1 Technical Report Household Vegetable Gardening in Quezon City, Philippines: Practices, Benefits, and Constraints John Luis D. Lagdameo, Angelica Nicolette B. Dejaresco, Ma. Cecilia M. Gonzalez, Liz Ignowski, Pepijn Schreinemachers and Arma R. Bertuso December 2024 Household Vegetable Gardening in Quezon City, Philippines: Practices, Benefits, and Constraints John Luis D. Lagdameo  Angelica Nicolette B. Dejaresco Ma. Cecilia M. Gonzalez Liz Ignowski Pepijn Schreinemachers Arma R. Bertuso December 2024  Household Vegetable Gardening in Quezon City, Philippines: Practices, Benefits, and Constraints © CGIAR and World Vegetable Center 2024  This work was conducted as part of the CGIAR Research Initiative, “Resilient Cities Through Sustainable Urban and Peri-urban Agrifood Systems” and is supported by contributors to the CGIAR Trust Fund.  The work also benefited from long-term strategic donors to the World Vegetable Center: Taiwan, UK aid from the UK government, United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), Germany, Thailand, Philippines, Korea, and Japan.  Resilient Cities Through Sustainable Urban and Peri-urban Agrifood Systems (known as Resilient Cities) is a new research for development Initiative of the One CGIAR which aims to support a vibrant, largely informal urban and peri-urban agrifood sector, to help improve sustainability, equity and opportunity growth, and to mitigate risks to human and environmental health. During its first phase, the Initiative is primarily working in cities of Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Peru and the Philippines. Resilient Cities is being implemented by five CGIAR Centers – CIP (lead), ILRI, IFPRI, IITA, IWMI – as well as R&D partners World Vegetable Center and RUAF.  Ateneo de Manila University was commissioned by the World Vegetable Center to undertake the urban gardening study as part of the Work Package 1 Food Production. The reports and publications generated through the Initiative contribute important development information to the public arena. Readers are encouraged to quote or reproduce material from them in their own publications. As copyright holder CGIAR and World Vegetable Center request acknowledgement and a copy of the publication where the citation or material appears. Please send a copy to the Communications Department at the address below.  World Vegetable Center P.O. Box 42 Shanhua, Tainan 74199 TAIWAN Tel: +886 6 583 7801 Fax: +886 6 583 0009 Email: info@worldveg.org Web: avrdc.org Correct citation:  Lagdameo, J.L., Dejaresco, A.N., Gonzalez, M.C., Ignowski, L., Schreinemachers, P. and Bertuso, A. 2024. Household Vegetable Gardening in Quezon City, Philippines: Practices, Benefits, and Constraints. CGIAR and World Vegetable Center, Shanhua, Taiwan.  Editor:  Teresita Rola Layout:  Daniella Annika Guerrero and Cherry Bundalian Photo credits:  Cover photo - Doreen Kimayong December 2024   Resilient Cities Initiative thanks all donors and organizations that globally support their work through contributions to the CGIAR: www.cgiar.org/funders.  This publication is copyrighted by the CGIAR and World Vegetable Center. It is licensed for use under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................................... 4 Abbreviations of organizations ............................................................................................................... 5 1 Background ........................................................................................................................................... 6 2 Study objective and research questions ............................................................................................. 7 3 Data and methods ................................................................................................................................ 8 3.1 Variables measured ..................................................................................................................... 8 3.2 Enumerator training and questionnaire pre-testing ................................................................... 8 3.3 Sample selection ........................................................................................................................ 9 4 Descriptive results ............................................................................................................................... 11 4.1 Household characteristics, income, housing ............................................................................. 11 4.2 Household food production ...................................................................................................... 12 4.3 Food production practices ........................................................................................................ 15 4.4 Seedling use .............................................................................................................................. 17 4.5 Household, food and agriculture-related decisions ................................................................. 17 5 Diet quality .......................................................................................................................................... 19 5.1 Diet quality questionnaire .......................................................................................................... 20 6 Frequency of fruit and vegetable consumption ................................................................................ 26 6.1 Vegetable consumption ............................................................................................................. 26 6.2 Fruit consumption ..................................................................................................................... 28 6.3 Herb consumption .................................................................................................................... 30 7 Food security ...................................................................................................................................... 32 7.1 Background ................................................................................................................................ 32 7.2 Household food insecurity access scale score (HFIAS) .......................................................... 32 7.3 Results of food insecurity experience (1-month recall) ........................................................... 32 7.4 Emergent respondent profiles .................................................................................................. 35 8 Discussion .......................................................................................................................................... 37 9 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................. 40 References ..............................................................................................................................................41 Acknowledgments The authors would like to acknowledge the following individuals and groups for their contribution to the research and development of the report. Quezon City Government Hon. Josefina Belmonte-Alimurung Michael Alimurung Emmanuel Hugh F. Velasco II Francis Ian L. Agatep Cristina Perez Pocholo Bonifacio Ricky Corpuz Quezon City Barangays Apolonio Samson Baesa Bagong Silangan Bahay Toro Batasan Hills Commonwealth Damayan Gulod Krus na Ligas Holy Spirit Paang Bundok Payatas Tatalon Unang Sigaw AGOS Project Manager Athena Rigor Field Supervisors Judy Urquiza Michelle Torres Field Interviewers: Rosie Benaldo Meriam Ibanez Vianca Mariz Carpon Grace Buenaflor Genelyn Gatil Melanie Andres Jacqueline Sarasua Patricia Ramos Mj Galgalan Glenda Barcial Ateneo de Manila University Digital Data Management Ma. Gabriele Prado Angelina Cosio Ateneo BRC Administration Staff Aran V. Samson Rosalie Mendoza Jennelyn Mendoza dela Cruz Student Volunteers Ada Plata Alfonso Gabriel A. Ferrer Angelo Vince H. Perez Aryl Baldovino Bien Terenz Carl Galoso Christian Ivan Roque Emrick Panganiban Eric Joshua Picar Fiona Nicolette C. Metran Jamie Rose Bico John Matthew Mia Joyce Chloie D. Cesicar Lance Benedict R. Cabrera Maria Micaela P. Bartolo Mariam Rae S.A. Samson Mozar Abubakar Ralph Torres Reece Aedan Lopez Simon Joshua Ilag Viktoria Jane B. Ching Vince Rose Biliran Ysabela Juliana Bernardo Zanti Alfonzo C. Gayares Zenn Marielle Tabaque Barangay Captains Brgy. Apolonio Samson - Elizabeth De Jesus Brgy. Baesa - Lottie Gemma Juan Brgy. Bagong Silangan - Wilfredo Cara Brgy. Bahay Toro - Dennis Caboboy Brgy. Batasan HIlls - Jojo Abad Brgy. Commonwealth - Manuel Co Brgy. Damayan - Florida Casaje Brgy. Gulod - Rey Aldrin Tolentino Brgy. Holy Spirit - Felecito Balmocina Brgy. Krus na Ligas - Reniel John Perido Brgy. Paang Bundok - William Manugar Chua Brgy. Payatas - Rascal Doctor Brgy. Tatalon - Rodel Lobo Brgy. Unang Sigaw - Rolando Mamono Last, but not least, we would like to express our heartfelt gratitude to the 300 respondents who generously shared their time and experience. This project would not have been possible without their invaluable contributions. We hope that the findings from this research will serve as a useful resource to support their efforts in urban gardening. 4 Abbreviations of organizations ADMU - Ateneo de Manila University AGOS - Agudo Office Services BRC - Ateneo Business Resource Center CGIAR (formerly the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research) CIP - International Potato Center ILRI - International Livestock Research Institute IWMI - International Water Management Institute JGSOM - John Gokongwei School of Management QC - Quezon City WorldVeg - World Vegetable Center 5 Quezon City is one of 17 cities that constitute Metro Manila, the capital of the Philippines. It is also the largest city, with a population of 3.2 million people. Poverty and food insecurity are significant challenges for Metro Manila, but a growing abundance of unhealthy food and low consumption of fruits and vegetables are additional challenges contributing to the poor nutrition of the population. Hon. Maria Josefina (Joy) G. Belmonte, the city’s mayor since 2019, has spearheaded efforts to increase food security through urban agriculture. She has set up a Food Security Task Force composed of relevant stakeholders that meet regularly. One key initiative is called “Joy of Urban Farming”, which is a program to promote local food security through urban agriculture. There are demonstration farms spread across the city and run by the local government units (barangays). There are about 700 registered groups involved in the program with over 18,000 people participating according to the city administration. The CGIAR Resilient Cities Initiative signed a Memorandum of Agreement with the Quezon City government on 16 October 2023 to formalize collaboration on urban food systems. Resilient Cities will support Quezon City through empirical research on urban agriculture, food vendors, and the circular economy around organic waste. WorldVeg’s contribution to the program focuses on urban agriculture while the other areas of research are led by the International Potato Center (CIP), the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), and the International Water Management Institute (IWMI). Eventually, selected vegetables will be promoted to urban gardeners through training and supply of seed kits or seedlings. Many gardeners prefer vegetable seedlings to seeds because they only need a few plants, and seed germination rates are often disappointing. The use of quality seedlings could significantly improve the performance of urban gardens, while a more widespread supply could nudge people to take up gardening. However, little is known about the current source of seeds or seedlings and people’s willingness to buy seedlings if they were available. WorldVeg is therefore partnering with Ateneo de Manila University (ADMU) and the Quezon City government through the QC Food Security Task Force office to survey urban gardeners to understand their sources of planting material and analyze their demand for quality seedlings. The results of this study will be used to foster the development of entrepreneurial ventures around vegetable seedlings and related urban farming initiatives in selected communities. 1. Background Image 1 (left): Community farms of the surveyed barangays. Image 2 (right): JOY of urban farming poster from Barangay Paang Bundok 6 2. Study objective and research questions The present study comprises a household survey that aims to characterize the current state of urban agriculture and associated food environments in Quezon City, Philippines. The overall research question is: What is the contribution of urban agriculture to livelihoods and food and nutrition security, especially for poor and marginalized populations? In support of this overall research question, this study aims to assess: Who is practicing urban agriculture in terms of age, gender, and socioeconomic background? 1. What are the characteristics of urban farms or gardens in terms of size, plants grown, water source, management, and technologies used? 2. What challenges do urban food producers face in cultivating a farm or garden?3. What benefits do urban food producers obtain from food production?4. How can outside organizations better support urban food producers to optimize these benefits? 5. 7 3. Data and methods 3.1 Variables measured The study collected a wide range of information from respondents. It included details about their identities, such as names, ages, and genders. Additionally, it examined household characteristics, including house size, sources of income, and the number of floors in their homes.  The research also explored urban food production and planting practices, identifying the types of vegetables grown, the locations of these planting activities, and the technologies used. Moreover, it investigated food acquisition and meal preparation, focusing on sources of food, safety concerns, and the challenges faced in obtaining these items.  Diet diversity was assessed through a one-month recall of food, fruits, and vegetables, where respondents were asked whether they had consumed these items in the past month, how frequently they consumed them, and the approximate quantities. Diet quality was evaluated using a 24-hour recall, detailing the types of vegetables, meat products, and desserts consumed in the last 24 hours.  Finally, the study examined food insecurity experiences over a one-month period, noting the preferred foods that respondents were unable to eat due to a lack of resources, the frequency of going to bed hungry, and the reduction in the number of meals consumed per day due to resource constraints.  3.2 Enumerator training and questionnaire pre-testing The briefing for enumerators was conducted last May 7, 2024, at the ADMU School of Management campus in Loyola Heights, Quezon City. Attendees were Pepjin Schreinemachers and Liz Ignowski from WorldVeg who joined virtually; Arma Bertuso from CGIAR; John Luis Lagdameo, Ma. Cecilia Gonzalez, Angelica Nicolette Dejaresco, Angelina Cosio, and Marie Gabrielle Prado from ADMU; and study enumerators from Agudo Office Services (AGOS) led by Athena Rigor. The session started with the introduction of all stakeholders. The briefing of the enumerators was then led by Angelica Dejaresco who presented the background of the study, the objectives, the methodology and sampling, the roles and responsibilities of each party involved, the timeline, and the deliverables. The last part of the session was the questionnaire pre-testing where each of the enumerators took turns reading out the questions as well as the response options. This allowed for familiarity with the context of the study and further refinement of the questionnaire in terms of proper translation and logic checks as feedback and inputs from the attendees were taken into consideration. Data was collected through a paper-based questionnaire survey. ADMU subcontracted the data collection to AGOS. The questionnaire recorded the above aspects alongside socio-demographic data on the household (household composition, employment status, wealth status, and living conditions). The AGOS team transformed the data into a digital format using Google Forms. Ateneo BRC data technicians reviewed and cleaned the data in preparation for analysis using MS Excel and SPPS ver 25. 8 Barangay captains of the selected areas recommended households known to be engaged in urban farming. The enumerators then sought these households for interviews with relevant household members. Data collection in each barangay stopped once the target number of households was reached. 3.3 Sample selection Respondents in this study were individuals from households actively involved in urban food production. The primary respondent in each household was the person responsible for managing food production. A stratified random sample of 300 household respondents was utilized, with barangays (villages) serving as the strata. Fourteen barangays were selected based on factors such as average population density and number of recorded urban farmers. The research team received a list of barangays along with their corresponding number of households. Gated communities were excluded from the selection process due to security and access limitations. Additionally, barangays with high commercial and industrial activity were not included. Table 1 outlines the agreed-upon target number of households per barangay established by the research team. Table 1: Quezon City Barangays and Corresponding Sample Sizes 9 During the initial phase of data collection, enumerators discovered that information regarding the number of urban farmers was often outdated. Some barangays either lacked data on urban farmers or were hesitant to provide names. Other areas presented access challenges. Coordination with barangay offices was also delayed as officials took time to respond due to the absence of readily available information or records on urban farmers. Some barangay captains indicated that they were not part of the program and had no records of urban farmers within their jurisdictions. To address these challenges, we employed the snowball sampling method, in which current participants referred others who met our study criteria. Figure 1: Map of Quezon City Barangays with corresponding sample sizes of barangays included in the study 10 1. KATIPUNAN 2. NAYONG KANLURAN 3. DAMAYAN 4. PARAISO 5. MARIBLO 6. MAAHARLIKA 7. N.S. AMORANTO 8. PAANG BUNDOK 9. SALVACION 10. SAN ISIDRO LABRADOR 11. DOÑA AURORA 12. SAN ISIDRO 13. STO. NIÑO 14. SAN MARTIN DE PORRES 15. SAN VICENTE 16. OLD CAPITOL SITE 17. TEACHERS VILLAGE EAST 18. TEACHERS VILLAGE WEST 19. MALAYA 20. BOTOCAN 21. QUIRINO 2-C 22. QUIRINO 2-B 23. QUIRINO 2-A 24. CLARO 25. QUIRINO 3-A 26. AMIHAN 27. DUYAN-DUYAN 28. MANGGA 29. BAGUMBAYAN 30. TAGUMPAY 31. DIOQUINO ZOBEL 32. MASAGANA 33. VILLA MARIA CLARA 34. BAYANIHAN 35. ESCOPA III 36. ESCOPA IV 37. ESCOPA I 38. ESCOPA II 39. BLUE RIDGE A 40. BLUE RIDGE B 4. Descriptive results 4.1 Household characteristics, income, housing The study's respondents are predominantly female, 87.0%; males are 13.0%. The age range for the 300 respondents is 18 to 85 and the mean age is 51.7 years. Thirty-one percent of the respondents stated to have no minors living with them. Meanwhile, more than half (56.5%) declared that they have one to three minors within the household, and 12.6% of the households have at least four minors in them. Close to half of the households (47.3%) do not have anyone above 60 years old. This indicates that 52.7% are multigenerational as they have people over 60 years old living with them. More than 75% of the households have three to seven members, with an average of 5.19 individuals; 9.7% have one to two members, while 13.9% have more than seven. As to the highest educational attainment of respondents, 44.0% have completed secondary school, followed by 17.3% who have partially completed secondary school and 14.3% who are university graduates. The majority of respondents (85.6%) indicated that their main household income comes from non- agricultural activities. Specifically, 43% rely on salaries or wages, 25.3% on casual labor, and 17.3% on self-employment or entrepreneurship. In contrast, only 6% of respondents mentioned agriculture-related activities as their main income source. Additionally, 5% depend on pensions and 2% on remittances. More than half (55%) reported having no other sources of income beyond their primary one. Among secondary income sources, non-agricultural activities also dominate, with 12.7% from salaries or wages and 10.3% from casual labor. Images 3-5: Community farms of the surveyed barangays. Photos taken during data collection 11 Figure 2: Main source of household income of respondents Most urban farming is pursued as a hobby or casual interest, but it also serves as a means to save money on food or generate additional income. Income variability is common, with 63.7% or respondents reporting fluctuations throughout the year, compared with 36.3% whose incomes remain stable. Among those with variable incomes, the average highest monthly income is Php 14,098.94 (USD 243.08 @ USD 1 = 58.00 Php), while the average lowest income is Php 7,901 (USD 136.00). For individuals with stable incomes, the average highest perceived income is slightly higher at Php 14,354.72 (USD 247.50). Both groups fall within the low-income class, defined as households earning less than Php 24,060 (USD 414.82) per month (Albert et al. 2024). The average tenure of the respondents in their current households is 27 years. More than half (66.3%) own their homes, while 24.0% rent. Some (9.7%) are rent-free with the owner's consent. The top two dwelling types are single houses (57.7%) and multi-unit residences (33.3%). The remaining 8.9% are composed of other dwelling types, including apartments, duplexes, condominiums, commercial, industrial, and agri premises. Others (46.0%) have two floors, 40.7% have only one floor, and 10% have three floors. The remaining 3.3% have more than three floors. The majority of the households (88.7%) have galvanized/ aluminum roofs, 9.0% have concrete clay tiles, 1.3% have wood/ bamboo, and the remaining 1% use salvaged materials. 4.2 Household food production Most of the respondents (97.7%) are directly involved in acquiring and preparing food for their respective households. The survey results reveal that 86.6% of respondents have access to suitable spaces for growing plants in their homes. These spaces include balconies (29%), courtyards or gardens (18.3%), plots adjacent to their homes (15.3%), rooftops (8.3%), and other areas such as front yards, window sills, and walls outside the house (15.7%). However, 13.3% of respondents stated that they do not have access to space for growing plants in their homes. 12 Figure 3: Those with no access to land suitable for agriculture Fifty-five percent of respondents reported having access to land suitable for agriculture (crops or livestock). The top types of land assessed for agriculture are plots adjacent to homes (39%), courtyards or gardens (7.0%), rooftops (3.0%), and other areas (2.7%). Surprisingly, 45.0% of respondents claim that they do not have access to land for agriculture. This finding highlights the need to address this issue to promote urban farming among communities. Figures 4-7: Places where agricultural activities are conducted for those who practice For the 55% who have access, these are where they engage in agricultural activities: 13 Images 6-11: Sample urban gardens of the surveyed barangays 14 4.3 Food production practices Most respondents (76.2%) have been involved in various types of planting activities for the ‘sambayanan’ (community) or other groups. Other respondents (23.7%) plant for their own purposes. On average, the respondents have been engaged in farming activities for 6.9 years. The primary activities include household food production (52.0%), community garden participation (11.3%), and small-scale production (0.3%). Additionally, 12.6% are involved in multiple practices, while 23.7% participate in other food production activities that were not included in the choices. Figure 8: Current practice of food production activities, percentage Within the last 12 months, 77.3% of the respondents did not sell any plant or animal products. Only 22.7% have declared doing so. Among those who sold produce, the most common product was vegetables (92.6%). Herbs come next at 20.6%, followed by fruits at 17.6%, flowers and root crops each at 11.8%, livestock at 8.8%, fish and mushroom each at 7.4%, and tea at 4.4%. Of those who have been selling, 35.3% engaged in selling multiple products. In terms of household planting, vegetables are the most commonly grown, with 98% of respondents cultivating them. Fruits are the next most popular at 35.6%, followed by herbs at 19.8%, root crops at 6.7%, flowers at 6%, and livestock, fish, and cacao each at 2%. Mushrooms are grown by 1.7% of respondents. Nearly half (48.7%) of those involved in home food production grow multiple types of products. Vegetables are the only product reported to be grown exclusively by some respondents. 15 The most preferred areas for food production are the backyard or front yard at 34%, followed by areas zoned for farming and empty plots in the neighborhood at 15.3% and 15%, respectively. Balconies or window shelves account for 12%, while rooftops make up 8% of the areas used for food production. Agricultural fields represent 6.7%, roadsides 4.7%, riverbanks 2.3%, and other areas account for 1.7%. This suggests that most of the areas used for food production are rent-free. Ninety percent of respondents spend 10 minutes or less traveling from home to the food production area. The areas appear to be very accessible, with 96% of respondents merely walking to reach them. A minimal percentage use transportation—2.6% use public transport and 0.3% use a motorcycle. According to the survey, 62.7% of respondents use compost, while 37.3% do not. Also, 77.7% of respondents prefer container gardening for growing vegetables. The survey data shows that 233 individuals use container gardening, highlighting its popularity due to limited space availability and ease of plant management in containers. Greenhouses are also widely used, with 57.3% of respondents employing this technology. This suggests that many households are investing in controlled environments to enhance their agricultural productivity. Homemade compost is used by 32.7% of the respondents, while natural pesticides are preferred by 20.7%. It is important to remember that technologies such as hydroponics, with 17 respondents, vertical farming, with 25 respondents, and aquaponics, with 24 respondents, have moderate adoption rates. This indicates a rising but still restricted interest in these advanced farming techniques, which could be attributed to higher costs or technical knowledge requirements. Only one respondent uses biopesticides and another uses vermiculture, indicating very low adoption. These practices might be less known or harder to implement for the surveyed households. According to the survey, insect nets (50 respondents), seedling trays (45 respondents), and animal manure (42 respondents) are moderately used, reflecting an interest in protecting crops and enhancing soil fertility. Additionally, technologies such as rainwater harvesting (28 respondents) and plants grown in sacks (38 respondents) are less common but still considered relevant. Images 12-14: Sample urban garden home production of Barangay Commonwealth 16 4.4 Seedling use Out of 300 respondents, 67.3% confirmed using seedlings while 32.7% did not. Among those who use seedlings, 43.6% use self-produced seedlings, 31.2% receive seedlings from the barangay, government, or an NGO, 19.3% purchase seedlings, and 5.9% receive them from neighbors or another individual. Purchased seedlings are acquired from agricultural input shops (50%), wet markets (15%), online shops (12.5%), supermarkets (10%), other farmers (5%), mobile vendors (2.5%), and other sources (5%). Agricultural input shops are the most popular choice, followed by retail channels and online shops. If quality seedlings were to be made available, 139 of the 300 respondents expressed interest in purchasing (46.3%), while 125 respondents did not express any interest in doing so (41.9%). Thirty-four respondents answered ‘maybe’ (11.3%). Using tomato seedlings as a potential product for purchase, 173 replied that they were willing to buy seedlings. Table 2 shows the price range of what they were willing to pay. Table 2: Amount willing to be spent for seedlings When it comes to vegetable seeds, 94.3% of respondents (n=283) reported using them, compared with 67.3% who used seedlings. Only 5.7% stated that they do not currently use vegetable seeds. Among those who use seeds (n=283), the main source of seeds is the government or NGO at 52.1%. Other sources include seeds saved from purchased vegetables (30.5%), purchased seeds (10.6%), saved seeds from garden produce (3.5%), and seeds received from a neighbor or another individual (3.2%). Out of the 32 respondents who purchased seeds, the primary purchase channels were agricultural input shops, online shops, and seed companies. Respondents also reported purchasing seeds from wet markets, mobile vendors, other farmers, and neighbors. 4.5 Household, food and agriculture-related decisions Decision-making is mostly done by a female household member. The following activities are decided mostly by women, followed usually by joint decision-making among neighbors and then by the male household member. 17 Figure 9: Household food and agricultural decision points and corresponding percentage of decision makers The majority of respondents (only 20.3%) regularly sell their harvest, indicating that selling produce is not a common practice. Among the 49 respondents who disclosed their income from selling produce, the average income from planting in the past 12 months is Php 10,254.02. Interestingly, selling decisions are made either jointly with neighbors or by female household members, indicating a collaborative approach to decision-making in selling activities. Figure 10: Food and agricultural decision points on selling and corresponding percentage of decision makers When respondents choose to sell their harvest, they tend to either sell it to their neighbors or set up displays in front of their homes for passers-by to purchase. The perceived benefits of this approach include increased social interaction with neighbors (n=88), convenient access to home-grown produce (n=79), and the simple joy of nurturing and growing plants (n=68). Food to consume at home When to water crops When to harvest Land/ garden bed preparation Amount of seeds and other inputs to buy When to apply fertilizer How to control pests and diseases Which fruits to produce Not Practiced External Help Others Jointly Within HH Male HH Member Jointly Among Neighbors Female HH Member 18 Regarding fruits, approximately 90.3% of households get these from wet markets while only 1.3% of respondents grow their fruits. Sources vary as 9.7% get their fruits from weekend markets, street sellers (whether mobile or with a fixed location), or directly from farmers. Respondents prefer sources that offer a wide range of fruits, with 51% valuing access to various choices. Convenience is also a significant factor, with 47% preferring sources close to home. Price is crucial for 37.7% of respondents, and discounts attract an additional 17.7%, highlighting the importance of promotional pricing. Although less frequently mentioned, freshness, appearance, and food safety are still important. Additionally, 35.3% choose their fruit sources based on habitual purchasing patterns, reflecting the influence of past experiences and established routines. With respect to access, 42% of respondents found it “very easy” to obtain fruits, while 44.3% found it “somewhat easy.” Walking was the most common way of obtaining fruits (70.2%), followed by public transportation (23.7%). Some respondents (43.3%) ate fruits during lunch, while the rest ate them whenever they wanted to at different times of the day. Majority (80.7%) of respondents were not concerned about the safety of the fruits their households consumed. Among those who were concerned, the use of pesticides was the topmost concern. As to vegetables, approximately 81.3% of households get their vegetables from permanent wet markets, while 16.3% grow their own. 88.3% of respondents found it “somewhat easy” to “very easy” to obtain vegetables from their preferred sources. Walking was the most common way of getting to the source of vegetables (74.7%); public transportation was the next preferred means (18.3%). Respondents (47.3%) reported eating vegetables only during lunch and dinner. The remaining 52.7% ate vegetables at different times of the day. The safety of the vegetables that their households consume was not a concern among 80% of the respondents. Among those concerned, the use of pesticides was the topmost concern. 19 5. Diet quality 5.1 Diet quality questionnaire 5.1.1 Grains and vegetables The results show that tomatoes, bitter green beans, cabbage, eggplant, green beans, and okra are the most commonly consumed, with 80% of respondents indicating they eat these vegetables. On the other hand, sayote fruit, snow peas, green papaya, squash flower, mung bean sprouts, or seaweed are the least commonly consumed, with only 29% of respondents reporting they eat these. The survey suggests a generally healthy consumption pattern with a preference for nutrient-dense vegetables. However, increasing the variety and including more of the less commonly consumed vegetables could provide additional health benefits and ensure a more balanced nutrient intake. Table 3: Consumption of grains and vegetables–24 hour recall (ranked in order of recall) The diet quality questionnaire (DQQ) is a standardized survey developed by the Global Diet Quality Project. It is designed to collect data on food group consumption in a quick and comparable way. The DQQ helps monitor diet quality across different populations and countries, making it a valuable tool for understanding and improving global nutrition (Global Diet Quality Project 2024). In this survey, the researchers wanted to get an indication of the respondents' food consumption over the past 24 hours. 20 These fruits─ripe mango, ripe papaya, orange-colored melon, banana, watermelon, guava, buko, apple, pineapple─were recalled by 71% of the respondents. They are known to be rich in vitamins A and C, which are essential for immune function, skin health, and vision. These fruits have high fiber content that may support digestive health and help maintain a healthy weight. Furthermore, they contain antioxidants that protect against oxidative stress and inflammation. Ten percent of respondents recalled the following fruits: jackfruit, strawberries, aratiles, duhat, and other wild fruits. Jackfruit is a nutrient-dense fruit, rich in vitamins A and C, potassium, and dietary fiber. It also contains a good amount of antioxidants, making it beneficial for overall health. Strawberries are another excellent choice, offering high levels of vitamin C and manganese, along with folate and antioxidants, all the while being low in calories. Aratiles, also known as Jamaican cherry, provides vitamins C and A, calcium, and phosphorus and is recognized for its antioxidant properties. Lastly, duhat or Java plum is packed with vitamin C and iron, high in antioxidants, and low in calories, making it a nutritious addition to any diet. Fruits like jackfruit and wild fruits provide unique nutrients and phytochemicals that can offer additional health benefits. Seven percent of respondents recalled dalandan and pomelo. These are excellent sources of vitamin C, which may boost the immune system. 5.1.2 Fruits Table 4: Consumption of fruits–24-hour recall (ranked in order of recall) 21 At least 43.7% of the respondents consumed sweets over the past 24 hours. The variety of sweets and desserts has high sugar content and high caloric density. Increased consumption of these items can lead to weight gain and may increase the risk of diabetes. While these foods can be enjoyed occasionally, it is important to balance them with nutrient-dense foods like fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and lean proteins. 5.1.3 Sweets 5.1.4 Food of animal origin Table 5: Consumption of foods of animal origin–24-hour recall (ranked in order of recall) The animal-based protein sources of the respondents based on the 24-hour recall are eggs (i.e., chicken, quail, duck, and salted duck eggs) (84%). Eggs are an excellent source of high-quality protein, which is essential for muscle repair and growth, and provide vitamins A, D, E, and B12, and minerals like selenium and choline, which support brain health and metabolism (National Institutes of Health 2021). Fish and Seafood (67%) (i.e., fresh fish, sardines, daing or tuyo, dilis, smoked fish) are rich in omega-3 fatty acids, which support heart health and brain function. It is also a good source of protein and essential micronutrients like iodine and vitamin D (Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, n.d.). Poultry (66%) is a good source of lean protein, which is important for muscle maintenance and overall health. It provides B vitamins and minerals like phosphorus and selenium. Pork or dog meat (50%) is a good source of protein and nutrients like thiamine, selenium, and zinc. Consumption of dog meat is controversial and varies by culture (World Health Organization 2015). In the Philippines, eating dog meat is illegal under the Animal Welfare Act of 1998 (Republic Act No. 8485). 12 22 5.1.5 Other processed foods Table 6: Consumption of processed foods–24-hour recall (ranked in order of recall) Processed meats (41.3%) (i.e. hot dogs, sausages, longganisa, chorizo, canned meat, tocino, tapa) contain high levels of sodium and preservatives, which can increase the risk of hypertension and other health issues if consumed in excess. They provide protein but should be consumed in moderation due to their high fat and sodium content (World Cancer Research Fund 2018). Assorted cheese and white cheeses (11.3%) are rich in calcium, which is important for bone health, and protein, which supports muscle maintenance. Yogurt, on the other hand, contains beneficial bacteria that support gut health. It is high in calcium and protein, which are important for bone health and muscle maintenance (National Institutes of Health 2021). Red meat (9.3%) such as beef, buffalo meat, and goat meat, are rich in iron and zinc, which are important for immune function and oxygen transport in the body. They also contain high amounts of saturated fat, which should be consumed in moderation to maintain heart health (World Cancer Research Fund 2018). Processed chips such as Mr. Chips, Chippy, and Cornicks (27%) are items that are high in unhealthy fats (trans fats or saturated fats), calories, and sodium. Consuming them can contribute to weight gain and high blood pressure. These are generally low in vitamins and minerals, making them a less nutritious option compared with other snacks like nuts and seeds. Frequent consumption can lead to negative health outcomes like obesity or cardiovascular issues. Limiting intake is advisable (European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2011). Legumes or flavored seed snacks (21.3%), such as peanuts, cashews, watermelon seeds, squash seeds, or jackfruit seeds are generally rich in protein, healthy fats, and various vitamins and minerals. Peanuts and cashews are good sources of protein and healthy fats, while watermelon and squash seeds provide essential nutrients like magnesium and zinc. Because they are high in calories and fats, portion control consumption is important, especially for those managing weight or cardiovascular health. Peanuts and cashews are common allergens, which might explain why some people avoid these foods (Sabaté 2015; Rajeshwari and Sangeetha 2014; Karami and Ghorbani 2014). 23 5.1.6 Beverages Table 7: Consumption of beverages–24-hour recall (ranked in order of recall) Instant noodles (23.3%) such as LuckyMe, Payless, and Shin Ramyeon are often high in sodium, which can contribute to hypertension and cardiovascular problems if consumed in excess. They are typically low in essential nutrients and can be high in refined carbohydrates. While they can be convenient, they should be balanced with other nutrient-dense foods to ensure a well-rounded diet (Kim and Lee 2020). Fried snack foods, which make up 25.7% of certain diets, include popular items like French fries, fishballs, kropek, chicharon, and kwek-kwek. These snacks are typically high in unhealthy fats and calories, and regular consumption can increase the risk of obesity and heart disease. While some items, such as fishballs and kwek-kwek (battered and fried quail eggs), do provide protein, the frying process can significantly reduce their nutritional benefits. Although these foods can be enjoyed occasionally, it is important to balance them with healthier options like vegetables, fruits, and lean proteins to maintain a well-rounded diet. A significant portion of respondents (70%) consume sweetened beverages such as sweetened tea, bubble tea, sweetened coffee, 3-in-1, chocolate-flavored drinks, or sago and gulaman. Additionally, 41% of respondents consume soft drinks and energy drinks. This high consumption of sweetened beverages can lead to increased sugar intake, which is associated with various health issues such as obesity, type 2 diabetes, and dental problems. These beverages often provide empty calories, meaning they offer calories without essential nutrients, potentially leading to weight gain and nutrient deficiencies (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2022). Only 38.3% of respondents consume milk or milk powder, and 29.3% consume fresh fruit juice or fruit- flavored drinks. Lower consumption of milk can lead to deficiencies in calcium and vitamin D, which are crucial for bone health. Similarly, reduced intake of fresh fruit juices may result in inadequate intake of vitamins and antioxidants, impacting overall health and immune function (Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health (nd). 24 5.1.7 Fast food A significant portion of respondents (19.7%) consume fast food from popular chains such as Jollibee, McDonald’s, Pizza Hut, or Shakey’s. While this percentage might seem relatively low, it still indicates a notable consumption pattern that can have several nutritional implications. Fast food consumption can have several nutritional implications. Firstly, fast food is often high in calories, which can contribute to weight gain and obesity if consumed frequently. Additionally, many fast food items contain unhealthy fats, including trans fats and saturated fats, which can increase the risk of heart disease. Fast food is also typically high in sodium, which can lead to hypertension and other cardiovascular issues. Furthermore, fast food often lacks essential nutrients such as vitamins, minerals, and fiber, leading to potential nutrient deficiencies (Healthline 2017; Eat This, Not That! 2024). 25 6. Frequency of fruit and vegetable consumption 6.1 Vegetable consumption The top vegetables consumed are garlic, onion, ginger, aubergine/ eggplant, cabbage, and tomato, with at least 80% of respondents having consumed them in the past month. Vegetables consumed most often are garlic, onion, tomato, and ginger, which top the list of those consumed once a day or more. Garlic, onion, and tomato would be the usual panggisa or saute mix used in most Filipino dishes. Apart from the panggisa, vegetables that are consumed at least once to multiple times a week include okra, cabbage, eggplant, chayote/ sayote, sweet potato leaves, moringa leaves, water spinach, bok choi/pechay, bitter gourd/ bitter melon, and carrot squash. These are quite popular in Filipino dishes either as primary or secondary ingredients. As expected, the top vegetables not consumed in the past month are those not commonly used in local dishes. Table 8: Incidence of vegetable consumption in the past month (at least 40% incidence) 26 Table 9: Average portion size of vegetables consumed The average portion size for the top three vegetables (garlic, onion, and ginger) is minimal, either in pieces, cloves (garlic), or tablespoonfuls. They are used as flavor enhancers; hence, they do not require a large amount per consumption. The vegetables that follow are either the main or secondary ingredient in a dish, hence the larger portion sizes–bowl, saucer, pieces, and bundles. However, the result of the survey indicates that there is no uniform way of sharing, trading, or selling their household harvest. 27 In terms of frequency, banana and calamansi are the most frequently consumed fruits, more than the second most consumed fruit, mango. Apple and watermelon are consumed less frequently, with most of the consumption done two to three times in the past month to once a week. More than half of the fruits listed had very little or no consumption in the past month, as these are not commonly found or accessed. The most common portion sizes for fruits are pieces or slices. Banana and mango also show an average percentage of respondents consuming them by the kilo. Fruits that can be taken as a beverage or in liquid form, i.e., buko (most likely coconut water), avocado, and lemon (most likely the extract), are consumed by glass or cup. 6.2 Fruit consumption Regarding fruit, bananas appear to be the most consumed fruit, with mango following closely behind. Calamansi comes next, along with apples and watermelon, with more than half of the respondents consuming them at least once in the past month. Table 10: Incidence of fruit consumption in the past month (at least 10% incidence) 28 Table 11: Average portion size of fruits consumed 29 6.3 Herb consumption Lemongrass (tanglad) is the most consumed herb over the past month, whether used at least once or more frequently. This is likely because lemongrass is more commonly used in Filipino dishes compared with other herbs. While basil, parsley, and mint are also consumed relatively frequently, there is a large gap between their consumption rates and that of lemongrass. Table 12: Incidence of herb consumption in the past month (at least 1% incidence) Close to half (44.4%) of those who consumed lemongrass did so by the bundle. Parsley, basil, coriander, chives, and most other herbs were consumed in minimal amounts—mostly tablespoonfuls. Table 13: Average portion size of herbs consumed 30 The results show no standardized way of measuring and selling vegetables, fruits, or herbs. Whatever is convenient for the seller and the buyer is applied. Some of the vegetables were sold by weight using scales; in others, they might be sold by the piece or by volume (like a basket or a bag). This lack of standardization can sometimes make it challenging for consumers and sellers alike. 31 HFIAS Category 1: Food secure. A food-secure household does not experience any food insecurity conditions or only rarely worries about food. HFIAS Category 2: Mildly food insecure. A mildly food-insecure household often worries about not having enough food, is sometimes unable to eat preferred foods, and occasionally eats a monotonous or undesirable diet. However, it does not reduce meal quantity or cause severe conditions like running out of food, going to bed hungry, or not eating for a whole day. HFIAS Category 3: Moderately food insecure. A moderately food-insecure household frequently sacrifices food quality by eating a monotonous or undesirable diet and sometimes reduces meal size or number but does not face the most severe conditions. HFIAS Category 4: Severely food insecure. A severely food-insecure household often reduces meal size or number and experiences severe conditions like running out of food, going to bed hungry, or not eating for a whole day, even if only rarely. Any household experiencing one of these severe conditions even once in the last 30 days is considered severely food insecure. 7. Food security 7.1 Background Food insecurity is a complex issue resulting from inadequate access to affordable and nutritious food, particularly in Quezon City, Philippines. This problem can be attributed to various factors, including economic instability, unemployment, and ineffective food distribution systems. Individuals and families experiencing food insecurity often face hunger or malnutrition, significantly impacting their physical health and overall well-being. It is important to recognize that food insecurity affects people differently, with some dealing with temporary shortages while others experience ongoing and chronic food scarcity. 7.2 Household food insecurity access scale score (HFIAS) The HFIAS indicator classifies households into four levels of food insecurity (access): food secure, mildly food insecure, moderately food insecure, and severely food insecure (Coates et al. 2007). Households are considered more food insecure as they affirm experiencing more severe conditions and/or face these conditions more frequently. Each HFIAS prevalence category is as follows: 7.3 Results of food insecurity experience (1-month recall) The questions were about the challenges the households might have experienced in accessing food in the past month. Out of those who had concerns, they were also asked how frequently this happens during the 4-week timeframe. Frequency levels are set as: often (more than 10 times), sometimes (3-10 times), and rarely (once or twice). In the past 4 weeks, 65.3% did not worry that their household would not have enough to eat; while 34.7% expressed concern. Out of those who worried, close to half (48.1%) worried sometimes, 32.7% rarely, and 19.2% often. 32 A lack of resources can impact a household’s consumption habits. Some 26.7% of respondents were unable to eat their preferred foods: 46.2% experienced this sometimes, 38.8% rarely, and 15.0% often. However, for the majority (73.3%), this was not a concern. Of respondents (24.7%) who reported that at least one household member had to eat a limited variety of food, 46.7% of these cases occurred rarely, 38.7% sometimes, and 14.7% often. Yet, for the majority (75.3%), this was not a concern. Twelve percent of respondents had to settle with eating foods they did not want, but a relatively high percentage (87.7%) did not have to deal with this issue. Apart from consumption, the lack of resources can also affect how food is obtained for the household. However, this is not a pressing concern, with only 2.7% reporting an absence of any kind of food in their households, while 97.3% said otherwise. Nonetheless, more information should be gathered to determine why there are still individuals who do not have food in the household. Figure 11: Incidence and frequency of food availability challenges due to lack of resources Lack of food also impacts consumption patterns. While 86.3% of respondents did not have to eat smaller meals due to lack of food, 13.7% faced this challenge: 38.8% sometimes, 46.3% rarely, and 15% often. Additionally, 87.7% did not have to eat fewer meals in a day, while 12.3% did: 45.9% rarely, 37.8% sometimes, and 16.2% often. Almost all respondents (97.3%) and their household members were able to go to sleep without feeling hungry due to sufficient food, while 2.7% went to bed hungry. Likewise, almost all respondents (99%) and their household members did not go a day without eating anything. Experiences in the Past 4 Weeks Due to Lack of Resources (%) base: Total Respondents n=300 73.3% 75.3% 87.7% 97.3% 26.7% 24.7% 12% 38.8% 46.7% 67.6% 37.5% 46.3% 14.7% 10.8% 12.5% 15% 38.7% 21.6% 50% Rarely (once or twice) Sometimes (3-10 times) Often (>10 times) No (has not experienced) Yes (has experienced) 2.7% is (n=8*) Unable to eat preferred food Limited variety of food Eating unwanted food No food to eat *small base; read with caution Frequency of Experiences Due to Lack of Resources 12% is (n=37) 24.7% is (n=75) 26.7% is (n=80) 33 Table 14: Household food insecurity access scale category - frequency and percentage distribution When respondents’ households lack food, they may adjust by eating smaller or fewer meals. It very rarely leads to going an entire day or going to sleep without eating. Figure 12: Incidence and frequency of food availability challenges due to lack of food The results of the survey are as follows: The average HFIAS score is 2.23, indicating that the respondents are mildly food insecure. 46.3% 45.9% 38.8% 16.2% 15% 37.8% Rarely (once or twice) Sometimes (3-10 times) Often (>10 times) Frequency of Experiences Due to Lack of Food Experiences in the Past 4 Weeks Due to Lack of Food (%) base: Total Respondents n=300 24.7% is (n=75) 26.7% is (n=80) 86.3% 87.7% 97.3% 99% 13.7% 12.3% Eating smaller meals Eating fewer meals Going to bed hungry A day with no eating No (has not experienced) Yes (has experienced) 34 7.4 Emergent respondent profiles Age: 50 years old Social class: Lower class (Class E) Education: Completed secondary school Occupation: Self-employed seamstress with variable income Hobbies: Cooking, socializing with neighbors Location of home: Owns a single-story house with a small backyard in Quezon City Household: Lives with her husband, three children, and one grandchild (multi-generational household) Involvement in food preparation: Primary person responsible for acquiring and preparing food Gardening activities Space used: Backyard and front yard Methods: Traditional soil-based gardening and container gardening Plants grown: Vegetables (leafy greens, root crops), herbs, and some fruits Purpose: Grows produce mainly for home consumption; occasionally sells surplus vegetables to neighbors by setting up a small display in front of her house Selling practices Sells to: Neighbors and passers-by Reasons for selling: Enjoys increased social interaction and sharing fresh produce Persona 1: The community-oriented stay-at-home mom Age: 35 years old Social class: Lower middle class (Class D) Education: University graduate Occupation: Salaried employee in a local business Hobbies: Attending community events, fitness activities Location of home: Rents an apartment in a multi-unit residence in Quezon City Household: Lives with her husband and one child Involvement in food preparation: Shares responsibility with her husband Gardening activities Space used: Balcony and rooftop garden Methods: Container gardening and vertical farming Plants grown: Herbs, tomatoes, ornamental plants Purpose: Grows produce for home consumption; enjoys the hobby and teaching her child about plants Selling practices Does not sell produce: Grows in small quantities; shares surplus herbs with neighbors Persona 2: The young urban professional mom 35 Location of home: Lives rent-free with owner's consent in a small house in Quezon City Household: Lives with his wife, two children, and elderly father Involvement in food preparation: Assists in gardening; occasionally helps with food preparation Gardening activities Space used: Neighborhood empty plots and rooftop Methods: Soil-based and container gardening using recycled materials Plants grown: Vegetables (peppers, leafy greens), root crops, herbs Purpose: Home consumption; occasionally sells surplus to neighbors Selling practices Sells to: Neighbors; informal community setups Reasons for selling: Supplements income; enjoys community interaction 36 Age: 45 years old Social class: Lower class (Class E) Education: Partially completed secondary school Occupation: Casual construction laborer with fluctuating income Hobbies: Basketball, community involvement Persona 3: The community volunteer dad 8. Discussion On the Purpose of Home Gardening The study highlighted a notable trend among households, revealing that the primary motivation for cultivating food and fruit is personal consumption. Most families grow various crops, with any surplus typically shared with neighbors or sold in local markets, rather than targeting larger scale commercial ventures. While home gardening offers significant social advantages, the production of herbs and spices remains minimal. Gardeners often prefer familiar staples such as onions and garlic, overlooking higher value crops. Home gardening is essential for enhancing the understanding of food production among home gardeners, fostering appreciation for agricultural practices and seasonal cycles (Korpelainen 2023). This practical experience enriches knowledge and cultivates respect for local techniques, such as “sari-sari” gardening, which promotes a diverse mix of crops in small plots. Research indicates that individuals engaged in gardening tend to increase their intake of fresh produce, contributing to better health outcomes (Kunpeuk 2020). Furthermore, as urbanization increases, particularly in areas like Quezon City, maintaining a connection to gardening becomes vital in addressing disconnection from traditional food sources. Additionally, gardening strengthens community ties, a key aspect of Filipino culture. Community initiatives foster social cohesion and enhance food security (Doustmohammadian 2022). These gardens turn vacant lots into communal spaces where diverse individuals can share knowledge and resources. Programs like the “Joy of Farming” encourage residents to grow vegetables together, improving access to nutritious food while reinforcing community bonds. Such efforts foster resilience, enabling neighborhoods to withstand economic and environmental challenges, particularly in regions prone to natural disasters. Engagement in gardening enhances mental and physical well-being. Nurturing plants encourages physical activity and provides tranquility, connecting individuals with nature and delivering satisfaction from successful cultivation (Wood et al. 2022). Studies suggest gardening can alleviate stress and anxiety, particularly beneficial in fast-paced urban settings. In the Philippines, these interactions support mental health, offering therapeutic relief from daily pressures. To improve crop diversity and nutrition among urban families, several strategies can be implemented. Raising awareness of available herbs, utilizing idle spaces for planting, and educating communities on methods like hydroponics are effective approaches. In Quezon City, many residents exhibit indifference toward food availability, largely due to the accessibility and affordability of local market offering. Nevertheless, home gardening remains a vital strategy for food security. While it may not serve as a primary source of sustenance, many Filipinos engage in gardening to supplement their diets and navigate along economic uncertainties. 37 Entrepreneurial intentions play a crucial role in motivating individuals to start their own businesses or create value within existing agricultural enterprises. However, several challenges can hinder this process. One significant barrier is the perceived lack of economic incentives in the agricultural sector. In many regions, the widespread availability of subsidized food can lead to complacency among potential entrepreneurs, making them hesitant to take the leap into farming. To overcome this, aspiring entrepreneurs can focus on niche markets and advocate for higher prices for fresh produce. This strategy can reveal valuable opportunities within the agricultural landscape. The potential for growth in agricultural product sales is substantial. By developing standardized trading systems and efficient supply chains, communities can effectively tackle the logistical challenges often associated with agricultural distribution. Additionally, establishing community cooperatives can foster collaboration among local producers. Exploring innovative growing techniques, such as hydroponics can further optimize crop output and improve economic returns. By cutting out intermediaries and selling directly to consumers, entrepreneurs can offer fresher produce at competitive prices, creating a win-win situation for both producers and consumers (Grant and Startz 2022). For instance, organizing vibrant weekend markets can create an appealing environment that encourages local production and sales. Households can also tap into niche markets by offering unique vegetables and fruits—such as rare herbs, ethnic crops, or organic produce—that are not readily available in the local marketplace. These specialty items may attract health-conscious consumers looking for distinctive and fresh options (Kumar and Singh 2022). Identifying and catering to these specific demands can open new business avenues for local growers. Moreover, it is essential to shift social norms to encourage entrepreneurial intentions in agricultural pursuits. In communities where farming is not the primary source of income, showcasing the success stories of thriving agricultural entrepreneurs can serve as powerful inspiration. By highlighting these individuals, communities can reframe their perceptions of farming as a viable and profitable career path (Tchamyou 2020). Initiatives such as farmers' markets, community-supported agriculture programs, and educational workshops can provide platforms for aspiring entrepreneurs to connect with consumers and gain practical knowledge. Additionally, mentorship programs that link experienced farmers with novices can facilitate knowledge transfer and reduce the learning curve for running a farming business (Hu et al. 2021). Effective time management is also crucial for households balancing multiple responsibilities. While some may be discouraged by lengthy crop growth cycles, emphasizing fast-growing crops and employing modern techniques like vertical farming can yield quicker results (Velmurugan and Vignesh 2022). This strategic approach empowers aspiring farmer-entrepreneurs to achieve success while managing their busy schedules. In summary, despite various barriers that hinder entrepreneurial intentions in agriculture, addressing these challenges through active community engagement and the identification of unique value propositions can foster a supportive environment for new ventures. By promoting an entrepreneurial mindset and equipping individuals with the necessary skills to thrive, communities can cultivate a new generation of agricultural entrepreneurs, ultimately enhancing food security and promoting economic resilience. On Developing Home Gardening through Entrepreneurship 38 Study limitations The study findings are limited by the small sample size which, while statistically significant, represents only a small percentage of the total number of individuals engaged in urban farming in Quezon City. Sampling method. The use of snowball/convenience sampling may introduce bias, as participants were not randomly selected. This limitation may affect the generalizability of the findings. Gated residential areas may have larger plots of land for urban farming. These communities were not included in the research study because they did grant access to our enumerators. Data collection period. The data collection period was done within one month within a specific timeframe, which may not capture seasonal variations or long-term trends. Extending the data collection period could provide more comprehensive insights. Geographical scope. The study was conducted in a specific geographical region, which may limit the results' applicability to other areas. Comparative studies in different regions are needed to enhance generalizability. Survey instrument. The survey instrument can be shortened. Part 6: 24-hour recall and Part 7: Food Insecurity can be removed and used for other research purposes. This may lessen the time to answer the survey and encode the results. Measurement tools. The measurement tools used in the study may have inherent limitations in terms of accuracy and reliability. For more complex computations in the future, employing validated and standardized instruments in future research could improve the robustness of the findings. Research methodology. The research methodology employed was a strictly quantitative survey, which limited our ability to explore the respondents' underlying beliefs and motivations. These could be revealed by a qualitative study. 39 9. Recommendations On the basis of the findings of the study, the following recommendations are being made. Larger sample size. Conduct a study with a larger sample size within Quezon City to gain more comprehensive insights into urban planting practices. Eventually, compare these findings with other municipalities to identify broader trends and differences. Qualitative questions. Include qualitative questions in the survey to delve deeper into the reasons why individuals engage in urban planting. This can provide richer, more nuanced data on motivations and barriers. Diet and nutrition. Conduct more in-depth research into the relationship between daily diets, nutrition rates, and the preferred varieties of plants. Utilize research approach frameworks such as the Usage, Attitude, and Image (UAI) framework to analyze individual intentions and motivations to get into urban farming. High-value plants. Further research is recommended to understand why high-value plants were not cultivated. Investigate factors such as economic incentives, market demand, and cultivation challenges. Dietary preferences. Examine how households' dietary preferences influence the variety of items planted. This can help identify potential areas for promoting diverse and nutritious urban agriculture. These steps can provide a more detailed and comprehensive understanding of urban planting practices and their implications for food security and nutrition. 40 References Albert J R, Briones, R , & Rivera J P. (2024). Wealth creation for expanding the middle class in the Philippines. Philippine Institute for Development Studies. Retrieved November 25, 2024, from https://pids.gov.ph/details/news/in-the-news/understanding-social-classes-in-the-philippines-which- class-do-you-belong-to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2022). Get the facts: Sugar-sweetened beverages and consumption. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/data-statistics/sugar-sweetened-beverages- intake.html Coates J, Swindal, A, Bilinsky P. (2007). Household food insecurity access scale (HFIAS) for measurement of food access: Indicator guide, version 3. Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance Project (FANTA), FHI 360. Retrieved from https://www.fantaproject.org/sites/default/files/resources/HFIAS_ENG_v3_Aug07.pdf Dietary sodium intake and cardiovascular risk: a review of the evidence. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2011. Doustmohammadian A, Mohammadi-Nasrabadi F, Keshavarz-Mohammadi N, Hajjar M, Alibeyk S & Hajigholam-Saryazdi M. (2022). Community-based participatory interventions to improve food security: A systematic review. Front. Nutr. 9:1028394. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2022.1028394 Eat This, Not That!. (2024). 25 Healthy fast-food orders, according to dietitians. Retrieved from https://www.eatthis.com/healthy-fast-food/ Food and Agriculture Organization. (nd). The Philippines. Retrieved August 22, 2024, from https://www.fao.org/philippines/en/ Food Security. (nd). Food Security Journal. Retrieved August 20, 2024, from https://link.springer.com/journal/12571 Gawad Kalinga. (nd). Our vision and mission. Retrieved September 18, 2024, from https://www.gawadkalinga.org Global Diet Quality Project. 2024. DQQ data. Accessed at dietquality.org Grant, M., & Startz, M. (2022). Cutting out the middleman: The structure of chains of intermediation (No. w30109). National Bureau of Economic Research. Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. (nd). The nutrition source: Fats and cholesterol. Retrieved from https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/fats-and-cholesterol/ Healthline. (2017). 18 Healthiest fast foods you can eat. Retrieved from https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/18-healthiest-fast-foods Hu, B., Zheng, Q., Wu, J., Tang, Z., Zhu, J., Wu, S., & Ling, Y. (2021). Role of education and mentorship in entrepreneurial behavior: Mediating role of self-efficacy. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 775227. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.775227 Karami, M., & Ghorbani, M. (2014). The nutritional value of pumpkin seeds: a review. Nutrients, 6(11), 5631- 5642. Korpelainen H. (2023). The role of home gardens in promoting biodiversity and food security. Plants, 12(13), 2473. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12132473 41 https://pids.gov.ph/details/news/in-the-news/understanding-social-classes-in-the-philippines-which-class-do-you-belong-to https://pids.gov.ph/details/news/in-the-news/understanding-social-classes-in-the-philippines-which-class-do-you-belong-to https://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/data-statistics/sugar-sweetened-beverages-intake.html https://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/data-statistics/sugar-sweetened-beverages-intake.html https://www.fantaproject.org/sites/default/files/resources/HFIAS_ENG_v3_Aug07.pdf https://www.eatthis.com/healthy-fast-food/ https://www.fao.org/philippines/en/ https://link.springer.com/journal/12571 https://www.gawadkalinga.org/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/fats-and-cholesterol/ https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.775227 https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12132473 Kumar V. & Singh R. (2022). Emerging trends in local food systems: The role of community-supported agriculture. Agricultural Systems, p. 200, 103392. Kim, S., & Lee, J. (2020). Nutritional quality of instant noodles and their impact on health. Journal of Nutrition & Food Sciences, 8(3), 123-130. https://doi.org/10.4172/2155-9600.1000123 Kunpeuk W, Spence W, Phulkerd S, Suphanchaimat R, & Pitayarangsarit S. (2020). The impact of gardening on nutrition and physical health outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Health Promot Int. 2020 Apr 1; 35(2):397-408. doi: 10.1093/heapro/daz027. PMID: 30982073 National Economic and Development Authority. (nd..). About NEDA. Retrieved June 28, 2024, from https://www.neda.gov.ph National Institutes of Health. (2021). Calcium and vitamin D: Important at every age. Retrieved from https://www.niams.nih.gov/health-topics/calcium-vitamin-d Philippine Business for Social Progress. (nd). About us. Retrieved July 30, 2024, from https://www.pbsp.org.ph Philippine Statistics Authority. (nd). Poverty statistics. Retrieved June 10, 2024, from https://psa.gov.ph Quezon City Government. (nd). Food security initiatives. Retrieved September 5, 2024, from https://quezoncity.gov.ph Rajeshwari, G., & Sangeetha, P. (2014). Cashew nuts: A review of health benefits. Journal of Nutrition & Food Sciences, 4(5), 1000347. Sabaté, J. (2015). Peanuts: An overview of the nutritional benefits and health risks. Nutrients, 7(1), 555-572 Sustainability. (nd). Sustainability Journal. Retrieved September 12, 2024, from https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Top 10 best healthy snacks to boost your energy - Top 10 questions. (2023) Retrieved July 30, 2024. https://top10question.com/top-10-best-healthy-snacks-to-boost-your-energy Urban Agriculture Network. (nd). Urban agriculture. Retrieved July 8, 2024, from http://www.urbanagriculture.org Velmurugan, P., & Vignesh, V. (2022). Vertical farming – The new future. Acta Scientific Agriculture, 6(6), 13-17. Wood, C J, Barton, J L , & Wicks, C L. (2022). The impact of therapeutic community gardening on the wellbeing, loneliness, and life satisfaction of individuals with mental illness. International journal of environmental research and public health, 19(20), 13166. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192013166 World Health Organization. (2015). Q&A on the carcinogenicity of the consumption of red meat and processed meat. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/carcinogenicity-of-the- consumption-of-red-meat-and-processed-meat World Cancer Research Fund. (2018). Diet, nutrition, physical activity and cancer: A global perspective. Retrieved from https://www.wcrf.org/dietandcancer World Food Programme. (nd). The Philippines. Retrieved July 15, 2024, from https://www.wfp.org/countries/philippines 42 https://www.neda.gov.ph/ https://www.niams.nih.gov/health-topics/calcium-vitamin-d https://www.pbsp.org.ph/ https://psa.gov.ph/ https://quezoncity.gov.ph/ https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability https://top10question.com/top-10-best-healthy-snacks-to-boost-your-energy http://www.urbanagriculture.org/ https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192013166 https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/carcinogenicity-of-the-consumption-of-red-meat-and-processed-meat https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/carcinogenicity-of-the-consumption-of-red-meat-and-processed-meat https://www.wcrf.org/dietandcancer https://www.wfp.org/countries/philippines CGIAR is a global research partnership for a food-secure future. CGIAR science is dedicated to transforming food, land, and water systems in a climate crisis. Its research is carried out by 13 CGIAR Centers/Alliances in close collaboration with hundreds of partners, including national and regional research institutes, civil society organizations, academia, development organizations and the private sector. www.cgiar.org We would like to thank all funders who support this research through their contributions to the CGIAR Trust Fund: www.cgiar.org/funders. To learn more about this Initiative, please visit this webpage. To learn more about this and other Initiatives in the CGIAR Research Portfolio, please visit www.cgiar.org/cgiar-portfolio © 2024 CGIAR System Organization. Some rights reserved. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 International Licence (CC BYNC 4.0). https://x.com/CGIAR https://www.facebook.com/onecgiar/ https://www.linkedin.com/company/cgiar/ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYuSEwWKAsoNwg6MJEI-qeA http://www.cgiar.org/funders https://www.cgiar.org/initiative/resilient-cities/ http://www.cgiar.org/cgiar-portfolio CIP-RCI TR-HH Veg Gardening (A4)- rev5 TABLE OF CONTENTS CIP-RCI TR-HH Veg Gardening (A4)- rev5