totoricaguena 2008; Firkatian 2008) as well as environmental sustainability (Defra 2005 in Middlemiss 2008, 78; 262 Gardner and Stern 2002 in Middlemiss 2008, 78; Jackson 2005 in Middlemiss 2008; Middlemiss and Parrish 2010), and the Pearlstone Farm is a community-based organization making strides in both arenas. The Pearlstone Farm is a space that produces new social processes of Jewish identification (subcategory 3.9) and pro-environmental living (subcategory 3.10). Cultural groups produce new social experiences and derive new meanings from social spaces (Soja 1989). The social interactions and experiences occurring at the Pearlstone Farm result in new processes surrounding cultural identity, as well as pro-environmental living. Results point to the Pearlstone Farm as having some level of impact across all Jewish identity and pro-environmental lifestyle indicators. However, the extent to which participants perceive impacts to have occurred varies between the two larger categories (Jewish identity and pro-environmental lifestyle), and also by participant characteristics. The analysis below explores the two categories of Pearlstone Farm impact, the extent to which participants perceive themselves to be impacted in those areas, and the relationship between participant characteristics and the extent of perceived impact. Therefore, in addition to responding to research question #3 on participant impacts, the analysis addresses research questions #8 and #9, concerning how and for whom the Pearlstone Farm enables Jewish cultural and environmental sustainability. Scholarly literature on individual impacts from community gardens is much like that on "who participates" - based on case studies rather than comprehensive generalizations. As Lawson notes, "Even though hard data on neighborhood gardens are difficult to obtain, the literature is full of anecdotal evidence from the gardeners describing the personal benefits gardening has brought to them" (Lawson 2005, 266). 263 Data from the Baltimore City community garden and farm interviews supplement case studies from the literature. A major goal to the Pearlstone Farm is to "inspire people Jewishly" (Interviewee #2, 2011), and results reveal that Pearlstone Farm participants experience Jewish identity impacts. As noted above, cultural identification requires distinction between the cultural group members and the social "others," and this distinction can come through cognitive, affective, and behavioral mechanisms (Fishbein 1965 in Cohen 2004, 89). All three have been used to measure Jewish identity (Horowitz 2000), and the Pearlstone Farm has influenced its participants? Jewish identities under these three realms of identification. The idea of Jewish identity has recently expanded, as ?the internal subjective attachment to being Jewish is considered alongside the behavioral enactment of Jewish actions? (Horowitz 2002, 24). According to Horowitz, ?to better understand how Jewish identity has developed and how it may be changing in coming years, it is essential to study Jewish self-perception as well as Jewish practice? (2000, IV). As Cohen and Eisen (2000), Horowitz (2000), and others have indicated, many American Jews still internally feel Jewish, without externally behaving in normative "Jewish ways." Egon Mayer, Barry Kosmin and Ariela Keysar capture the internal and external dichotomy of Jewish identity in their American Jewish Identity Survey of 2001 report: "Since it is widely assumed that identity is acquired and sustained through processes and structures of identification, social scientists working with the concept have willy-nilly utilized indicators of identification (e.g. the performance of mitzvoth, participation in and affiliation with Jewish communal institutions, and conformity with Jewish cultural and religious norms in general) as measures of the strength of Jewish identity ? which itself can hardly be observed. The problem with this mode of measurement of something as elusive as identity is that the measures often produce anomalies. People who might have strong psychological attachment to their personal sense of Jewishness can and do score low on behavioral or 264 objective measures of identification. Moreover, in recent years, with the growing incidence of intermarriage in the American Jewish population, there have been at least some instances of people scoring fairly high on measures of Jewish identification even if they happen not to be Jewish." (2001, 2003, 31 - 32). The Pearlstone Farm offers opportunities for participants to build their internal sense of Jewish identity by learning more about the culture and religion, and feeling a connection to the larger group. The Pearlstone Farm also offers a space through which participants can act in ?Jewish ways,? and thereby externally legitimate their ethnic identities. Although internal mechanisms for Jewish identification are prominent amongst the contemporary American Jewish population, Horowitz notes that ?The irony of this highly personalized relationship to Jewishness is that as each person?s Jewish expression becomes more unique, it is also less likely to be shared by others, less recognizably ?Jewish?? (2000, 8). A strong connection exists between identity and practice (Wenger and Lave 1991 in Walford 2008, 18; Wenger 1998 in Walford 2008, 18, emphasis added). An external expression and recognition of identity is particularly important for the cultural sustainability of white ethnic groups, because they are not externally bound by racial characteristics and are thus more capable of forgoing ethnic identity recognition by others (Hollinger 2000; Totoricaguena 2008; Alba 2006 in Friedlander et al 2010, 357; Altman et al. 2010 in Friedlander et al 2010, 357). The majority of American Jews are white, and socially and economically assimilated, and have thus been described as ?an invisible minority group? (Altman et al., 2010; Schlosser, 2006 in Friedlander et al 2010, 346). The Pearlstone Farm offers spaces through which the social interactions and external expression of identity so important to cultural identification transpire. Pearlstone provides 265 Jews with a space for group participation and sociability, and thus an external expression of cultural identity. Two out of the three faith-based Baltimore City garden interviewees (from Sites C and D) report that their gardens have religious impacts on participants. Interviewees from both sites describe their spaces as sacred, and as sites for spiritual reflection. Site D's interviewee describes how garden participants experience a deeper level of spirituality, which may influence future behavior. This garden space provides participants with anonymous journals in which they can write down inner thoughts and feelings for reflection: "It's kind of hard to walk in and not be impacted somehow. Now what that impact is I can't say, other than to say, you'll see people walk in sort of walking at a regular pace, and then you'll just kind of see them slow down. I think that impact is not so much to have an identity with one group - Jewish or Catholic, or even Northeast Baltimore identity - but it's much more an awakening to this notion of spirituality that just sort of underlies all religious expression. So that becomes a bit harder to measure.... Now, when we read the [garden] journals, 'I came here angry at my mother, I don't want to be angry anymore,' 'I slapped my wife, I'll never to that again,' you can see people pulling that brokenness right out of themselves and putting in onto paper. It's like the best confession in the world, you know!? It's broader than an identity. So I think people who really are here and sort of getting it would say there's a deepening of spirituality that happens. So you start to see what's behind things in your life....That kind of experience is what happens in this space" (Site D Interviewee, 2012). Site C's interviewee describes her church's garden as helping church members reach a deeper level of spirituality (by "unfolding"). Working in the garden offers opportunities for church members to reflect about themselves and then apply these feelings to how they garden: "You see how we unfold by being of service. That's such a big part. Anyone who has a privilege of being a gardener unfolds a greater relationship with all of life. So, um, it's an opportunity to unfold, and to work together as a community. To become much more attuned to nature 266 gives us a greater sense of ourselves in the world, because it's all part of life. And it helps us unfold together, because we, sometimes we have to work together to have a garden go through something... And, um, gardening can bring up opportunities to see, um, any reactions that may come up for us, and what needs healing in us and how to continue coming back to the four paths of yoga so that we can fulfill our commitment" (Site C Interviewee, 2012). Community gardens and farms in the United States from the scholarly literature provided additional information on identity impacts. Gardens and farms that serve ethnic groups can result in ethnic identity maintenance and social cohesion (Airriess and Clawson 1994; Saldivar-Tanaka and Krasny 2004; French 2009; Warner 1987 in French 2008; Twiss et al 2003; Agyeman 1995 in Johnston and Shimada 2004, 188). Saldivar-Tanaka and Krasny's research on Latino community gardens in New York City found gardens were viewed as more social and cultural gathering spaces than agricultural production spaces (2004). The authors found Latino gardens to be ?particularly important as sites for maintaining Puerto Rican farming culture in an urban environment? (2004, 409). A second goal of the Pearlstone Farm is to "inspire people environmentally" (Interviewee #2, 2011), and impacts to participants' pro-environmental lifestyles also come through cognitive, affective, and behavioral forms. The Pearlstone Farm cognitively impacts its participants by providing environmental and sustainable agricultural education. Individuals? lack of knowledge about the environment is an internal barrier73 (Barr 2003; Middlemiss 2010a) to pro-environmental living that the Pearlstone Farm addresses. The Farm's environmental education may be particularly effective due to its experiential nature. "Learning through doing? is understood as ?vital to help us grow in understanding sustainability, human motivations and visions which 73 Environmental knowledge alone will not lead to a change in environmental behavior (Kollmuss and Agyeman 2002; Maiteny 2002; Barr 2003). 267 provide the key to social change" (UNESCO 2002 in Tilbury 2007, 117). Learning through doing is a social learning technique that empowers individuals and groups to make changes towards pro-environmental lifestyles (Tilbury 2007), and community gardens are spaces for environmental learning through doing. Gardens offer opportunities through which individuals interact with each other and the natural environment, and learn from both levels of interaction (Krasny and Tidball 2009). Pearlstone Farm participants learn through doing as the agricultural space becomes an outdoor classroom for Jewish agricultural and environmental education. Similarly to pro-environmental knowledge, pro-environmental attitudes shape (but are not solely responsible for) individuals? behaviors (Kollmuss and Agyeman 2002; Maiteny 2002). If individuals feel overwhelmed with pro-environmental living, they are less likely to make behavioral changes towards doing so. This notion relates to the internal pro-environmental lifestyle barrier of ?perceived amount of control,? or the extent to which one believes her behavioral change will impact the current unsustainable conditions (Newhouse 1991 in Kollmuss and Agyeman 2002, 255; Maiteny, 2002; Eden 1993 in Barr 2003, 231; Hinchliffe 1996 in Barr 2003, 231). If individuals become too overwhelmed with their lack of capacity to solve environmental problems, they may respond with an ?unconscious act of denial? (Maiteny 2002, 300). People may feel so disheartened by their individual inability to sustain pro-environmental behavior, and so overwhelmed by the ?enormity of the task and the apparent futility of their behaviour? that they completely remove themselves from pro-environmental living (Maiteny 2002, 301). The Pearlstone Farm has worked to enhance its participants' "perceived amount of control" when it comes to pro-environmental living. The Farm?s Jewish Community 268 Gardening Collective is one program in particular that strives for participating institutions to feel more comfortable with pro-environmental living. Data show that JCGC participants more frequently experience agricultural and environmental education, which is pedagogically powerful for building comfort with environmental issues. Results additionally point to frequency of participation as the most influential (p = .028) participant characteristic to predict pro-environmental lifestyle summative index scores, with a standardized regression coefficient of 2.225. With each additional day of Pearlstone Farm participation per year, the average change in the mean of the pro- environmental lifestyle summative index increases by 2.734 (unstandardized regression coefficient) points. Lastly, the Pearlstone Farm influences the behavioral aspects of participants? pro- environmental lifestyles by addressing external barriers to adopting a sustainable lifestyle. The Farm addresses external barriers by providing the necessary infrastructure (the farm, gardens, seeds, tools, etc.) for action, as well as creating community norms for action by linking Judaism and agriculture, and thus creating ?a culture in which sustainable consumption is acceptable? (Middlemiss 2010a, 87; Georg 1999; Maiteny 2002; Barraket 2005). Socioeconomic status is an additionally recognized external barrier to pro-environmental behavior (Kollmuss and Agyeman 2002). Although the Pearlstone Farm does not proactively ease the SES barrier for pro-environmental action, it does benefit from a relatively economically well-off participant base. Interviewees recognized this as a feature necessary for Farm operation. Socioeconomic status is also an influential (p = .043) participant characteristic to predict pro-environmental lifestyle summative index scores. With each addition $50,000 in a survey taker?s annual household income, 269 the average change in the mean of the pro-environmental lifestyle summative index is 2.857 (unstandardized regression coefficient) points. Two out of the four Baltimore City community gardens and farms (Sites A and B) report pro-environmental influence on participants. Impacts include additional knowledge and practice of seasonal eating habits and sustainable agriculture techniques. Several cases from the scholarly literature also point to more seasonal eating habits as a result of garden participation (Twiss et al 2003; Draper and Freedman 2010; Corrigan 2011). Site A's interviewee explains this impact amongst his farm's participants: "Through the CSA people are more aware of what's actually in season, or how it's difficult to eat in season and the joys and benefits of that. You aren?t totally seeing that at farmers markets in Baltimore. So to get a sense of this is the stuff that?s growing right now" (2012). Site A is the only Baltimore City comparison site that proactively plans and delivers environmental education. Program participants learn about growing seasons, local food systems, sustainable farming methods, soil health and water cycles. Site A's interviewee observes a local food identity shift in some farm participants: "I would definitely say with our youth and interns that it's definitely changes in terms of how they eat and how they look at food. Their diets don?t change 180 degrees, but everyone comes out of the experience with how their diet affects them and the land, and how they want to eat all the time. That local food culture is a huge thing" (2012). Although the three faith-based Baltimore City community gardens do not offer planned environmental programming, the interviewee from Site B inadvertently mentions informal environmental education taking place in her church?s garden. When asked if her garden is connected to the environmental movement, "being green," or the sustainable agriculture movement, Site B's interviewee responds, "oh no. No, no." However, she later describes informal agricultural education occurring in the garden. Garden participants 270 gain new knowledge and skills on how to grow their own food, which Site B's interviewee describes as an important survival skill: "I think [gardening is] something new to them, and they like working in it, and learning new things, you know? That's what I think. If they learn things then they can go and do it on their own....And um, you never know when you might need these things. You should know how to [grow food], in the event that you have to do it, you know what I'm saying? There may be a time when you have to do these things, you know what I'm saying? To survive!" (2012) More online survey takers from this research report to have experienced greater impacts to their pro-environmental lifestyles than to their Jewish identities. The pro- environmental lifestyle summative index received higher mean (25.7), median (27), and mode (45) values than the Jewish identity summative index (23.4, 24, and 27, respectively). There are several explanations for this trend, each of which was discussed with open interviewees and research gatekeepers through follow up questioning. Open interviewees suggested that many participants from the Baltimore Jewish community come to the Pearlstone Farm already situated in their Jewish identities, and thus would not report significant increases in that arena. This feedback is consistent with the Associated's 2010 Greater Baltimore Jewish Community Study, which found the Baltimore Jewish community to have relatively higher levels of Jewish engagement compared to other communities in similar metropolitan areas in the United States (Ukeles and Miller 2010). Additionally, regression results point to locality as a participant characteristic that significantly influences the Jewish identity summative index scores (p = .034). Local Pearlstone Farm participants average 5.909 (unstandardized regression coefficient) points lower in the mean of the Jewish identity summative index than 271 nonlocals. The greater number of local over nonlocal Pearlstone Farm participants may therefore skew Jewish identity summative index scores to these lower values. A second explanation is that identities (of all types) develop through cumulative experiences over time, and many online survey takers have not been participants long enough to report significant Jewish identity impacts. Jewish American identities have been recently understood as ?journeys? (Horowitz 2000; 2002) that are dynamic and shift with each additional experience. As Horowitz explains, ?Each new context or life stage brings with it new possibilities. A person's Jewishness can wax, wane, and change in emphasis. It is very responsive to social relationships, historical experiences and personal events? (2002, 27). Ethnic and cultural identities of all types develop and change over time (Phinney 2003 in Phinney and Ong 2007, 271; Kim 2007). As Phinney and Ong iterate, "The process of ethnic identity formation involves the construction over time of one?s sense of self as a group member and of one?s attitudes and understandings associated with group membership" (2007, 275)." Length of Pearlstone Farm participation (in cumulative years) is a participant characteristic that influences Jewish identity summative index scores (p = .030). Regression results show that with each addition year of Pearlstone Farm participation, the average change in the mean of the Jewish identity summative index increases by 2.3 (unstandardized regression coefficient) points. Additionally, over two thirds (69%) of online survey respondents have been Pearlstone Farm participants for two years or less. Therefore, it is perhaps a collection of cumulative experiences at the Pearlstone Farm over time that leads to greater change in participants? Jewish identities. 272 6. Chapter 6: Conclusions and future directions This research has resulted in a grounded theory explaining the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore as a social space. The Jewish farming movement in Baltimore, as it transpires through the Pearlstone Farm and its Jewish Community Gardens, is both the result of social processes and has resulted in new social processes. Thus, the theory goes beyond the idea of space as merely a container of society, and towards the notion that space produces meaning based on social experiences (Soja 1989). The conditional and resultant social processes surrounding the new space are embedded within the three core categories shaping the theory: Jewish community, Jewish cultural sustainability, and environmental sustainability. The social processes accounting for the production of the Pearlstone Farm (including its creation and diffusion) rely on institutional actors from local and national Jewish communities in the United States, and also stem from larger goals of cultural and environmental sustainability. The three core categories are also inherent in the social processes that have come out of the Pearlstone Farm. These include a diverse set of participants accounting for a new Jewish community, and new experiences shaping participants' Jewish identities and pro-environmental lifestyles, feeding into the larger notions of Jewish cultural sustainability and environmental sustainability. The construction of the final theory and its application to this study's research questions produced several major findings regarding the Pearlstone Farm's institutional support, geographic scale of operation, and participant motivations and impacts. The importance of Jewish institutional support to the Pearlstone Farm cannot be understated. Jewish institutions (including the Associated, institutional Pearlstone Farm 273 participants, and the organizations involved in the national Jewish environmental, food, and farming movements) were critical to the Pearlstone Farm's initial establishment, and remain essential for its current diffusion and operation. These institutional actors provided the Pearlstone Farm with financial, land, and human resources, as well as opinion leadership and networks for local and national diffusion. Although the significance of institutional support came as a surprise to the researcher, it is a trend quite common amongst other, similar movements in the United States. Community gardens are often assumed to be "grassroots" activities, but in reality rely on institutions and organizations for advisory, technical, financial, and political support (Lawson 2005). Community agricultural initiatives from faith-based and secular communities alike rely on institutional actors. The structure of the Pearlstone Farm's institutional support is unique in regards to its diffusion. Research results show that while many community agricultural initiatives rely on institutional actors for diffusion, those actors do not match the number or geographic scale of institutions involved in Pearlstone Farm diffusion. The scaled up institutional diffusion network reflects the Pearlstone Farm's strategic goals of regime change, as well as its geographic scale of operation. The Pearlstone Farm's geographic scale of operation accounts for a second major finding from this study. Community gardens and farms in the United States often serve local populations bounded by neighborhood, school, or city districts (Kaufman and Bailkey 2000; Schukoske 2000; Kurtz 2001; Twiss et al 2003; Saldivar-Tanaka and Krasny 2004; Corrigan 2011). The Pearlstone Farm similarly attracts a local population, with the majority of its participants from within the Jewish community of Baltimore. However, Pearlstone additionally and intentionally draws a sizeable nonlocal participant 274 base, making it quite unique from non-JFM comparison sites. This substantial nonlocal population is due to the novelty of the JFM in the United States, as well as the Pearlstone Farm's additional distinction from other JFM programs. The Pearlstone Farm is one of approximately ten JFM programs in the United States today. Individuals wanting to participate in Jewish agricultural education are therefore geographically limited in their options. Pearlstone is additionally unique amongst JFM programs based on its structure and operations. In contrast to other programs, Pearlstone is a rural space that offers overnight accommodations, robust infrastructure and resources, a pedagogically sound and tested curriculum, and trained staff. Pearlstone Farm participant motivations and impacts represent the third major finding from this research. In the case of both motivation and impact, the environment and sustainable agriculture assume primary roles, while Jewish identification and community are secondary. The researcher was surprised to learn that more individuals are drawn to participate on the Pearlstone Farm by environmental or agricultural motivations, over Jewish motivations. However, results also show that the Jewish component of the Pearlstone Farm is not trivial. Participants choose environmental/agricultural education and engagement through Pearlstone over other, secular programs, because they are comfortable operating in a Jewish atmosphere and amongst other Jews. The prevalence of environmental versus Jewish components of the Pearlstone Farm is also reflected in participant impacts. The researcher was surprised to learn that more individuals report higher impact levels to pro-environmental lifestyles than Jewish identities. Participant characteristic data help to interpret this trend. Survey results and regression analysis showed that there are more local than nonlocal Pearlstone Farm participants, and that 275 locals experience lesser Jewish identity impacts. Additional qualitative data revealed that local (and therefore the majority of) Pearlstone Farm participants are already content with facets of their Jewish identities, and therefore do not experience impacts to those identities based on their Pearlstone Farm participation. A critical element to interpreting grounded theory and critical realist research is understanding the contextual nature of the product. This study's substantive level theory builds explanatory power around the diffusion of the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore. However, future studies are needed to expand its predictive ability. Fruitful areas for future research include comparing the Pearlstone Farm's diffusion to other JFM sites in the United States, expanding theoretical perspectives to include data collected through ethnographic methods, and additional analysis on the Pearlstone Farm in future years to examine the social space over time. The 21st century brings new challenges to cultural and environmental sustainability for groups and individuals throughout the United States. Cultural groups seek to strike a balance between group identification and maintenance, and trends of individualism and mobility. Although growing in recognition, the movements surrounding pro-environmentalism and sustainable agriculture have not fully permeated mainstream American policy, society, or economy. However, community-based organizations provide mechanisms for addressing each challenge of sustainability, and in the case of the Jewish farming movement, tackle both. This year marks the ten-year anniversary of the first JFM program in the United States. Since its inception, several others have "sprouted" up across the country. As these once marginal programs grow in 276 popularity and support, their potential for delivering cultural and environmental change becomes more of a reality. 277 Appendix A: Programs offered through the Pearlstone Farm (table created by: Rachel Berndtson; table content source: Community Education 2013; Pearlstone Programs 2013; Volunteer 2013) Program Name Description Length Frequency Beit Midrash Conference and retreat with Shabbat celebrations, learning tracts on Judaism and sustainability, keynote speakers Three days Annual Volunteer days Farm work, sustainability workshops, and volunteer picnic Several hours Monthly Internships Green building & energy, farming, animal care, marketing, graphic design Up to 30 hours /week Seasonally or annual Apprenticeships Training in vegetable farming, animal husbandry, perennial and orchard management, framed around Jewish tenets and environmental concepts. Hands-on work and formal educational sessions. Five to seven months Annual Holiday celebrations Shabbat, Rosh Chodesh (head of the month), Pesach, Tu B?Av, Tu B?Shvat, Sukkot Day, weekend long Weekly, monthly, annual Chesapeake Watershed Pilgrimage Group trip of 35+ miles along Patapsco River. Integrates themes of Judaism, watershed ecology and foodsheds. Four days Annually per group Family Camp Relaxation, farming, agricultural workshops, environmental education, Shabbat celebrations, games, social activities. One week Annual Summer Kollel Group of adults live together and investigate intersections of Judaism, agriculture, and environment. Farm work in the mornings and Torah study in the afternoon. Weekly lessons on food systems, farming and food justice. Three months Annual Nevatim Teacher Training Conference Professional training conference for Jewish environmental educators. Training includes: educational garden design, lesson plans, Jewish environmental curricula, and outdoor classrooms. Two ? four days Annual Field trips Attendees include: public schools, Jewish day schools, youth groups, organizations. Topics include: diversity & efficiency, botany & prayer, people & earth, wild & domesticated plants, everyday choices & values, ecology & environmentalism, Jewish calendar & holidays Several hours Quarterly, semi- annual, or annual Jewish Community Gardening Collective Ten Baltimore Jewish institutions host community gardens. Pearlstone Farm provides seasonal trainings and Jewish agricultural education curricula. Several hours Monthly 278 Appendix B: Open interview questions: The questions below provided a general starting point for interview questions. Because the interviews were open, questions were driven by interviewee statements, and included more detailed follow up questions that varied amongst interviewees. 1. What is the Jewish farming movement? 2. What is the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore? 3. Why did it start? 4. How did it start? 5. How did you learn about the Jewish farming movement? 6. Why did you want to participate (or not participate) in the movement? 7. How has the Jewish farming movement spread throughout Baltimore? 8. Who is a part of the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore? 9. What changes have come about as a result of the Jewish farming movement in Baltimore? 10. Where do you see the movement going in the future? 279 Appendix C: Structured phone interview questions: 1. Approximately what date/year did your institution learn about the Kayam Farm? 2. Approximately what date/year did you institution begin to participate on the Kayam Farm? 3. How did your institutions first hear about the Kayam Farm? 4. About how many participants a year from your institution participate on the Kayam Farm each year? 5. About how many participants/members make up your institution? 6. Is your institution affiliated with a particular Jewish denomination? 280 Appendix D: Online survey questions 1. To which age bracket do you belong? 18-34 35-54 55-74 75-94 2. What is your gender? Male Female Do not wish to respond 3. What denomination do you consider yourself to be? Conservative Orthodox Reform Reconstructionist Just Jewish Post-denominational Jew Hasidic / Lubavitch /Satmar Haredi (Ultra-Orthodox) Secular Ethnically / nationality Jewish Culturally Jewish Humanistic Non-practicing Jew Other religion No religion / None / Nothing Jewish Do not wish to respond 4. Please enter your home zipcode in the box below: 5. What is your marital status? Married Widowed Divorced Separated Single/Never married Living with someone/Partnered Do not wish to respond 281 6. What bracket represents your household?s total income before taxes for this year (For statistical purposes only)? Less than $15,000 $15,000 to $25,000 ($24,999) $25,000 to $35,000 ($34,999) $35,000 to $50,000 ($49,999) $50,000 to $75,000 ($74,999) $75,000 to $100,000 ($99,999) $100,000 to $150,000 ($149,999) $150,000 to $200,000 ($199,999) $200,000 to $300,000 ($299,999) $300,000 to $500,000 ($499,999) $500,000 or more Do not wish to respond 7. Prior to participation with the Kayam Farm, what level of dedication did you have to living an environmentally friendly and sustainable lifestyle? Very high level of dedication High level of dedication Moderate level of dedication Low level of dedication Very low level of dedication No dedication at all Do not wish to respond 8. Prior to participation with the Kayam Farm, how important was being Jewish to you? Very Somewhat Not very Not at all 9. How long have you been a participant with the Kayam Farm? More than 4 years 4 to 3 years 3 to 2 years 2 to 1 years 1 year to 6 months Less than 6 months 282 10. About how much time passed between the time you first heard about the Kayam Farm and the time you first participated with the Kayam Farm? A day to a week 1 week to 5 weeks 1 month to 6 months 6 months to 12 months 1 year to 3 years 3 years to 5 years 11. About how many days a year do you participate with the Kayam Farm? Less than once a year 1 ? 5 days a year 5 ? 10 days a year 10 ? 15 days a year 15 ? 20 days a year 20 ? 25 days a year More than 25 days a year 12. Please mark any and all of the ways you participate with the Kayam Farm: Volunteer Intern Kollel Early Childhood Education Conference Educational program participant (field trip, learning series) Cultural program participant (Holiday celebrations, Festivals) EcoRide/Run participant Summer fellow or apprentice CSA member Community gardening collective member Kayam Farm Committee member Beit Midrash Conference participant Workshop participant Pearlstone Guest Partner Organization Donor 13. Through what medium did you first hear about the Kayam Farm? Interpersonal communication Media communication Don?t know 14. The medium from which I heard about the Kayam Farm is 283 A Jewish source A non-Jewish source Don?t know 15. The medium from which I heard about the Kayam Farm is A professional connection A personal connection Don?t know 16. Would you consider the person from whom you heard about the Kayam Farm to hold a degree leadership and or influence in the Baltimore Jewish community? Yes No Not applicable, because I did not hear about the Kayam Farm through interpersonal communication Don?t know 17. If so, what about this person gives him/her this status (check all that apply) Lay leader Organization/Institution leader Expertise knowledge in Jewish subjects Expertise knowledge in environmental/agricultural subjects Educational leader Donor Charismatic personality leader Other (please explain): Doesn?t apply because I did not hear about the Kayam Farm through interpersonal communication 18. Why do you participate at/with the Kayam Farm? (please check all that apply) To maintain/explore my own Jewish identity To become more connected/involved in the Baltimore Jewish community To become more connected/involved to the Jewish peoplehood worldwide To maintain/explore the Jewish religion To maintain/increase my level of Jewish education To engage in pro-environmental activity for the sake of my local community To engage in pro-environmental activity for the sake of the global community To maintain/increase my level of environmental education To decrease my level of environmental anxiety/fear To gain access to fresh, local, organic and healthy food 284 19. On a scale of 0 to 5 (0 being no increase at all and 5 being the greatest increase) how has your participation with the Kayam Farm impacted the following features of your Jewish identity? Feeling of connection with the Jewish peoplehood Feeling of connection with the Baltimore Jewish community Feeling of connection with the Baltimore Jewish environmental/agricultural community Personal interactions/connections with other Jews Professional interactions/connections with other Jews Participation in Jewish events/activities/organizations Sense of personal Jewish identity Exploration of Jewish religion Exploration of Jewish culture 20. On a scale of 0 to 5 (0 being no increase at all and 5 being the greatest increase) how has your participation with the Kayam Farm impacted the following features of your pro-environmental lifestyle? Making ?greener? personal/institutional food choices (ex: local, organic, non-packaged, low petroleum) Making ?greener? personal/institutional energy choices (ex: public transportation, biking/walking, shutting off electricity, lower water use) Making ?greener? personal/institutional purchase choices (ex: less plastic packaging, more recycling, more reusing, less non-recyclable purchases) Making ?greener? personal/intuitional land-use choices (ex: composting, creating rain gardens, decreasing impervious surfaces, decreasing non-native species) Exploration of other pro-environmental causes/knowledge/issues Level of pro-environmental advocacy (ex: spreading the word, donating, fundraising, signing petitions, protesting) Level of pro-environmental knowledge Level of anxiety/fear of environmental issues/situations decrease Level of pro-environmental attitude 21. Are you currently a member of a synagogue or temple? Yes No Member of independent Havurah No synagogue available / nearby Don?t know Don?t wish to respond 285 22. During the past year have you been a dues paying member of a Jewish Community Center (JCC) or a YM / YWHA? Yes No No JCC/YM/YWHA available Don?t know Don?t wish to respond 286 Appendix E: Structured interview questions with Baltimore City comparison sites 1. Why and how did your farm/garden start a. Planning b. Funding c. Implementing i. How big is the garden? ii. What do you grow? iii. What kinds of programs? 2. Why and how did it start in Baltimore? 3. How do participants hear about your farm/garden a. Geographic span of diffusion b. Media or word of mouth c. Other organizations involved? Networks? 4. What are the people involved in your farm/garden like a. Age? Gender? Religious denomination? b. Prior environmental/agricultural experience? c. Prior religious experience? d. About how many people participate annually? 5. How do you think participants are impacted in terms of connections to the religion or church, or community? e. New actions/behaviors? f. New feelings of being Jewish? g. New Jewish community? 6. How do you think participants are impacted in terms of pro-environmental lifestyles? h. New actions/behaviors? i. New feelings about living sustainably? j. New sustainable programs/infrastructure/leadership? k. New cultural norms? 287 Appendix F: Regression results and residual plots Model summary for Jewish identity summative index Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate Durbin-Watson 1 .485a .236 .129 10.89871 2.052 a. Predictors: (Constant), Marital: Other, Denomination: Orthodox, Dedication to pro- environmental lifestyle, Affiliated, Frequency of participation, Sex, Denomination: Reform or Reconstructionist, Length of participation, Local, Importance of being Jewish, Age, Denomination: Conservative, Socio-economic status, Denomination: Not Jewish, Marital: Married b. Dependent Variable: Jewish identity summative index ANOVA table for Jewish identity summative index Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 1 Regression 3919.385 15 261.292 2.200 .010b Residual 12709.656 107 118.782 Total 16629.041 122 a. Dependent Variable: Jewish identity summative index b. Predictors: (Constant), Marital: Other, Denomination: Orthodox, Dedication to pro- environmental lifestyle, Affiliated, Frequency of participation, Sex, Denomination: Reform or Reconstructionist, Length of participation, Local, Importance of being Jewish, Age, Denomination: Conservative, Socio-economic status, Denomination: Not Jewish, Marital: Married Jewish identity summative index coefficients Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardize d Coefficients t Sig. Collinearity Statistics B Std. Error Beta Toleranc e VIF 1 (Constant) 28.436 9.352 3.041 .003 Affiliated -.484 2.445 -.021 -.198 .844 .650 1.539 Age -1.830 1.876 -.124 -.975 .332 .442 2.261 Sex 3.356 2.218 .137 1.513 .133 .873 1.146 Local -5.909 2.744 -.216 - 2.153 .034 .712 1.405 Socio-economic status -.151 1.185 -.015 -.127 .899 .521 1.920 Dedication to pro- environmental lifestyle -1.251 2.234 -.059 -.560 .577 .650 1.539 288 Importance of being Jewish .024 2.228 .001 .011 .992 .467 2.143 Length of participation 2.300 1.045 .214 2.201 .030 .756 1.323 Frequency of participation .842 1.044 .075 .807 .422 .825 1.212 Denomination: Not Jewish -10.919 4.778 -.289 - 2.286 .024 .448 2.234 Denomination: Reform or Reconstructionist 1.288 3.332 .042 .387 .700 .614 1.627 Denomination: Conservative -.331 3.212 -.011 -.103 .918 .596 1.678 Denomination: Orthodox 2.888 3.326 .084 .868 .387 .771 1.297 Marital: Married -1.718 3.110 -.072 -.552 .582 .417 2.401 Marital: Other .963 4.593 .020 .210 .834 .753 1.328 a. Dependent Variable: Jewish identity summative index Histogram of regression standardized residuals for Jewish identity summative index 289 Normal P-P plot of regression standardized residuals for Jewish identity summative index Scatterplot of regression standardized predicted values and residuals for Jewish identity summative index 290 Model summary for pro-environmental lifestyle summative indexb Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate Durbin-Watson 1 .476a .227 .118 12.89933 1.774 a. Predictors: (Constant), Marital: Other, Denomination: Orthodox, Dedication to pro- environmental lifestyle, Affiliated, Frequency of participation, Sex, Denomination: Reform or Reconstructionist, Length of participation, Local, Importance of being Jewish, Age, Denomination: Conservative, Socio-economic status, Denomination: Not Jewish, Marital: Married b. Dependent Variable: Pro-env. lifestyle summative index Table 55: ANOVA table for pro-environmental lifestyle summative indexa Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 1 Regression 5216.772 15 347.785 2.090 .016b Residual 17804.025 107 166.393 Total 23020.797 122 a. Dependent Variable: Pro-env. lifestyle summative index b. Predictors: (Constant), Marital: Other, Denomination: Orthodox, Dedication to pro- environmental lifestyle, Affiliated, Frequency of participation, Sex, Denomination: Reform or Reconstructionist, Length of participation, Local, Importance of being Jewish, Age, Denomination: Conservative, Socio-economic status, Denomination: Not Jewish, Marital: Married Pro-environmental lifestyle summative index coefficientsa Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardiz ed Coefficien ts t Sig. Collinearity Statistics B Std. Error Beta Toleran ce VIF 1 (Constant) 19.530 11.042 1.769 .080 Affiliated -2.934 2.892 -.107 -1.015 .313 .651 1.537 Age .655 2.206 .037 .297 .767 .459 2.179 Sex -.034 2.609 -.001 -.013 .990 .874 1.144 Local -3.335 3.256 -.103 -1.024 .308 .708 1.412 Socio-economic status 2.857 1.397 .243 2.046 .043 .514 1.947 Dedication to pro- environmental lifestyle -1.806 2.636 -.072 -.685 .495 .648 1.544 Importance of being Jewish .498 2.637 .023 .189 .851 .467 2.142 Length of participation 1.694 1.230 .135 1.378 .171 .749 1.335 Frequency of participation 2.734 1.229 .207 2.225 .028 .834 1.199 291 Denomination: Not Jewish -11.645 5.654 -.262 -2.059 .042 .448 2.234 Denomination: Reform or Reconstructionist 4.470 3.935 .123 1.136 .259 .617 1.621 Denomination: Conservative -1.517 3.809 -.043 -.398 .691 .613 1.630 Denomination: Orthodox -.560 3.941 -.014 -.142 .887 .770 1.299 Marital: Married -5.607 3.670 -.201 -1.528 .130 .419 2.386 Marital: Other -3.417 5.418 -.062 -.631 .530 .758 1.319 a. Dependent Variable: Pro-env. lifestyle summative index Histogram of regression standardized residuals for pro-environmental lifestyle summative index 292 Normal P-P plot of regression standardized residuals for pro-environmental lifestyle summative index Scatterplot of regression standardized predicted values and residuals for Jewish identity summative index 293 Bibliography "3rd Annual Kayam Beit Midrash." Adva Network. Last modified: January 11, 2011. http://www.advanetwork.org/2011/01/11/3rd-annual-kayam-beit-midrash/. Abi-Nader, J., K. Dunnigan, and K. Markely. Growing Communities Curriculum; Philadelphia: American Community Gardening Association, 2001. Abbott A, DeViney S. "The Welfare State as Transnational Event: Evidence from Sequences of Policy Adoption." Social Sciences History 16, (1992): 245?74. "About the Gan Project.? The Gan Project. Accessed: October 13, 2013. http://dev2.theganproject.org/. "About Us." Baltimore Jewish Environmental Network. Accessed: October 13, 2013. http://www.bjen.org/about.html. "About Us." Yiddish Farm. Accessed: October 13, 2013. http://www.yiddishfarm.org/aboutus.html. Adam, K. L. "Community Supported Agriculture." Butte, MT: National Sustainable Agricultural Information Service, National Center for Appropriate Technology, 2006. "Adamah Introduction." Isabella Freedman Jewish Retreat Center. Accessed: October 13, 2013. http://isabellafreedman.org/adamah/intro. Agyeman, J. People, Plants and Places. Devon, UK: Southgate Publishers, 1995. Airriess, C. A., and D. L. Clawson. "Vietnamese Market Gardens in New Orleans." American Geographical Society 84, No. 1 (1994): 16-31. Airriess, C. A., W. Li, K. J. Leong, A. C. Chen, and V. M. Keith. "Church-based Social Capital, Networks and Geographical Scale: Katrina Evacuation, Relocation, and Recovery in a New Orleans Vietnamese American Community." Geoforum 39, No. 3 (2008): 1333-1346. Allen, P., M. FitzSimmons, M. Goodman, and K. Warner. "Shifting Plates in the Agrifood Landscape: the Tectonics of Alternative Agrifood Initiatives in California." Journal of Rural Studies 19, (2003): 61 - 75. Allgemeine Zeitung des Judenthums. June 14, 1850. Allison, P. D. Multiple Regression: a Primer. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press, 1999. 294 Aikten, S., and G. Valentine. "Ways of Knowing and Ways of Doing Geographic Research." In Approaches to Human Geography. Edited by S. Aikten and G. Valentine, 1-12. London: Sage, 2006. Alba, R. "On the Sociological Significance of the American Jewish Experience: Boundary Blurring, Assimilation, and Pluralism.? Sociology of Religion 67, (2006): 347-358. Altman, A. N., A. G. Inman, S. G. Fine, H. A. Ritter, and E. E. Howard. "Exploration of Jewish Ethnic Identity." Journal of Counseling and Development 88, No. 2 (2010): 163-173. Ament, J. "American Jewish Religious Denominations." In United Jewish Communities Report Series on the National Jewish Population Survey 2000-01. Edited by. U. J. Communities. New York, 2005. Armstrong, D. "A Survey of Community Gardens in Upstate New York: Implications for Health Promotion and Community Development." Health and Place 6, No. 4 (2000): 319?327. Arndt, J. Word of Mouth Advertising. New York: Advertising Research Foundation, 1967. "Associated's Center for Funds and Foundations." Associated. Accessed: October 13, 2013. http://www.associated.org/page.aspx?id=231130. Avery-Peck, A. Mishnah's Division of Agriculture: a History and Theology of Seder Zeraim. Chico, California: Scholars Press, 1985. Azria, R. "France and the United States, the Promised Land of the Jews?" Archives de Sciences Sociales des Religions 84, (1993): 201-222. ---. "The Diaspora-community-tradition Paradigms of Jewish Identity: A Reappraisal." In Jewish Survival: The identity Problem at the Close of the Twentieth Century. Edited by E. Krausz and G. Tulea, 21-32. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1998. Bailey, C., C. White and R. Pain. "Evaluating Qualitative Research: Dealing with the Tension between Science and Creativity." Area 31, (1999): 169-178. Baker, L. E. "Tending Cultural Landscapes and Food Citizenship in Toronto's Community Gardens." Geographical Review 94, No. 3 (2004): 305-325. Barr, S. "Strategies for Sustainability: Citizens and Responsible Environmental Behaviour." Area, 35, (2003): 227-240. 295 Barraket, J. "Enabling Structures for Coordinated Action: Community Organizations, Social Capital, and Rural Community Sustainability." In A Dynamic Balance: Social Capital and Sustainable Community Development. Edited by A. Dale and J. Onyx, 71-86. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2005. Barton, H. Sustainable Communities: the Potential for Eco-neighbourhoods. London: Earthscan, 2000. Baum, H. S. The Organization of Hope: Communities Planning Themselves. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997. Baxter, J. "Case Studies in Qualitative Research." In Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography. Edited by I. Hay, 80-97. Ontario: Oxford University Press, 2010. Beck, J. "Challenges to Jewish Community." In Synagogues in a Time of Change: Fragmentation and Diversity in Jewish Religious Movements. Edited by Z. I. Heller, 189-193. Herndon, VA: The Alban Institute, 2009. Becker, P. H. "Common Pitfalls in Published Grounded Theory Research." Qualitative Health Research 3, No. 2 (1993): 254-260. Bekerman, Z., and E. Kopelowitz. "The Unintended Consequence of Liberal Jewish Schooling: A Comparative Study of the Teaching of Jewish Texts for the Purpose of Cultural Sustainability." In Cultural Education-Cultural Sustainability: Minority, Diaspora, Indigenous and Ethno-Religious Groups in Multicultural Societies. Edited by Z. Beckerman and E. Kopelowitz, 323-342. New York: Routledge, 2008. Beckerman, Z., and M. Silberman. ?Slaves of Tradition ? Slaves of Freedom: Social Constructivist Perspectives on the ?Culture? of Israeli Traditionalist and Liberals.? Israel Studies 4, No. 2 (1999): 90-120. Bellah, R. N., R. Madsen, W. M. Sullivan, A. Swidler and S. M. Tipton. Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life. New York: Harper and Row, 1985. Benoliel, J. "Grounded Theory and Nursing Knowledge.? Qualitative Health Research 6, (1996): 137-142. Berger, J. "Religious Nongovernmental Organizations: an Exploratory Analysis." International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 14, No. 1 (2003): 15-39. Berk, S. Year of Crisis, Year of Hope. Westport, CT.: Greenwood Press, 1985. 296 Berkhout, F., A. Smith, and A. Stirling. "Socio-technological Regimes and Transition Contexts." In System Innovation and the Transition to Sustainability, edited by: B. Elzen, F. W. Geels, and K. Green, 48-75. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2004. Berman, L. C. "Sociology, Jews and Intermarriage in Twentieth-century America." Jewish Social Studies 14, (2008): 32-60. Berry, W. The Unsettling of America: Culture and Agriculture. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1977. ---. "Whose Head is the Farmer Using? Whose Head is Using the Farmer?" In Meeting the Expectations of the Land: Essays in Sustainable Agriculture and Stewardship. Edited by W. Jackson, W. Berry and B. Colman, 19-30. San Francisco: North Point Press, 1984. Blaut, J. M. "Two View of Diffusionism." Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 67, (1977): 343-349. ---. Diffusionism: a Uniformitarian Critique. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 77, (1987): 30-47. Blecher, A. The New American Judaism: the Way Forward on Challenging Issues from Intermarriage to Jewish Identity. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2007. Bloomfield, D. M. "Jewish Survival: Operation Educate." In Jewish Identity in the Postmodern Age. Edited by C. Selengut, 259-271. St. Paul: Paragon House, 1997. Borrelli, D. A. "Filling the Void: Applying a Place-based Ethic to Community Gardens." Vermont Journal of Environmental Law 271, (2008): 271 - 277. Bowen, G. "Naturalistic Inquiry and the Saturation Concept: a Research Note. Qualitative Research 8, No. 1 (2008): 137?142. Bowman, A. O., and M. A. Pagano. Urban Vacant Land in the United States, No. 18-19. Lincoln Inst. of Land Policy Working Paper, 1998. Bradshaw, M. and E. Stratford. "Qualitative Research Design and Rigour." In Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography. Edited by I. Hay, 69-80. Ontario: Oxford University Press, 2013. Bram, C. "The Catch 22 of Categorization: Soviet Jews, Caucasus Jews, and Dilemmas of Multiculturalism in Israel.? In Cultural Education-Cultural Sustainability: Minority, Diaspora, Indigenous and Ethno-Religious Groups in Multicultural Societies. Edited by Z. Beckerman and E. Kopelowitz, 31-49. New York: Routledge, 2008. 297 Brandes, J. Immigrants to Freedom: Jewish Communities in Rural New Jersey since 1882. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1971. Branley, D. "Doing a Literature Review." In Researching Society and Culture. Edited by C. Seale, 145-162. London: Sage, 2004. Brockelman, P. "With New Eyes: Seeing the Environment as a Spiritual Issue.? In The Greening of Faith: God, the Environment, and the Good Life. Edited by J. E. Carroll, P. Brockelman and M. Westfall, 30-43. Hanover: University Press of New England, 1997. Brown, L. A. Innovation Diffusion: a New Perspective. New York: Methuen & Co, 1981. Brown, B. B., and D. D. Perkins, D. D. "Disruptions in Place Attachment." Place Attachment. Edited by In I. Altman and S. M. Low, 279-304. New York: Plenum, 1992. Brown, J., and P. Duguid. The Social Life of Information. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School, 2000. Bullard, R. D. Unequal Protection: Environmental Justice and Communities of Colour. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1994. Burns, T. R., and H. Flam. The Shaping of Social Organization: Social Rule System Theory with Applications. London: Sage Publications, 1987. Burt R. "Social Contagion and Innovation: Cohesion versus Structural Equivalence." American Journal of Sociology 92, (1987): 1287?1335. Cardin, S. "Community versus Individualism." In American Jewry?s Challenge: Conversations Confronting the Twenty-first Century. Edited by M. Gerstenfeld, 199-208. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 2005. Carpenter, J. S. "Farm Chemicals, Soil Erosion, and Sustainable Agriculture." Stanford Environmental Law Journal 13, (1994): 209-210. Chacko, E. "Ethiopian Ethos and the Making of Ethnic Places in the Washington Metropolitan Area." Journal of Cultural Geography 20, No. 2 (2003): 21-42. Chan, R. Y. K. "Mass communication and Proenvironmental Behaviour: Waste Recycling in Hong Kong." Journal of Environmental Management 52, (1998): 317-325. Chaves, M. "Ordaining Women: the Diffusion of an Organizational Innovation." American Journal of Sociology 101, (1996): 840?73. 298 Chazan, B. "What is Informal Jewish Education?" Journal of Jewish Communal Service 67, No.4 (1991): 300-308. ---. "The Philosophy of Informal Jewish Education." Encyclopedia of Informal Education, 2003. Accessed October 13, 2013. http://www.infed.org/informaleducation/informal_jewish_education.htm. Chung, C. and S.L. Myers. "Do the Poor Pay More for Food? An Analysis of Grocery Store Availability and Food Price Disparities." The Journal of Consumer Affairs 33, No. 2 (1999): 276?296. Cicerone, R. J. and R. S. Oremland. ?Biogeochemical Aspects of Atmospheric Methane." Global Biogeochemical Cycles 2, (1998): 299?327. Clifford, J. "Introduction: Partial Truths." In Writing Culture: the Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. Edited by J. Clifford and G. E. Marcus, 1-16. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986. Cloke, P., C. Philo and D. Sadler. Approaching Human Geography: an Introduction to Contemporary Theoretical Debates. New York: The Guilford Press, 1991. Cohen, E. H. "Components and Symbols of Ethnic Identity: A Case Study in Informal Education and Identity Formation in Diaspora." Applied Psychology 53, No. 1 (2004): 87-112. Cohen, S. M. American Modernity and Jewish Identity. New York and London: Tavistock Publications, 1988. ---. "The Impact of Varieties of Jewish Education upon Jewish Identity: an Inter- generational Perspective." Contemporary Jewry 16, (1995): 1-28. ---. Religious Stability and Ethnic Decline: Emerging Patterns of Jewish Identity in the United States. New York: The Florence G. Heller Jewish Community Centers Association Research Center, 1998. ---. ?Engaging the Next Generation of American Jews: Distinguishing the In-married, Inter-married, and Non-married.? Journal of Jewish Communal Service 81, No.1 and 2 (2005a): 43-52. Cohen, S. M., and A. Davidson. Adult Jewish Learning in America: Current Patterns and Prospects for Growth. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America and Jewish Community Centers Association, 2001. Cohen, S. M., and A. M. Eisen. The Jew Within: Self, Family and Community in America. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2000. 299 Cohen, S. M., and J. V. Veinstein. "Jewish Identity: Who You Knew Affects How You Jew - the Impact of Jewish Networks in Childhood upon Adult Jewish Identity." International Handbook of Jewish Education 5, (2011): 203-218. Coleman, B. 1984. Preface and acknowledgements. In Meeting the expectations of the land: essays in sustainable agriculture and stewardship, eds. W. Jackson, W. Berry & B. Coleman, ix-xi. San Francisco: North Point Press. Coleman, J. "Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital." American Journal of Sociology 94, Supplement (1988): S95-S120. ---. "The Rational Reconstruction of Society: 1992 Presidential Address." American Sociological Review 58, No. 1 (1993): 1 ? 15. Coleman, J. S., E. Katz, and H. Menzel. ?The Diffusion of an Innovation among Physicians.? Sociometry 20, (1957): 253-270. ---. ?Social Processes in Physicians? Adoption of a New Drug.? Journal of Chronic Diseases 9, (1959): 1-19. ---. Medical Innovation: a Diffusion Study. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1966. Comenetz, J. The National Jewish Population Map. New York: Berman Jewish Databank, 2011. "Community Education." Pearlstone Center. Accessed: October 7, 2013. http://pearlstonecenter.org/community-education/. Cone, C. A. and A. Myhre. "Community-supported Agriculture: a Sustainable Alternative to Industrial Agriculture?" Human Organization 59, (2000): 187-197. Cope, M. "Coding Qualitative Data." In Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography. Edited by I. Hay, 281-294. Ontario: Oxford University Press, 2010. Corrigan, M. P. "Growing What You Eat: Developing Community Gardens in Baltimore, Maryland." Applied Geography 31, No. 4 (2011): 1232 - 1241. Coyle, K. Environmental Literacy in America: What Ten Years of NEETF/Roper Research and Related Studies Say about Environmental Literacy in the U.S. Washington, DC: National Environmental Education and Training Foundation, 2005. Coyne, I. T. "Sampling in Qualitative Research. Purposeful and Theoretical Sampling; Merging or Clear Boundaries?" Journal of Advanced Nursing 26, (1997): 623- 630. 300 Creswell, J. W. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2007. Creswell, J. W. and D. L. Miller. "Determining Validity in Qualitative Inquiry." Theory into Practice 39, (2000): 124-131. Cummins, S., and S. Macintyre. "Food Deserts - Evidence and Assumption in Health Policy Making.? British Medical Journal 325, (2002): 436-438. "Curriculum Resources." Pearlstone Center. Accessed: October 7, 2013. http://pearlstonecenter.org/curriculum-resources/. Dale, A. "Social Capital and Sustainable Community Development: Is There a Relationship?" In A Dynamic Balance: Social Capital and Sustainable Community Development. Edited by A. Dale and J. Onyx, 13-30. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2005. Dashefsky, A., and C. Lesbon. "Does Jewish Schooling Matter? A review of the Empirical Literature on the Relationship between Jewish Education and Dimensions of Jewish Identity." Contemporary Jewry 23, No. 1 (2002): 96-131. Davis, B., D. Sumara, and R. Luce-Kapler. Engaging Minds: Learning and Teaching in a Complex World. Mahwah, New Jersey: Laurence Erlbaum, 2000. De Young, R. "Some Psychological Aspects of Reduced Consumption Behavior: the Role of Intrinsic Motivation and Competence Motivation." Environment and Behavior 28, (1996): 358-409. De Vos, G. A. and L. Romanucci-Ross. "Ethnic Identity: a Psychocultural Perspective." In Ethnic identity: Problems and Prospects for the Twenty-first Century. Edited by G. A. De Vos, L. Romanucci-Ross, and T. Tsuda, 375-400. Lanham: Rowman Altamira, 2006. Defra. "Securing the Future: Delivering UK Sustainable Development Strategy." Sustainable-Development.gov.uk [online], 2005. DiMaggio, P. J. and W. W. Powell. "The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collection Rationality in Organizational Fields." American Sociological Review 48, (1983): 147?160. Diner, H. R. A time for Gathering: the Second Migration 1820-1880. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992. Dobson, A. Citizenship and the Environment. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. 301 Dooley, L. M. "Case Study Research and Theory Building.? Advances in Developing Human Resources 4, No. 3 (2002): 335-354. Dowling, R. "Power, Subjectivity, and Ethics in Qualitative Research." In Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography, edited by I. Hay, 26-39. Ontario: Oxford University Press, 2010. Draper, C. and D. Freedman. "Review and Analysis of the Benefits, Purposes, and Motivations Associated with Community Gardening in the United States." Journal of Community Practice 18, No. 4 (2010): 458-492. Dubrovsky, G. W. The Land was theirs: Jewish Farmers in the Garden State. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press, 1992. Dunn, K. "Interviewing." In Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography. Edited by I. Hay, 100-138. Ontario: Oxford University Press, 2010. Durkheim, E. The Division of Labor in Society. New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1964 [1893]. Eden, S. ?Individual Environmental Responsibility and its Role in Public Environmentalism." Environment and Planning A 25, (1993): 1743-1758. Ehrenfeld, D. and P. J. Bentley. "Judaism and the Practice of Stewardship." In Judaism and Environmental Ethics: A Reader. Edited by M. D. Yaffe, 125-135. Lanham: Lexington Books, 2001. Eisenberg, E. Jewish Agricultural Colonies in New Jersey, 1882-1920. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1995. Eisenhardt, K. M. "Building Theories from Case Study Research." Academy of Management Review 14, (1989): 532?550. Eisenhardt, K. M., and M. E. Graebner. "Theory Building from Cases: Opportunities and Challenges." Academy of Management Journal 50, (2007): 25-32. Eisner, E. W. The Enlightened Eye: Qualitative Inquiry and the Enhancement of Educational Practice. New York: MacMillan, 1991. Eizenberg, E. "The Changing Meaning of Community Space: Two Models of NGO Management of Community Gardens in New York City." International Journal of Urban and Regional Research of Urban Affairs 31, No. 1 (2009): 1 - 23. 302 Ellenson, D. "Thoughts on American Jewish Denominationalism Today: Culture and Identity." In Synagogues in a Time of Change: Fragmentation and Diversity in Jewish Religious Movements. Edited by Z. I. Heller, 73-79. Herndon, VA: The Alban Institute, 2009. Emmett, R. "Community Gardens, Ghetto Pastoral, and Environmental Justice." Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment 18, No. 1 (2011): 67-86. Entrikin, J. N. and J. H. Tepple. "Humanism and Democratic Place-making." In Approaches to Human Geography. Edited by S. Aitken and G. Valentine, 30-41. London: Sage, 2006. Etzioni-Halevy, E. "Collective Jewish Identity in Israel: Towards an Irrevocable Split?" In Jewish survival: The Identity Problem at the Close of the Twentieth Century. Edited by E. Kraysz and G. Tulea, 65-76. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1998. Evans, E. The Provincials: a Personal History of Jews in the South. New York: Antheneum, 1973. Feagan, R. "The Place of Food: Mapping out the 'Local' in Local Food Systems." Progress in Human Geography 31, (2007): 23-42. Feagan, R. and A. Henderson. "Devon Acres CSA: Local Struggles in a Global Food System." Agriculture and Human Values 26, (2009): 203-217. Feenstra, G. W. "Local Food Systems and Sustainable Communities." American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 12, (1997): 28-36. ---. "Creating Space for Sustainable Food Systems: Lessons from the Field. Agriculture and Human Values 19, No. 2 (2002): 99-106. Fein, I. M. The Making of an American Jewish Community: the History of Baltimore Jewry from 1773 to 1920. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1971. Feldstein, S. "So, What's 'the New Jewish Food Movement?' A movement for justice." Global Voices. Last Modified August 24, 2011. http://blogs.ajws.org/blog/2011/08/24/so-whats-the-new-jewish-food-movement/. Ferris, J., C. Norman, and J. Sempik, J. "People, Land and Sustainability: Community Gardens and the Social Dimension of Sustainable Development." Social Policy and Administration 35, (2001): 559?568. 303 Firkatian, M. "Retaining Ethnic Identity: the Armenians in Bulgaria." In Cultural Education-Cultural Sustainability: Minority, Diaspora, Indigenous and Ethno- Religious Groups in Multicultural Societies. Edited by Z. Beckerman and E. Kopelowitz, 181-200. New York: Routledge, 2008. Fischer, C. S. To Dwell Among Friends. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982. Fishbein, M. ?The Relationships between Beliefs, Attitudes and Behavior.? In Current Studies in Socio-psychology. Edited by I.D.Steiner and M.Fishbein, 263?277). New York: Holt Rinehart, 1965. Fishkoff, S. Farming the Land, Torah in Hand. Jewish Journal, February 4, 2009. http://www.jewishjournal.com/articles/item/farming_the_land_torah_in_hand_20 090204/. Fliegel, F. C. Diffusion Research in Rural Sociology: the Record for the Future. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1993. Fossey E, C. Harvey, F. McDermott, and L. Davidson. "Understanding and Evaluating Qualitative Research." Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 36, (2002): 717?732. Foster, G. M. "Peasant Society and the Image of the Limited Good." American Anthropologist 67, (1965): 239-215, 1962. French, C. "The Social Production of Community Garden Space: Case Studies of Boston, Massachusetts and Havana Cuba." (PhD diss., University of New Hampshire, 2008). Friedlander, M. L, M. L. Friedman, M. J. Miller, M. V. Ellis, L. K. Friedlander, and V. G. Mikhaylov. "Introducing a Brief Measure of Cultural and Religious Identification in American Jewish Identity." Journal of Counseling Psychology 57, No. 3 (2010): 345-360. "Ganei Beantown." Ganei Beantown. Accessed: October 13, 2013. http://www.beantownjewishgardens.org/ Gardner, G. and P. Stern. Environmental Problems and Human Behaviour. Boston: Pearson, 2002. Gasson, S. "Rigor in Grounded Theory Research: an Interpretive Perspective on Generating Theory from Qualitative Field Studies." In The Handbook on Information Systems Research. Edited by M. Whitman and A. B. Woszczynski, 79-102. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing, 2004. 304 Gasson, S., and J. Waters. "Using a Grounded Theory Approach to Study Online Collaboration Behaviors." European Journal of Information Systems, (2011): 1- 24. Geels, F. W. "From Sectoral Systems of Innovation to Socio-technical Systems: Insights about Dynamics and Change from Sociology and Institutional Theory." Research Policy 33, (2004a): 897-920. ---. "Understanding System Innovations: A Critical Literature Review and a Conceptual Synthesis." In System Innovation and the Transition to Sustainability, edited by: B. Elzen, F. W. Geels, and K. Green, 19-47. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2004b. ---. "Ontologies, Socio-technical Transitions (to Sustainability), and the Multi-level Perspective." Research Policy 39, (2010): 495-510. Geels, F. W., B. Elzen, and K. Green. "General Introduction: System Innovation and Transitions to Sustainability." In System Innovation and the Transition to Sustainability, edited by: B. Elzen, F. W. Geels, and K. Green, 1-16. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2004. Geertz, C. The Interpretation of Culture: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books, 1973. Geffen, R. M. "Postdenominational American Judaism: Reality or Illusion?" In Synagogues in a Time of Change: Fragmentation and Diversity in Jewish Religious Movements, edited by Z. I. Heller, 99-108. Herndon, VA: The Alban Institute, 2009. Gendler, E. "Join the Chorus, Recapture the Rhythms." In The Greening of Faith: God, the Environment, and the Good Life. Edited by J. E. Carroll, P. Brockelman, and M. Westfall, 67-78. Hanover: University Press of New England, 1997. Georg, S. "The Social Shaping of Household Consumption." Ecological Economics 28, No. 3 (1999): 455?466. Giddens, A. "Time, Space and Regionalisation." In Social Relations and Spatial Structures. Edited by D. Gregory & J. Urry, 265-295. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1985. Giovannucci, D., E. Barham, and R. Pirog. "Defining and Marketing 'Local' Foods: Geographical Indications for US Products." The Journal of World Intellectual Property 13, No. 2 (2009): 94-120. Glaser, B. "Theoretical Elaboration of Quantitative Data." The Grounded Theory Review 6, No. 3 (2007): 1-37. 305 Glaser, B. and A. Strauss. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine, 1967. Glasser, H. "Minding the Gap: the Role of Social Learning in Linking our Stated Desire for a More Sustainable World to our Everyday Actions and Policies." In Social Learning towards a Sustainable World. Edited by A. E. J. Wals, 35-62. Wageningen, Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers, 2007. Glover, T. D. "Social Capital in the Lived Experiences of Community Gardeners." Leisure Sciences 26, (2004): 143 - 162. Goldberg, R. A. Back to the Soil: the Jewish Farmers of Clarion, Utah and their World. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1986. Goldstein, J., M. Jensen, and E. Reiskin. ?Urban Vacant Land Redevelopment: Challenges and Progress.? Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2001. Gordis, R. Koheleth?the Man and his World. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1951. Gortner, S. and P. Schultz. "Approaches to Nursing Science Methods." Image 20, (1988): 22-23. Gottlieb, R. Forcing the Spring: the Transformation of the American Environmental Movement. Covello: Island Press, 1993. Gottlieb, R., and A. Fisher. "Community Food Security and Environmental Justice: Searching for a Common Discourse." Agriculture and Human Values 13, No. 3 (1996): 23-32. Gould, C. P. ?The Land System in Maryland, 1720-1765.? Johns Hopkins University Studies in History and Political Science Series XXXI, No. 1 (1913). ---. ?Money and Transportation in Maryland, 1720-1765.? Johns Hopkins University Studies in History and Political Science Series XXXIII, No. 1 (1915). ---. ?The Economic Causes of the Rise of Baltimore.? Essays of Colonial History, (1931): 225-271. Goulding, C. "Grounded Theory: a Magical Formula or a Potential Nightmare." The Marketing Review, 2 (2005): 21-34. Granovetter, M. "The Strength of Weak Ties: a Network Theory Revisited." Sociological Theory 1, (1983): 201-233. 306 Graves, A. O. ?Soil Exhaustion as a Factor in the Agricultural History of Virginia and Maryland.? University of Illinois Studies in Social Sciences XIII, No. 1 (1925): 29-32. Greenberg, A. 2005. ?OMG! How generation y is redefining faith in the iPod era.? REBOOT. Gregory, D. "Suspended Animation: The Stasis of Diffusion Theory." In Social Relations and Spatial Structures. Edited by D. Gregory & J. Urry, 296-336. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1985. Greider, T., and L. Garkovich. "Landscapes: the Social Construction of Nature and the Environment." Rural Sociology 59, No. 1 (1994): 1-24. Groeneman, S. and T. W. Smith. Moving: the Impact of Geographic Mobility on the Jewish Community. The Jewish Federations of North America, 2009. http://www.jewishdatabank.org/Studies/downloadFile.cfm?FileID=2679. Grossman, L. "Denominations in American Judaism: the Dynamics of their Relationships." In Synagogues in a Time of Change: Fragmentation and Diversity in Jewish Religious Movements. Edited by Z. I. Heller, 25-34. Herndon, VA: The Alban Institute, 2009. Gruber, D. L. The Grassroots of a Green Revolution: Polling America on the Environment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003. Guest, G., A. Bruce, and L. Johnson, "How Many Interviews are Enough? An Experiment with Data Saturation and Variability." Field Methods 18, No. 1 (2006): 59?82. Gutman, B. N. "Ethical Eating: Applying the Kosher Food Regulatory Regime to Organic Food." The Yale Law Journal 108, (1999): 2351-2384. Habermas, J. Knowledge and Human Interests. London: Heinemann, 1972. H?gerstrand, T. "Migration and Area." In Migration in Sweden: a Symposium. Edited by. D. Hannerberg, T. H?gerstrand & B. Odeving, 25-158. Lund, Sweden: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1957. ---. Innovation Diffusion as a Spatial Process. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1967. ---. "Space, Time and Human Conditions." In Dynamic Allocation of Urban Space. Edited by A. Karlqvist, L. Lundqvist, and F. Snickars, 3 - 12. Lexington: Saxon House Lexington Books, 1975. 307 Haggett, P. Geography: a Modern Synthesis, Revised Third Edition. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1983. Hall, S. J., A. Matson and P. Roth. ?NOx Emission from Soil: Implications for Air Quality Modeling in Agricultural Regions." Annual Review of Energy and the Environment 2, (1996): 311-346. Hallberg, L. R. "The 'Core-category' of Grounded Theory: Making Constant Comparisons." International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well- being 1, (2006): 141-148. Hanna, A. K. and P. Oh. "Rethinking Urban Poverty: A Look at Community Gardens." Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society 20, No. 3 (2000): 207?216. Hart, P. "Social Learning as Action Inquiry: Exploring Education for Sustainable Societies." In Social Learning towards a Sustainable World. Edited by A. E. J. Wals, 313-330. Wageningen, Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers, 2007. Hart, S. "The Cultural Dimension of Social Movements: a Theoretical Reassessment and Literature Review." Sociology of Religion 57, No. 1 (1996): 87 - 100. Heilman, S. C. ?Inner and Outer Identities: Sociological Ambivalence among Orthodox Jews.? Jewish Social Studies 39, (1977): 227-240. ---. "American Jews and Community: a Spectrum of Possibilities." Contemporary Jewry 24, (2004): 51-69. Heller, Z. I. "Introduction." In Synagogues in a Time of Change: Fragmentation and Diversity in Jewish Religious Movements. Edited by Z. I. Heller, 1-10. Herndon, VA: The Alban Institute, 2009. Helzer, J. J. "Continuity and Change: Hmong Settlement in California's Sacramento Valley." Journal of Cultural Geography 14, No. 2 (1994): 51-64. Hendrickson, M. and W. Heffernan. "Opening Spaces through Relocalization: Locating Potential Resistance in the Weaknesses of the Global Food System." Sociologia Ruralis 42, (2002): 347-369. Hendrickson, D., C. Smith, and N. Eikenberry. "Fruit and Vegetable Access in Four Low-income Food Deserts Communities in Minnesota." Agriculture and Human Values 23, (2006): 371?383. Herman, S. N. Jewish Identity: a Social Psychological Perspective. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1989. 308 Hinchliffe, S. "Helping the Earth begin at Home: the Social Construction of Socio- environmental Responsibilities." Global Environmental Change 6, (1996): 53-62. Hinrichs, C. C. "Embeddedness and Local Food Systems: Notes on Two Types of Direct Agricultural Markets." Journal of Rural Studies 16, (2000): 295-303. ---. "The Practice and Politics of Food System Localization." Journal of Rural Studies 19, No. 1 (2003): 33-45. Hoffman, J. P. Linear Regression Analysis: Assumptions and Applications. Unpublished, 2005. Accessed October 13, 2013. https://sociology.byu.edu/Hoffmann/SiteAssets/Hoffmann%20_%20Linear%20R egression%20Analysis.pdf Hollinger, D. Postethnic America: Beyond Multiculturalism. New York: Basic Books, 2000. Horowitz, B. Connections and Journeys: Assessing Critical Opportunities for Enhancing Jewish Identity: A Report to the Commission on Jewish Identity and Renewal. UJA-Federation of New York, Continuity Commission, 2000. ---. "Reframing the Study of Contemporary American Jewish Identity." Contemporary Jewry, 23, (2002): 14-34. Horrigan, L., R. S. Lawrence & P. Walker. "How Sustainable Agriculture can Address the Environment and Human Health Harms of Industrial Agriculture." Environmental Health Perspectives 110, (2002): 445-456. Hout, M. and J. R. Goldstein. "How 4.5 million Irish Immigrants became 40 million Irish Americans: Demographic and Subjective Aspects of the Ethnic Composition of White Americans." American Sociological Review 59, (1994): 64?82. Howard, J. A., and J. N. Sheth. The Theory of Buyer Behavior. New York: John Wiley, 1969. Hudson, J. C. Geographical Diffusion Theory. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University, 1972. Hughes, T.P. "The Evolution of Large Technological Systems." In The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology, edited by W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, and T. Pinch, 51-82. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1987. Iles, J. "The Social Role of Community Farms and Gardens in the City." In Continuous Productive Urban Landscapes: Designing Urban Agriculture for Sustainable Cities. Edited by A. Viljoen, 83-88. New York: Architectural Press, 2005. 309 "Impact." Associated. Accessed: October 13, 2013. http://www.associated.org/page.aspx?id=247307. Interviewee #1. Interview by Rachel Berndtson. Open interview. Baltimore, MD. January, 2011. Interviewee #2. Interview by Rachel Berndtson. Open interview. Baltimore, MD. January, 2011. Interviewee #3. Interview by Rachel Berndtson. Open interview. Baltimore, MD. June, 2011. Interviewee #4. Interview by Rachel Berndtson. Open interview. Baltimore, MD. June, 2011 Interviewee #5. Interview by Rachel Berndtson. Open interview. Baltimore, MD. June, 2011 Interviewee #6. Interview by Rachel Berndtson. Open interview. Baltimore, MD. June, 2011. Interviewee #7. Interview by Rachel Berndtson. Open interview. Baltimore, MD. July, 2011. Interviewee #8. Interview by Rachel Berndtson. Open interview. Baltimore, MD. July 2011 Interviewee #9. Interview by Rachel Berndtson. Open interview. Baltimore, MD. July, 2011. Intrator, S. M., and W. Rosov. "Sustaining the Work of Creation: an Exploration of Jewish Environmental Education." Journal of Jewish Education 64, No. 1-2 (1998): 102-114. Jackson, D. "The Sustainable Garden." In Meeting the Expectations of the Land: Essays in Sustainable Agriculture and Stewardship. Edited by W. Jackson, W. Berry and B. Coleman, 106-114. San Francisco: North Point Press, 1984. Jackson, T. Chasing Progress: Beyond Measuring Economic Growth. London: New Economics Foundation, 2004. ---. ?Motivating Sustainable Consumption: a Review of Evidence on Consumer Behaviour and Behavioural Change." Sustainable Development Research Network [online], 2005. 310 Jacobs, M. X. "Jewish Environmentalism: Past Accomplishments and Future Challenges.?In Judaism and Ecology: Created World and Revealed World. Edited by H. Tirosh-Samuielson, 449-480. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002. Jagers, S., C., J. Martinsson & S. Matti. "On How to Make the Theoretical Concept of Ecological Citizenship Empirically Operational." Presentation at the Climate Change Politics and Political Theory Workshop, Uppsala University, September 28 - 29, 2009. Jenkins, R. Rethinking Ethnicity: Arguments and Explorations. London: Sage Publications, 1997. Jenny, H. "The Making and Unmaking of a Fertile Soil." In Meeting the Expectations of the Land: Essays in Sustainable Agriculture and Stewardship. Edited by W. Jackson, W. Berry and B. Coleman, 42-55. San Francisco: North Point Press, 1984. Jewish Agricultural Society. Jews in American Agriculture: the History of Farming by Jews in the United States. New York: Jewish Agricultural Society, 1954. Jick, T. "Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action." Administrative Science Quarterly 24, (1979): 602-611. Johnston, L. Religion and Sustainability: Social Movements and the Politics of the Environment. Bristol, Connecticut: Equinox Publishing, 2013. Johnston, M., and L. D. Shimada. ?Urban Forestry in a Multicultural Society.? Journal of Arboriculture 30, No. 3 (2004): 185-192. Joshi, A. and A. M. Azuma. Bearing Fruit: Farm to School Program Evaluation Resources and Recommendations. Los Angeles: National Farm to School Program, Center for Food and Justice, Urban Environmental Policy Institute, Occidental College, 2009. Kaplan, D. E. Contemporary American Judaism: Transformation and Renewal. New York: Columbia University Press, 2009. Kaufman, J. and M. Bailkey. Farming Inside Cities: Entrepreneurial Urban Agriculture in the United States. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Working Paper, 2000. Kaya, I. ?Turkish American Immigration History and Identity Formations.? Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs 24, No. 2 (2004): 295-308. ---. "Identity and Space: the Case of Turkish Americans." Geographical Review 95, No. 3 (2005): 425-440. 311 "Kayam Farm Beit Midrash: Shmittah and Society." Hazon. Last modified: February 2, 2012. http://www.hazon.org/kayam-farm-beit-midrash-shmittah-and-society/. Kelman, H. C. "The Place of Ethnic Identity in the Development of Personal Identity: a Challenge for the Jewish Family." In Studies in Contemporary Jewry. Edited by P. Medding. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994. Kemp, R., A. Rip, and J. Schot. "Constructing Transition Paths through the Management of Niches." In Path Dependence and Creation. Edited by R. Garud, and P. Karnoe, 269-299. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 2001. Kim, Y. Y. ?Ideology, Identity, and Intercultural Communication: an Analysis of Differing Academic Conceptions of Cultural Identity.? Intercultural Communication Special Issue: State of the Art, (2007): 237-253. Kingsley, J., and M. Townsend. "'Dig in' to Social Capital: Community Gardens as Mechanisms for Growing Urban Social Connectedness." Urban Policy and Research 24, No. 4 (2006): 525-537. Kirk, W. "Historical Geography and the Concept of the Behavioural Environment." Indian Geographic Journal Silver Jubilee Edition, (1952):152-160. Kirschbaum, P. R. ?Gardening in the Schoolyard: It's a Math, Social Studies, Science, Reading, Art ... Kind of Thing.? Community Greening Review 2 (1999): 2-4 Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B. "The 'New Jews': Reflections on Emerging Cultural Practices." Presentation at the Re-thinking Jewish Communities and Networks in an Age of Looser Connections Conference. Wurzweiler School of Social Work, Yeshiva University and Institute for Advanced Studies, Hebrew University, New York City, December 6 - 7, 2005. www.nyu.edu/classes/bkg/web/yeshiva.pdf (accessed June 4, 2012). Kivell, P. Land and the City: Patterns and Processes of Urban Change. London: Routledge, 1993. Knigge, L. and M. Cope. "Grounded Visualization: Integrating the Analysis of Qualitative and Quantitative Data through Grounded Theory and Visualization." Environment and Planning A 38, (2006): 2021-2037. Koffka, K. Principles of Gestalt Psychology. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1929. K?hler, W. Gestalt Psychology. New York: Horace Liveright, 1929. 312 Kolb, S. M. "Grounded Theory and the Constant Comparative Method: Valid Research Strategies for Educators." Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies 3, No. 1 (2012): 83-86. Kollmuss, A. and J. Agyeman. ?Mind the Gap: Why Do People Act Environmentally and What Are the Barriers to Pro-environmental Behavior?" Environmental Education Research 8, (2002): 239-260. Kopelowitz, E. ?Who Has the Right to Change Tradition? Changing Conceptions of Religious Authority and their Consequences for the Jewish People.? In Studies in Contemporary Jewry Volume 17. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. ---. ?Jewish Identities.? In Modern Judaism: an Oxford Guide. Edited by N. de Lange and M. Freud-Kandel, 205-215. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Korn, B. W. The Early Jews of New Orleans. Waltham, MA: American Jewish Historical Society, 1969. Kotler-Berkowitz, L., S. M. Cohen, J. Arment, V. Klaff, F. Mott, and D. Peckerman- Neuman. National Jewish Population Survey 2000-2001: Strength, Challenge and Diversity in the American Jewish Population. New York: United Jewish Communities, 2004. Kransy, M. E, and K. G. Tidball. ?Community Gardens as Contexts for Science, Stewardship, and Civic Action Learning.? Cities and the Environment 2, No. 1 (2009): 1-18. Kurtz, H. "Differentiating Multiple Meanings of Garden and Community." Urban Geography 22, (2001): 656?670. Kuzel, A. "Sampling in Qualitative Inquiry." In Doing Qualitative Research. Edited by B. Crabtree and W. Miller, 31-44. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1992. Lacy, W. ?Empowering Communities through Public Work, Science, and Llocal Food Systems: Revisiting Democracy and Globalization. Rural Sociology 65, (2000): 3- 26. Lave, J. and E. Wenger. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Lavender, A. D. and C. B. Steinberg. Jewish Farmers of the Catskills: a Century of Survival. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 1995. Lawler, S. Identity: Sociological Perspectives. Malden, MA: Polity Press, 2008 313 Lawson, L. J. City Bountiful: A Century of Community Gardening in America. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005. Lawson, V. A. and L. A. Staeheli. ?Realism and the Practice of Geography." The Professional Geographer 42, (1990): 13-20. Leeser, I. ?The Jews and their Religion.? Cited in Publications of the American Jewish Historical Society VI, (1897): 143-144. Lefebvre, H. 1991. The production of space. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Leighly, J. Land and Life: a Selection from the Writings of Carl Ortwin Saur. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1963. Levine, H.B. Constructing Collective Identity: A Comparative Analysis of New Zealand Jews, Maori, and Urban Papua New Guineans. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1997. Leyshon, A., R. Lee & C. Williams. 2003. Alternative economic spaces. London: Sage. Lincoln, Y. S. and E. G. Guba. Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1985 ---. "Pragmatic Controversies, Contradictions, and Emerging Confluences." In The Handbook of Qualitative Research. Edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, 163-188. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 2000. Linfield, H. S. Statistics of Jews and Jewish Organizations: Historical Review of Ten Censuses, 1850-1937. New York: American Jewish Committee, 1939. Lipset, S. M. The Power of Jewish Education. Los Angeles and Brookline, MA: The Wilstein Institute, 1994. ---. "Some Thoughts on the Past, Present and Future of American Jewry." In Essential Readings on Jewish Identities, Lifestyles and Beliefs: Analyses of the Personal and Social Diversity of Jews by Modern Scholars. Edited by S. M. Lyman, 28-37. New York: Gordian Knot Books, 2003. Local Harvest. "Community Supported Agriculture." Accessed: February 5, 10. http://www.localharvest.org/csa. London, P. and B. Chazan. Psychology and Jewish Identity Education. New York: American Jewish Committee, 1990. Lowenthal, D. "Geography, Experience and Imagination: Towards a Geographical Epistemology.? Annals, Association of American Geographers 51, (1961): 241- 260. 314 Luckin, D. and L. Sharp. "Exploring the Community Waste Sector: Are Sustainable Development and Social Capital Useful Concepts for Project-level Research?" Community Development Journal 40, No. 1 (2005): 62 - 75. Lyson, T. A. Community Agriculture: Reconnecting Farm, Food, and Community. Lebanon, NH: Tufts University Press, 2004. Macias, T. "Working Towards a Just, Equitable, and Local Food System: the Social Impact of Community-Based Agriculture." Social Science Quarterly 89, No. 5 (2008): 1086-1101. Macnaghten, P. "Embodying the Environment in Everyday Life Practices." The Sociological Review 51, (2003): 63-84. Magid, S. Hasidism on the Margin: Reconciliation, Antinomianism, and the Messianism in Izbica/Radzin Hasidism. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 2003. Maiteny, P. "Mind in the Gap: Summary of Research Exploring 'Inner' Influences on Pro- sustainability Learning and Behaviour." Environmental Education Research 8, (2002): 299-306. M?ki, U. and P. Oinas. "The Narrow Notion of Realism in Human Geography." Environment and Planning A 36, (2004): 1755-1776. Malakoff, D. "What Good is Community Greening?" Community Greening Review 5, (1995): 4?11. Mann, B. E. Space and Place in Jewish Studies. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2012. Mansvelt, J. and L. D. Berg. "Writing Qualitative Geographies, Constructing Meaningful Geographic Knowledges." In Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography. Edited by I. Hay, 333-355. Ontario: Oxford University Press, 2010. Marcus, J. R. Early American Jewry: the Jews of Pennsylvania and the South 1655-1790. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1953. Marris, P. "What Can Be Wrong with Growth?" In Candles in the Dark: A new Spirit for a Plural World. Edited by B. S. Baudot, 83-98. Manchester: New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College, and Seattle: University of Washington, 2002. Marsh, P. C. and A. L. Coleman. "Group Influences and Agricultural Innovations: Some Tentative Findings and Hypotheses." American Sociological Review 66, (1956): 588 - 594. 315 Marshall, M. "Sampling for Qualitative Research." Family Practice 13, No. 6 (1996): 522?525. Martinez, S., M. Hand, M. DaPra, S. Pollack, K. Ralston, T. Smith, S. Vogel, S. Clark, L. Lohr, S. Low & C. Newman. Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues. Economic Research Report No. 97, U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, 2005. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/ERR97/ERR97.pdf. Matti, S. "From Sustainable Consumers to Ecological Citizens: Elucidating Attitudes towards Individual Environmental Action in Sweden." Working Paper 14, Sharp Research Programme, 2005. http://pure.ltu.se/portal/files/2087402/SHARP- WP_14.pdf. Mayer, E., B. A. Kosmin, and A. Keysar. American Jewish Identity Survey: An Exploration in the Demography and Outlook of a People. New York: The Graduate Center of the City University of New York, 2001. Mazumdar, S., and S. Mazumdar. "Religion, Immigration, and Home Making in Diaspora: Hindu Space in Southern California." Journal of Environmental Psychology 29, No. 2 (2009a): 256-266. ---. "Religious Placemaking and Community Building in Diaspora." Environment and Behavior 41, No. 3 (2009b): 307-337. ---. "Immigrant Home Gardens: Places of Religion, Culture, Ecology, and Family." Landscape and Urban Planning 105, No. 3 (2012): 258-265. McAdam, D. and D. Rucht. ?The Cross-National Diffusion of Movement Ideas.? The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 528, No. 1 (1993): 56-74. McClelland, D. C. and D. G. Winter. Motivating Economic Achievement. New York: Free Press, 1969. McGhee, G., G. R. Marland, and J. M. Atkinson. "Grounded Theory Research: Literature Reviewing and Reflexivity.? Journal of Advanced Nursing 60, No 3. (2007): 334- 342. McGuirk, P. M. and P. O. O'Neill. "Using Questionnaires in Qualitative Human Geography." In Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography. Edited by I. Hay, 191-216. Ontario: Oxford University Press, 2010. McLafferty, S. "Conducting Questionnaire Surveys." In Key Methods in Geography. Edited by N. Clifford and G. Valentine, 87-100. London: Sage, 2003. 316 McMillan, D. W. and D. M. Chavis. "Sense of Community: a Definition and Theory." Journal of Community Psychology 14, (1986): 6-23. Middlemiss, L. K. "Influencing Individual Sustainability: a Review of the Evidence on the Role of Community-based Organisations." International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development, 7, (2008): 78-93. ---. "Community Action for Individual Sustainability: Linking Sustainable Consumption, Citizenship and Justice." In Managing Environmental Justice, edited by D. Pavlich, 71-91. Amerstdam: Rodopi, 2010a. ---. "Reframing Individual Responsibility for Sustainable Consumption: Lessons from Environmental Justice and Ecological Citizenship." Environmental Values, 19, (2010b): 147-167. Middlemiss, L. K. & B. D. Parrish. "Building Capacity for Low-carbon Communities: the Role of Grassroots Initiatives." Energy Policy, 38, (2010): 7559-7566. Milburn, L, S., and B. A. Vail. "Sowing the Seeds of Success: Cultivating a Future for Community Gardens.? Landscape Journal 29, No. 1 (2010): 71 - 89. "Mission and History." Pearlstone Center. Accessed: October 13, 2013. http://pearlstonecenter.org/mission-history/. "Mission." Ekar. Accessed: October 13, 2013. http://ekarfarm.org/about-us/mission/. Morrill, R., G. L. Gaile & G. I. Thrall. Spatial Diffusion. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc, 1988. Moss, R. "Ethnic Identity, and the Institutional Americanization in Turn-of-the-century Connecticut." Connecticut History 45, (2006): 31-55. Mukherji, N. and A. Morales. "Zoning for Urban Agriculture." Zoning Practice APA 27, No. 3 (2010): 2-7. Meyer, D. S and N. Whittier. ?Social Movement Spillover.? Social Problems 41, No. 2 (1994): 277-298. Naimark, S. A Handbook of Community Gardening. NewYork: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1982. National Gardening Association. The Impact of Home and Community Gardening in America. South Burlington, VT: National Gardening Association, 2009. 317 Nemore, C. ?Rooted in Community: Community Gardens in New York City (A report to the New York State Senate).? City Farmer: Canada's Office of Urban Agriculture [On-line], 1998. Retrieved November 10, 2000 from http://cityfarm@unixg.ubc.ca http://cityfarm@unixg.ubc.ca. Newhouse, N. "Implications of Attitude and Behavior Research for Environmental Conservation." The Journal of Environmental Education 22, (1991): 26-32. Newton, J., T. Marsden, A. Franklin and A. Collins. Supporting Skills and Knowledge to Deliver Sustainable Communities: an Exploration of the Conceptual and Policy Context. Cardiff, UK: The Centre For Business Relationships, Accountability, Sustainability and Society, 2008. OECD. "Policies to Promote Sustainable Consumption: an Overview." In ENV/EPOC/WPNEP(2001)18/FINAL, ed. OECD. Paris, 2002. Okvat, H. A., and A. J. Zautra. "Community Gardening: a Parsimonious Path to Individual, Community, and Environmental Resilience." American Journal of Community Psychology 47, (2011): 374 - 387. Oppenheim, J. D. ?The Jewish Population of the United States.? American Jewish Yearbook 19, (1918): 2. O'Reilly, M., and N. Parker. "'Unsatisfactory Saturation': a Critical Exploration of the Notion of Saturated Sample Sizes in Qualitative Research." Qualitative Research 13, No. 2 (2013): 190-197. O'Riordan, T. and H. Voisey. The Politics of Agenda 21 in Europe. London: Earthscan, 1998. Ormrod, R. K. "Local Context and Innovation Diffusion in a Well-connected World." Economic Geography 66, (1990): 109-122. "Our Story." Urban Adamah. Accessed: October 13, 2013. http://urbanadamah.org/about- us/our-mission/. "Our Story Continued." Pearlstone Center. Accessed: October 13, 2013. http://pearlstonecenter.org/our-story-continued/. Outhwaite, W. New Philosophies of Social Science: Realism, Hermeneutics and Critical Theory. Basingstoke, UK: MacMillan, 1987. Parfitt, J. "Questionnaire Design and Sampling." In Methods in Human Geography: a Guide for Students Doing a Research Project. Edited by R. Flowerdew and D. Martin. Harlow, UK: Longman, 2005. 318 Parker-Jenkins, M. "Achieving Cultural Sustainability?: The Phenomenon of Jewish and Mulsim Schools in England and Wales." In Cultural Education-Cultural Sustainability: Minority, Diaspora, Indigenous and Ethno-Religious Groups in Multicultural Societies. Edited by Z. Beckerman and E. Kopelowitz, 51-58. New York: Routledge, 2008. "Pearlstone Programs." Pearlstone Center. Accessed: October 7, 2013. http://pearlstonecenter.org/signature-programs/. Pennsylvania Horticultural Society (PHS). ?Urban Vacant Land: Issues and Recommendations.? September 1995. Peters, K. A. "Creating a Sustainable Urban Agricultural Revolution." Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation 25, (2010): 203 - 248. Petersen, R. L. "American Dissonance: Christian Communities in the United States and their Cultural Context." In Synagogues in a Time of Change: Fragmentation and Diversity in Jewish Religious Movements. Edited by Z. I. Heller, 49-70. Herndon, VA: The Alban Institute, 2009. Phinney, J. ?Ethnic Identity and Acculturation.? In Acculturation: Advances in theory, measurement, and applied research. Edited by K. Chun, P.Organista, and G. Marin, 63?81. Washington, DC: Ameri-can Psychological Association, 2003. Phinney, J. S., and A. D. Ong. ?Conceptualization and Measurement of Ethnic Identity: Current Status and Future Directions.? Journal of Counseling Psychology 54, No. 3 (2007): 271-281. Pinch, T.J., and W. E. Bijker. "The Social Construction of Facts and Artifacts: Or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Ether." In The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Edited by W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, and T. Pinch, T, 17-50. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1987. Poll, S. "Jewish Identity in the Twenty-first Century." In Jewish survival: The Identity Problem at the Close of the Twentieth Century. Edited by E. Kranz & G. Tulea, 145-161. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1998. Pomson, A. "'Dorks with Yarmulkes': an Ethnographic Inquiry into the Surprised Embrace of Parochial Day Schools by Liberal American Jews." In Cultural Education-Cultural Sustainability: Minority, Diaspora, Indigenous and Ethno- Religious Groups in Multicultural Societies. Edited by Z. Beckerman and E. Kopelowitz, 305-322. New York: Routledge, 2008. 319 Powell, L. M., S. Slater, D. Mirtcheva, Y. Bao, and F.J. Chaloupka. "Food Store Availability and Neighborhood Characteristics in the United States." Preventive Medicine 44, (2007): 189?195. Pred, A. "The Choreography of Existence: Comments on H?gerstrand?s Time-geography and its Usefulness." Economic Geography 53, (1977): 207-221. ---. ?The Social Becomes the Spatial, the Spatial becomes the Social: Enclosures, Social Change and the Becoming of Places in Sk?ne.? In Social Relations and Spatial Structures. Edited by D. Gregory and J. Urry, 337-365. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1985. Proctor, J. D. "The Social Construction of Nature: Relativist Accusations, Pragmatist and Critical Realist Responses." Annals of the Association of American Geographers 88, (1998): 352-376. Putnam, R. "Social Capital and Public Affairs." Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 47, (1994): 5-19. Putnam, R., R. Leonardi and R. Nanetti. Making Democracy Work: Civic Transitions in Modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993. Raduescu, C., and I. Vessey. "Analysis of Current Grounded Theory Method Practices." Business Information Systems Working Paper. Sydney: University of Sydney, 2011. Rebhun, U. "Jewish Identity in America: Structural Analyses of Attitudes and Behaviors." Review of Religious Research Association, Inc. 46, (2004): 43-63. Redclift, M. and E. Hinton. Living Sustainably: Approaches for the Developed and Developing World. London: Progressive Governance Summit, 2008. Reimer, J. "Beyond More Jewish Doing Jewish: Clarifying the Goals of Informal Jewish Education." Journal of Jewish Education 75, (2007): 5-23. ---. "Informal Education: The Decisive Decade - How Informal Jewish Education was Transformed in its Relationship with Jewish Philanthropy." International Handbook of Jewish Education 5, (2011): 805 - 832. Relph, E. Place and Placelessness. London: Pion, 1976. Reznikoff, C. and U. Z. Engelman. The Jews of Charleston: a History of an American Jewish Community. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1950. 320 Rikoon, J. S. "The Jewish Agriculturalists? Aid Society of America: Philanthropy, Ethnicity, and Agriculture in the Heartland." Agricultural History 72, (1998): 1- 32. Rip, A., and R. Kemp. ?Technological Change." In Human Choices and Climate Change. Volume 2: Resources and Technology, edited by S. Rayner and E. Malone, 327- 399. Washington, DC: Battelle, 1998. Rishbeth, C. "Ethno-cultural Representation in the Urban Landscape." Journal of Urban Design 9, No. 3 (2004): 311-333. Robbins, C. and J. Rowe. "Unresolved Responsibilities: Exploring Local Democratisation and Sustainable Development through a Community-based Waste Reduction Initiative." Local Government Studies 28, (2002): 37-58. Robertson, J. 1990. Future wealth: a new economics for the 21st century. London: Cassell. Rockefeller, S. C. "The Wisdom of Reverence for Life." In The Greening of Faith: God, the Environment, and the Good Life. Edited by J. E. Carroll, P. Brockelman and W. Westfall, 44-61. Hanover: University Press of New England, 1997. Rogers, E. M. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press, 1962. ---. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press, 2003. Rogoff, B., R. Paradise, R. Arauz, M. Correa-Chavez, and C. Angelillo. ?Firsthand Learning through Intent Participation.? Annual Review of Psychology 54, (2003): 175-203. Roper. Green Gauge 2002: Americans Perspective on Environmental Issues, Yes....But. New York: Roper ASW and NOP World, 2002. Rosenthal, G. S. "Tikkun ha-olam: the Metamorphosis of a Concept." The Journal of Religion 85, (2005): 214-240. Rosenwaike, I. ?An Estimate and Analysis of the Jewish Population of the United States in 1790.? Publications of the American Jewish Historical Society L, (1960): 23- 67. ---. ?The Jewish Population of the United States as Estimated from the Census of 1820.? AJHQ 53, No. 2 (1963): 131-178. ---. On the Edge of Greatness: a Portrait of American Jewry in the Early Nineteenth Century. Cincinnati: American Jewish Archives, 1985. 321 Rupp, G. "Religion, Modern Secular Culture, and Ecology." Daedalus 130, No. 4 (2001): 23-30. Ruppin, A. The Jews in the Modern World. London: MacMillan, 1934. Saltiel, J., J. W. Bauder, and S. Palakovich. "Adoption of Sustainable Agricultural Practices: Diffusion, Farm Structure, and Profitability." Rural Sociology 59, (1994): 333-349. Sarker, S., F. Lau, and S. Sahay. "Using an Adapted Grounded Theory Approach for Inductive Theory Building about Virtual Team Development.? Database 32, No. 2 (2001): 38-56. Sarna, J. D. American Judaism: A History. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004. Sauer, C. O. Agricultural Origins and Dispersals. New York: American Geographical Society, 1952. Sayer, A. Realism and Social Science. Newbury Park: Sage, 2000. ---. "Realism as a Basis for Knowing the World." In Approaches to Human Geography. Edited S. Aitken and G. Valentine, 98-106. London: Sage, 2006. Saldivar-tanaka, L. and M. E. Krasny. "Culturing Community Development, Neighborhood Open Space, and Civic Agriculture: the Case of Latino Community Gardens in New York City." Agriculture and Human Values 21, No. 4 (2004): 399-412. Scholem, G. Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism. New York: Schocken Books, Inc, 1946. Schmelzkopf, K. "Urban Community Gardens as Contested Space." Geographical Review 85, (1995): 364-381. ---. "Incomensurability, Land Use, and the Right to Space: Community Gardens in New York City." Urban Geography 23, No. 4 (2002): 323-343. Schmid, C. "Henri Lefebvre's Theory of the Production of Space: towards a Three- dimensional Dialectic." In Space, Difference, Everyday Life: Reading Henri Lefebvre. Edited by K. Goonewardena, S. Kipfer, R. Milgrom, and C. Schmid, 27-45. New York: Routledge, 2008. Schlosser, L. Z. ?Affirmative Psychotherapy for American Jews.? Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training 43, (2006): 424? 435. 322 Schukoske, J. E. ?Community Development through Gardening: State and Local Policies Transforming Urban Open Space.? N.Y.U Legislation and Public Policy 3, (2000): 351-392. Schwartz, E. "Bal Tashchit: a Jewish Environmental Precept." In Judaism and Environmental Ethics: a Reader. Edited by M. D. Yaffe, 230-249. Lanham: Lexington Books, 2001. Seale, C. "Generating Grounded Theory.? In Researching Society and Culture. Edited by C. Seale, 239-247. London: Sage Publications, 2004. Selengut, C. "Introduction: the Dilemmas of Jewish Identity." In Jewish Identity in the Postmodern Age. Edited by C. Selengut, 1-9. St. Paul, MN: Paragon House, 1999. Seyfang, G. "Shopping for Sustainability: Can Sustainable Consumption Promote Ecological Citizenship?" Environmental Politics 14, (2005): 290-306. ---. Ecological Citizenship and Sustainable Consumption: Examining Local Organic Food Networks." Journal of Rural Studies 22, (2006a): 383-395. ---. "Sustainable Consumption, the New Economic and Community Currencies: Developing New Institutions for Environmental Governance." Regional Studies 40, (2006b): 781-791. ---. "Avoiding Asda? Exploring Consumer Motivations in Local Organic Food Networks." Local Environment 13, (2008): 187-201. ---. "Community Action for Sustainable Housing: Building a Low-carbon Future." Energy Policy 38 (2010): 7624-7633. Seyfang, G. and A. Smith. "Grassroots Innovations for Sustainable Development: Towards a New Research and Policy Agenda." Environmental Politics 16, No. 4 (2007): 584-603. Seyfang, G., and A Haxeltine. "Growing Grassroots Innovations: Exploring the Role of Community-based Initiatives in Governing Sustainable Energy Transitions." Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 30 (2012): 381-400. Shah, S.K. and K. G. Corley. "Building Better Theory by Bridging the Quantitative? Qualitative Divide." Journal of Management Studies 148, No. 8 (2006): 1821? 1835. Sharfman, H. I. Jews on the Frontier: an Account of Jewish Pioneers and Settlers in Early America. Chicago: Henry Regnery Co., 1977. 323 Sharp, J. "Locating the Community Field: A Study of Interorganizational Network Structure and Capacity for Community Action." Rural Sociology 66, (2001): 403- 424. Sharot, S. "Judaism and Jewish Ethnicity: Changing Interrelationships and Differentiations in the Diaspora and Israel." In Jewish Survival: The Identity Problem at the Close of the Twentieth Century. Edited by E. Krausz and G. Tulea, 87-105. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1998. Sheskin, I. & A. Dashefsky. Jewish Population in the United States 2012. American Jewish Yearbook, 2012. http://www.jewishdatabank.org/Studies/downloadFile.cfm?FileID=2917 Sheskin, I. & L. Kotler-Berkowitz. "Synagogues, Jewish Community Centers, and Other Jewish Organizations: Who Joins? Who Doesn?t?" Journal of Jewish Communal Service, 82, (2007): 271-285. Site A Interviewee. Interview by Rachel Berndtson. Open interview. Baltimore, MD. June, 2012. Site B Interviewee. Interview by Rachel Berndtson. Open interview. Baltimore, MD. October, 2012. Site C Interviewee. Interview by Rachel Berndtson. Open interview. Baltimore, MD. November, 2012. Site D Interviewee. Interview by Rachel Berndtson. Open interview. Baltimore, MD. November, 2012. Sklare, M. "Intermarriage and the Jewish Future." Commentary, (1964): 46-52. Smith, P. As a City upon a Hill: the town in American History. New York, Knopf, 1966. Smith, A. and S. Pulver. ?Ethics-Based Environmentalism in Practice: Religious Environmental Organizations in the United States." Worldviews: Global Religions, Culture and Ecology 13, No. 2 (2009): 145-179. Smith, A., A. Stirling, and F. Berkhout. "The Governance of Sustainable Socio-technical Transitions." Research Policy 34 (2005): 1491?510. Smith, C. M., and H. E. Kurtz. "Gardens and Politics of Scale in New York City." Geographical Review 93, No. 2 (2003): 193 - 212. Soja, E. W. Postmodern Geographies: the Reassertion of Space in Critical Social Theory. London: Verso, 1989. 324 Sorin, G. A Time for Building: the Third Migration 1880-1920. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992. Soule, S. A. ?The Student Divestment Movement in the United States and Tactical Diffusion: The Shantytown Protest.? Social Forces 75, No. 3 (1997): 855-882. Steinsaltz, A. The Essential Talmud. New York: Basic Books, 2006. Sterling, S. "Riding the Storm: Towards a Connective Cultural Consciousness." In Social Learning towards a Sustainable World. Edited by A. E. J. Wals, 63 - 82. Wageningen, Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers, 2007. Stocker, L. and K. Barnett, K. "The Significance and Praxis of Community-based Sustainability Projects: Community Gardens in Western Australia." Local Environment 3, No. 2 (1998): 179?189. Strang, D. & J. W. Meyer. "Institutional Conditions for Diffusion." Theory and Society, 22, (1993): 487-511. Strang, D. and S.A. Soule. ?Diffusion in Organizations and Social Movements: from Hybrid Corn to Poison Pills.? Annual Review of Sociology 24 (1998): 265-290. Strauss, A. 1987. Qualitative research for social scientists. Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge Press. Strauss, A. & J. Corbin. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc, 1998. Suddaby, R. "From the Editors: What Grounded Theory is Not." Academy of Management Journal 49, No. 4 (2006): 633-642. Sulzberger, D. Growth of the Jewish Population in the United States. Publications of the American Jewish Historical Society, 1897. Taylor, C. The Ethics of Authenticity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1991. Teutsch, D. A. "Technological, Organizational and Social Turbulence: Contemporary Jewish Communal Challenges." Contemporary Jewry 24, (2003): 70-81. "Teva Learning Center." Teva Learning Center. Accessed: April 4, 2011. http://tevalearningcenter.org/. Tidball, K. G., and M. E. Krasny. "From Risk to Resilience: What Role for Community Greening and Civic Ecology in Cities?" In Social Learning towards a Sustainable World. Edited by A. E. J. Wals, 149-164. Wageningen, Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers, 2007. 325 Tilbury, D. ?Learning Based Change for Sustainability: Perspectives and Pathways.? In Social Learning towards a Sustainable World. Edited by A. E. J. Wals, 117-132. Wageningen, Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers, 2007. Tilman, D., K. G. Cassman, P. A. Matson, R. Naylor and S. Polasky. "Agricultural Sustainability and Intensive Production Practices." Nature 418, (2002): 671-677. Tirosh-Samuelson, H. "Nature in the Sources of Judaism." Daedalus 130, (2001): 99-124. Totoricaguena, G. "Agents of Socialization: The Educational Agenda of Basque Centers in Basque Transnational Communities." In Cultural Education-Cultural Sustainability: Minority, Diaspora, Indigenous and Ethno-Religious Groups in Multicultural Societies. Edited by Z. Beckerman and E. Kopelowitz, 127-146. New York: Routledge, 2008. Tuan, Y. "Community, Society, and the Individual." Geographical Review 92, No. 3 (2002): 307 - 318. Tucker, P. "Normative Influences in Household Recycling." Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 42, (1999): 63-82. Twiss, J., J. Dickinson, S. Duma, T. Kleinman, H. Paulsen, and L. Rilveria. ?Community Gardens: Lessons Learned from California Healthy Cities and Communities.? American Journal of Public Health 93, No. 9 (2003): 1435-1438. Ukeles, J. B. and R. Miller. Community Studies: 2010 Baltimore Jewish Community Study. The Associated: Jewish Community Federation of Baltimore, 2010. http://www.jewishdatabank.org/Studies/downloadFile.cfm?FileID=2724. Ukeles, J. B., R. Miller and P. Beck. Young Jewish Adults in the United States Today. American Jewish Committee, 2006. http://www.jewishdatabank.org/Studies/downloadFile.cfm?FileID=2940. UNCED. Agenda 21: The United Nations Program of Action from Rio. New York: The United Nations, 1993. United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Education for Sustainability, From Rio to Johannesburg: Lessons Learnt from a Decade of Commitment. Paris: Johannesburg World summit for Sustainable Development, 2002. Unwin, T. The Place of Geography. London: Pearson Education Limited, 1992. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). "Farmers' Market Growth." U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2009. 326 United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) "Trends in U.S. Agriculture." U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2009. van Oost, E., S. Verhaegh, and N. Oudshoorn. "From Innovation Community to Community Innovation: User-initiated Innovation in Wireless Leiden." Science, Technology, and Human Values 34, No. 2 (2009): 182-205. "Vision and Mission." Hazon. Accessed: October 13, 2013. http://www.hazon.org/about/vision-and-mission/. "Volunteer." Pearlstone Center. Accessed: October 7, 2013. http://pearlstonecenter.org/volunteer/. Walker, R. E., C. R. Keane, and J. G. Burke. "Disparities and Access to Healthy Food in the United States: a Review of Food Deserts Literature." Health and Place 16, No. 5 (2010): 876-884. Walford, G. "Muslim Schools in England and The Netherlands: Sustaining Cultural Continuity." In Cultural Education-Cultural Sustainability: Minority, Diaspora, Indigenous and Ethno-Religious Groups in Multicultural Societies. Edited by Z. Beckerman and E. Kopelowitz, 13-30. New York: Routledge, 2008. Warburton, D. Community and Sustainable Development. London: Earthscan, 1998. Warner, S.B. To Dwell is To Garden. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1987. Warner, S. R. "Work in Progress: Towards a New Paradigm for the Sociological Study of Religion in the United States." American Review of Sociology 98, No. 5 (1993): 1044 - 1093. Waskow, A. Down-to-earth Judaism: Food, Money, Sex, and the Rest of Life. New York: Morrow, 1997. Wayne, R. "Design Science Research and the Grounded Theory Method: Characteristics, Differences, and Complementary Uses." Theory-Guided Modeling and Empiricism in Information Systems Research, (2011): 111-127. Weed, M. "Research Quality Considerations for Grounded Theory Research in Sports and Exercise Psychology." Psychology of Sport and Exercise 10, (2009): 502-510. Weiskel, T. C. "Some Notes from Belshaz?zar?s Feast." In The Greening of Faith. Edited by J. E. Carroll, P. Brockelman and M. Westfall, 11-29. Hanover: University Press of New England, 1997. 327 Wejnert, B. ?Integrating Models of Diffusion and Innovation: A Conceptual Framework.? Annual Review of Sociology 28, No. 1 (2002): 297-326. Wellman, B. ?An Egocentric Network Tale.? Social Networks 17, No. 2(1993): 423-436. ---. "From Little Boxes to Loosely-bounded Networks: the Privatization and Domestication of Community." In Sociology for the Twenty-first Century: Continuities and Cutting Edges. Edited by J. L. Abu-Lughod, 94-114. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999. ---. "Physical Space and Cyberplace: the Rise of Personalized Networking." International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 25, (2001): 227-252. Wells, B., S. Gradwell and R. Yoder. "Growing Food, Growing Community: Community Supported Agriculture in Iowa." Community Development Journal 34, (1999): 38?46. Wenger, E. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Wertheimer, J. "Jewish Education in the United States: Recent Trends and Issues." In American Jewish Yearbook. Edited by D. Singer, 3 - 115. New York: American Jewish Committee, 1999. Westphal, L. "Urban Greening and Social Benefits: a Study of Empowerment Outcomes." Journal of Arboriculture 29, No. 3 (2003): 137-147. "Who We Are." Jewish Farm School. Accessed: October 13, 2013. http://www.jewishfarmschool.org/who-we-are/. Windmueller, S. "The Second American Jewish Revolution." Journal of Jewish Communal Service 82, (2007): 252-260. Winter, G. Religious Identity: a Study of Religious Organization. New York: Macmillan Company, 1965. Woocher, J. "Jewish Education: Postdenominationalism and the Continuing Influence of Denominations." In Synagogues in a Time of Change: Fragmentation and Diversity in Jewish Religious Movements. Edited by Z. I. Heller, 139-160. Herndon, VA: The Alban Institute, 2009. ---. "To Be Successful Today, Jewish Education Must Be Meaningful and Relevant." Journal of Jewish Education 78, No. 4 (2012): 326-330. World Bank. Social Capital for Development. World Bank. http://www.worldbank.org/poverty/scapital/index.htm, 2003. 328 Worster, D. "Thinking Like a River." In Meeting the Expectations of the Land: Essays in Sustainable Agriculture and Stewardship. Edited by W. Jackson, W. Berry and B. Coleman, 56-67. San Francisco: North Point Press, 1984. Wuthnow, R. Loose Connections: Joining Together in America?s Fragmented Communities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002. Yang, H. "Visual Assessment of Residual Plots in Multiple Linear Regression: a Model- based Simulation Perspective." Multiple Linear Regression Viewpoint 38, No. 2 (2012): 24-37. Yeung, H. W. "Critical Realism and Realist Research in Human Geography: a Method or a Philosophy in Search of a Method?" Progress in Human Geography 21, (1997): 51-74. Zald, M. N. "Theological Crucibles: Social Movements in and of Religion." Review of Religious Research 23, No. 4 (1982): 317-336. Zenk, S. N., A.J. Schulz, B.A. Israel, S.A. James, S. Bao, and M.L. Wilson. "Neighborhood Racial Composition, Neighborhood Poverty, and the Spatial Accessibility of Supermarkets in Metropolitan Detroit." American Journal of Public Health 95, No. 4 (2005): 660?667.